Thomas H. Purvis Posted November 14, 2005 Share Posted November 14, 2005 (edited) I, for one, don't doubt Hemming's affection for Guevara.... He represents something--idealism and concern for the common man--that is badly missed in today's world.And therein lies his downfall and defeat. Che demonstrated an absolutely complete "idealistic" approach to resolving all social problems.... For some reason, CHE just could not seem to see or accept the fact that other humans did not see the world in the same light as did he. Exactly how many others have "gained it all", only to give it up and thereafter deprive oneself and family of the fruits of victory, based on an idealistic view of how the world should be. Supplant the word principled for idealistic and it becomes more clear why Che and other historically noteworthy figures wouldn't compromise in order to enjoy the "fruits of victory." Sheesh! Tim Carroll ________________________________________________________________________________ _________ Edited November 15, 2005 by Thomas H. Purvis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerry Hemming Posted November 20, 2005 Author Share Posted November 20, 2005 I, for one, don't doubt Hemming's affection for Guevara.... He represents something--idealism and concern for the common man--that is badly missed in today's world.And therein lies his downfall and defeat. Che demonstrated an absolutely complete "idealistic" approach to resolving all social problems.... For some reason, CHE just could not seem to see or accept the fact that other humans did not see the world in the same light as did he. Exactly how many others have "gained it all", only to give it up and thereafter deprive oneself and family of the fruits of victory, based on an idealistic view of how the world should be. Supplant the word principled for idealistic and it becomes more clear why Che and other historically noteworthy figures wouldn't compromise in order to enjoy the "fruits of victory." Sheesh! Tim Carroll ________________________________________________________________________________ _________ ----------------------------------------- "MY ! MY ! SO I BEAT OUT SOME LAW PROFESSOR ON "HABEAS CORPUS" !! MY ! MY !! CHAIRS, GPH ______________________________ OpEdNews.com Original Article at http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_th...beas_corpus.htm November 15, 2005 Losing Habeas Corpus - "A More Dangerous Engine of Arbitrary Government" About a year ago, an op-ed article on Al Jazeerah's website by Fawaz Turki titled "For Bush, A Hot Line To Churchill" opened by noting that Tony Blair had given George W. Bush a bust of Winston Churchill, which sits in Bush's Oval Office. Turki then quotes Churchill: "The power of the executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgment of his peers, is in the highest degree odious, and the foundation of all totalitarian government whether Nazi or Communist." The oldest human right defined in the history of English-speaking civilization is the right to challenge that "power of the executive" through the use of habeas corpus laws. Habeas corpus is roughly Latin for "hold the body," and is used in law to mean that a government must either charge a person with a crime or let them go free. And last week, U.S. Senate Republicans (with the help of five Senate Democrats) passed a bill that would begin to take down that right. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, in proposing the legislation, said, "It is clear to me from Abu Ghraib backward, forward, and other things we know about, that at times we have lost our way in fighting this war." Few would disagree. "What we are trying to do in a series of amendments," Graham added, "is recapture the moral high ground and provide guidance to our troops." But destroying habeas corpus will not "recapture the moral high ground" or "provide guidance for our troops." It may, however, throw our troops (and citizens) into a living hell if they're captured by other governments that have chosen to follow our example. This attack on eight centuries of English law is no small thing. While their intent was to deny Guantanamo Bay Concentration Camp detainees the right to see a judge or jury, it could just as easily extend to you and me. (Already two American citizens have been arbitrarily stripped of their habeas corpus rights by the Bush administration - Jose Padilla is still languishing in prison incommunicado and Yasser Hamdi was deported to the police state of Saudi Arabia where every Friday they conduct public floggings and executions.) Section 9, Clause 2, of Article I of the United States Constitution says: "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." Abraham Lincoln was the first president (on March 3, 1863) to suspend habeas corpus so he could imprison those he considered a threat until the war was over. Congress invoked this power again during Reconstruction when President Grant requested The Ku Klux Klan Act in 1871 to put down a rebellion in South Carolina. Those are the only two fully legal suspensions of habeas corpus in the history of the United States (and Lincoln's is still being debated). The United States hasn't suffered a "Rebellion" or an "Invasion" Lincoln's and Grant's administrations. There are no foreign armies on our soil, seizing our cities. No states or municipalities are seriously talking about secession. Yet the U.S. Senate wants to tinker with habeas corpus. The modern institution of civil and human rights, and particularly the writ of habeas corpus, began in June of 1215 when King John was forced by the feudal lords to sign the Magna Carta at Runnymede. Although that document mostly protected "freemen" - what were then known as feudal lords or barons, and today known as CEOs and millionaires - rather than the average person, it initiated a series of events that echo to this day. Two of the most critical parts of the Magna Carta were articles 38 and 39, which established the foundation for what is now known as "habeas corpus" laws, as well as the Fourth through Eighth Amendments of our Constitution and hundreds of other federal and state due process provisions. Articles 38 and 39 of the Magna Carta said: "38 In future no official shall place a man on trial upon his own unsupported statement, without producing credible witnesses to the truth of it. "39 No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land." This was radical stuff, and over the next four hundred years average people increasingly wanted for themselves these same protections from the abuse of the power of government or great wealth. But from 1215 to 1628, outside of the privileges enjoyed by the feudal lords, the average person could be arrested and imprisoned at the whim of the king with no recourse to the courts. Then, in 1627, King Charles I overstepped, and the people snapped. Charles I threw into jail five knights in a tax disagreement, and the knights sued the King, asserting their habeas corpus right to be free or on bail unless convicted of a crime. King Charles I, in response, invoked his right to simply imprison anybody he wanted (other than the rich), anytime he wanted, as he said, "per speciale Mandatum Domini Regis." This is essentially the same argument that George W. Bush makes today for why he has the right to detain both citizens and non-citizens solely on his own say-so: because he's in charge. And it's an argument now supported by Senate Republicans and five Democrats. But just as George's decree is meeting resistance, Charles' decree wasn't well received. The result of his overt assault on the rights of citizens led to a sort of revolt in the British Parliament, producing the 1628 "Petition of Right" law, an early version of our Fourth through Eighth Amendments, which restated Articles 38 and 39 of the Magna Carta and added that "writs of habeas corpus, [are] there to undergo and receive [only] as the court should order." It was later strengthened with the "Habeas Corpus Act of 1640" and a second "Habeas Corpus Act of 1679." Thus, the right to suspend habeas corpus no longer was held by the King. It was exercised solely by the people's (elected and hereditary) representatives in the Parliament. The third George to govern the United Kingdom confronted this in 1815 when he came into possession of Napoleon Bonaparte. British laws were so explicit that everybody was entitled to habeas corpus - even people who were not British citizens - that when Napoleon surrendered on the deck of the British flagship Bellerophon after the battle of Waterloo in 1815, the British Parliament had to pass a law ("An Act For The More Effectually Detaining In Custody Napoleon Bonaparte") to suspend habeas corpus so King George III could legally continue to hold him prisoner (and then legally exile him to a British fortification on a distant island). Now, Congress is moving to similarly detain people or exile them to camps on a distant island. Except these people are not Napoleon Bonapartes. As The The New York Times noted in a November 12, 2005 editorial, "according to government and military officials, an overwhelming majority [of the Guantanamo concentration camp detainees] should not have been taken prisoner in the first place." It may well be that the only reason these Republicans are so determined to keep our Guantanamo prisoners incarcerated is to avoid the embarrassment and negative political fallout that would ensue if they were released and told the world's media their stories of false arrest, torture, illegal imprisonment, and hunger strikes. The Founders must be turning in their graves. As Alexander Hamilton - arguably the most conservative of the Founders - wrote in Federalist 84: "The establishment of the writ of habeas corpus ... are perhaps greater securities to liberty and republicanism than any it [the Constitution] contains. ...[T]he practice of arbitrary imprisonments have been, in all ages, the favorite and most formidable instruments of tyranny. The observations of the judicious [british 18th century legal scholar] Blackstone, in reference to the latter, are well worthy of recital: "'To bereave a man of life,' says he, 'or by violence to confiscate his estate, without accusation or trial, would be so gross and notorious an act of despotism, as must at once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the whole nation; but confinement of the person, by secretly hurrying him to jail, where his sufferings are unknown or forgotten, is a less public, a less striking, and therefore A MORE DANGEROUS ENGINE of arbitrary government.''' [Capitals all Hamilton's from the original.] The question, ultimately, is whether our nation will continue to stand for the values upon which it was founded. Early American conservatives suggested that democracy was so ultimately weak it couldn't withstand the assault of newspaper editors and citizens who spoke out against it, or terrorists from the Islamic Barbary Coast, leading John Adams to pass America's first PATRIOT Act-like laws, the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. President Thomas Jefferson rebuked those who wanted America ruled by an iron-handed presidency that could -as Adams had - throw people in jail for "crimes" such as speaking political opinion, or without constitutional due process. "I know, indeed," Jefferson said in his first inaugural address on March 4, 1801, "that some honest men fear that a republican government cannot be strong; that this government is not strong enough. But, Jefferson said, our nation was "the world's best hope," and because of our strong commitment to democracy, "the strongest government on earth." The sum of this, Jefferson said, was found in "freedom of person under the protection of the habeas corpus; and trial by juries impartially selected. These principles form the bright constellation which has gone before us, and guided our steps