Jump to content

Distorting History: A Reply


Recommended Posts

Guest Tom Scully
It was reported over the weekend that the CIA director, Leon Panetta, has told the congressional intelligence committees that he has discovered a CIA secret operation that was being run by Dick Cheney. Panetta discovered that information about this program was withheld from Congress. So far, details of this illegal program has not yet been released to the public. However, rumours are suggesting that it might be linked to Seymour Hersh’s claim that Cheney oversaw an “executive assassination ring”.

Is this the reason that Don Bohning/CIA took objection to my article on Operation 40 where I argued that the CIA developed an assassination program in the early 1960s? An assassination program that Carl Jenkins and Chi Chi Quintero confessed had been used on John Kennedy. Maybe the CIA fear that this story will increase interest in previous assassination programs.

It now seems that in 2004, George Tenet terminated a secret program to develop hit teams to kill al-Qaida leaders, but his successors resurrected the plan, according to former intelligence officials. Porter Goss, who replaced Tenet in 2005, restarted the program.

If you remember, Don Bohning quoted an interview with Porter Goss to deny that Operation 40 was a CIA program to kill political figures in Cuba. We can now see why this is still a sensitive subject for those CIA officers who were around in the early 1960s.

IMO, these relationships and the role of the institution in forging relationships that end up lasting a lifetime, should not be under emphasized:

(I happen to know, as a result of my famliarity with Yale and it's community, that the initials following each name below, identify the "college" within the university that each name below

resided at....for exampe, TD stands for Timothy Dwight college. )

http://www.yaleherald.com/article-p.php?Article=5678

...After all, Bush, more than any other president in memory, has stacked his administration with Yalies. His vice-president, Cheney, attended until he flunked out after his freshman year. John Ashcroft, BR ’64, (former attorney general), L. Paul Bremer, ES ’63, (interim governor of Iraq), Porter Goss, TD ’60, (former CIA director), John Negroponte, DC ’60, (former ambassador to Iraq and ‘intelligence czar’), Scooter Libby (Cheney’s disgraced Chief-of-Staff), and John Bolten, CC ‘70, LAW ‘74, (Ambassador to the UN), all graduated from Yale....

.. Cheney didn’t even have to formally apply. An Old Blue oilman took a liking to Cheney, a pugnacious halfback and class president at his Wyoming high school, and called up the Yale admissions office, telling them to take Cheney....

...The second and more important lesson of the Bush debacle has to do with his insularity in decision-making. The Bush administration has made monumental decisions with shockingly little outside consultation, without any interest in the opinion of experts. Think of Bush misinforming his own Secretary of State about the causes for war, or Bremer disbanding the Iraqi army to the bewilderment of his own staff.

Cheney, Bremer, Rumsfeld (a Princetonian) and the upper echelon of the Bush team embody a certain ideal of a liberal arts education. They are highly educated generalists who have had remarkably successful careers in different branches of business and government. It is difficult, reading about Cheney and Rumsfeld’s careers, not to be impressed by their ability to apply fresh thinking to every job they have held. On the other hand, their trust in their own mental powers tends to be accompanied by disdain for civil servants and experts. In the lead-up to the Iraq invasion, the architects of the war were apparently interested in consulting only with people of their intellectual class rather than with the experts who could have actually taught them something....

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=169858

...(Erik) Prince\'s connections seem to have paid off for Blackwater. Robert Young Pelton, author of \"Licensed to Kill: Hired Guns in the War on Terror,\" has reported that one of Blackwater\'s earliest contracts in the national arena was a no-bid $5.4 million deal to provide security guards in Afghanistan, which came after Prince made a call to then CIA executive director Buzzy Krongard. What\'s more, Harper\'s Ken Silverstein has reported that Prince has a security pass for CIA headquarters and \"meets with senior people\" inside the CIA. But Prince\'s most important benefactor was fellow conservative Roman Catholic convert L. Paul Bremer, former head of the Coalition Provisional Authority, the American occupation government in Iraq....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_H.T._Bush

William Henry Trotter "Bucky" Bush (born July 14, 1938 in Greenwich, Connecticut) is the youngest son of Prescott Sheldon Bush and Dorothy Walker Bush, the younger brother of former President George H.W. Bush, and the uncle of former President George W. Bush...

...He earned a BA from Yale University in 1960; at Yale, he was a member of Wolf's Head Society...

Controversy

In 2005, reports emerged that Bush had garnered significant profits from the sale of Engineered Support Systems, a defense contractor working for The Pentagon in Iraq and Afghanistan.[2] Further reports in 2006 corroborated these stock sales in the range of $1.9 million.[3]

It strikes me that the recent US political and intelligence apparatus hierarchy resemble the pecking order in what one might expect in a community with a population of under 20.000, instead of that in a nation of 320 million.

Porter Goss's and John Negroponte's 1960 Yale classmate brought George Tenet into the government "fold", and was the first husband of Yale grad. John Kerry's wife, Teresa:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._John_Heinz_III

H. John Heinz III

Born in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Heinz was the son of H. J. Heinz II (heir to the H. J. Heinz Company) and Joan Diehl. His parents divorced, and Heinz moved to San Francisco, California with his mother and his stepfather, U.S. Navy Captain Clayton C. McCauley. After graduating from the Town School, Phillips Exeter Academy in 1956 and Yale University in 1960,...

.... He was chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee (96th and 99th Congresses) ....

.... His widow later married Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, who was the 2004 Presidential nominee of the Democratic Party....

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/goss_porter/

INDEPTH: U.S. SECURITY

Previous CIA bosses

CBC News Online | May 10, 2006

..In March 2005, Goss told an audience that he was overwhelmed by the demands of his job, including devoting five hours a day to preparing and delivering presidential briefings.

On May 5, 2006, Goss unexpectedly resigned. A White House official said the resignation was based on a "mutual understanding" between Bush, Negroponte and Goss. It was the latest move in a second-term shakeup of Bush's team....

George Tenet

...In 1982, Tenet joined the staff of Senator John Heinz. He worked for the Pennsylvania Republican for three years as both a legislative assistant covering national security and energy issues, and as legislative director.

Tenet joined the Senate select committee on intelligence in August 1985, where he directed the committee's oversight of all arms control negotiations between the Soviet Union and the United States...

Edited by Tom Scully
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I have had a couple of emails from Don Bohning. The first one relates to something he wrote in the original CIA journal article:

“John Simkin, a former member of a militant leftwing organization, the politics of which are now rejected by the mainstream British Labor Party.” Don Bohning, (The Intelligencer: Journal of U.S. Intelligence Studies (Volume 16, 2008)

I initially replied to this comment on the forum that “I have only ever been a member of the British Labour Party, which gave the world the likes of Tony Blair and a right of centre government over the last 12 years. One presumes that if Mr. Bohning had credible evidence for this assertion he would have provided it.”

Don Bohning’s email pointed out: “Despite your claim to the contrary, I have it on good authority that you were a member of the Young Socialist Wing of the Labor Party in the 1960s at a time it was considered a Marxist organization.”

As you can see, Don has changed his claim to state that it was the Labour Party that was the Marxist organization. When I joined the Labour Party in 1964 I was nineteen years old. At the time, people of that age were automatically placed in the Young Socialists. As I stated before, I have only ever been a member of the Labour Party. It is true that at the time the far right and other neo-fascist organizations considered that the Labour Party was a Marxist organization. However, the claim is ridiculous. It should be remembered that in the 1960s the Labour Party was the largest political organization in Britain and governed the country between 1964 and 1970. To claim that the Labour Party was a Marxist organization is equivalent to saying that the Democratic or Republican parties are Marxist organizations.

I suspect that in the world of the far-right, to describe the Labour Party as a Marxist organization is like saying that it is a communist organization. (Although many on the left, myself included, would argue that the Communist Party post 1917 was not a Marxist organization but one better described as Leninist/Stalinist.)

The Labour Party has never been a Marxist organization. As several historians have pointed out, it has been more influenced by Methodism and Christian Socialism than the writings of Karl Marx. Since its formation, the Labour Party has consistently purged itself of Marxists.

When the Communist Party of Great Britain was formed in 1920 Rajani Palme Dutt argued that the CPGB should seek affiliation with the Labour Party. He argued that this was the wish of Lenin. Most of the leaders of CPGB argued against this resolution. For example, Sylvia Pankhurst described the Labour Party as being far too right-wing to become a political ally.

However, the vote went in favour of affiliation. As Willie Paul pointed out: “The comrades who voted in favour of the Labour Party were undoubtedly influenced by the arguments put forth on this question by Lenin, Radek, and many other Russian Communists.” It later emerged that Lenin had promised £55,000 (over £1 million in today's money) to help fund the CPGB in return for a say in its policy making. It was of course just a down-payment and the CPGB relied on the Soviet Union for funding until its disbandment in 1991.

It is worth noting that at every conference during the 1920s and 1930s the Labour Party voted against the attempts by the CPGB to become an affiliated organization. At the same time it expelled those members it considered under the influence of the CPGB.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/Pcommunist.htm

Anyway, what has my membership of the Labour Party in 1964 got to do with my views on Operation 40 and role that the CIA may have played in the assassination of JFK? Would your membership of a political party in the 1960s be relevant to my arguments? The answer to that is no and I have no reason to want to find out the party you supported at this time. However, what is relevant is that the documents state you were a CIA asset during this period. Maybe, you still have that role.

In his latest email Don Bohning says: “In my fifty plus years as a journalist, I have come across many phoney unprincipled and unethical sleazebags but you top the list.”

I clearly have really upset you. I am not sure you should have told me that. It is not a good idea to tell your opponent that you have been hurt by a comment. Mind you, it does not take much thought to realize that it must be very painful to be exposed as a CIA asset. After all, I always thought that being a journalist was about telling the truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems that Mel Ayton (the British author of anti-conspiracy books) is Bohning's so-called source on my membership of the Labour Party's Young Socialists. It did not take too much detective work by Ayton as I posted details on the Harold Hill Council Estate website some time ago. Bohning writes in his latest email: "Also, re belonging to a militant organization why don't you also post the following from Mel Ayton, in whom I have far greater confidence than any of the misinformation you peddle. According to Ayton: "There is no doubt that the Young Socialists of the Labour Party in the 1960s was a Marxist organization - I know, I was a member of the Labour Party at the time. That also applies to the far-left trade union he [simkin] had membership in."

