Candidates For Special Prosecutor

[Robert Howard]

Although I doubt if anyone will take this suggestion seriously, [although if one took the time to study his bona fides, maybe not]......my serious suggestion would be Patrick J. Fitzgerald, although I don't think he would seriously consider it, reason?

In this age of Orwellian politics, just being mentioned as a candidate in a new "JFK investigation" could prove to be a direct hit on one's credibility, that is how much the media descends like wolves on that topic, although Greta van Susteren took the 'devils advocate' position on a special program awhile back, the causus belli for making such a position more attractive would be hard evidence, which may not be as invisible as some might think.....At the risk of sounding arrogant, please don't ask me to provide my reasoning for the selection of Fitzgerald, if one can't figure it out nothing I could possibly say would change that fact.

Although the following comments are a little off the beaten track, I believe they may provide some illumination.

A factual analogy regarding two historical events, reveals the old adage "everything changes, everything stays the same," definitely applies to the dynamics of the American political landscape of 2007;

In 1964, A Texas President who had been in office a reasonably short time, with ties to the Oil interests increases the US military presence in S. Vietnam over the very hyped "Gulf of Tonkin incident," to the point where four years later there are over 500,000 American troops on the ground in Vietnam, whereas in the Kennedy era, there was a very small number in contrast, and JFK was more interested in utilizing an approach diametrically opposed to the concept of a "massive troop presence, as in what was being done in Laos and Cambodia in 1962.

In 2001, A Texas President whose family along with his Vice-President, also has definitive ties to the oil interests, uses the tragedy of Sept. 11th, along with manipulation of CIA pre-war intelligence, to commit an out-right invasion of Iraq, the only significant difference in the dynamics of the aftermath of Iraq, is that the "body count" is significantly lower than U.S. casualties in Vietnam.

Even if one does takes exception to whether the pre-war intelligence issue with regards to Iraq was manipulated by the Bush administration, one would have to look carefully at the lack of resistance in the media and among America's body politic to the clarion call to war, yet again......

If America is to regain its credibility as the leader of Western Democracy, as President's have proved to be so fond of saying, it would do wise to realize that in the future, a media blitz style approach to committing our most valuable commodity, our fighting men and women; to fight in a war for the moneyed interests and what gives the appearance of the best interests of the proponents of globalization are irreconcilable, resolution of all the failures regarding the fact that for the most part, American's still haven't been given all the facts regarding 11/22/63 is the other half of that coin.

[William Kelly]

Although I doubt if anyone will take this suggestion seriously, [although if one took the time to study his bona fides, maybe not]......my serious suggestion would be Patrick J. Fitzgerald, although I don't think he would seriously consider it, reason?

In this age of Orwellian politics, just being mentioned as a candidate in a new "JFK investigation" could prove to be a direct hit on one's credibility, that is how much the media descends like wolves on that topic, although Greta van Susteren took the 'devils advocate' position on a special program awhile back, the causus belli for making such a position more attractive would be hard evidence, which may not be as invisible as some might think.....At the risk of sounding arrogant, please don't ask me to provide my reasoning for the selection of Fitzgerald, if one can't figure it out nothing I could possibly say would change that fact.

Although the following comments are a little off the beaten track, I believe they may provide some illumination.

A factual analogy regarding two historical events, reveals the old adage "everything changes, everything stays the same," definitely applies to the dynamics of the American political landscape of 2007;

In 1964, A Texas President who had been in office a reasonably short time, with ties to the Oil interests increases the US military presence in S. Vietnam over the very hyped "Gulf of Tonkin incident," to the point where four years later there are over 500,000 American troops on the ground in Vietnam, whereas in the Kennedy era, there was a very small number in contrast, and JFK was more interested in utilizing an approach diametrically opposed to the concept of a "massive troop presence, as in what was being done in Laos and Cambodia in 1962.

In 2001, A Texas President whose family along with his Vice-President, also has definitive ties to the oil interests, uses the tragedy of Sept. 11th, along with manipulation of CIA pre-war intelligence, to commit an out-right invasion of Iraq, the only significant difference in the dynamics of the aftermath of Iraq, is that the "body count" is significantly lower than U.S. casualties in Vietnam.

Even if one does takes exception to whether the pre-war intelligence issue with regards to Iraq was manipulated by the Bush administration, one would have to look carefully at the lack of resistance in the media and among America's body politic to the clarion call to war, yet again......