through an age of revolution and reformation. "The wisdom of our sages and the blood of our heroes have been devoted to their attainment. They should be the creed of our political faith, the text of civil instruction, the touchstone by which to try the services of those we trust; and should we wander from them in moments of error or alarm, let us hasten to retrace our steps and to regain the road which alone leads to peace, liberty, and safety." When I was working in Russia some years ago, a friend in Kaliningrad told me a perhaps apocryphal story about Nikita Khrushchev, who, following Stalin's death, gave a speech to the Politburo denouncing Stalin's policies. A few minutes into Khrushchev's diatribe, somebody shouted out, "Why didn't you challenge him then, the way you are now?" The room fell silent, as Khrushchev angrily swept the audience with his glare. "Who said that?" he asked in a reasoned voice. Silence. "Who said that?" Khrushchev demanded, leaning forward. Silence. Pounding his fist on the podium to accent each word, he screamed, "Who - said - that?" Still no answer. Finally, after a long and strained silence, the elected politicians in the room fearful to even cough, a corner of Khrushchev's mouth lifted into a smile. "Now you know," he said with a chuckle, "why I did not speak up against Stalin when I sat where you now sit." The question for our day is who will speak up against Stalinist policies in America? Who will speak against the man who punishes reporters and news organizations by cutting off their access; who punishes politicians by targeting them in their home districts; who punishes truth-tellers in the Executive branch by character assassination that even extends to destroying their spouse's careers? And why is our press doing such a pathetic job that in all probability 95 percent of Americans don't even know that the U.S. Senate voted last week to begin the process of suspending habeas corpus? As Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist Number 8: "The violent destruction of life and property incident to war; the continual effort and alarm attendant on a state of continual danger, will compel nations the most attached to liberty, to resort for repose and security to institutions which have a tendency to destroy their civil and political rights. To be more safe, they, at length, become willing to run the risk of being less free." We must not make the mistake that Jefferson and Hamilton warned us against. Contact your U.S. Senators (the Capitol's phone number is 202 225-3121) and tell them to stop this assault on eight hundred years of legal precedent by leaving our habeas corpus laws intact and quickly moving to ensure that the captives in our Guantanamo Bay Concentration Camps (and other, overseas, secret prisons) have the fundamental human rights of habeas corpus our Supreme Court has already ruled they should be accorded. Thom Hartmann is a Project Censored Award-winning best-selling author and host of a nationally syndicated daily progressive talk show carried on the Air America Radio network. www.thomhartmann.com His most recent books include "What Would Jefferson Do?" and "Ultimate Sacrifice: John and Robert Kennedy, the Plan for a Coup in Cuba, and the Murder of JFK" co-authored by Lamar Waldron. --------------------------------------------- BACK TO THE BOOKS "KID ??" __________________________________ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerry Hemming Posted November 20, 2005 Author Share Posted November 20, 2005 I, for one, don't doubt Hemming's affection for Guevara.... He represents something--idealism and concern for the common man--that is badly missed in today's world.And therein lies his downfall and defeat. Che demonstrated an absolutely complete "idealistic" approach to resolving all social problems.... For some reason, CHE just could not seem to see or accept the fact that other humans did not see the world in the same light as did he. Exactly how many others have "gained it all", only to give it up and thereafter deprive oneself and family of the fruits of victory, based on an idealistic view of how the world should be. Supplant the word principled for idealistic and it becomes more clear why Che and other historically noteworthy figures wouldn't compromise in order to enjoy the "fruits of victory." Sheesh! Tim Carroll ________________________________________________________________________________ _________ ----------------------------------------- "MY ! MY ! SO I BEAT OUT SOME LAW PROFESSOR ON "HABEAS CORPUS" !! MY ! MY !! CHAIRS, GPH ______________________________ OpEdNews.com Original Article at http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_th...beas_corpus.htm November 15, 2005 Losing Habeas Corpus - "A More Dangerous Engine of Arbitrary Government" About a year ago, an op-ed article on Al Jazeerah's website by Fawaz Turki titled "For Bush, A Hot Line To Churchill" opened by noting that Tony Blair had given George W. Bush a bust of Winston Churchill, which sits in Bush's Oval Office. Turki then quotes Churchill: "The power of the executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgment of his peers, is in the highest degree odious, and the foundation of all totalitarian government whether Nazi or Communist." The oldest human right defined in the history of English-speaking civilization is the right to challenge that "power of the executive" through the use of habeas corpus laws. Habeas corpus is roughly Latin for "hold the body," and is used in law to mean that a government must either charge a person with a crime or let them go free. And last week, U.S. Senate Republicans (with the help of five Senate Democrats) passed a bill that would begin to take down that right. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, in proposing the legislation, said, "It is clear to me from Abu Ghraib backward, forward, and other things we know about, that at times we have lost our way in fighting this war." Few would disagree. "What we are trying to do in a series of amendments," Graham added, "is recapture the moral high ground and provide guidance to our troops." But destroying habeas corpus will not "recapture the moral high ground" or "provide guidance for our troops." It may, however, throw our troops (and citizens) into a living hell if they're captured by other governments that have chosen to follow our example. This attack on eight centuries of English law is no small thing. While their intent was to deny Guantanamo Bay Concentration Camp detainees the right to see a judge or jury, it could just as easily extend to you and me. (Already two American citizens have been arbitrarily stripped of their habeas corpus rights by the Bush administration - Jose Padilla is still languishing in prison incommunicado and Yasser Hamdi was deported to the police state of Saudi Arabia where every Friday they conduct public floggings and executions.) Section 9, Clause 2, of Article I of the United States Constitution says: "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." Abraham Lincoln was the first president (on March 3, 1863) to suspend habeas corpus so he could imprison those he considered a threat until the war was over. Congress invoked this power again during Reconstruction when President Grant requested The Ku Klux Klan Act in 1871 to put down a rebellion in South Carolina. Those are the only two fully legal suspensions of habeas corpus in the history of the United States (and Lincoln's is still being debated). The United States hasn't suffered a "Rebellion" or an "Invasion" Lincoln's and Grant's administrations. There are no foreign armies on our soil, seizing our cities. No states or municipalities are seriously talking about secession. Yet the U.S. Senate wants to tinker with habeas corpus. The modern institution of civil and human rights, and particularly the writ of habeas corpus, began in June of 1215 when King John was forced by the feudal lords to sign the Magna Carta at Runnymede. Although that document mostly protected "freemen" - what were then known as feudal lords or barons, and today known as CEOs and millionaires - rather than the average person, it initiated a series of events that echo to this day. Two of the most critical parts of the Magna Carta were articles 38 and 39, which established the foundation for what is now known as "habeas corpus" laws, as well as the Fourth through Eighth Amendments of our Constitution and hundreds of other federal and state due process provisions. Articles 38 and 39 of the Magna Carta said: "38 In future no official shall place a man on trial upon his own unsupported statement, without producing credible witnesses to the truth of it. "39 No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land." This was radical stuff, and over the next four hundred years average people increasingly wanted for themselves these same protections from the abuse of the power of government or great wealth. But from 1215 to 1628, outside of the privileges enjoyed by the feudal lords, the average person could be arrested and imprisoned at the whim of the king with no recourse to the courts. Then, in 1627, King Charles I overstepped, and the people snapped. Charles I threw into jail five knights in a tax disagreement, and the knights sued the King, asserting their habeas corpus right to be free or on bail unless convicted of a crime. King Charles I, in response, invoked his right to simply imprison anybody he wanted (other than the rich), anytime he wanted, as he said, "per speciale Mandatum Domini Regis." This is essentially the same argument that George W. Bush makes today for why he has the right to detain both citizens and non-citizens solely on his own say-so: because he's in charge. And it's an argument now supported by Senate Republicans and five Democrats. But just as George's decree is meeting resistance, Charles' decree wasn't well received. The result of his overt assault on the rights of citizens led to a sort of revolt in the British Parliament, producing the 1628 "Petition of Right" law, an early version of our Fourth through Eighth Amendments, which restated Articles 38 and 39 of the Magna Carta and added that "writs of habeas corpus, [are] there to undergo and receive [only] as the court should order." It was later strengthened with the "Habeas Corpus Act of 1640" and a second "Habeas Corpus Act of 1679." Thus, the right to suspend habeas corpus no longer was held by the King. It was exercised solely by the people's (elected and hereditary) representatives in the Parliament. The third George to govern the United Kingdom confronted this in 1815 when he came into possession of Napoleon Bonaparte. British laws were so explicit that everybody was entitled to habeas corpus - even people who were not British citizens - that when Napoleon surrendered on the deck of the British flagship Bellerophon after the battle of Waterloo in 1815, the British Parliament had to pass a law ("An Act For The More Effectually Detaining In Custody Napoleon Bonaparte") to suspend habeas corpus so King George III could legally continue to hold him prisoner (and then legally exile him to a British fortification on a distant island). Now, Congress is moving to similarly detain people or exile them to camps on a distant island. Except these people are not Napoleon Bonapartes. As The The New York Times noted in a November 12, 2005 editorial, "according to government and military officials, an overwhelming majority [of the Guantanamo concentration camp detainees] should not have been taken prisoner in the first place." It may well be that the only reason these Republicans are so determined to keep our Guantanamo prisoners incarcerated is to avoid the embarrassment and negative political fallout that would ensue if they were released and told the world's media their stories of false arrest, torture, illegal imprisonment, and hunger strikes. The Founders must be turning in their graves. As Alexander Hamilton - arguably the most conservative of the Founders - wrote in Federalist 84: "The establishment of the writ of habeas corpus ... are perhaps greater securities to liberty and republicanism than any it [the Constitution] contains. ...