The trade-union comment is interesting. Between 1960-66 I was a member of SOGAT the print union. My next employer refused permission for me to join a trade union. However, I risked my job to join ASDAW and my employer, backed-down. The next union I was a member of was the National Union of Teachers (1977-2000). I wonder which one Ayton thinks was the "far-left trade union". Maybe he could also explain why my membership of the Labour Party and various trade unions is relevant to my views on the assassination of JFK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bohning becomes more self-revealingly, laughably risible with each new missive. So the "militant leftwing organization, the politics of which are now rejected by the mainstream British Labor Party,” to which you belonged was the Labor Party. My God, how will you EVER rebound from being outed for such a youthful folly? AND you were a member of TRADE UNIONS? One is aghast to hear such things about you, John. Why could you not instead have joined a guild of retired covert intelligence operatives whose lifelong work is lying, treachery, obfuscation, misdirection and, ultimately, the overthrow of democratically elected governments, torture, and murder? Then you could hold your head proudly high, as does Bohning.

As for being an "unethical sleazebag," or whatever, one wonders what the average person would say about a "journalist" who pretends that his first and only allegiance is reporting the truth to his readers, only to be unmasked as an aparatchik of a covert intelligence service. Would that make one an "unethical sleazebag" to readers who did not know for whom the "journalist" truly toiled? Since one cannot ride two horses with a single behind, when CIA and journalistic integrity took divergent paths, which horse did Bohning ride?

Disingenuous, deceitful, duplicitous are among the words that spring to mind. But I'd best not anger Bohning, or he'll have Mel Ayton look through my sock drawer and reveal my habit of voting for a perfectly legal and rather dull democratic socialist party. How would I ever live down the shame of that being disclosed to the public?

What a smug, miserable little pissant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The trade-union comment is interesting. Between 1960-66 I was a member of SOGAT the print union. My next employer refused permission for me to join a trade union. However, I risked my job to join ASDAW and my employer, backed-down. The next union I was a member of was the National Union of Teachers (1977-2000). I wonder which one Ayton thinks was the "far-left trade union". Maybe he could also explain why my membership of the Labour Party and various trade unions is relevant to my views on the assassination of JFK.

Similar tactics were used against Russ Bellant after he wrote both "Old Nazis, the New Right and the Republican Party" and "The Coors Connection" both published by The South End Press

in Boston, around 1990. South End describes itself as: "...a nonprofit, collectively run book publisher" which of course to a person of Bohning's ilk means a communist inspired and a

communist based publisher. So consider yourself in good company. Bohning is rather lamely attempting to characterize your views about the JFK conspiracy, and your attacks on the far right

and the military industrial complex as being somehow expected from one whom he is attempting to paint and smear with the Comm Symp brush. It is the classic "consider the source" smear tactic.

You should be proud that the anti-Russ Bellant crowd has decided to consider you such a threat that their "hired pens" have to launch spurious attacks on your reputation and background. Even JFK

himself was often characterized as a Comm Symp by the Great Wurlitzer (Operation Mockingbird) and the other publications of the far right like American Mercury, Human Events and The Liberty Lobby

publications like Spotlight and Right.

I had the misfortune of getting my first high school summer job at The Miami News where Hal Hendrix worked in the 1960's and even then he was known as the "consummate spook" and sleaze-ball

who would write anything that his string-pullers wanted him to say. Many times he was seen merely typing us stories directly from previously printed documents he received in the the mail using a very old and a very loud Royal typewriter. If you ever came over to his desk, as the on duty copyboy, to move some newly typed copy to the newsdesk for editing, he would hastily cover up the source documents he was referencing to prevent you from seeing the letterhead or its contents. Plagiarism? Of course. But it won him and the Miami News Pulitzer Prizes in those days and got him a promotion. Bill Baggs, the editor of The Miami News and Ralph McGill from the Atlanta Constitution were about as liberal as you could get for deep south editors in the 1960's, but even they went

along to get along at that time. Both of them died of heart attacks in their late 40's, as I recall, because of the long hours and the brutal deadlines probably fueled by too much caffeine, excessive pressures and too much smoking. Such was the life of a big city newspaper editor in the days of linotype, manual typewriters and hot lead printing. When I knew Bill Baggs he was only about 40

but he certainly looked well into his 50's even then. Baggs was a big supporter of Dante Fascell, Claude Pepper and even JFK at that time and the death of both Adlai Stevenson and JFK had a visible

effect on him. Baggs was just a genuinely nice person whom everyone liked and trusted. Was he aware of all the subtleties and nuances of the ongoing Operation Mockingbird hierarchy or did he just

tolerate Hal Hendrix who helped him sell newspapers and win accolades for The Miami News? Remember that The Miami News at that time was the evening paper in Miami and was sold primarily into the afternoon rush hour traffic crowd by traffic light hawkers and if you missed your afternoon deadlines by even 30 minutes you lost sales of 5,000 to 10,000 copies which affected circulation and the

advertising rates you could charge. The Herald was the morning paper delivered via home delivery and from metallic dispensing kiosks. The Herald was the big brother competition to The Miami News.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bohning becomes more self-revealingly, laughably risible with each new missive. So the "militant leftwing organization, the politics of which are now rejected by the mainstream British Labor Party,” to which you belonged was the Labor Party. My God, how will you EVER rebound from being outed for such a youthful folly? AND you were a member of TRADE UNIONS? One is aghast to hear such things about you, John. Why could you not instead have joined a guild of retired covert intelligence operatives whose lifelong work is lying, treachery, obfuscation, misdirection and, ultimately, the overthrow of democratically elected governments, torture, and murder? Then you could hold your head proudly high, as does Bohning.

As for being an "unethical sleazebag," or whatever, one wonders what the average person would say about a "journalist" who pretends that his first and only allegiance is reporting the truth to his readers, only to be unmasked as an aparatchik of a covert intelligence service. Would that make one an "unethical sleazebag" to readers who did not know for whom the "journalist" truly toiled? Since one cannot ride two horses with a single behind, when CIA and journalistic integrity took divergent paths, which horse did Bohning ride?

Disingenuous, deceitful, duplicitous are among the words that spring to mind. But I'd best not anger Bohning, or he'll have Mel Ayton look through my sock drawer and reveal my habit of voting for a perfectly legal and rather dull democratic socialist party. How would I ever live down the shame of that being disclosed to the public?

What a smug, miserable little pissant.

I'd like to know how Bohning feels about the CIA releasing the records that prove he was a CIA asset?

They've been withholding records about other people citing the "sources and methods" exemption, yet they've released the records that show how Bohning, Priscilla Johnson McMillan and Hugh Aynesworth cooperated with the CIA.

Why out some and be faithful to others?

I guess we can't expect him to return to answer any questions.

Bill Kelly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tom Scully
....In his latest email Don Bohning says: “In my fifty plus years as a journalist, I have come across many phoney unprincipled and unethical sleazebags but you top the list.”

I clearly have really upset you. I am not sure you should have told me that. It is not a good idea to tell your opponent that you have been hurt by a comment. Mind you, it does not take much thought to realize that it must be very painful to be exposed as a CIA asset. After all, I always thought that being a journalist was about telling the truth.

Speaking of "topping the list"...it's time for the UK government to reassess the entirety of it's realtionship with the US government, and it's time for the people of the US to pull their heads up and take a good hard look. Don Bohning obnoxiously represents the US corporatist/intelligence complex, and it ain't pretty:

Link to UK Court Ruling suppressed by US government threats: http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/docs/judgments...t4-04022009.pdf

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/2...med-cia-torture

Clinton moved to halt disclosure of CIA torture evidence, court told

• Miliband claims relations with US would suffer

• Judge doubts alleged harm to intelligence sharing

Wednesday 29 July 2009 20.36 BST

...Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, personally intervened to suppress evidence of CIA collusion in the torture of a British resident, the high court heard today.

The dramatic turn emerged as lawyers for Binyam Mohamed, the UK resident abused in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Morocco and Guantánamo Bay, joined by lawyers for the Guardian and other media groups, asked the court to order the disclosure of CIA material.

It consists of a seven-paragraph summary of what the CIA knew, and what it told MI5 and MI6, about the treatment of Mohamed. Lord Justice Thomas and Mr Justice Lloyd Jones, the judges hearing the case, have said that the summary contains nothing that could possibly be described as "highly sensitive classified US intelligence".

However, David Miliband, the foreign secretary, has repeatedly told the court that the US would stop sharing intelligence with the UK if the CIA material was published. The judges, as well as lawyers for Mohamed and the media, have challenged that assertion.

"Is it remotely credible that [the Obama administration] would stop intelligence-sharing?" Thomas asked yesterday, referring to Obama's recent decision to publish CIA torture documents in the US. "The judgment of the foreign secretary is the key," he added.

The court has heard how the Foreign Office and Miliband have solicited US help in keeping the CIA material secret. Today, it heard how Miliband met Clinton in Washington on 12 May this year.

In a written statement proposing a gagging order, Miliband told the court that she "indicated" that the disclosure of CIA evidence "would affect intelligence sharing". Pressed repeatedly by the judges on the claim yesterday, Karen Steyn, Miliband's counsel, insisted that Clinton was indeed saying that if the seven-paragraph summary of CIA material was disclosed, the US would "reassess" its intelligence relationship with the UK, a move that "would put lives at risk"....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7870896.stm

Thursday, 5 February 2009

...In a statement, the White House said it "thanked the UK government for its continued commitment to protect sensitive national security information".

It added that this would "preserve the long-standing intelligence sharing relationship that enables both countries to protect their citizens".

A spokesman at the US Embassy in London added that it did not "threaten allies".

Opposition MPs have said ministers must urgently address claims the UK was "complicit" in the torture of Binyam Mohamed, who has been held at Guantanamo Bay for four years.

Mr Mohamed, 30, alleges he was tortured by US agents in Pakistan, Morocco and Afghanistan between 2002 and 2004 and that UK agencies were complicit in the practice.

In a ruling published on Wednesday, Lord Justice Thomas and Mr Justice Lloyd Jones said the attorney general would be investigating the issues of "torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" against Mr Mohamed.

The judges said they wanted the full details of the alleged torture to be published in the interests of safeguarding the rule of law, free speech and democratic accountability.

The details, believed to amount to just seven paragraphs, relate to the circumstances of Mr Mohamed's detention and his treatment while he was being held.

But they said they had been persuaded it was not in the public interest to do this due to the potential impact on UK national security of US stopping intelligence sharing.