If America is to regain its credibility as the leader of Western Democracy, as President's have proved to be so fond of saying, it would do wise to realize that in the future, a media blitz style approach to committing our most valuable commodity, our fighting men and women; to fight in a war for the moneyed interests and what gives the appearance of the best interests of the proponents of globalization are irreconcilable, resolution of all the failures regarding the fact that for the most part, American's still haven't been given all the facts regarding 11/22/63 is the other half of that coin.

Robert,

Patrick Fitz fits all the criteria, including Ron's been compromised a priori,

(See: Peter Lance), but any politically appointed special prosecutor will make any investigation a fishing expediiton and not an independent investigation into the truth or to indict those responsible.

I say, of all the possibible roads to resolution of this case, a special prosecutor is one of the least possible or desirable.

BK

[Tim Gratz]

Bill wrote:

Thank you Ron,

TG is just fantasizing here.

First off, Congress has no authority to appoint special prosecutors.

Second off, there's no chance at all that a special prosecutor will ever be appointed for the JFK murder.

Forget Gratzing off on who, what's one to prosecute?

Bill, we have gone over this before. Is your memory slipping?

The Special Prosecutor Law, which expired in 1999, was Congressional legislation. Congress clearly has the authority to create an office of Special Prosecutor. Whether it can actually appoint one or must in the legislation authorize appointment by the executive or judicial branch is a different story. But as Sen Ted Kennedy once famously put it, "We can cross that bridge when we come to it."

RE "What's one to prosecute"--I assume you mean who not what ("What's on first?") and that may be a good point. Perhaps in order to appoint a special prosecutor there must be someone as at least a potential target for prosecution. But I am not at all sure that is true. Thinking about Patrick Fitzgerald, I do not think there was a specific target when he was appointed. Presumably in this case the argument would be that someone violated JFK's civil rights, and it is possible it involved a conspiracy with members of the executive department.

Now how can you say Congress will never appoint a Special Prosecutor or authorize a new investigation, if adequate organizational job is done and significant public pressure is applied.

The problem, Bill, as most members see, is that you cannot interrogate documents. Now Carl Jenkins may or may not know who did it, but he cannot be interrogated by someone who is just looking at document production.

We have IMO a small window of opportunity for a final investigation while witnesses are still alive. It is premature to say what cannot be achieved in Congress. (Didn't RFK have a famous quote about reaching for things thought to be unattainable?) IMO only witnesses can truly solve the case. You can spend all your waking hours sifting through millions and millions of documents til the day you die, and I can assure you none will tell you clearly who done it. A living witness just might be able to do so. Let us not waste our final chance due to pessimism that may be unwarranted.

************************************************************************

To others, I could see Dershowitz or Fitzgerald or Sheck. Re Sheck, I don't think he should be forever tainted because he used his legal skills to obtain an acquittal for someone most of us think was guilty. I think in the O.J. case he demonstrated his legal talents.

Edited August 29, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

Without a law degree I do not think he could be a Special Prosecutor, but what about a private investigator for the chief investigator? Say, for instance, Josiah Thompson.

[Tim Gratz]

What would you say if Congress would authorize Richard D Mahoney to chair a new investigation?

Note he has a law degree; his father worked with JFK; he worked with Sen. Gary Hart.

Richard D. Mahoney received his A.B. at Princeton University in history (magna cum laude), Ph.D. at the Johns Hopkins University School of International Studies in international relations, and his J.D. from Arizona State University.

Mahoney is the former John F. Kennedy Scholar at the University of Massachusetts and has lectured as a visiting professor at Templeton College (Oxford University), The JFK School of Government (Harvard University), the Beijing Institute of Foreign Trade, and the Universidad del Pacifico (Quito, Ecuador). He is professor emeritus at Thunderbird (The American Graduate School of International Management) where on 19 occasions, the graduate classes voted him "Outstanding Professor."

Mahoney is the author of two books on the Kennedy administration: JFK: Ordeal in Africa (1983: Oxford University Press) and Sons and Brothers, The Days of Jack and Bobby Kennedy (1999: Arcade) as well as numerous articles and monographs on presidential history, foreign policy, international trade, and political risk. He has also published a volume of poetry in Spanish entitled Pétalos (1995: Editorial Tulum). Mahoney is fluent in Spanish, English and French and has written and taught in those languages.

In addition to his academic work, Mahoney formed a foundation, Nuestra Familia, in 1998 that started social entrepreneurship projects (the creation of small profit centers that fund social justice and human development) in two Latin American countries.

Mahoney was elected Secretary of State of Arizona in 1990 and ran for the United States Senate in 1994 and governor in 2002. He also served as chief speechwriter in the presidential campaigns of Senators Gary Hart and Paul Simon. Mahoney, is a fourth generation Arizonan.

Edited September 7, 2007 by Tim Gratz