[T]he practice of arbitrary imprisonments have been, in all ages, the favorite and most formidable instruments of tyranny. The observations of the judicious [british 18th century legal scholar] Blackstone, in reference to the latter, are well worthy of recital: "'To bereave a man of life,' says he, 'or by violence to confiscate his estate, without accusation or trial, would be so gross and notorious an act of despotism, as must at once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the whole nation; but confinement of the person, by secretly hurrying him to jail, where his sufferings are unknown or forgotten, is a less public, a less striking, and therefore A MORE DANGEROUS ENGINE of arbitrary government.''' [Capitals all Hamilton's from the original.] The question, ultimately, is whether our nation will continue to stand for the values upon which it was founded. Early American conservatives suggested that democracy was so ultimately weak it couldn't withstand the assault of newspaper editors and citizens who spoke out against it, or terrorists from the Islamic Barbary Coast, leading John Adams to pass America's first PATRIOT Act-like laws, the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. President Thomas Jefferson rebuked those who wanted America ruled by an iron-handed presidency that could -as Adams had - throw people in jail for "crimes" such as speaking political opinion, or without constitutional due process. "I know, indeed," Jefferson said in his first inaugural address on March 4, 1801, "that some honest men fear that a republican government cannot be strong; that this government is not strong enough. But, Jefferson said, our nation was "the world's best hope," and because of our strong commitment to democracy, "the strongest government on earth." The sum of this, Jefferson said, was found in "freedom of person under the protection of the habeas corpus; and trial by juries impartially selected. These principles form the bright constellation which has gone before us, and guided our steps through an age of revolution and reformation. "The wisdom of our sages and the blood of our heroes have been devoted to their attainment. They should be the creed of our political faith, the text of civil instruction, the touchstone by which to try the services of those we trust; and should we wander from them in moments of error or alarm, let us hasten to retrace our steps and to regain the road which alone leads to peace, liberty, and safety." When I was working in Russia some years ago, a friend in Kaliningrad told me a perhaps apocryphal story about Nikita Khrushchev, who, following Stalin's death, gave a speech to the Politburo denouncing Stalin's policies. A few minutes into Khrushchev's diatribe, somebody shouted out, "Why didn't you challenge him then, the way you are now?" The room fell silent, as Khrushchev angrily swept the audience with his glare. "Who said that?" he asked in a reasoned voice. Silence. "Who said that?" Khrushchev demanded, leaning forward. Silence. Pounding his fist on the podium to accent each word, he screamed, "Who - said - that?" Still no answer. Finally, after a long and strained silence, the elected politicians in the room fearful to even cough, a corner of Khrushchev's mouth lifted into a smile. "Now you know," he said with a chuckle, "why I did not speak up against Stalin when I sat where you now sit." The question for our day is who will speak up against Stalinist policies in America? Who will speak against the man who punishes reporters and news organizations by cutting off their access; who punishes politicians by targeting them in their home districts; who punishes truth-tellers in the Executive branch by character assassination that even extends to destroying their spouse's careers? And why is our press doing such a pathetic job that in all probability 95 percent of Americans don't even know that the U.S. Senate voted last week to begin the process of suspending habeas corpus? As Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist Number 8: "The violent destruction of life and property incident to war; the continual effort and alarm attendant on a state of continual danger, will compel nations the most attached to liberty, to resort for repose and security to institutions which have a tendency to destroy their civil and political rights. To be more safe, they, at length, become willing to run the risk of being less free." We must not make the mistake that Jefferson and Hamilton warned us against. Contact your U.S. Senators (the Capitol's phone number is 202 225-3121) and tell them to stop this assault on eight hundred years of legal precedent by leaving our habeas corpus laws intact and quickly moving to ensure that the captives in our Guantanamo Bay Concentration Camps (and other, overseas, secret prisons) have the fundamental human rights of habeas corpus our Supreme Court has already ruled they should be accorded. Thom Hartmann is a Project Censored Award-winning best-selling author and host of a nationally syndicated daily progressive talk show carried on the Air America Radio network. www.thomhartmann.com His most recent books include "What Would Jefferson Do?" and "Ultimate Sacrifice: John and Robert Kennedy, the Plan for a Coup in Cuba, and the Murder of JFK" co-authored by Lamar Waldron. --------------------------------------------- BACK TO THE BOOKS "KID ??" __________________________________ --------------------------------- OH DARN !! I forgot that the "Village Idiot" has me running around "promoting myself" into the "JFK" Matter. NOT that other assholes came out of the blue [or some anal orifice] to suck me into this mess -- and starting with "Queen" Hoover [tough xxxx if that offends you Faireys out there !!] and continued by "Big Jimbo/Gumbo" Garrison in his phony quest to protect his "Rabbi" [Marcello] by fingering the "No Name Key Bunch" and the Miami Cubans in general. But of course -- he left out the DGI spies inside JM/WAVE -- because he didn't know "squat" about the Miami CIA Base nor its cryptonym. ------------------------------------- "....In one of Hunt's libel suits, one Marita Lorenz gave sworn testimony that Lee Harvey Oswald, American mercenaries Frank Sturgis and Gerry Patrick Hemming, and Cuban exiles including Orlando Bosch, Pedro Diaz Lanz, and the brothers Guillermo and Ignacio Novo Sampol, had met one November midnight in 1963 at the Miami home of Orlando Bosch and had studied Dallas street maps. She also swore that she and Sturgis were at that time in the employ of the CIA and that they received payment from Howard Hunt under the name "Eduardo," an a lias which Hunt is known to have used in his dealings with Cuban exiles. After studying the maps, she and the men departed for Dallas in two cars, taking a load of handguns, rifles, and scopes in the follow-up car. They arrived in Dallas on 21 November 1963, and stayed at a motel, where the group met Howard Hunt. Hunt stayed for about forty-five minutes and at one point handed an envelope of cash to Sturgis. About an hour after Hunt left, Jack Ruby came to the door. Lorenz says that this was the first time she had seen Ruby. By this time, she said, it was early evening. In her testimony, Lorenz identified herself and her fellow passengers as members of Operation Forty, the CIA-directed assassination team formed in 1960 in preparation for the Bay of Pigs invasion. She described her role as that of a "decoy." The group blamed Kennedy for the failure at the Bay of Pigs and conspired to kill him, she said. Knowing that something more sinister than gun-running was involved, she left the group about two hours after Ruby's visit and returned to Miami. Sturgis, she said, later told her that she had missed out on the group's killing of Kennedy (Lane 1991)...." !! ------------------------------------------ CHAIRS -- O' GULLIBLE ONES !! GPH ____________________________ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Matt Allison Posted November 21, 2005 Share Posted November 21, 2005 Now Gerry, did you not, by your own admission, travel to New Orleans and feed Garrison a crock? Chairs to you sir. Matt I, for one, don't doubt Hemming's affection for Guevara.... He represents something--idealism and concern for the common man--that is badly missed in today's world.And therein lies his downfall and defeat. Che demonstrated an absolutely complete "idealistic" approach to resolving all social problems.... For some reason, CHE just could not seem to see or accept the fact that other humans did not see the world in the same light as did he. Exactly how many others have "gained it all", only to give it up and thereafter deprive oneself and family of the fruits of victory, based on an idealistic view of how the world should be. Supplant the word principled for idealistic and it becomes more clear why Che and other historically noteworthy figures wouldn't compromise in order to enjoy the "fruits of victory." Sheesh! Tim Carroll ________________________________________________________________________________ _________ ----------------------------------------- "MY ! MY ! SO I BEAT OUT SOME LAW PROFESSOR ON "HABEAS CORPUS" !! MY ! MY !! CHAIRS, GPH ______________________________ OpEdNews.com Original Article at http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_th...beas_corpus.htm November 15, 2005 Losing Habeas Corpus - "A More Dangerous Engine of Arbitrary Government" About a year ago, an op-ed article on Al Jazeerah's website by Fawaz Turki titled "For Bush, A Hot Line To Churchill" opened by noting that Tony Blair had given George W. Bush a bust of Winston Churchill, which sits in Bush's Oval Office. Turki then quotes Churchill: "The power of the executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgment of his peers, is in the highest degree odious, and the foundation of all totalitarian government whether Nazi or Communist." The oldest human right defined in the history of English-speaking civilization is the right to challenge that "power of the executive" through the use of habeas corpus laws. Habeas corpus is roughly Latin for "hold the body," and is used in law to mean that a government must either charge a person with a crime or let them go free. And last week, U.S. Senate Republicans (with the help of five Senate Democrats) passed a bill that would begin to take down that right. