my interview on RFK case status

[Paul Brancato]

Thank you Tom. You made it much clearer.

Larry - I was going to mention Mena, so thanks for that. And I agree that one was worth investigating and was covered up as you say. Ron, do you know what Larry is referring to?

[Ron Ecker]

Ron, do you know what Larry is referring to?

Yes, he's referring to Bill Clinton allowing drug smuggling through the Mena, Arkansas airport. What's criminal about that?

[Larry Hancock]

Uh, if you all are talking about this Larry, I don't think I mentioned Mena at all. I did spend some time looking into Mena but that's another subject entirely. What I do have to say about Contra related drug activities, both during the CIA period and later under the North effort is in Shadow Warfare. It's a big story and far too convoluted to deal with in posts here so I will just refer to the book. What might be relevant to note is that once again there was a dynamic going on between the Justice Department and the CIA - completely independent of the President or Congressional oversight for that matter. That dynamic grew out of correspondence between the CIA director and the AG and resulted in an "understanding" which allowed the CIA and its personnel to ignore (and not report to DEA as required by law) drug activities of its assets....assets was interpreted to mean individuals other than actual CIA employees (exempting contractors and sub contractors) as well as Contra members and those folks they chose to do business with - its a really valuable education on how such things work in the real world of covert political operations and regime change.

[Ron Ecker]

Uh, if you all are talking about this Larry, I don't think I mentioned Mena at all.

I thought you mentioned it too, but maybe Paul and I are both imagining things.

its a really valuable education on how such things work in the real world of covert political operations and regime change.

And has nothing to do with crime.

[Larry Hancock]

Ron if I did I don't know where it would have come in on this thread and I didn't see it. As to crime, unfortunately what I described as far as it applied to the AG and the CIA was perfectly legal....not that I agree with it. What certain contractors, assets etc were doing was absolutely illegal and as I describe in my book, folks like Oliver North were quite well aware of it, references show up in his diary and correspondence. And the CIA director was as well,hence his request to the AG...otherwise he would not have requested the authority to avoid reporting it and losing assets. I spend a good deal of time in Shadow Warfare discussing how various perfectly legal Congressional legislation has authorized a broad spectrum of crimes - justified by in regard to national security. Obviously I would recommend reading the book.

[Ron Ecker]

I spend a good deal of time in Shadow Warfare discussing how various perfectly legal Congressional legislation has authorized a broad spectrum of crimes - justified by in regard to national security. Obviously I would recommend reading the book.

I'll put the book on my list. And it seems you would understand why I say we have a criminal system, though I'm sure you would call it an exaggeration. There are people in the ruling class who are simply above the law, two salient examples being the Bushes and Clintons.

Edited March 24, 2016 by Ron Ecker

[Ron Ecker]

I'm having a great deal of trouble using the quote function because all the text from which I quote, and all the text I type, continues in one long line, there is no word wrap around or whatever you call it. Is there anything I can do about this?

[Larry Hancock]

Ron, actually I don't believe we have a criminal system. I believe that we have a sets of civil, military and national security laws and legal codes which are in conflict with each other - what is illegal under civil code is actually authorized for the military and for national security operations. That leads to a lot of conflicted behavior and offers the opportunity for individuals at all levels - not just a ruling class - to game the system for their own agendas (sometimes political, sometimes personal) or profit. The people with the most access to lawyers become especially successful at manipulating the system and getting away with it under all three classes of code. And President's have the unique option of going to the AG for legal opinions and proceeding on that basis with those opinions - which are never tested in a legal sense - Bush's authorizations of previously extralegal activities following 9/11 is one of the most recent examples. I prefer to be as specific as possible in discussing such things because I don't think using generic terms accomplishes anything. In Shadow Warfare I make a number of recommendations in areas where parts of the legal code need to be reconciled - do I think its ever going to happen, no, for reasons I also explore in the book.

[Ron Ecker]

Larry, let's get specific. The CIA is a criminal organization. I don't think anyone will deny that the CIA, for whatever "good" things it does, has engaged in criminal activities including assassinations. If assassinations are not illegal I don't know what is. And do you think that CIA criminality does not affect us all throughout the system? Take a look at Dallas, for which the CIA is a prime suspect for good reason, but is untouchable. But let's say that the CIA didn't do it. Whoever did it was obviously above the law and, given a 53-year-old cover-up, still has that virtually absolute power today.

Edited March 24, 2016 by Ron Ecker

[Larry Hancock]

No, the CIA is not a criminal organization. You are simply wrong. It was created legally with Congressional legislation and operates under legal codes. And the legal codes for it, as for the military, approve murder, assassination and a lot of other normally illegal acts - acts that are illegal under civil code but not under natl security or military code.....whether you or I like them or not. We don't get to call what is illegal or not, the laws and legal codes themselves do. Your earlier comment that Bush was a criminal because he headed a criminal organization is just flat out wrong. Beyond that, the CIA itself is not above the law, CIA officers have been prosecuted and convicted for illegal activities not authorized under national security code. A number of officers were charged and convicted over Contra activities..only to be pardoned later by President Bush. Presidential pardons for such things are a real problem, as is the ability of the CIA and other Agency directors to overrule their own IG's and not investigate and prosecute employees due to improper behavior or negligence.