By doing so, the US government could "inflict on the citizens of the UK a very considerable increase in the dangers they face at a time when a serious terrorist threat still pertains", they said.

Tory MP David Davis, who first raised the matter in the House of Commons, said the UK had been threatened with having security co-operation withdrawn if the information was published. ...

...The BBC's Jonathan Beale in Washington said a former Bush administration official who dealt with Guantanamo Bay confirmed that US intelligence agencies did tell the UK that they opposed the release of certain US intelligence without their consent. ....

..."There is no other terms for what the US intelligence services are doing than blackmail," said Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg.

"It is simply incredible that the US government would have halted intelligence co-operation with the UK if this information had been made public."

Moazzam Begg, a British former detainee of Guantanamo Bay, told the BBC he wanted to see an end to all forms of imprisonment without trial.

"How does any society determine whether anybody's detention is justified?" he said. "They do it through a court process, a legal process, that's recognised and transparent... but what we have in Guantanamo is a legal black hole."

Another British ex-detainee Omar Deghayes told the BBC he knew Mr Mohamed in Guantanamo and that he had spoken of being tortured.

He also said he was sure that British intelligence agents had questioned him and others there on numerous occasions.

"Everyone who was detained there from here will tell you that MI5 and MI6 came and interrogated them," he said.

Mr Deghayes said it was "shameful" that British judges were being "blackmailed" and it should be up to "the rule of law to decide whether somebody is guilty or not".

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0402999_pf.html

U.K. Court Rules to Keep Detainee Documents Secret

Citing U.S. Threats on Intelligence Sharing, Judges Will Not Release Information on Guantanamo Inmate

By Mary Jordan

Washington Post Foreign Service

Thursday, February 5, 2009; A14

LONDON, Feb. 4 -- Two British High Court judges ruled against releasing documents describing the treatment of a British detainee at the Guantanamo Bay prison, but made clear their reluctance, saying that the United States had threatened to withhold intelligence cooperation with Britain if the information were made public.

"We did not consider that a democracy governed by the rule of law would expect a court in another democracy to suppress a summary of the evidence . . . relevant to allegations of torture and cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment, politically embarrassing though it might be," Justice John Thomas and Justice David Lloyd Jones wrote.

The judges decided not to release information, supplied to the court by U.S. officials, concerning the treatment of Binyam Mohamed, 31, an Ethiopian-born British resident who was arrested in Pakistan in 2002.

The decision touched off a wave of anger at Washington from the floor of Parliament to the offices of human rights groups.

"The government is going to have to do some pretty careful explaining about what's going on," said David Davis, a top Conservative Party leader, speaking in the House of Commons.

Davis said it appeared the U.S. government had "threatened" the British government about the repercussions if details of the case were made public. "Frankly, it is none of their business what our courts do," he said.

"The ruling implies that torture has taken place in the Mohamed case, that British agencies may have been complicit, and further, that the United States government has threatened our High Court that if it releases this information the U.S. government will withdraw its intelligence cooperation with the United Kingdom," Davis said.

Mohamed was initially charged with planning a "dirty bomb" attack in the United States. Those charges were later dropped, but Mohamed has been held at the Guantanamo detention center in Cuba since September 2004 after allegedly confessing to being an al-Qaeda operative.

Mohamed says that evidence against him is based on confessions obtained by torture at the hands of U.S. officials and allies in "secret prisons" in Morocco and Afghanistan and later in Guantanamo.

Wednesday's ruling was part of a long-running legal battle by Mohamed's attorneys, who argue that he has committed no crime and is a victim of torture and rendition by U.S. officials, with British cooperation.

Attorneys for several British and American news media organizations petitioned the court to release the information it had about Mohamed's treatment, which had been redacted from a court ruling last summer.

On Wednesday, the judges turned down the request to release the documents, saying that the United States continued to threaten to punish Britain by withholding intelligence cooperation if the court released details of Mohamed's treatment.

Clive Stafford Smith, Mohamed's attorney, told reporters that by not disclosing the evidence, Britain was guilty of "capitulation to blackmail."

"It is hardly Britain's finest hour," he said. "As the judges say, it is up to President Obama to put his money where his mouth is. He must repudiate his predecessor's reprehensible policy."

Officials in Prime Minister Gordon Brown's office said they are unaware of any threat from the Obama administration to withhold cooperation. "We have not engaged with the new administration on the detail of this case," a Brown spokesman told reporters.

Also Wednesday, the American Civil Liberties Union sent a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, urging her to clarify the Obama administration's position on the Mohamed case and to reject what it described as the Bush administration's policy of using false claims of national security to avoid judicial review of controversial programs.

Anthony D. Romero, head of the ACLU, said, "The latest revelation is completely at odds with President Obama's executive orders that ban torture and end rendition, as well as his promise to restore the rule of law."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/m...tel-with-brits/

Obama threatens to limit U.S. intel with Brits

Justice letter filed in court

By Eli Lake (Contact) | Tuesday, May 12, 2009

The Obama administration says it may curtail Anglo-American intelligence sharing if the British High Court discloses new details of the treatment of a former Guantanamo detainee.

A court filing from the British Foreign Office released recently includes a letter from the U.S. government, identified as the "Obama administration's communication." Other information identifying the U.S. agency and author of the letter appears to have been redacted.

The letter says:

"If it is determined that [her majesty's government] is unable to protect information we provide to it, even if that inability is caused by your judicial system, we will necessarily have to review with the greatest care the sensitivity of information we can provide in the future."

The letter stands in contrast to President Obama's decision last month to release four memos from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel providing fresh detail on the CIA's enhanced interrogation program.....

http://images.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/...obama/obama.pdf

10. Following the Special Advocate’s closed written submissions of last week and specifically certain queries raised in those submissions, HMG communicated with the Obama Administration in relation to the making open of further material in the closed communication to the Court of 1 May 2009.

11. As a consequence, the Obama Administration has agreed to the making open of one further passage raised by the Special Advocate and that passage is identified in an underlined form in the attached version of the Obama Administration’s communication. For the avoidance of any doubt, this is the same Obama Administration authored document as disclosed on 6 May 2009 subject to the addition of the underlined words.

PUSHPINDER SAINI QC

KAREN STEYN

11 May 2009

....ATTACHMENT

On two prior occasions the United States Government contacted Her Majesty’s Government (HMG) in connection with legal proceedings initiated by former Guantanamo Bay detainee Binyam Ahmed Mohamed. On both occasions, we iterated the high esteem in which we hold the relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom. In maintaining our remarkably open sharing of information, we indicated our strong objection to the public disclosure of certain classified information. We are most appreciative of HMG’s efforts in preventing the public disclosure of the highly sensitive information.

It has come to the United States Government’s attention that on 22 April 2009 your High Court heard argument on a motion of Mr. Mohamed for reconsideration of the Court’s decision to withhold seven paragraphs from its open decision of 21 August 2008. The Court withheld those seven paragraphs at the request of your Foreign Secretary, based on a Public Interest Immunity Certificate that explained the damage to the United Kingdom’s intelligence relationship with the United States--and as a consequence the United Kingdom’s own national security--if the paragraphs were disclosed. Mr. Mohamed argued during the 22 April hearing that given the change in administration in the United States, HMG should be ordered to ask the Obama administration for its views on the disclosure of the information contained in the seven paragraphs.

Days prior to the 22 April hearing, the Obama administration released four memoranda issued by the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC of the U.S. Department of Justice that describe interrogation techniques that the CIA employed during interrogations of certain high-value detainees. I understand that during the hearing, the High Court placed great import on President Obama’s decision to release the OLC memoranda as an indication that the United States Government would not object to disclosure of the seven paragraphs. The Court made clear, nevertheless, that it would entertain further clarification of the United States Government’s position, and the potential damage to the U.K.-U.S. intelligence sharing relationship that would be caused by public disclosure of the seven paragraphs.

The seven paragraphs at issue are based upon classified information shared between our countries. Public disclosure of this information, reasonably could be expected to cause serious damage to the United Kingdom’s national security. Specifically, disclosure of this information may result in a constriction of the U.S.-U.K. relationship, as well as U.K. relationships with other countries. Among the most critical sources and methods in the collection of foreign intelligence are the relationships the United Kingdom maintains with foreign countries. Through these relationships, the United Kingdom’s intelligence and security services are able to provide national security and foreign policy officials with information that is critical to informed decision making; information that the United Kingdom cannot obtain through other means. Without the assistance of these foreign governments, it is almost certain that the United Kingdom’s ability to identify and arrest suspected terrorists and to disrupt terrorist plots would be severely hampered. Quite clearly, the information that the United Kingdom obtains from the United States and other foreign governments is a critical component of the United Kingdom’s counterterrorist efforts.

The cooperation and sharing of intelligence between the United Kingdom and United States, as well as with other foreign governments, exists under strict conditions of secrecy. Public disclosure by the United Kingdom of information garnered from such relationships would suggest that the United Kingdom is unwilling or unable to protect information or assistance provided by its allies. As a consequence, if foreign partners learn that information it has provided is publicly disclosed, these foreign partners could take steps to withhold from the United Kingdom sensitive information that could be important to its safety and security. Any decreased cooperation from those foreign partners would adversely impact counterterrorism missions and other endeavors.

Quite distinct from the significant harm to the U.S.–U.K. partnership if the seven paragraphs--or underlying documents--are released, is the impact of President Obama’s declassification of the OLC memoranda. The memoranda focused solely on intelligence-gathering methods previously utilized by the CIA. In releasing the memoranda, President Obama made clear his administration’s intention that the enhanced interrogation techniques discussed therein would no longer be utilized by the United States Government. Neither in the memoranda, nor in any statements of the administration accompanying their release, was reference made to the identity of any foreign governments that might have assisted the United States. Given the declassification of the highly sensitive information contained in the memoranda, the fact that the President refrained from providing any information about foreign governments is indicative that the United States continues to preserve the secrecy of such information as critical to our national security.

Public disclosure of the information contained in the seven paragraphs withheld from the High Court’s open decision, as well as the documents from which the information was drawn, could likely result in serious damage to U.K. and U.S. national security. If it is determined that HMG is unable to protect information we provide to it, even if that inability is caused by your judicial system, we will necessarily have to review with the greatest care the sensitivity of information we can provide in future.