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, in proposing the legislation, said, "It is clear to me from Abu Ghraib backward, forward, and other things we know about, that at times we have lost our way in fighting this war." Few would disagree. "What we are trying to do in a series of amendments," Graham added, "is recapture the moral high ground and provide guidance to our troops." But destroying habeas corpus will not "recapture the moral high ground" or "provide guidance for our troops." It may, however, throw our troops (and citizens) into a living hell if they're captured by other governments that have chosen to follow our example. This attack on eight centuries of English law is no small thing. While their intent was to deny Guantanamo Bay Concentration Camp detainees the right to see a judge or jury, it could just as easily extend to you and me. (Already two American citizens have been arbitrarily stripped of their habeas corpus rights by the Bush administration - Jose Padilla is still languishing in prison incommunicado and Yasser Hamdi was deported to the police state of Saudi Arabia where every Friday they conduct public floggings and executions.) Section 9, Clause 2, of Article I of the United States Constitution says: "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." Abraham Lincoln was the first president (on March 3, 1863) to suspend habeas corpus so he could imprison those he considered a threat until the war was over. Congress invoked this power again during Reconstruction when President Grant requested The Ku Klux Klan Act in 1871 to put down a rebellion in South Carolina. Those are the only two fully legal suspensions of habeas corpus in the history of the United States (and Lincoln's is still being debated). The United States hasn't suffered a "Rebellion" or an "Invasion" Lincoln's and Grant's administrations. There are no foreign armies on our soil, seizing our cities. No states or municipalities are seriously talking about secession. Yet the U.S. Senate wants to tinker with habeas corpus. The modern institution of civil and human rights, and particularly the writ of habeas corpus, began in June of 1215 when King John was forced by the feudal lords to sign the Magna Carta at Runnymede. Although that document mostly protected "freemen" - what were then known as feudal lords or barons, and today known as CEOs and millionaires - rather than the average person, it initiated a series of events that echo to this day. Two of the most critical parts of the Magna Carta were articles 38 and 39, which established the foundation for what is now known as "habeas corpus" laws, as well as the Fourth through Eighth Amendments of our Constitution and hundreds of other federal and state due process provisions. Articles 38 and 39 of the Magna Carta said: "38 In future no official shall place a man on trial upon his own unsupported statement, without producing credible witnesses to the truth of it. "39 No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land." This was radical stuff, and over the next four hundred years average people increasingly wanted for themselves these same protections from the abuse of the power of government or great wealth. But from 1215 to 1628, outside of the privileges enjoyed by the feudal lords, the average person could be arrested and imprisoned at the whim of the king with no recourse to the courts. Then, in 1627, King Charles I overstepped, and the people snapped. Charles I threw into jail five knights in a tax disagreement, and the knights sued the King, asserting their habeas corpus right to be free or on bail unless convicted of a crime. King Charles I, in response, invoked his right to simply imprison anybody he wanted (other than the rich), anytime he wanted, as he said, "per speciale Mandatum Domini Regis." This is essentially the same argument that George W. Bush makes today for why he has the right to detain both citizens and non-citizens solely on his own say-so: because he's in charge. And it's an argument now supported by Senate Republicans and five Democrats. But just as George's decree is meeting resistance, Charles' decree wasn't well received. The result of his overt assault on the rights of citizens led to a sort of revolt in the British Parliament, producing the 1628 "Petition of Right" law, an early version of our Fourth through Eighth Amendments, which restated Articles 38 and 39 of the Magna Carta and added that "writs of habeas corpus, [are] there to undergo and receive [only] as the court should order." It was later strengthened with the "Habeas Corpus Act of 1640" and a second "Habeas Corpus Act of 1679." Thus, the right to suspend habeas corpus no longer was held by the King. It was exercised solely by the people's (elected and hereditary) representatives in the Parliament. The third George to govern the United Kingdom confronted this in 1815 when he came into possession of Napoleon Bonaparte. British laws were so explicit that everybody was entitled to habeas corpus - even people who were not British citizens - that when Napoleon surrendered on the deck of the British flagship Bellerophon after the battle of Waterloo in 1815, the British Parliament had to pass a law ("An Act For The More Effectually Detaining In Custody Napoleon Bonaparte") to suspend habeas corpus so King George III could legally continue to hold him prisoner (and then legally exile him to a British fortification on a distant island). Now, Congress is moving to similarly detain people or exile them to camps on a distant island. Except these people are not Napoleon Bonapartes. As The The New York Times noted in a November 12, 2005 editorial, "according to government and military officials, an overwhelming majority [of the Guantanamo concentration camp detainees] should not have been taken prisoner in the first place." It may well be that the only reason these Republicans are so determined to keep our Guantanamo prisoners incarcerated is to avoid the embarrassment and negative political fallout that would ensue if they were released and told the world's media their stories of false arrest, torture, illegal imprisonment, and hunger strikes. The Founders must be turning in their graves. As Alexander Hamilton - arguably the most conservative of the Founders - wrote in Federalist 84: "The establishment of the writ of habeas corpus ... are perhaps greater securities to liberty and republicanism than any it [the Constitution] contains. ...[T]he practice of arbitrary imprisonments have been, in all ages, the favorite and most formidable instruments of tyranny. The observations of the judicious [british 18th century legal scholar] Blackstone, in reference to the latter, are well worthy of recital: "'To bereave a man of life,' says he, 'or by violence to confiscate his estate, without accusation or trial, would be so gross and notorious an act of despotism, as must at once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the whole nation; but confinement of the person, by secretly hurrying him to jail, where his sufferings are unknown or forgotten, is a less public, a less striking, and therefore A MORE DANGEROUS ENGINE of arbitrary government.''' [Capitals all Hamilton's from the original.] The question, ultimately, is whether our nation will continue to stand for the values upon which it was founded. Early American conservatives suggested that democracy was so ultimately weak it couldn't withstand the assault of newspaper editors and citizens who spoke out against it, or terrorists from the Islamic Barbary Coast, leading John Adams to pass America's first PATRIOT Act-like laws, the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. President Thomas Jefferson rebuked those who wanted America ruled by an iron-handed presidency that could -as Adams had - throw people in jail for "crimes" such as speaking political opinion, or without constitutional due process. "I know, indeed," Jefferson said in his first inaugural address on March 4, 1801, "that some honest men fear that a republican government cannot be strong; that this government is not strong enough. But, Jefferson said, our nation was "the world's best hope," and because of our strong commitment to democracy, "the strongest government on earth." The sum of this, Jefferson said, was found in "freedom of person under the protection of the habeas corpus; and trial by juries impartially selected. These principles form the bright constellation which has gone before us, and guided our steps through an age of revolution and reformation. "The wisdom of our sages and the blood of our heroes have been devoted to their attainment. They should be the creed of our political faith, the text of civil instruction, the touchstone by which to try the services of those we trust; and should we wander from them in moments of error or alarm, let us hasten to retrace our steps and to regain the road which alone leads to peace, liberty, and safety." When I was working in Russia some years ago, a friend in Kaliningrad told me a perhaps apocryphal story about Nikita Khrushchev, who, following Stalin's death, gave a speech to the Politburo denouncing Stalin's policies. A few minutes into Khrushchev's diatribe, somebody shouted out, "Why didn't you challenge him then, the way you are now?" The room fell silent, as Khrushchev angrily swept the audience with his glare. "Who said that?" he asked in a reasoned voice. Silence. "Who said that?" Khrushchev demanded, leaning forward. Silence. Pounding his fist on the podium to accent each word, he screamed, "Who - said - that?" Still no answer. Finally, after a long and strained silence, the elected politicians in the room fearful to even cough, a corner of Khrushchev's mouth lifted into a smile. "Now you know," he said with a chuckle, "why I did not speak up against Stalin when I sat where you now sit." The question for our day is who will speak up against Stalinist policies in America? Who will speak against the man who punishes reporters and news organizations by cutting off their access; who punishes politicians by targeting them in their home districts; who punishes truth-tellers in the Executive branch by character assassination that even extends to destroying their spouse's careers? And why is our press doing such a pathetic job that in all probability 95 percent of Americans don't even know that the U.S. Senate voted last week to begin the process of suspending habeas corpus? As Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist Number 8: "The violent destruction of life and property incident to war; the continual effort and alarm attendant on a state of continual danger, will compel nations the most attached to liberty, to resort for repose and security to institutions which have a tendency to destroy their civil and political rights. To be more safe, they, at length, become willing to run the risk of being less free." We must not make the mistake that Jefferson and Hamilton warned us against. Contact your U.S. Senators (the Capitol's phone number is 202 225-3121) and tell them to stop this assault on eight hundred years of legal precedent by leaving our habeas corpus laws intact and quickly moving to ensure that the captives in our Guantanamo Bay Concentration Camps (and other, overseas, secret prisons) have the fundamental human rights of habeas corpus our Supreme Court has already ruled they should be accorded. Thom Hartmann is a Project Censored Award-winning best-selling author and host of a nationally syndicated daily progressive talk show carried on the Air America Radio network. www.thomhartmann.com His most recent books include "What Would Jefferson Do?" and "Ultimate Sacrifice: John and Robert Kennedy, the Plan for a Coup in Cuba, and the Murder of JFK" co-authored by Lamar Waldron. --------------------------------------------- BACK TO THE BOOKS "KID ??" __________________________________ --------------------------------- OH DARN !! I forgot that the "Village Idiot" has me running around "promoting myself" into the "JFK" Matter. NOT that other assholes came out of the blue [or some anal orifice] to suck me into this mess -- and starting with "Queen" Hoover [tough xxxx if that offends you Faireys out there !!] and continued by "Big Jimbo/Gumbo" Garrison in his phony quest to protect his "Rabbi" [Marcello] by fingering the "No Name Key Bunch" and the Miami Cubans in general. But of course -- he left out the DGI spies inside JM/WAVE -- because he didn't know "squat" about the Miami CIA Base nor its cryptonym. ------------------------------------- "....In one of Hunt's libel suits, one Marita Lorenz gave sworn testimony that Lee Harvey Oswald, American mercenaries Frank Sturgis and Gerry Patrick Hemming, and Cuban exiles including Orlando Bosch, Pedro Diaz Lanz, and the brothers Guillermo and Ignacio Novo Sampol, had met one November midnight in 1963 at the Miami home of Orlando Bosch and had studied Dallas street maps. She also swore that she and Sturgis were at that time in the employ of the CIA and that they received payment from Howard Hunt under the name "Eduardo," an a lias which Hunt