Phil Shenon runs diversion campaign for CIA - again

[Robin Finn]

Shenon wrote extensively in his book about the Elena Garro story that Oswald was at a party with Sylvia Duran and Azcue ,the Cuban consul. He somehow fails to mention that Hardway and Lopez strongly suspected that Garro was a CIA asset. When an author writes that the missed leads that the Warrren Commission failed to investigate in Mexico City involved possible Cuban encouragement and conspiring with LHO, how are we supposed to take him seriously? That was the original cover story 59 years ago!

[Michael Griffith]

After reading Shenon's article, a few questions come to mind:

-- How is it that names of agents and informants found their way into documents related to Oswald, an alleged unstable loner? How did that happen?

-- How is it that names of agents and informants found their way into documents related to the assassination if the assassination was merely the act of one unstable loner? 

-- Why can't they redact the names (last name and/or first and last names) of those agents and informants?

-- People who were agents or informants in the '60s and '70s would be at least in their late 70s now. An agent/informant who was 25 in 1962, for example, would be 85 today. An agent/informant who was 35 in 1965 would be 92 today. An agent/informant who was 30 in 1975 would be 77 today. Are we really to believe that these senior citizens would be at risk if their previous activities were revealed in a release of over 10,000 documents? Really? Would the Mafia send a team of researchers to the National Archives to comb through thousands of documents for the names of informants from the '60s and '70s? Really? 

[Paul Cummings]

3 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

After reading Shenon's article, a few questions come to mind:

-- How is it that names of agents and informants found their way into documents related to Oswald, an alleged unstable loner? How did that happen?

-- How is it that names of agents and informants found their way into documents related to the assassination if the assassination was merely the act of one unstable loner? 

-- Why can't they redact the names (last name and/or first and last names) of those agents and informants?

-- People who were agents or informants in the '60s and '70s would be at least in their late 70s now. An agent/informant who was 25 in 1962, for example, would be 85 today. An agent/informant who was 35 in 1965 would be 92 today. An agent/informant who was 30 in 1975 would be 77 today. Are we really to believe that these senior citizens would be at risk if their previous activities were revealed in a release of over 10,000 documents? Really? Would the Mafia send a team of researchers to the National Archives to comb through thousands of documents for the names of informants from the '60s and '70s? Really? 

Besides this, my favorite is how they can't release them as it will uncover how they do operations. What a load of crap. 60 years and you're still using the same operations? After all these years using the same espionage techniques that our enemies can't figure out? 

[Benjamin Cole]

3 hours ago, Paul Cummings said:

Besides this, my favorite is how they can't release them as it will uncover how they do operations. What a load of crap. 60 years and you're still using the same operations? After all these years using the same espionage techniques that our enemies can't figure out? 

Perhaps there might be a small number of people alive who would be in genuine danger if their identities revealed. Perhaps an elderly CIA asset in Cuba, that sort of thing. 

Fine. Black out a few names. 

BTW, the FBI now refuses to say if and how many assets they had in the 1/6 riot, or ho many assets they had who had penetrated the Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys.  

 

 

[Michael Griffith]

16 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Perhaps there might be a small number of people alive who would be in genuine danger if their identities revealed. Perhaps an elderly CIA asset in Cuba, that sort of thing. 

Fine. Black out a few names. 

Exactly. If there's a reasonable, credible risk, just black out the name. 

As for revealing how operations are conducted, the bad guys already have a very good idea about how we do operations. This is a silly excuse to withhold a document. 

[Benjamin Cole]

8 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

Exactly. If there's a reasonable, credible risk, just black out the name. 

As for revealing how operations are conducted, the bad guys already have a very good idea about how we do operations. This is a silly excuse to withhold a document. 

MG--This sure makes me curious. 

I would have guessed the paper records were scrubbed clean, legally or by subterfuge. 

But now...

Of course, government agencies often develop a fetish regarding secrecy and the right to secrecy. 

I expect Biden to cave....