Edited by Tom Scully
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bohning becomes more self-revealingly, laughably risible with each new missive. So the "militant leftwing organization, the politics of which are now rejected by the mainstream British Labor Party,” to which you belonged was the Labor Party. My God, how will you EVER rebound from being outed for such a youthful folly? AND you were a member of TRADE UNIONS? One is aghast to hear such things about you, John. Why could you not instead have joined a guild of retired covert intelligence operatives whose lifelong work is lying, treachery, obfuscation, misdirection and, ultimately, the overthrow of democratically elected governments, torture, and murder? Then you could hold your head proudly high, as does Bohning.

As for being an "unethical sleazebag," or whatever, one wonders what the average person would say about a "journalist" who pretends that his first and only allegiance is reporting the truth to his readers, only to be unmasked as an aparatchik of a covert intelligence service. Would that make one an "unethical sleazebag" to readers who did not know for whom the "journalist" truly toiled? Since one cannot ride two horses with a single behind, when CIA and journalistic integrity took divergent paths, which horse did Bohning ride?

Disingenuous, deceitful, duplicitous are among the words that spring to mind. But I'd best not anger Bohning, or he'll have Mel Ayton look through my sock drawer and reveal my habit of voting for a perfectly legal and rather dull democratic socialist party. How would I ever live down the shame of that being disclosed to the public?

What a smug, miserable little pissant.

Latest email from Don Bohning:

The following response from Mel Ayton. I find him find to be much more credible as a serious historian than you and your website which are a font of both misinformation and disinformation regarding numerous people and things which I have documented for you but to which you pay no attention. Thus, i stick with my original description of you and your background.

Mel Ayton

Printers' unions in the 1960s were notoriously left-wing and had many a confrontation not only with their employers but also the government.Likewise, Ruskin College, which he [simkin] is familiar with, was a bastion of unionism and far left socialist propaganda - in fact, there was nothing else on the syllabus. Although the college is in Oxford it has nothing to do with the university - it's a place where union organizers were sent to become indoctrinated in left wing thought.

Likewise, the Young Socialists were dominated by the far left, including Trotskyites, eg the Socialist Workers party. Our very own 'Jane Fonda' - Vanessa Redgrave - led marches in London constantly under this banner.

Simkin's politics are certainly pertinent - he was, and is, a Marxist. There is also no doubt about his CIA/JF views which have been moulded by his politics - a politics that is essentially anti-American.

He knows full well I am not referring to the teachers union but the print union - this is just one method people like Simkin adopt - confuse as much as possilble and nit pick their way out of trouble.

This is his follow-up email:

it must be embarrassing for your to have a "member" [Mel Ayton] in your Education Forum site to "out" you as an "anti-American Marxist," with "antiCIA/JF views moulded by your politics.

Maybe we will next learn that the KGB taught you the defamation techniques you so skillfully employ one your websites.

Incidentally, Mel Ayton is the one who also described you to me earlier as "a crackpot of the first order [who] uses bluster and prevarication to hoodwink his readers."

cheers/don bohning

Ayton now makes it clear that he is talking about my membership of National Society of Operative Printers and Assistants (NATSOPA) as the “far-left trade union he [simkin] had membership in." I joined NATSOPA (renamed SOGAT in 1966) when I left school at 15. I had no choice, as you could not obtain an apprenticeship in the print industry without joining the appropriate union (the printing industry was a closed-shop in the 1960s). I did not play an active role in the union and by the time I left the industry in 1966 I was not involved in one industrial dispute.

Once again Ayton shows his ignorance as a so-called “historian”. During the period I was a member NATSOPA/SOGAT was not a left-wing union. In fact, it was the complete opposite. It did not need to be radical as the print industry paid some of the highest-wages available to working-class men. Ayton is confusing the print unions of the 1960s with those who fought against Rupert Murdoch’s successful attempt to introduce cost-cutting measures in Fleet Street in 1986 (this was 20 years after I left the union).

Ayton adds: “He knows full well I am not referring to the teachers union but the print union - this is just one method people like Simkin adopt - confuse as much as possilble and nit pick their way out of trouble.” Ironically, I did play an active role in the NUT where I was the union’s school representative in the early 1980s. It was in the NUT where I was involved in industrial action. Once again he is completely wrong about a verifiable fact about my life.

Ayton then goes onto argue: “Likewise, Ruskin College, which he [simkin] is familiar with, was a bastion of unionism and far left socialist propaganda - in fact, there was nothing else on the syllabus. Although the college is in Oxford it has nothing to do with the university - it's a place where union organizers were sent to become indoctrinated in left wing thought.”

I am not sure why Ayton brings up Ruskin College as I have never been involved with this organization. Maybe he is confusing the fact that I was a student at the Open University. This was the university that Keith Joseph, the minister of education under Margaret Thatcher, did describe as being under the influence of “Marxists”. Maybe, that was what Ayton got from his cutting file. Or maybe he is mixing me up with some other left-winger he has been investigating.

Ayton goes onto argue: “Likewise, the Young Socialists were dominated by the far left, including Trotskyites, eg the Socialist Workers party. Our very own 'Jane Fonda' - Vanessa Redgrave - led marches in London constantly under this banner.”

It is true that when I was a member of the Labour Party Young Socialists there were a significant number of Trotskyites in the organization. However, if he had done his research he would have discovered I was a strong opponent of these supporters of Trotsky. Like them, I was a strong opponent of Stalinism and the state-socialism of the Soviet Union. However, I was well aware of Trotsky’s crimes when he held power in the Communist Party and I thought that he would have continued with the dictatorial policies of Lenin if he had won the power-struggle with Stalin.

I am surprised that Ayton was unable to find this out from my MI5 files. There is no doubt that the political views that I held in the 1960s posed as much threat as those who idolised Trotsky and Stalin. I was a liberation socialist whose views were not valued by the Labour or Communist parties. That is why I left the Labour Party and never bother to join any other political party. That includes the Socialist Workers Party that he tries to link me with.

Ayton goes onto argue: “Simkin's politics are certainly pertinent - he was, and is, a Marxist.” It is true that I think that Karl Marx in the 19th century provided an important insight into the way capitalism functioned. However, he was a prisoner of the time that he wrote, and his views on the impending revolution, was completely inaccurate. Even the revolutions that did take place in the 20th century, were not examples of what Marx had in mind. For example, as the true Marxists in Russia argued at the time, Marx would have been opposed to the overthrow of the Provisional government in 1917.

When Lenin returned to Russia on 3rd April, 1917, he announced what became known as the April Theses. Lenin attacked Bolsheviks for supporting the Provisional Government. Instead, he argued, revolutionaries should be telling the people of Russia that they should take over the control of the country. In his speech, Lenin urged the peasants to take the land from the rich landlords and the industrial workers to seize the factories.

Lenin accused those Bolsheviks who were still supporting the Provisional Government of betraying socialism and suggested that they should leave the party. Some took Lenin's advice, arguing that any attempt at revolution at this stage was bound to fail and would lead to another repressive, authoritarian Russian government. They were of course right in their assessment. This view was based on the writings of Karl Marx who argued that the revolution should only take place when the majority of the population were in favour of this action. Otherwise, you will just get a dictatorship of the vanguard (the Bolsheviks).

The problem for those on the right is that they do not fully understand the writings of Karl Marx. Nor do they distinguish between the different ideologies that have developed out of his work. To lump together all critics of capitalism as “Marxists” or “Communists” or “Socialists” causes confusion rather than clarity.

Therefore, I am not, nor have I ever been, a Marxist or a Communist. However, I am proud to call myself a libertarian socialist. It also should be remembered that I am a fairly successful capitalist. It is a system that I have no desire to overthrow. However, I do think it should be reformed in order to give us a more equal society. As Aristotle pointed out, we will never have harmony without equality: “When quarrels and complaints arise, it is when people who are equal have not got equal shares.”

Ayton adds: “There is also no doubt about his CIA/JF views which have been moulded by his politics - a politics that is essentially anti-American.” This is a debate we have had many times on the forum. It is a true that I have been extremely hostile to a great number of things that have taken place in the United States since 1945: McCarthyism, Jim Crow laws, the Vietnam War, the cover up of political corruption and political assassinations, the illegal activities of the CIA, the invasion of Iraq. I have made no secret of these views and they have been fully displayed on the Spartacus Educational website and on this forum. This does not make me anti-American. In fact, one of the reasons I care about these things is because I love America and believe it has the potential to show the rest of the world the way forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to know how Bohning feels about the CIA releasing the records that prove he was a CIA asset?

They've been withholding records about other people citing the "sources and methods" exemption, yet they've released the records that show how Bohning, Priscilla Johnson McMillan and Hugh Aynesworth cooperated with the CIA.

Why out some and be faithful to others?

I guess we can't expect him to return to answer any questions.

Bill Kelly

I have sent him this question. I will let you know if he replies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

I get one or two emails a day from Don Bohning about Operation 40. They are usually full of abuse and contain no information of any use. However, I have just received this email that some researchers might find useful.

John,

just to let you know I have been going through a lot of recently declassified CIA bay of pigs documents, including some in spanish by the brigade itself while in guatemala.

It blows a VERY BIG HOLE in your website phony baloney that Operation 40 was a worldwide assassination unit, in which you slander dozens of folks. What crap!!!

I intend to use much of the following material to reinformce my case in a chapter in the book I am currently writing and it will certainly take apart all the errors - intentional or otherwise - in your misinformation website. So attack me all you want, i will do the same to you, and more. My evidence is documented; yours isn't.

see below:

i have found numerous documents that refer to operacion 40 as a civil intelligence battalion whose commander at the guatemala camps is vincente leon. He was killed during the invasion, one of the few, if not the only, Operation 40 member who actually disembarked with the Bay of Pigs Brigade.

also numerous documents that list operation 40 - with numbers of personnel - ranging from low 50s to 62 at any given time as one of the bay of pigs battalions as i have been tryhing for two years to convince you of, but your ideology stands in the way.

I also have obtained the transcript of a Havana television documentary by a host named Aacanda and based on an interiew with a brigade member who was captured. Tthe three part series was apparently broadcast within a year or two after the invasion while the brigade members were still imprisoned in cuba.

the segment begins with the narrator saying that "that documents obtained from captured members of the brigade members did not mention a select group. He points out that none of them were captured because they did not disembark; nevertheless, the narrator stresses, the prisoners mentioned the select group over and over. He suggests that the prisoners were unaware of their mission, refererring to 'Operation 40.''