is known to have used in his dealings with Cuban exiles. After studying the maps, she and the men departed for Dallas in two cars, taking a load of handguns, rifles, and scopes in the follow-up car. They arrived in Dallas on 21 November 1963, and stayed at a motel, where the group met Howard Hunt. Hunt stayed for about forty-five minutes and at one point handed an envelope of cash to Sturgis. About an hour after Hunt left, Jack Ruby came to the door. Lorenz says that this was the first time she had seen Ruby. By this time, she said, it was early evening. In her testimony, Lorenz identified herself and her fellow passengers as members of Operation Forty, the CIA-directed assassination team formed in 1960 in preparation for the Bay of Pigs invasion. She described her role as that of a "decoy." The group blamed Kennedy for the failure at the Bay of Pigs and conspired to kill him, she said. Knowing that something more sinister than gun-running was involved, she left the group about two hours after Ruby's visit and returned to Miami. Sturgis, she said, later told her that she had missed out on the group's killing of Kennedy (Lane 1991)...." !! ------------------------------------------ CHAIRS -- O' GULLIBLE ONES !! GPH ____________________________ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Howard Posted November 21, 2005 Share Posted November 21, 2005 (edited) Now Gerry, did you not, by your own admission, travel to New Orleans and feed Garrison a crock? Chairs to you sir. Matt I, for one, don't doubt Hemming's affection for Guevara.... He represents something--idealism and concern for the common man--that is badly missed in today's world.And therein lies his downfall and defeat. Che demonstrated an absolutely complete "idealistic" approach to resolving all social problems.... For some reason, CHE just could not seem to see or accept the fact that other humans did not see the world in the same light as did he. Exactly how many others have "gained it all", only to give it up and thereafter deprive oneself and family of the fruits of victory, based on an idealistic view of how the world should be. Supplant the word principled for idealistic and it becomes more clear why Che and other historically noteworthy figures wouldn't compromise in order to enjoy the "fruits of victory." Sheesh! Tim Carroll ________________________________________________________________________________ _________ ----------------------------------------- "MY ! MY ! SO I BEAT OUT SOME LAW PROFESSOR ON "HABEAS CORPUS" !! MY ! MY !! CHAIRS, GPH ______________________________ OpEdNews.com Original Article at http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_th...beas_corpus.htm November 15, 2005 Losing Habeas Corpus - "A More Dangerous Engine of Arbitrary Government" About a year ago, an op-ed article on Al Jazeerah's website by Fawaz Turki titled "For Bush, A Hot Line To Churchill" opened by noting that Tony Blair had given George W. Bush a bust of Winston Churchill, which sits in Bush's Oval Office. Turki then quotes Churchill: "The power of the executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgment of his peers, is in the highest degree odious, and the foundation of all totalitarian government whether Nazi or Communist." The oldest human right defined in the history of English-speaking civilization is the right to challenge that "power of the executive" through the use of habeas corpus laws. Habeas corpus is roughly Latin for "hold the body," and is used in law to mean that a government must either charge a person with a crime or let them go free. And last week, U.S. Senate Republicans (with the help of five Senate Democrats) passed a bill that would begin to take down that right. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, in proposing the legislation, said, "It is clear to me from Abu Ghraib backward, forward, and other things we know about, that at times we have lost our way in fighting this war." Few would disagree. "What we are trying to do in a series of amendments," Graham added, "is recapture the moral high ground and provide guidance to our troops." But destroying habeas corpus will not "recapture the moral high ground" or "provide guidance for our troops." It may, however, throw our troops (and citizens) into a living hell if they're captured by other governments that have chosen to follow our example. This attack on eight centuries of English law is no small thing. While their intent was to deny Guantanamo Bay Concentration Camp detainees the right to see a judge or jury, it could just as easily extend to you and me. (Already two American citizens have been arbitrarily stripped of their habeas corpus rights by the Bush administration - Jose Padilla is still languishing in prison incommunicado and Yasser Hamdi was deported to the police state of Saudi Arabia where every Friday they conduct public floggings and executions.) Section 9, Clause 2, of Article I of the United States Constitution says: "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." Abraham Lincoln was the first president (on March 3, 1863) to suspend habeas corpus so he could imprison those he considered a threat until the war was over. Congress invoked this power again during Reconstruction when President Grant requested The Ku Klux Klan Act in 1871 to put down a rebellion in South Carolina. Those are the only two fully legal suspensions of habeas corpus in the history of the United States (and Lincoln's is still being debated). The United States hasn't suffered a "Rebellion" or an "Invasion" Lincoln's and Grant's administrations. There are no foreign armies on our soil, seizing our cities. No states or municipalities are seriously talking about secession. Yet the U.S. Senate wants to tinker with habeas corpus. The modern institution of civil and human rights, and particularly the writ of habeas corpus, began in June of 1215 when King John was forced by the feudal lords to sign the Magna Carta at Runnymede. Although that document mostly protected "freemen" - what were then known as feudal lords or barons, and today known as CEOs and millionaires - rather than the average person, it initiated a series of events that echo to this day. Two of the most critical parts of the Magna Carta were articles 38 and 39, which established the foundation for what is now known as "habeas corpus" laws, as well as the Fourth through Eighth Amendments of our Constitution and hundreds of other federal and state due process provisions. Articles 38 and 39 of the Magna Carta said: "38 In future no official shall place a man on trial upon his own unsupported statement, without producing credible witnesses to the truth of it. "39 No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land." This was radical stuff, and over the next four hundred years average people increasingly wanted for themselves these same protections from the abuse of the power of government or great wealth. But from 1215 to 1628, outside of the privileges enjoyed by the feudal lords, the average person could be arrested and imprisoned at the whim of the king with no recourse to the courts. Then, in 1627, King Charles I overstepped, and the people snapped. Charles I threw into jail five knights in a tax disagreement, and the knights sued the King, asserting their habeas corpus right to be free or on bail unless convicted of a crime. King Charles I, in response, invoked his right to simply imprison anybody he wanted (other than the rich), anytime he wanted, as he said, "per speciale Mandatum Domini Regis." This is essentially the same argument that George W. Bush makes today for why he has the right to detain both citizens and non-citizens solely on his own say-so: because he's in charge. And it's an argument now supported by Senate Republicans and five Democrats. But just as George's decree is meeting resistance, Charles' decree wasn't well received. The result of his overt assault on the rights of citizens led to a sort of revolt in the British Parliament, producing the 1628 "Petition of Right" law, an early version of our Fourth through Eighth Amendments, which restated Articles 38 and 39 of the Magna Carta and added that "writs of habeas corpus, [are] there to undergo and receive [only] as the court should order." It was later strengthened with the "Habeas Corpus Act of 1640" and a second "Habeas Corpus Act of 1679." Thus, the right to suspend habeas corpus no longer was held by the King. It was exercised solely by the people's (elected and hereditary) representatives in the Parliament. The third George to govern the United Kingdom confronted this in 1815 when he came into possession of Napoleon Bonaparte. British laws were so explicit that everybody was entitled to habeas corpus - even people who were not British citizens - that when Napoleon surrendered on the deck of the British flagship Bellerophon after the battle of Waterloo in 1815, the British Parliament had to pass a law ("An Act For The More Effectually Detaining In Custody Napoleon Bonaparte") to suspend habeas corpus so King George III could legally continue to hold him prisoner (and then legally exile him to a British fortification on a distant island). Now, Congress is moving to similarly detain people or exile them to camps on a distant island. Except these people are not Napoleon Bonapartes. As The The New York Times noted in a November 12, 2005 editorial, "according to government and military officials, an overwhelming majority [of the Guantanamo concentration camp detainees] should not have been taken prisoner in the first place." It may well be that the only reason these Republicans are so determined to keep our Guantanamo prisoners incarcerated is to avoid the embarrassment and negative political fallout that would ensue if they were released and told the world's media their stories of false arrest, torture, illegal imprisonment, and hunger strikes. The Founders must be turning in their graves. As Alexander Hamilton - arguably the most conservative of the Founders - wrote in Federalist 84: "The establishment of the writ of habeas corpus ... are perhaps greater securities to liberty and republicanism than any it [the Constitution] contains. ...