The point that I brought up earlier is a good example. In terms of Contra activities the CIA Director asked for an "understanding" with Justice that CIA personnel could be waived from reporting drug activities with their assets. The officers themselves were clearly not exempted if they engaged in those same activities. What was really out in left field was giving North the authority he was given to take over those same activities - with no legal authority to do so or to act if he saw drug smuggling going on...which he did....and even North complained about what he was being asked to do.

I'm not going to change your mind on this and won't attempt to...but the reality is that there are legal measures and oversight in place to deal with unlawful actions for both national security agencies and the military. Its true that Agency heads, President's and Congress have all been terribly negligent in its oversight of such matters, and they are legally part of the control mechanism. One of the big problems with covert action is that Presidents are encouraged to isolate themselves from it to provide deniablity - which of course makes them useless in controlling it. In my own view, when we overgeneralize, talk about ruling classes and untouchables it's an easy out. And it lets you stand outside the political system (as annoying as it is) and just surrender. Your choice, I prefer to keep butting my head against it - and deep politics as well. My personal position is simply that failure to engage is not an option......

[Ron Ecker]

Larry, we will agree to disagree. IMO Congressional legislation and legal codes that approve murder and other "normally illegal acts" are in themselves criminal. But that's just me.

[Larry Hancock]

I agree to disagree....and I personally think a good bit of what is authorized in the National Security acts and codes of 1947/1948 is morally repugnant, ethically repulsive and beyond that generally counterproductive. I try to make that case in Shadow Warfare, magic bullets like assassination and for that matter torture are tempting, they don't work in the long run and almost always produce worse results than if you had not fired them. Worse yet they fool you into thinking you are actually accomplishing something when in reality you are making things worse. But it all sounds really macho and if said with enough conviction fools people into thinking you know what you are talking about - which reminds me of certain contemporary presidential candidates....

Don't think I'm defending it, I'm trying to be clinical about exposing it. The same extends to all the issues of "gray warfare" in counter terrorism.... You know you are in trouble when the military is sent on missions under national security legal code rather than that of the UCMJ .....but enough...

[James DiEugenio]

NB: Since these were official investigations into the Foster case, I have to conclude they were as accurate as the official investigations conducted by the in the JFK case

Completely missed my point. In the latter, both the WC and HSCA-in its second phase--there was a strong bias from the start on the part of the Commissioners and Blakey to toe the line, in other words ratify what the DPD did. And they did it throughout.

In the former case, it was the opposite. And when the special prosecutors could not deliver the goods, either they were removed, or the RW noise machine began to pummel them for not doing so and creating their own independent set of facts and interviews. I know this since i actually almost fell for one of them in The Clinton Chronicles. That sideshow was exposed in the book and film The Hunting of the President. But the anti-Clinton industry got so profitable that people like Patrick Knowlton were able to file lawsuits about those 26 people who followed him around because of that rust colored Honda he saw. A similar example would be Paula Jones, who got a legal representation team that used her up and spit her out, with just about nothing to show for it for her. Just like Knowlton's lawsuit was denied.

The opposite is the case in JFK. The initial critics of the WR were not well funded at all. There was no Scaife to back them. Many of them were working class, like Weisberg and Ray Marcus and Shirley Martin. They made little or no money, as opposed to agents like Ambrose Evans Pritchard who were exceedingly well paid to execute the anti-Clinton agenda. The Hunting of the President exposes this illicit network, as did David Brock's book, as did Susan McDougal's volume. That last one is really difficult to understand and even read. But if you want to see just how near-fascistic Ken Starr was in obedience to his handlers, then go ahead and read it. He actually put a woman in jail because she would not lie for him to nail Clinton. And, of course, Starr got his payoff in the end at Pepperdine.

Now, where was the payoff for people like Jim Garrison, Richard Sprague and Harold Weisberg?

And you don't understand the difference?

Edited March 24, 2016 by James DiEugenio

[Ron Ecker]

Jim, I'll repeat my question. "How much of the investigative work for the special prosecutor's office was done by the FBI?"

[James DiEugenio]

Ron:

You don't realize what a loser Ken Starr is for you.

Starr spent 4.2 million bringing in literally dozens of independent contractors to do investigations for him. And in his final budget, he failed to break down exactly what firms did what work for him.

So, unlike the WC, you cannot say he mostly relied on the FBI.

And BTW, one of the contractors he brought in is the guy who Gus Russo used on his phony PBS special on Oswald.

In other words, on that particular score, Starr equates to the "Oswald did it" forces.