As one of the brigade members recalled, "we were recruited in miami...in the beginning we were responsible for investigating those who came to the recruting offices. We were all experienced before receiving U.S. training. He points out that none of them were captured because they did not disembark; Later, when Mr. Joaquin San Gini [sic], our boss, gave the approval, they were sent to the [Tracks [sic] Base in Guatemala. We sort of served as internal investigators. There was 53 of us. We separated ourselves from the rest of the Brigade when we arrived. We had absolutely nothing to do with them. We were to be the rear guard, to take care of the neighborhoods and cities as they were taken by U.S. troops. We were trained in matters of population registration; filing; military and civil intelligence; and first, second and third degree interrogation. We had to obtain sensitive information from enemy forces -- such as the number of troops, location, preparation, morale -- and collect informatin on civil and military leders sho supported Castro. Some Operation 40 participants would later use that knowledge to interrogate prisoners in Vietnam."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get one or two emails a day from Don Bohning about Operation 40. They are usually full of abuse and contain no information of any use. However, I have just received this email that some researchers might find useful.

John,

just to let you know I have been going through a lot of recently declassified CIA bay of pigs documents, including some in spanish by the brigade itself while in guatemala.

It blows a VERY BIG HOLE in your website phony baloney that Operation 40 was a worldwide assassination unit, in which you slander dozens of folks. What crap!!!

I intend to use much of the following material to reinformce my case in a chapter in the book I am currently writing and it will certainly take apart all the errors - intentional or otherwise - in your misinformation website. So attack me all you want, i will do the same to you, and more. My evidence is documented; yours isn't.

see below:

i have found numerous documents that refer to operacion 40 as a civil intelligence battalion whose commander at the guatemala camps is vincente leon. He was killed during the invasion, one of the few, if not the only, Operation 40 member who actually disembarked with the Bay of Pigs Brigade.

also numerous documents that list operation 40 - with numbers of personnel - ranging from low 50s to 62 at any given time as one of the bay of pigs battalions as i have been tryhing for two years to convince you of, but your ideology stands in the way.

I also have obtained the transcript of a Havana television documentary by a host named Aacanda and based on an interiew with a brigade member who was captured. Tthe three part series was apparently broadcast within a year or two after the invasion while the brigade members were still imprisoned in cuba.

the segment begins with the narrator saying that "that documents obtained from captured members of the brigade members did not mention a select group. He points out that none of them were captured because they did not disembark; nevertheless, the narrator stresses, the prisoners mentioned the select group over and over. He suggests that the prisoners were unaware of their mission, refererring to 'Operation 40.''

As one of the brigade members recalled, "we were recruited in miami...in the beginning we were responsible for investigating those who came to the recruting offices. We were all experienced before receiving U.S. training. He points out that none of them were captured because they did not disembark; Later, when Mr. Joaquin San Gini [sic], our boss, gave the approval, they were sent to the [Tracks [sic] Base in Guatemala. We sort of served as internal investigators. There was 53 of us. We separated ourselves from the rest of the Brigade when we arrived. We had absolutely nothing to do with them. We were to be the rear guard, to take care of the neighborhoods and cities as they were taken by U.S. troops. We were trained in matters of population registration; filing; military and civil intelligence; and first, second and third degree interrogation. We had to obtain sensitive information from enemy forces -- such as the number of troops, location, preparation, morale -- and collect informatin on civil and military leders sho supported Castro. Some Operation 40 participants would later use that knowledge to interrogate prisoners in Vietnam."

Oh, so I get it...they weren't trained in assassination, only torture. How dare we think someone trained to "take up the rear guard" and "collect information" and "interrogate" might also kill a commie or two! The horror!

This convinces me even more that Op 40 was trained to kill the likes of Manolo Ray. The assassination lists found in the CIA files were intended for someone. Who better than the guys serving as "internal investigators" while "taking up the rear guard"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My advice would be to go back to basics. Roll the clock back to the 1965-1970 time frame, and

reconstruct the list of fifty plotters from Turner and Scott then see what has been discovered

since that period. These Fifty Fascists were on the original Most Wanted List and they should

have always been on your Most Wanted Lists. Temporarily put on blinders regarding either

their political party, their military or intelligence affiliations or their role as scape goater, plotter,

perpetrator or puff-piece promulgators. Just look at them as people who were united in common

cause against JFK. They might be anti-Communist, anti-Catholic, anti-Colored, anti-Canaanite and/or

anti-CIA and some of them might actually be all five of these as well. They were chosen to carry

out their piece of the puzzle because of their vitriolic hatred of JFK and because many of them

were either in private industry or retired or resigned from public service or the military. Many

of them had suffered some major ignominious career-changing clash with either FDR, Truman or

JFK and that is why they were so dedicated to their dreams of revenge.

Put these folks into categories as either ex-McCarthyites, ex-MacArthurites, or ex-Military or sort

them by military branch or intelligence agency. They were all from The Right, they were all

Powerful and they had no qualms about exercising their lust for power and influence by any

means necessary. You can also categorize them as Religious Right, Publishing Right, Military

Right, Economic Right, etc.

Within this list are the Top Fifty Fascists who conspired to eliminate JFK from the face of the earth.

Most of the rest knew about the plot, totally agreed with it and effected one or more segments

of the entire puzzle as their contribution.

Who were the people and organizations most likely to be knowledgeable about all the ins and outs of

the JFK hit from the name index in Bill Turner's Power on the Right? This of course is my personal opinion,

but it is shared by the likes of Richard Condon from "The Manchurian Candidate", Mae Brussell in

"The Nazi Connection to the JFK Assassination", Russ Bellant in "Old Nazis, the New Right and

the Republican Party", Jon and Scott Anderson in "Inside the League" and of course Bill Turner

himself.

Name index for Turner,W. Power on the Right. 1971

Those in BOLD letters were in The Manchurian Candidate by Richard Condon. Cany anyone

identify the half dozen or so perps below with a close affiliation to Wickliffe P. Draper?

AMERICAN COUNCIL WORLD FREEDOM (213)

AMERICAN LOBBY (164)

AMERICAN NAZI PARTY (113)

AMERICAN SECURITY COUNCIL (172, 176, 183-4, 192-3, 199-214)

AMERICAN VOLUNTEER GROUP (110-1)

AMERICANS CONSTITUTIONAL ACTION (184)

ANDERSON THOMAS J (33)

APP AUSTIN J (163)

BANISTER W GUY (72, 95-7)

BARNETT ROSS R (57)

BEALLE MORRIS A (146)

BENSON GEORGE STUART (184)

BENSON IVOR (165)

BOUSCAREN ANTHONY T (182)

BRADLEY EDGAR EUGENE (106, 121)

BROOKS JERRY MILTON (70-2, 82-3, 95)

BROWN ROBERT KENNETH (106-8)

BUCKLEY WILLIAM F JR (181, 248)

BUNDY EDGAR C (134-40)

BURROS DANIEL (88)

BUTLER EDWARD SCANNELL (171, 185-8)

CAPELL FRANK A (141, 189)

CARDINAL MINDSZENTY FOUNDATION (179, 183)

CARTO WILLIS ALLISON (46, 79, 145-67, 252)

CHENNAULT CLAIRE LEE (135)

CHRISTIAN ANTI-COMMUNIST CRUSADE (23, 130, 178)

CHRISTIAN DEFENSE LEAGUE (101-5)

CHURCH LEAGUE AMERICA (134-40)

COHN ROY MARCUS (137, 179)

COMPARET BERTRAND L (101)

COTTEN RICHARD B (79, 163, 165)

COURTNEY KENT (21, 33)

COURTNEY PHOEBE (33)

CRIPPEN JOHN K (201)

CROMMELIN JOHN G (101, 163)

DALL CURTIS B (21, 79, 154-5, 165)

DE LOACH CARTHA D (DEKE) (242)

DE PUGH ROBERT BOLIVAR (65-99, 110-1)

DEL VALLE PEDRO A (163)

DIRKSEN EVERETT M (R-IL) (185)

DOBRIANSKY LEV E (204) admitted friend of SPAS T RAIKIN

DODD THOMAS J (D-CT) (203)

DRENNAN STANLEY L (106-7)

EASTLAND JAMES O (159, 240)

EDWARDS LEE (188, 213, 241)

EDWARDS WILLARD (42)

EVERSHARP COMPANY (174)

FAUBUS ORVAL (57)

FISHER JOHN M (200-1, 209-13)

FRANKHOUSER ROY EVERETT (61-2, 87-8)

FRAWLEY PATRICK J JR (171-95, 208, 212)

FREE PACIFIC ASSOCIATION (180-1)

GALE WILLIAM POTTER (102, 109)

GATLIN MAURICE BROOKS (95, 97)

GILBERT KEITH DWAYNE (104)

GILL WILLIAM J (204)

GOFF KENNETH (78-9, 88, 154)

HALL LORAN EUGENE (105-6)

HARGIS BILLY JAMES (21, 33, 130-4)

HART MERWIN K (165)

HOOVER J EDGAR (94, 239-44)

HOUGHTON TROY (81-2, 99)

HUNT HAROLDSON LAFAYETTE (42, 173)

INFORMATION COUNCIL AMERICAS (171-2, 185-8)

INSTITUTE DEFENSE ANALYSES (17)

JACKSON CHARLES DOUGLAS (188)

JOHN BIRCH SOCIETY (21-34)

JUDD WALTER H (R-MN) (203, 212-3)

JUNG HARRY A (201)

KENT TYLER GATEWOOD (154)

KNOTT WALTER B (43, 193)

KNOWLAND WILLIAM F (204)

KOEHL MATT (113)

KOHLY MARIO GARCIA (155-6)

KU KLUX KLAN (51-62)

KUTNER LOUIS B (188, 241)

LAUCHLI RICHARD JR (68-9, 74)

LEMAY CURTIS E (GEN) (205, 207)

LEWIS DALLAS BEDFORD (25, 124)

LIBERTY LOBBY (145-67, 251)

LOESCH FRANK J (134)

LOWMAN MYERS G (131)

LUCE CLARE BOOTHE (212)

LUCE HENRY ROBINSON (188)

LUCE PHILLIP ABBOTT (183)

LUCIER JAMES P (212)

LYNCH CONRAD (CONNIE) (101)

MADDOX LESTER (21, 33)

MANION CLARENCE (33, 181, 183)

MARTIN JACK S (GUY BANISTER AIDE) (96, 98)

MATTHEWS JOSEPH BROWN (137)

MCCORMICK ROBERT R (COL) (200)