[T]he practice of arbitrary imprisonments have been, in all ages, the favorite and most formidable instruments of tyranny. The observations of the judicious [british 18th century legal scholar] Blackstone, in reference to the latter, are well worthy of recital: "'To bereave a man of life,' says he, 'or by violence to confiscate his estate, without accusation or trial, would be so gross and notorious an act of despotism, as must at once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the whole nation; but confinement of the person, by secretly hurrying him to jail, where his sufferings are unknown or forgotten, is a less public, a less striking, and therefore A MORE DANGEROUS ENGINE of arbitrary government.''' [Capitals all Hamilton's from the original.] The question, ultimately, is whether our nation will continue to stand for the values upon which it was founded. Early American conservatives suggested that democracy was so ultimately weak it couldn't withstand the assault of newspaper editors and citizens who spoke out against it, or terrorists from the Islamic Barbary Coast, leading John Adams to pass America's first PATRIOT Act-like laws, the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. President Thomas Jefferson rebuked those who wanted America ruled by an iron-handed presidency that could -as Adams had - throw people in jail for "crimes" such as speaking political opinion, or without constitutional due process. "I know, indeed," Jefferson said in his first inaugural address on March 4, 1801, "that some honest men fear that a republican government cannot be strong; that this government is not strong enough. But, Jefferson said, our nation was "the world's best hope," and because of our strong commitment to democracy, "the strongest government on earth." The sum of this, Jefferson said, was found in "freedom of person under the protection of the habeas corpus; and trial by juries impartially selected. These principles form the bright constellation which has gone before us, and guided our steps through an age of revolution and reformation. "The wisdom of our sages and the blood of our heroes have been devoted to their attainment. They should be the creed of our political faith, the text of civil instruction, the touchstone by which to try the services of those we trust; and should we wander from them in moments of error or alarm, let us hasten to retrace our steps and to regain the road which alone leads to peace, liberty, and safety." When I was working in Russia some years ago, a friend in Kaliningrad told me a perhaps apocryphal story about Nikita Khrushchev, who, following Stalin's death, gave a speech to the Politburo denouncing Stalin's policies. A few minutes into Khrushchev's diatribe, somebody shouted out, "Why didn't you challenge him then, the way you are now?" The room fell silent, as Khrushchev angrily swept the audience with his glare. "Who said that?" he asked in a reasoned voice. Silence. "Who said that?" Khrushchev demanded, leaning forward. Silence. Pounding his fist on the podium to accent each word, he screamed, "Who - said - that?" Still no answer. Finally, after a long and strained silence, the elected politicians in the room fearful to even cough, a corner of Khrushchev's mouth lifted into a smile. "Now you know," he said with a chuckle, "why I did not speak up against Stalin when I sat where you now sit." The question for our day is who will speak up against Stalinist policies in America? Who will speak against the man who punishes reporters and news organizations by cutting off their access; who punishes politicians by targeting them in their home districts; who punishes truth-tellers in the Executive branch by character assassination that even extends to destroying their spouse's careers? And why is our press doing such a pathetic job that in all probability 95 percent of Americans don't even know that the U.S. Senate voted last week to begin the process of suspending habeas corpus? As Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist Number 8: "The violent destruction of life and property incident to war; the continual effort and alarm attendant on a state of continual danger, will compel nations the most attached to liberty, to resort for repose and security to institutions which have a tendency to destroy their civil and political rights. To be more safe, they, at length, become willing to run the risk of being less free." We must not make the mistake that Jefferson and Hamilton warned us against. Contact your U.S. Senators (the Capitol's phone number is 202 225-3121) and tell them to stop this assault on eight hundred years of legal precedent by leaving our habeas corpus laws intact and quickly moving to ensure that the captives in our Guantanamo Bay Concentration Camps (and other, overseas, secret prisons) have the fundamental human rights of habeas corpus our Supreme Court has already ruled they should be accorded. Thom Hartmann is a Project Censored Award-winning best-selling author and host of a nationally syndicated daily progressive talk show carried on the Air America Radio network. www.thomhartmann.com His most recent books include "What Would Jefferson Do?" and "Ultimate Sacrifice: John and Robert Kennedy, the Plan for a Coup in Cuba, and the Murder of JFK" co-authored by Lamar Waldron. --------------------------------------------- BACK TO THE BOOKS "KID ??" __________________________________ --------------------------------- OH DARN !! I forgot that the "Village Idiot" has me running around "promoting myself" into the "JFK" Matter. NOT that other assholes came out of the blue [or some anal orifice] to suck me into this mess -- and starting with "Queen" Hoover [tough xxxx if that offends you Faireys out there !!] and continued by "Big Jimbo/Gumbo" Garrison in his phony quest to protect his "Rabbi" [Marcello] by fingering the "No Name Key Bunch" and the Miami Cubans in general. But of course -- he left out the DGI spies inside JM/WAVE -- because he didn't know "squat" about the Miami CIA Base nor its cryptonym. ------------------------------------- "....In one of Hunt's libel suits, one Marita Lorenz gave sworn testimony that Lee Harvey Oswald, American mercenaries Frank Sturgis and Gerry Patrick Hemming, and Cuban exiles including Orlando Bosch, Pedro Diaz Lanz, and the brothers Guillermo and Ignacio Novo Sampol, had met one November midnight in 1963 at the Miami home of Orlando Bosch and had studied Dallas street maps. She also swore that she and Sturgis were at that time in the employ of the CIA and that they received payment from Howard Hunt under the name "Eduardo," an a lias which Hunt is known to have used in his dealings with Cuban exiles. After studying the maps, she and the men departed for Dallas in two cars, taking a load of handguns, rifles, and scopes in the follow-up car. They arrived in Dallas on 21 November 1963, and stayed at a motel, where the group met Howard Hunt. Hunt stayed for about forty-five minutes and at one point handed an envelope of cash to Sturgis. About an hour after Hunt left, Jack Ruby came to the door. Lorenz says that this was the first time she had seen Ruby. By this time, she said, it was early evening. In her testimony, Lorenz identified herself and her fellow passengers as members of Operation Forty, the CIA-directed assassination team formed in 1960 in preparation for the Bay of Pigs invasion. She described her role as that of a "decoy." The group blamed Kennedy for the failure at the Bay of Pigs and conspired to kill him, she said. Knowing that something more sinister than gun-running was involved, she left the group about two hours after Ruby's visit and returned to Miami. Sturgis, she said, later told her that she had missed out on the group's killing of Kennedy (Lane 1991)...." !! ------------------------------------------ CHAIRS -- O' GULLIBLE ONES !! GPH ____________________________ Being a "student of history" I found the article on "Habeas Corpus" and said "suspension/destruction" of same by our "Fearless Leader" to be a masterwork of profundity. I personally wish that whatever remmants of democratic aspirations left in this country would use whatever clout they have left to publish it on the front page of every major (and not so major) newspaper in the US of A; maybe it would slap the hell out of the thought processes of the Bush cheerleaders that are so inebriated with hero worship that they are too busy (or just too plain stupid) to see the steady erosion of constitutional law in our country. I find it fascinating that there are so many people on the right who are so enamored with quoting/using the founding fathers to seemingly rationalize their "God is on our side" agenda. But I digress. (If you are not one of the "cheering throngs" immersed in the "War on Terror" you could even pursue the matter further and read the comments of "Rabbi (Eric Yoffie): 'Right's anti-gay policies akin to Hitler's' ". (note: You don't have to be pro-sodomy or "anti-family values" to objectively research whether his comments are factual or a flight of fantasy, and being somewhat knowlegeable about history before Nov. 22, 1963) I can assure you he is not mistaken. I just thought I might throw this out there for whatever its worth, the "revelations" of Marita Lorenz (which can be read verbatim if one has an inkling to do so) were great "headline news" for the newspapers during the halycon days of the HSCA, but were outright dismissed in most circles when it came down to the fact that while Ms. Lorenz asserted in her testimony that Ozzie was in the caravan, the real "Lee Harvey Oswald" was in Dallas while this alleged "caravan" was driving from Miami to Dallas (At least that the official story). The passing of time has only served to further cement that perception even more, with maybe the exception of John Armstrong, and I don't say that sarcastically. The irony of it all is that if memory serves me correctly, there were "a couple" of Lee "Leon" Harvey Oswald impersonations taking place at various locales during said time frame, while I don't subscribe to the "Two Oswalds" theory to the degree that Armstrong does, I believe that he definitely has something to contribute to credible research, if you think I don't know what I'm talking about read some of his stuff on the Internet. So, the point is if you throw out Lee Harvey Oswald and replace him in the caravan with, I don't know William Seymour? The idea doesent seem so "readibly dismissable" I mean it was alleged that Sturgis wasn't exactly cheerful when he heard about Marita's testimony or maybe I have a case of that "faulty memory" that seems so epidemic in Wash-ing-ton these days. End note: I think JFK researchers fall into a trap with the "Oswald impersonations" issue thinking that the "imersonator has to be a "clone" of the impersonatee, while at the time in the circumstances demanded a "similar resemblance" would have "got the job done." Remember these guy's thought (rightfully it seems) that whatever "investigation" took place would be shallow and "for public consumption." What did Milteer tell Somersett before 11/22/63? "They will pick up somebody within hours afterward....just to throw the public off..." Before Ruby Shot Oswald on Nov. 24, after he had come back from Dallas, he told Somersett at breakfast the same day "They did not have to worry about Oswald he doesent know anything." Milteer also predicted the MLK hit in advance. BTW Funny thing about that "disappearing FBI teletype" that Somersett's tip off to the Miami Police (seems he was afraid and distrusted the Miami FBI (even though he had been informing for them for 13 years!) was read by all SAC's (and even William Walter in N.O.) rumor has it they found 96 copies of the airtel in Hoover's personal effects. CIAO Edited November 21, 2005 by Robert Howard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kelly Posted November 25, 2005 Share Posted November 25, 2005 Hello Gerry, How ya doin? I wanted to get back to you on the Somoza visit to Port Norris, but first I have a question for you about Frank. Now Frank Forini was born in Philadelphia, and then his mother married a guy named Sturgis, and then Frank joined the USMC, right? And your mutural friend E. Howard Hunt wrote a pulp fiction novel, Bimini Run? in which a character like Frank is named Forini, is that right? I appreciate your experiences and first hand knowledge on all this, and as I have made all of the typical researchers' mistakes over the years, I'm still trying to keep it straight and get it right. Thanks, Bill Kelly bkjfk3@yahoo.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerry Hemming Posted November 25, 2005 Author Share Posted November 25, 2005 Hello Gerry, How ya doin? I wanted to get back to you on the Somoza visit to Port Norris, but first I have a question for you about Frank. Now Frank Forini was born in Philadelphia, and then his mother married a guy named Sturgis, and then Frank joined the USMC, right? And your mutural friend E. Howard Hunt wrote a pulp fiction novel, Bimini Run? in which a character like Frank is named Forini, is that right? I appreciate your experiences and first hand knowledge on all this, and as I have made all of the typical researchers' mistakes over the years, I'm still trying to keep it straight and get it right. Thanks, Bill Kelly bkjfk3@yahoo.com ---------------------------------- Bill: I sure as hell don't want to go into some of the "Eduardo" Hunt & Fiorini/Sturgis "evidence" I gave to the "Church Committee" [May 1975] and that which was further expanded upon in my HSCA testimony [1978] !! I was advised that: While my 7 1/2 hour testimony before the HSCA folks has been "officially-reduced" to about the same number of transcribed pages that a real slow stutterer might cover in a 2 hour Q & A -- I was later reminded [during the 1980s] that said transcript remained classified. In more simpler terms: I might have visited upon me once again -- a few "ham-sandwiche" indictments similar to those made against me during 1976. That is where I refused to "back-off" from assisting the WerBell, et al. defense team in the "Marijuana Watergate" case -- which later went to trial in Miami. As for Hunt: Some of my quite specific allegations against Hunt, Fiorini/Sturgis, Barker, Czukas, Diosdado, Posada, Bosch, et al. -- which I had made during the Sunday briefing to Gene Propper, Larry Barcella, et al. [1977 - MIA/DEA HQ] -- and with reference the "Letelier Embassy Row assassination"; ALL of that has been removed from my HSCA transcript. The "No Name Key Bunch" fondly? remember Hunt as the guy who tried to bribe & threaten the "30th of November" Cubans [1961]. CIA demanded that they withdraw their members from our Everglades training camps. "Carrot & Stick" was the typical routine, e.g., the "Company" puts y'all back on the monthly stipend, doubles the Dept. of Agriculture "Refugee Rations" to your families, no searches of your weapons & explosives caches [which we have located] -- and everybody is going to be once again, very "HAPPY". NO fond memories there, and most of the InterPen guys never became aware of the even more devious schemes perpetrated by the DGI penetrated "Girls of JM/WAVE" !! Else, they might have suffered morale problems, or worse: taken matters into their own vigilante hands. Frank was born a Fiorini. Served in WWII USMC under that name until he was "section 8'd" out with a "General", rather than the usual "Medical Discharge". When he wanted to play "Cops" after the War, he found that a USMC/SRB ["Records"] check by any police department, would quickly result in a job rejection ina couple of days !! He was coached by a corrupt ex-cop that: One way to insure police employment was; to first go get a "constable appointment", then get a city license as a private investigator -- and soon thereafter join up as an auxiliary or reserve cop. Once that was accomplished, he was sure-fire guaranteed to be "in harness" as a "Bull" within a couple of months. But, tough xxxx -- it didn't work out that smoothly, and this was due to the USMC "Fiorini" medical discharge. So, he got more advice, "...legally change your name by going into court.."!! "..And in order that the court doesn't suspect that you are "dodging" an unsavory past...claim that you want to change your name to your step-father's surname.....just to make him happy....and that because you're really too old to be adopted by him...!!" That is how we got a guy who continued to be a Fiorini, but also had the lawful credentials of also being a "Sturgis". FBI, CIA, ASA, ONI, etc. -- all punched out LHMs, RIOs, & 302s that referred ONLY to one Frank Fiorini. In Cuba, late 1958 thru July 1959 he carried Cuban papers & "Carnets" [official I.D. Card] which identified him to Fidel & Co. as FIORINI". Jack Anderson had him on the cover of PARADE Magazine [1961] as "FIORINI". You just can't imagine my disappointment, when FBI S/A Bob Dwyer showed me the files on one Frank STURGIS. [1963] I was devastated, imagine -- my hero with a name sounding the same as a fish that xxxx-out eggs, which the Russkies called "Caviar" [that's Sturgeon folks] !! Yeah -- about 4 seconds of devastation, and then we were both roaring with loud enough laughter that: The MIA/FO ASAIC came by and told us to "hold-it-down-a-bit" !! Did "Eduardo" use Fiorini as one of his principal characters in the novel "Bimini Run" ?? Well, according to "Fat Daddy Frank" -- who lived about a mile from my house in Opa-Locka, he was indeed one in the same. To prove it -- he showed me a signed book, which he took off of his shelf !! Yep !! Frank was indeed our E. Howard Hunt "Hero", that daring Bimini rum-bum-runner styled as "Hank Sturgis" !! And who the hell really gives a xxxx ??!! More later. Chairs, GPH _________________________ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kelly Posted November 25, 2005 Share Posted November 25, 2005 GPH, Many thanks for the quick and interesting response. I wonder with Hunt, as with Ian Fleming, how much is fiction and how much real ops? And Gerry, how do you type with an accent, faster than you can talk? BK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerry Hemming Posted December 1, 2005 Author Share Posted December 1, 2005 GPH,Many thanks for the quick and interesting response. I wonder with Hunt, as with Ian Fleming, how much is fiction and how much real ops? And Gerry, how do you type with an accent, faster than you can talk? BK --------------------------------- Might as well save the members surfing time, so I insert some more of the Cermak "Hit" references here: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Franklin D. Roosevelt (Assassination Attempt) Information released by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Department of Justice under the Freedom of Information and Privacy Acts Gathered from the FBI Website April 16, 2002 PDF documents originally posted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. 254 pages. View Pages: Part 1a • Part 1b • Part 1c • Part 1d Abstract: Contains files released by the FBI related to the assassination attempt of Franklin Delano Roosevelt in Miami at Bayside Park. From the Department of Justice Website: "On February 15, 1933, Guiseppe Zangara attempted to assassinate Franklin Delano Roosevelt while the then President-elect was giving a speech in Miami, Florida. The United States Secret Service was responsible for the primary investigation and the FBI's role was mainly administrative in nature." Zangara, an Italian anarchist, had lived in New Jersey since 1924, and had only been in Miami for a couple of months. According to the papers, "he was in Miami because it was warm and he was out of work, and that he had lost $200 on the dog races." It is said that he wanted to kill kings and presidents of wealthy governments since he was 17. By chance, Zangara heard that FDR would be in Miami to give a speech. Three days before the shooting, Zangara purchased a 38 caliber pistol at a Miami Avenue pawn shop. As Roosevelt finished a short speech at Bayside Park, Zangara fired five rounds from 25 feet. Roosevelt was completely untouched by the gunfire due to Zangara losing his footing atop an uneven chair, and a bystander striking his arm. One bullet struck Chicago's Mayor Anton Cermak who was shaking hands with Roosevelt at the time. Four others were wounded, including Mrs. Joseph Gill, wife of the President of Florida Power and Light. An example of swift justice, Zangara pled guilty five days later and was sentenced to 80 years in Raiford Prison. At his sentencing he said of the President-elect, "I decide to kill him and make him suffer. I want to make it 50-50. Since my stomach hurt I want to make even with capitalists by kill the President. My stomach hurt long time." Anton Cermak subsequently died from his wounds two weeks later, and Zangara was immediately tried for his murder. Zangara was sentenced to the electric chair and executed on March 20 at Raiford. Unrepentant, Zangara was cursing and railing against capitalists as he was put to death. Although Zangara said he acted alone, some evidence and theories link him with organized groups responsible for additional terrorist acts. Others claim that Zangara's true target was Mayor Cermak, who had alleged ties with organized crime. Superintendent of Documents Local Number: J 1.14/2:FDRx This document is available in PDF file format. To best view these files, open them with Adobe Acrobat Reader®. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Department of Government Information and Special Formats • Otto G. Richter Library Miami's Public Pages Last updated April 5, 2002 Feedback © 2002 The University of Miami ------------------------------------------- Five Weeks of Giuseppe Zangara: The Man Who Would Assassinate FDR Blaise Picchi ------------------------------------------ Five Weeks of Giuseppe Zangara: The Man Who Would Assassinate FDR FROM THE PUBLISHER In Miami, Florida, on February 15, 1933, Giuseppe Zangara, an unemployed New Jersey bricklayer from Italy, fired five pistol shots at the back of President-elect Frankly Roosevelt's head from only twenty-five feet away. While all five rounds missed their target, each bullet found a separate victim. One of these was mayor Anton Cermak of Chicago, who died of his wound some three weeks later. A scant two weeks after that, Zangara was executed in the electric chair. It was perhaps the swiftest legal execution in twentieth-century American history. With his death, Zangara took to the grave the answer to one of the most baffling unsolved mysteries in the annals of Presidential assassinations. Was FDR Zangara's real target? Or was he a mob hit man who actually intended to kill Cermak, as legendary columnist and FDR confidant Walter Winchell believed? Was he a terrorist, as the LA police contended? Could he have been a member of La Camorra, a Neapolitan crime society, as the prison warden insisted? Was he simply insane, as many at the time thought? Or was he really a martyr for the cause of the Common Man, as he himself proclaimed? ----------------------------------------------- FROM THE CRITICS Kirkus Reviews: A detailed and unnecessary look at a failed assassination. Picchi, a former prosecutor and criminal defense attorney, believes there is mystery surrounding Giuseppe Zangara's attempt to shoot Franklin Roosevelt shortly before his inauguration in 1932, but this premise seems overdrawn. The facts are straightforward. Zangara, an Italian immigrant, went to a Miami event at which Roosevelt was scheduled to appear and fired five rounds in an attempt to kill the president-elect. Zangara's short stature prevented a clear view of or shot at Roosevelt, leaving the intended victim unharmed but several bystanders injured. The most critical wound was suffered by Anton Cermak, mayor of Chicago, who eventually died. Zangara's arrest, initial trial and conviction for assault, subsequent trial and conviction for murder after Cermak's death, and finally his execution, all took place in the amazingly short time of five weeks. Everyone seemed intent on swift justice, including not only the court-assigned defense lawyers intent on doing the prosecution's job, but even Zangara himself. Prejudice against southern Europeans was clearly present, Zangara's sanity was too easily affirmed, medical incompetence probably caused Cermak's death, and the judicial proceedings were a mockery given the significance of the case. While there are grounds to give Zangara "his day in court" then, it is not clear what purpose it serves. Zangara's lack of remorse may have been unsettling and his ill-formed personal political philosophy, suggesting that leaders of all countries should be shot, unsatisfying as a motive. However, Picchi's account leaves little room to doubt that this is genuinely what Zangara believed, and that if alive today -- he would welcome an opportunity to shoot the president. Although inexplicable in rational terms, this hardly constitutes a reason to reexamine the case, for in the end Zangara's behavior simply falls outside the realm of rationality and there is little more to be said. An interesting historical footnote that can be bypassed without severe costs. (b&w photos) _______________________________________ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Knight Posted December 2, 2005 Share Posted December 2, 2005 (edited) From the Department of Justice Website: "On February 15, 1933, Guiseppe Zangara