MCINTIRE CARL (119-30)

MINUTEMEN (65-90)

MORAN RICHARD B (165)

MORRIS ROBERT (B.1915-09-30) (44, 162, 166, 175, 184, 208)

MOSELEY C C (193)

MOWER DENNIS PATRICK (81, 99-100, 109, 189)

MURCHISON CLINT WILLIAM SR (94, 240)

NATIONAL GOALS INC (140)

NATIONAL RIGHT WORK COMMITTEE (180)

OCHSNER ALTON (172, 185)

OLIVER REVILO PENDLETON (26, 132, 145, 163)

OTEPKA OTTO F (21, 147, 161-2, 204, 250-1)

PASQUILLO LORENZO (105)

PAWLEY WILLIAM D (205)

PEREZ LEANDER (57)

PEW J HOWARD (166)

PEYSON WALTER PATRICK (65-6, 74, 77, 82, 85)

PHILBRICK HERBERT A (183, 185)

PITTMAN R.CARTER (132)

POSSONY STEFAN THOMAS (183, 208, 213)

POTITO OREN F (101)

POWER THOMAS S (GEN) (172, 207, 213)

PRATLER JOHN (76)

RAFFERTY MAX (46-7, 160, 189)

RARICK JOHN R (21, 32-3, 119, 159, 165-6)

REAGAN RONALD W (191-3, 247-8)

RICHARDSON WARREN S (159)

ROBERTSON CHARLES F (140-1)

ROCKWELL GEORGE LINCOLN (76, 88, 94, 102, 113)

ROOT E MERRILL (32)

ROUSSELOT JOHN H (24-5, 32, 193)

SALVATORI HENRY J (191-2, 194)

SCHICK RAZOR COMPANY (172, 203-4)

SCHLAFLY J FRED (172, 179)

SCHLAFLY PHYLLIS (179, 181, 191, 204)

SCHMITZ JOHN G (31-2, 46)

SCHRIEVER BERNARD A (GEN) (207)

SCHWEIKER RICHARD S (R-PA) (217)

SHEARER WILLIAM K (157)

SHELTON ROBERT M (54, 61)

SHIRER WILLIAM L (253-4)

SKOUSEN W CLEON (24, 44, 178, 200)

SMITH GERALD L.K. (78, 100, 140)

SMOOT DAN (HOWARD D.) (33, 124)

SOURWINE JULIEN (JAY) (147, 159, 161)

STRATEMEYER GEORGE E (GEN) (153)

SWIFT WESLEY A (100-3, 109)

TARRANTS THOMAS ALBERT III (55-6)

TAYLOR JANET (MINUTEMEN) (86)

TECHNICOLOR CORPORATION (173-4)

THURMOND STROM (R-SC) (159, 161)

TOUCHSTONE NED (157)

TWIN CIRCLE NEWSPAPER (181-3)

TWINING NATHAN F (GEN) (207)

UTT JAMES B (46, 158, 161)

VENABLE JAMES K (54-5)

WALKER EDWIN A (GEN) (26-7, 110)

WARD CHESTER N (ADM) (44, 204)

WARNER JAMES K (113)

WATTS CLYDE (133-4)

WEDEMEYER ALBERT C (GEN) (207)

WELCH ROBERT H.W. (22-34)

WESTMORELAND WILLIAM C (GEN) (212-3)

WHEAT G CLINTON (104, 109)

WHITE CITIZENS COUNCILS (57)

WHITE OPAL TANNER (140)

WOOD ROBERT E (GEN) (200)

YOCKEY FRANCIS PARKER (147-9)

YOUNG AMERICANS FREEDOM (184)

I should also add the fact that I can warrant, testify and guarantee that I personally observed the following persons at a known CIA safe house

on N.W. 15th Street in the Grapeland Heights neighborhood in Miami, Florida, near my childhood home, on multiple different dates between 1961 and 1963:

E. Howard Hunt, Frank "Fiorini" Sturgis, Gerry "Patrick" Hemming and Jack Ruby driving a Pepto Bismol pink Nash Rambler station wagon while

wearing his hat inside the car during a sweltering Miami summer. After their departure following the assassination of JFK, a For Rent sign from Keyes

Realty, the Bernard Barker CIA funded operation, went up in front of the 2 story, white stucco exterior home built in the 1930's or the 1940's.

It was at this home, following the visit of JFK to Miami where a plot against him was foiled when a motorcade from Miami International Airport to

downtown Miami was cancelled, that another plot to murder JFK in Dallas was conceived and discussed by a group of Spanish-speaking individuals on or

about November 18, 1963. It has to be assumed that people like Hunt, Sturgis, Hemming and Ruby were not sufficiently proficient in the Spanish

language to have been participants in this particular meeting. But it is highly conceivable that persons either currently or previously under their direct

influence and control participated in these discussions. E. Howard Hunt, in a sworn deposition, later admitted that he had a "secondary or backup role"

in the plot to murder JFK in Dallas. I would choose to believe that he had a much more influential role in that plot, but have nothing solid to substantiate

these suspicions at this time. When Frank Sturgis got wind of the fact that I could place him at this CIA safe house on multiple different occasions between

1961 and 1963, he made sure that his concerns about being implicated in the JFK plot were to be taken very seriously. The only person who could have

informed him about these facts although the details were distorted, confused, misunderstood and totally convoluted was Gordon Winslow.

When I identified the owner of this home and contacted him during the 1990's he promptly informed me that he had been forewarned that I would be

calling him regarding the occupants of this home and their affiliations and he refused to talk to me about this subject outright.

"They told me you would be calling me sometime soon about that house."

"Who are 'THEY'?

"Never mind." <click>

End of story.

Edited by John Bevilaqua
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My advice would be to go back to basics. Roll the clock back to the 1965-1970 time frame, and

reconstruct the list of fifty plotters from Turner and Scott then see what has been discovered

since that period. These Fifty Fascists were on the original Most Wanted List and they should

have always been on your Most Wanted Lists. Temporarily put on blinders regarding either

their political party, their military or intelligence affiliations or their role as scape goater, plotter,

perpetrator or puff-piece promulgators. Just look at them as people who were united in common

cause against JFK. They might be anti-Communist, anti-Catholic, anti-Colored, anti-Canaanite and/or

anti-CIA and some of them might actually be all five of these as well. They were chosen to carry

out their piece of the puzzle because of their vitriolic hatred of JFK and because many of them

were either in private industry or retired or resigned from public service or the military. Many

of them had suffered some major ignominious career-changing clash with either FDR, Truman or

JFK and that is why they were so dedicated to their dreams of revenge.

Put these folks into categories as either ex-McCarthyites, ex-MacArthurites, or ex-Military or sort

them by military branch or intelligence agency. They were all from The Right, they were all

Powerful and they had no qualms about exercising their lust for power and influence by any

means necessary. You can also categorize them as Religious Right, Publishing Right, Military

Right, Economic Right, etc.

Within this list are the Top Fifty Fascists who conspired to eliminate JFK from the face of the earth.

Most of the rest knew about the plot, totally agreed with it and effected one or more segments

of the entire puzzle as their contribution.

Who were the people and organizations most likely to be knowledgeable about all the ins and outs of

the JFK hit from the name index in Bill Turner's Power on the Right? This of course is my personal opinion,

but it is shared by the likes of Richard Condon from "The Manchurian Candidate", Mae Brussell in

"The Nazi Connection to the JFK Assassination", Russ Bellant in "Old Nazis, the New Right and

the Republican Party", Jon and Scott Anderson in "Inside the League" and of course Bill Turner

himself.

Name index for Turner,W. Power on the Right. 1971

Those in BOLD letters were in The Manchurian Candidate by Richard Condon. Cany anyone

identify the half dozen or so perps below with a close affiliation to Wickliffe P. Draper?

AMERICAN COUNCIL WORLD FREEDOM (213)

AMERICAN LOBBY (164)

AMERICAN NAZI PARTY (113)

AMERICAN SECURITY COUNCIL (172, 176, 183-4, 192-3, 199-214)

AMERICAN VOLUNTEER GROUP (110-1)

AMERICANS CONSTITUTIONAL ACTION (184)

ANDERSON THOMAS J (33)

APP AUSTIN J (163)

BANISTER W GUY (72, 95-7)

BARNETT ROSS R (57)

BEALLE MORRIS A (146)

BENSON GEORGE STUART (184)

BENSON IVOR (165)

BOUSCAREN ANTHONY T (182)

BRADLEY EDGAR EUGENE (106, 121)

BROOKS JERRY MILTON (70-2, 82-3, 95)

BROWN ROBERT KENNETH (106-8)

BUCKLEY WILLIAM F JR (181, 248)

BUNDY EDGAR C (134-40)

BURROS DANIEL (88)

BUTLER EDWARD SCANNELL (171, 185-8)

CAPELL FRANK A (141, 189)

CARDINAL MINDSZENTY FOUNDATION (179, 183)

CARTO WILLIS ALLISON (46, 79, 145-67, 252)

CHENNAULT CLAIRE LEE (135)

CHRISTIAN ANTI-COMMUNIST CRUSADE (23, 130, 178)

CHRISTIAN DEFENSE LEAGUE (101-5)

CHURCH LEAGUE AMERICA (134-40)

COHN ROY MARCUS (137, 179)

COMPARET BERTRAND L (101)

COTTEN RICHARD B (79, 163, 165)

COURTNEY KENT (21, 33)

COURTNEY PHOEBE (33)

CRIPPEN JOHN K (201)

CROMMELIN JOHN G (101, 163)

DALL CURTIS B (21, 79, 154-5, 165)

DE LOACH CARTHA D (DEKE) (242)

DE PUGH ROBERT BOLIVAR (65-99, 110-1)

DEL VALLE PEDRO A (163)

DIRKSEN EVERETT M (R-IL) (185)

DOBRIANSKY LEV E (204) admitted friend of SPAS T RAIKIN

DODD THOMAS J (D-CT) (203)

DRENNAN STANLEY L (106-7)

EASTLAND JAMES O (159, 240)

EDWARDS LEE (188, 213, 241)

EDWARDS WILLARD (42)

EVERSHARP COMPANY (174)

FAUBUS ORVAL (57)

FISHER JOHN M (200-1, 209-13)

FRANKHOUSER ROY EVERETT (61-2, 87-8)

FRAWLEY PATRICK J JR (171-95, 208, 212)

FREE PACIFIC ASSOCIATION (180-1)

GALE WILLIAM POTTER (102, 109)

GATLIN MAURICE BROOKS (95, 97)

GILBERT KEITH DWAYNE (104)

GILL WILLIAM J (204)

GOFF KENNETH (78-9, 88, 154)

HALL LORAN EUGENE (105-6)

HARGIS BILLY JAMES (21, 33, 130-4)

HART MERWIN K (165)

HOOVER J EDGAR (94, 239-44)

HOUGHTON TROY (81-2, 99)

HUNT HAROLDSON LAFAYETTE (42, 173)

INFORMATION COUNCIL AMERICAS (171-2, 185-8)

INSTITUTE DEFENSE ANALYSES (17)

JACKSON CHARLES DOUGLAS (188)

JOHN BIRCH SOCIETY (21-34)

JUDD WALTER H (R-MN) (203, 212-3)

JUNG HARRY A (201)

KENT TYLER GATEWOOD (154)

KNOTT WALTER B (43, 193)

KNOWLAND WILLIAM F (204)

KOEHL MATT (113)

KOHLY MARIO GARCIA (155-6)

KU KLUX KLAN (51-62)

KUTNER LOUIS B (188, 241)

LAUCHLI RICHARD JR (68-9, 74)

LEMAY CURTIS E (GEN) (205, 207)

LEWIS DALLAS BEDFORD (25, 124)

LIBERTY LOBBY (145-67, 251)

LOESCH FRANK J (134)

LOWMAN MYERS G (131)

LUCE CLARE BOOTHE (212)

LUCE HENRY ROBINSON (188)

LUCE PHILLIP ABBOTT (183)

LUCIER JAMES P (212)

LYNCH CONRAD (CONNIE) (101)

MADDOX LESTER (21, 33)

MANION CLARENCE (33, 181, 183)

MARTIN JACK S (GUY BANISTER AIDE) (96, 98)

MATTHEWS JOSEPH BROWN (137)

MCCORMICK ROBERT R (COL) (200)

MCINTIRE CARL (119-30)

MINUTEMEN (65-90)

MORAN RICHARD B (165)

MORRIS ROBERT (B.1915-09-30) (44, 162, 166, 175, 184, 208)

MOSELEY C C (193)

MOWER DENNIS PATRICK (81, 99-100, 109, 189)

MURCHISON CLINT WILLIAM SR (94, 240)

NATIONAL GOALS INC (140)

NATIONAL RIGHT WORK COMMITTEE (180)

OCHSNER ALTON (172, 185)

OLIVER REVILO PENDLETON (26, 132, 145, 163)

OTEPKA OTTO F (21, 147, 161-2, 204, 250-1)

PASQUILLO LORENZO (105)

PAWLEY WILLIAM D (205)

PEREZ LEANDER (57)

PEW J HOWARD (166)

PEYSON WALTER PATRICK (65-6, 74, 77, 82, 85)

PHILBRICK HERBERT A (183, 185)

PITTMAN R.CARTER (132)

POSSONY STEFAN THOMAS (183, 208, 213)

POTITO OREN F (101)

POWER THOMAS S (GEN) (172, 207, 213)

PRATLER JOHN (76)

RAFFERTY MAX (46-7, 160, 189)

RARICK JOHN R (21, 32-3, 119, 159, 165-6)

REAGAN RONALD W (191-3, 247-8)

RICHARDSON WARREN S (159)

ROBERTSON CHARLES F (140-1)

ROCKWELL GEORGE LINCOLN (76, 88, 94, 102, 113)

ROOT E MERRILL (32)

ROUSSELOT JOHN H (24-5, 32, 193)

SALVATORI HENRY J (191-2, 194)

SCHICK RAZOR COMPANY (172, 203-4)

SCHLAFLY J FRED (172, 179)

SCHLAFLY PHYLLIS (179, 181, 191, 204)

SCHMITZ JOHN G (31-2, 46)

SCHRIEVER BERNARD A (GEN) (207)

SCHWEIKER RICHARD S (R-PA) (217)

SHEARER WILLIAM K (157)

SHELTON ROBERT M (54, 61)

SHIRER WILLIAM L (253-4)

SKOUSEN W CLEON (24, 44, 178, 200)

SMITH GERALD L.K. (78, 100, 140)

SMOOT DAN (HOWARD D.) (33, 124)

SOURWINE JULIEN (JAY) (147, 159, 161)

STRATEMEYER GEORGE E (GEN) (153)

SWIFT WESLEY A (100-3, 109)

TARRANTS THOMAS ALBERT III (55-6)

TAYLOR JANET (MINUTEMEN) (86)

TECHNICOLOR CORPORATION (173-4)

THURMOND STROM (R-SC) (159, 161)

TOUCHSTONE NED (157)

TWIN CIRCLE NEWSPAPER (181-3)

TWINING NATHAN F (GEN) (207)

UTT JAMES B (46, 158, 161)

VENABLE JAMES K (54-5)

WALKER EDWIN A (GEN) (26-7, 110)

WARD CHESTER N (ADM) (44, 204)

WARNER JAMES K (113)

WATTS CLYDE (133-4)

WEDEMEYER ALBERT C (GEN) (207)

WELCH ROBERT H.W. (22-34)

WESTMORELAND WILLIAM C (GEN) (212-3)

WHEAT G CLINTON (104, 109)

WHITE CITIZENS COUNCILS (57)

WHITE OPAL TANNER (140)

WOOD ROBERT E (GEN) (200)

YOCKEY FRANCIS PARKER (147-9)

YOUNG AMERICANS FREEDOM (184)

I should also add the fact that I can warrant, testify and guarantee that I personally observed the following persons at a known CIA safe house

on N.W. 15th Street in the Grapeland Heights neighborhood in Miami, Florida, near my childhood home, on multiple different dates between 1961 and 1963:

E. Howard Hunt, Frank "Fiorini" Sturgis, Gerry "Patrick" Hemming and Jack Ruby driving a Pepto Bismol pink Nash Rambler station wagon while

wearing his hat inside the car during a sweltering Miami summer. After their departure following the assassination of JFK, a For Rent sign from Keyes

Realty, the Bernard Barker CIA funded operation, went up in front of the 2 story, white stucco exterior home built in the 1930's or the 1940's.

It was at this home, following the visit of JFK to Miami where a plot against him was foiled when a motorcade from Miami International Airport to

downtown Miami was cancelled, that another plot to murder JFK in Dallas was conceived and discussed by a group of Spanish-speaking individuals on or

about November 18, 1963. It has to be assumed that people like Hunt, Sturgis, Hemming and Ruby were not sufficiently proficient in the Spanish

language to have been participants in this particular meeting. But it is highly conceivable that persons either currently or previously under their direct

influence and control participated in these discussions. E. Howard Hunt, in a sworn deposition, later admitted that he had a "secondary or backup role"

in the plot to murder JFK in Dallas. I would choose to believe that he had a much more influential role in that plot, but have nothing solid to substantiate

these suspicions at this time. When Frank Sturgis got wind of the fact that I could place him at this CIA safe house on multiple different occasions between

1961 and 1963, he made sure that his concerns about being implicated in the JFK plot were to be taken very seriously. The only person who could have

informed him about these facts although the details were distorted, confused, misunderstood and totally convoluted was Gordon Winslow.

When I identified the owner of this home and contacted him during the 1990's he promptly informed me that he had been forewarned that I would be

calling him regarding the occupants of this home and their affiliations and he refused to talk to me about this subject outright.

"They told me you would be calling me sometime soon about that house."

"Who are 'THEY'?

"Never mind." <click>

End of story.

John B

Drop your mailing address to, hjay1211@gmail.com and a copy of my 1990 manuscript/book,updated in 2000, will be sent to you late this month.

It mentions in your above information many of the people who were my associates and at several levels and whom I was in in active agreement

with, until they hastend the death of Kennedy, and their sucessful scheme in doing so.

H. Dean

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My advice would be to go back to basics. Roll the clock back to the 1965-1970 time frame, and

reconstruct the list of fifty plotters from Turner and Scott then see what has been discovered

since that period. These Fifty Fascists were on the original Most Wanted List and they should

have always been on your Most Wanted Lists. Temporarily put on blinders regarding either

their political party, their military or intelligence affiliations or their role as scape goater, plotter,

perpetrator or puff-piece promulgators. Just look at them as people who were united in common

cause against JFK. They might be anti-Communist, anti-Catholic, anti-Colored, anti-Canaanite and/or

anti-CIA and some of them might actually be all five of these as well. They were chosen to carry

out their piece of the puzzle because of their vitriolic hatred of JFK and because many of them

were either in private industry or retired or resigned from public service or the military. Many

of them had suffered some major ignominious career-changing clash with either FDR, Truman or

JFK and that is why they were so dedicated to their dreams of revenge.

Put these folks into categories as either ex-McCarthyites, ex-MacArthurites, or ex-Military or sort

them by military branch or intelligence agency. They were all from The Right, they were all

Powerful and they had no qualms about exercising their lust for power and influence by any

means necessary. You can also categorize them as Religious Right, Publishing Right, Military

Right, Economic Right, etc.

Within this list are the Top Fifty Fascists who conspired to eliminate JFK from the face of the earth.

Most of the rest knew about the plot, totally agreed with it and effected one or more segments

of the entire puzzle as their contribution.

Who were the people and organizations most likely to be knowledgeable about all the ins and outs of

the JFK hit from the name index in Bill Turner's Power on the Right? This of course is my personal opinion,

but it is shared by the likes of Richard Condon from "The Manchurian Candidate", Mae Brussell in

"The Nazi Connection to the JFK Assassination", Russ Bellant in "Old Nazis, the New Right and

the Republican Party", Jon and Scott Anderson in "Inside the League" and of course Bill Turner

himself.

Name index for Turner,W. Power on the Right. 1971

Those in BOLD letters were in The Manchurian Candidate by Richard Condon. Cany anyone

identify the half dozen or so perps below with a close affiliation to Wickliffe P. Draper?

AMERICAN COUNCIL WORLD FREEDOM (213)

AMERICAN LOBBY (164)

AMERICAN NAZI PARTY (113)

AMERICAN SECURITY COUNCIL (172, 176, 183-4, 192-3, 199-214)

AMERICAN VOLUNTEER GROUP (110-1)

AMERICANS CONSTITUTIONAL ACTION (184)

ANDERSON THOMAS J (33)

APP AUSTIN J (163)

BANISTER W GUY (72, 95-7)

BARNETT ROSS R (57)

BEALLE MORRIS A (146)

BENSON GEORGE STUART (184)

BENSON IVOR (165)

BOUSCAREN ANTHONY T (182)

BRADLEY EDGAR EUGENE (106, 121)

BROOKS JERRY MILTON (70-2, 82-3, 95)

BROWN ROBERT KENNETH (106-8)

BUCKLEY WILLIAM F JR (181, 248)

BUNDY EDGAR C (134-40)

BURROS DANIEL (88)

BUTLER EDWARD SCANNELL (171, 185-8)

CAPELL FRANK A (141, 189)

CARDINAL MINDSZENTY FOUNDATION (179, 183)

CARTO WILLIS ALLISON (46, 79, 145-67, 252)

CHENNAULT CLAIRE LEE (135)

CHRISTIAN ANTI-COMMUNIST CRUSADE (23, 130, 178)

CHRISTIAN DEFENSE LEAGUE (101-5)

CHURCH LEAGUE AMERICA (134-40)

COHN ROY MARCUS (137, 179)

COMPARET BERTRAND L (101)

COTTEN RICHARD B (79, 163, 165)

COURTNEY KENT (21, 33)

COURTNEY PHOEBE (33)

CRIPPEN JOHN K (201)

CROMMELIN JOHN G (101, 163)

DALL CURTIS B (21, 79, 154-5, 165)

DE LOACH CARTHA D (DEKE) (242)

DE PUGH ROBERT BOLIVAR (65-99, 110-1)

DEL VALLE PEDRO A (163)

DIRKSEN EVERETT M (R-IL) (185)

DOBRIANSKY LEV E (204) admitted friend of SPAS T RAIKIN

DODD THOMAS J (D-CT) (203)

DRENNAN STANLEY L (106-7)

EASTLAND JAMES O (159, 240)

EDWARDS LEE (188, 213, 241)

EDWARDS WILLARD (42)

EVERSHARP COMPANY (174)

FAUBUS ORVAL (57)

FISHER JOHN M (200-1, 209-13)

FRANKHOUSER ROY EVERETT (61-2, 87-8)

FRAWLEY PATRICK J JR (171-95, 208, 212)

FREE PACIFIC ASSOCIATION (180-1)

GALE WILLIAM POTTER (102, 109)

GATLIN MAURICE BROOKS (95, 97)

GILBERT KEITH DWAYNE (104)

GILL WILLIAM J (204)

GOFF KENNETH (78-9, 88, 154)

HALL LORAN EUGENE (105-6)

HARGIS BILLY JAMES (21, 33, 130-4)

HART MERWIN K (165)

HOOVER J EDGAR (94, 239-44)

HOUGHTON TROY (81-2, 99)

HUNT HAROLDSON LAFAYETTE (42, 173)

INFORMATION COUNCIL AMERICAS (171-2, 185-8)

INSTITUTE DEFENSE ANALYSES (17)

JACKSON CHARLES DOUGLAS (188)

JOHN BIRCH SOCIETY (21-34)

JUDD WALTER H (R-MN) (203, 212-3)

JUNG HARRY A (201)

KENT TYLER GATEWOOD (154)

KNOTT WALTER B (43, 193)

KNOWLAND WILLIAM F (204)

KOEHL MATT (113)

KOHLY MARIO GARCIA (155-6)

KU KLUX KLAN (51-62)

KUTNER LOUIS B (188, 241)

LAUCHLI RICHARD JR (68-9, 74)

LEMAY CURTIS E (GEN) (205, 207)

LEWIS DALLAS BEDFORD (25, 124)

LIBERTY LOBBY (145-67, 251)

LOESCH FRANK J (134)

LOWMAN MYERS G (131)

LUCE CLARE BOOTHE (212)

LUCE HENRY ROBINSON (188)

LUCE PHILLIP ABBOTT (183)

LUCIER JAMES P (212)

LYNCH CONRAD (CONNIE) (101)

MADDOX LESTER (21, 33)

MANION CLARENCE (33, 181, 183)

MARTIN JACK S (GUY BANISTER AIDE) (96, 98)

MATTHEWS JOSEPH BROWN (137)

MCCORMICK ROBERT R (COL) (200)

MCINTIRE CARL (119-30)

MINUTEMEN (65-90)

MORAN RICHARD B (165)

MORRIS ROBERT (B.1915-09-30) (44, 162, 166, 175, 184, 208)

MOSELEY C C (193)

MOWER DENNIS PATRICK (81, 99-100, 109, 189)

MURCHISON CLINT WILLIAM SR (94, 240)

NATIONAL GOALS INC (140)

NATIONAL RIGHT WORK COMMITTEE (180)

OCHSNER ALTON (172, 185)

OLIVER REVILO PENDLETON (26, 132, 145, 163)

OTEPKA OTTO F (21, 147, 161-2, 204, 250-1)

PASQUILLO LORENZO (105)

PAWLEY WILLIAM D (205)

PEREZ LEANDER (57)

PEW J HOWARD (166)

PEYSON WALTER PATRICK (65-6, 74, 77, 82, 85)

PHILBRICK HERBERT A (183, 185)

PITTMAN R.CARTER (132)

POSSONY STEFAN THOMAS (183, 208, 213)

POTITO OREN F (101)

POWER THOMAS S (GEN) (172, 207, 213)

PRATLER JOHN (76)

RAFFERTY MAX (46-7, 160, 189)

RARICK JOHN R (21, 32-3, 119, 159, 165-6)

REAGAN RONALD W (191-3, 247-8)

RICHARDSON WARREN S (159)

ROBERTSON CHARLES F (140-1)

ROCKWELL GEORGE LINCOLN (76, 88, 94, 102, 113)

ROOT E MERRILL (32)

ROUSSELOT JOHN H (24-5, 32, 193)

SALVATORI HENRY J (191-2, 194)

SCHICK RAZOR COMPANY (172, 203-4)

SCHLAFLY J FRED (172, 179)

SCHLAFLY PHYLLIS (179, 181, 191, 204)

SCHMITZ JOHN G (31-2, 46)

SCHRIEVER BERNARD A (GEN) (207)

SCHWEIKER RICHARD S (R-PA) (217)

SHEARER WILLIAM K (157)

SHELTON ROBERT M (54, 61)

SHIRER WILLIAM L (253-4)

SKOUSEN W CLEON (24, 44, 178, 200)

SMITH GERALD L.K. (78, 100, 140)

SMOOT DAN (HOWARD D.) (33, 124)

SOURWINE JULIEN (JAY) (147, 159, 161)

STRATEMEYER GEORGE E (GEN) (153)

SWIFT WESLEY A (100-3, 109)

TARRANTS THOMAS ALBERT III (55-6)

TAYLOR JANET (MINUTEMEN) (86)

TECHNICOLOR CORPORATION (173-4)

THURMOND STROM (R-SC) (159, 161)

TOUCHSTONE NED (157)

TWIN CIRCLE NEWSPAPER (181-3)

TWINING NATHAN F (GEN) (207)

UTT JAMES B (46, 158, 161)

VENABLE JAMES K (54-5)

WALKER EDWIN A (GEN) (26-7, 110)

WARD CHESTER N (ADM) (44, 204)

WARNER JAMES K (113)

WATTS CLYDE (133-4)

WEDEMEYER ALBERT C (GEN) (207)

WELCH ROBERT H.W. (22-34)

WESTMORELAND WILLIAM C (GEN) (212-3)

WHEAT G CLINTON (104, 109)

WHITE CITIZENS COUNCILS (57)

WHITE OPAL TANNER (140)

WOOD ROBERT E (GEN) (200)

YOCKEY FRANCIS PARKER (147-9)

YOUNG AMERICANS FREEDOM (184)

I should also add the fact that I can warrant, testify and guarantee that I personally observed the following persons at a known CIA safe house

on N.W. 15th Street in the Grapeland Heights neighborhood in Miami, Florida, near my childhood home, on multiple different dates between 1961 and 1963:

E. Howard Hunt, Frank "Fiorini" Sturgis, Gerry "Patrick" Hemming and Jack Ruby driving a Pepto Bismol pink Nash Rambler station wagon while

wearing his hat inside the car during a sweltering Miami summer. After their departure following the assassination of JFK, a For Rent sign from Keyes

Realty, the Bernard Barker CIA funded operation, went up in front of the 2 story, white stucco exterior home built in the 1930's or the 1940's.

It was at this home, following the visit of JFK to Miami where a plot against him was foiled when a motorcade from Miami International Airport to

downtown Miami was cancelled, that another plot to murder JFK in Dallas was conceived and discussed by a group of Spanish-speaking individuals on or

about November 18, 1963. It has to be assumed that people like Hunt, Sturgis, Hemming and Ruby were not sufficiently proficient in the Spanish

language to have been participants in this particular meeting. But it is highly conceivable that persons either currently or previously under their direct

influence and control participated in these discussions. E. Howard Hunt, in a sworn deposition, later admitted that he had a "secondary or backup role"

in the plot to murder JFK in Dallas. I would choose to believe that he had a much more influential role in that plot, but have nothing solid to substantiate

these suspicions at this time. When Frank Sturgis got wind of the fact that I could place him at this CIA safe house on multiple different occasions between

1961 and 1963, he made sure that his concerns about being implicated in the JFK plot were to be taken very seriously. The only person who could have

informed him about these facts although the details were distorted, confused, misunderstood and totally convoluted was Gordon Winslow.

When I identified the owner of this home and contacted him during the 1990's he promptly informed me that he had been forewarned that I would be

calling him regarding the occupants of this home and their affiliations and he refused to talk to me about this subject outright.

"They told me you would be calling me sometime soon about that house."

"Who are 'THEY'?

"Never mind." <click>

End of story.

John B

Drop your mailing address to, hjay1211@gmail.com and a copy of my 1990 manuscript/book,updated in 2000, will be sent to you late this month.

It mentions in your above information many of the people who were my associates and at several levels and whom I was in in active agreement

with, until they hastend the death of Kennedy, and their sucessful scheme in doing so.

H. Dean

Harry,

Looking forward to your manuscript. Even if you have an older version available now, I would be willing to review the current one then wait for the final copy at the end of the month. Otherwise the suspense might frustrate me. LOL. I always thought that we shared the same short list of suspects

in the JFK case, but absent your manuscript, I have been unable to identify your list of suspects to date. At one time you were in either the John

Birch Society and/or YAF, am I correct?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...