attempted to assassinate Franklin Delano Roosevelt while the then President-elect was giving a speech in Miami, Florida. The United States Secret Service was responsible for the primary investigation and the FBI's role was mainly administrative in nature. Does anyone besides me find it more than a little interesting that a short 30 years later, the roles were reversed? Edited December 2, 2005 by Mark Knight Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Simkin Posted December 3, 2005 Share Posted December 3, 2005 Gerry, in her book Farewell to Justice, Joan Mellen, she has some interesting things to say about your possible involvement in the assassination of JFK. On page 249 she says that you were worried about Jim Garrison's investigation. For example, she claims that Garrison had knowledge of a memo written by Edward Lansdale that said that you believed that JFK had been killed by "one or more of Bobby's boys gone bad". This of course supports Gene Wheaton's story that the team assembled to kill Castro had been turned against JFK. Mellen goes on to say that you were concerned that Garrison had information that some of your "men" had been involved in the assassination. This included Roy Hargraves, Lawrence Howard, Loran Hall and Howard Davis. Mellen quotes you as saying that Hall could "very well have assassinated the president." She also claims that you also named Dennis Harber as another possible assassin (page 250). You also claimed that Lawrence Howard was "one of the best shots in the world" and that he was in Dealey Plaza as a shooter (page 251). Mellen claims that your alibi was that you were in Miami with Hal Hendrix on the 22nd November. Apparently, Hendrix was about to write an article for the Miami News linking you to Oswald. She adds that it was Angleton's people who stopped this taking place. Mellen also claims that during the investigation you joined up with Bernardo De Torres to "divert Garrison's attention away from the CIA". Apparently, you helped Garrison for a month (page 251) and were able to protect James Angleton and Allen Dulles from the investigation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerry Hemming Posted December 3, 2005 Author Share Posted December 3, 2005 Gerry, in her book Farewell to Justice, Joan Mellen, she has some interesting things to say about your possible involvement in the assassination of JFK. On page 249 she says that you were worried about Jim Garrison's investigation. For example, she claims that Garrison had knowledge of a memo written by Edward Lansdale that said that you believed that JFK had been killed by "one or more of Bobby's boys gone bad". This of course supports Gene Wheaton's story that the team assembled to kill Castro had been turned against JFK. Mellen goes on to say that you were concerned that Garrison had information that some of your "men" had been involved in the assassination. This included Roy Hargraves, Lawrence Howard, Loran Hall and Howard Davis. Mellen quotes you as saying that Hall could "very well have assassinated the president." She also claims that you also named Dennis Harber as another possible assassin (page 250). You also claimed that Lawrence Howard was "one of the best shots in the world" and that he was in Dealey Plaza as a shooter (page 251). Mellen claims that your alibi was that you were in Miami with Hal Hendrix on the 22nd November. Apparently, Hendrix was about to write an article for the Miami News linking you to Oswald. She adds that it was Angleton's people who stopped this taking place. Mellen also claims that during the investigation you joined up with Bernardo De Torres to "divert Garrison's attention away from the CIA". Apparently, you helped Garrison for a month (page 251) and were able to protect James Angleton and Allen Dulles from the investigation. ------------------------------- John: It is 4:02 AM now, and I have been up since about 9:00 AM yesterday. While some of my associates who did give an assist to Mellen [just this year, and at the very last minute] and were later rewarded with "gift books" from her, I am still without a copy of her "worthy" Tome. I am currently examining Lamar & Thom's book. I will await a copy of her book before "I-dance-to-and-fro" -- making comments & corrections with regard to said spurious allegations. Even this week I have recieved more requests for assistance in the prepping of more books and articles with regard to this subject matter. About 99% of what I have stated [or testified to] has been "skewed" by scriveners who: Either didn't pay attention, lacked research skills and/or material -- or much too often, deviated from reality as a result of their personal agenda and/or "crusader" protocols !! The very first post-BOP book that focused on Miami, was a total "snow-job"!! it was "authored" by one Hans Tanner, a Brit [repair/mechanic] who "grease-monkeyed" in a local boat yard upon two of the "never- to-be-launched" M.D.C. speed boats. The title of his "testament" was "Counter-Revolutionary Agent". His stories came from fables excreted by wishful thinkers and wannabes. All were fellow "members" of a non-functional enity, much like that of Fiorini/Sturgis. A very thin book, which was thickened by Miami Herald stories about Cuban exile "feats-of-glory" -- and spiced by some seriously deficient paragraphs concerning my endeavors. When I lost my copy of said work of "fiction" [some 40 years ago], I never bothered to replace it !! In the interim, I will take note of specific comments sent to me by many folks, and then, soonest -- and health permitting; I will attempt to correct where correction is required. Chairs, GPH _______________________ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Carroll Posted December 3, 2005 Share Posted December 3, 2005 As for Hunt: Some of my quite specific allegations against Hunt, Fiorini/Sturgis, Barker, Czukas, Diosdado, Posada, Bosch, et al. -- which I had made during the Sunday briefing to Gene Propper, Larry Barcella, et al.... The "No Name Key Bunch" fondly? remember Hunt as the guy who tried to bribe & threaten the "30th of November" Cubans [1961]. CIA demanded that they withdraw their members from our Everglades training camps. The House panel found that Echevarria's group, known as the 30th of November, was financed by the Junta del Gobierno de Cubo en el Exilio, a Chicago-based coalition of anti-Castro groups with alleged links to organized crime. It said the umbrella group, founded in April 1963 and dissolved soon after the assassination, had backed the activities of militant groups reportedly in contact with Lee Harvey Oswald. NO fond memories there, and most of the InterPen guys never became aware of the even more devious schemes perpetrated by the DGI penetrated "Girls of JM/WAVE" !! Else, they might have suffered morale problems, or worse: taken matters into their own vigilante hands. Just trying to work throught the Hemmingspeak on this one. Does this mean that Interpen was generally not aware of the goings-on at JM/WAVE? Did "Eduardo" use Fiorini as one of his principal characters in the novel "Bimini Run" ?? Well, according to "Fat Daddy Frank" -- who lived about a mile from my house in Opa-Locka, he was indeed one in the same. To prove it -- he showed me a signed book, which he took off of his shelf !! Yep !! Frank was indeed our E. Howard Hunt "Hero", that daring Bimini rum-bum-runner styled as "Hank Sturgis"!! And who the hell really gives a xxxx ??!! What was the purpose of Hunt and Fiorini denying that they'd ever met before 1971? The other Watergate burglars didn't have a problem with acknowledgment of the fact of their longterm relationships going back at least as far as the Bay of Pigs. So why lie so obviously about a seemingly inconsequential fact? Tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Simkin Posted December 5, 2005 Share Posted December 5, 2005 It is 4:02 AM now, and I have been up since about 9:00 AM yesterday. While some of my associates who did give an assist to Mellen [just this year, and at the very last minute] and were later rewarded with "gift books" from her, I am still without a copy of her "worthy" Tome. I am currently examining Lamar & Thom's book. I will await a copy of her book before "I-dance-to-and-fro" -- making comments & corrections with regard to said spurious allegations. Here is the relevant passage in Joan Mellen's book, A Farewell to Justice (pages 248-252) A steady steam of people bent on sidetracking Garrison's investigation beat an unholy path to Tulane and Broad. An intellectual, more interested in ideas than practicalities, Garrison was a gullible man. "I regret to say, I trust everyone and am easily fooled," he would acknowledge. That soldier of fortune who had scorned John F. Kennedy's offer that he take over the CIA's Radio Swan, arrived unannounced on July 7, 1967. Gerald Patrick Hemming wore green camouflage fatigues and jungle boots with treads, as if he had just interrupted guerrilla maneuvers. From serving as a CIA courier, like Beckham, like Donald P. Norton, Hemming in Cuba had participated in those assassination squads of Batista functionaries. CIA media asset William Stuckey had written in the New Orleans States-Item that Hemming could handle "two heavy machine guns from the hip at the same time." The CIA liked that Hemming "appears to be little influenced by deep beliefs in democratic principles." On orders from Robert Kennedy to pursue the untimely death of Fidel Castro exclusive of the efforts of the CIA's clandestine services, General Edward Lansdale had solicited the help of Gerald Patrick Hemming. Lansdale had requested of the CIA its Hemming file, only to be told CIA had "a dosier [sic] about an inch thick." CIA had offered its sanction: "As far as they are concerned he is OK," a Colonel Patchell writes Lansdale in a handwritten memo. "They consider him helpful to their cause." Hemming believed that it was "one or more of Bobby's boys gone bad" who had killed his brother, as Bobby shared operatives with CIA executioner William Harvey, tool of the DDP, Richard Helms. If Jim Garrison was perplexed by Bobby's efforts to "torpedo" his investigation, Hemming understood them well. Hemming had heard Garrison had been looking at "his men." "We're going to be indicted by Jim Garrison for the JFK thing," Hemming told his cohort, Roy Hargraves. Hargraves would later admit he was in Dallas on November 22nd, armed with fake Secret Service credentials. His later FBI COINTELPRO service would include the planting of bombs against the Black Panthers. Lawrence Howard, "fat Larry," another Hemming No Name Key associate, had also been in Dallas on that day. Hemming had good reason to fear that Garrison might consider as suspects the men training with him for sabotage against Cuba. An anonymous letter mailed from Miami stated that the "person that shot at President Kennedy was Hector Aguero (Indio Mikoyan), who was prepared in Miami by two Americans to kill Fidel Castro, those Americans are named Chery and Davis." Examining that note, William Martin had told Garrison that "Chery" was the way a Latin-American would pronounce "Jerry". "Davis" must be the Howard Davis who flew with Hemming over Covington in search of training camp sites. El Indio ("Mikoyan") would be exposed by Gaeton Fonzi as David Sanchez Morales, a CIA officer involved in the overthrow of President Arbenz in Guatemala. "Investigate in Miami," the writer advises Garrison. On June 28th, one Wiley Yates had written to Garrison suggesting that Loran Hall, another Hemming cohort, should be a suspect. Yates' source was a Dallas businessman named Wally Welch, who had been together with Hemming and Hall in Cuba. Concluding that Hemming had been involved in "assassination training," Garrison had been showing witnesses those photographs of Hall, Howard and William Seymour, whom he had nicknamed "Winkin', Blinkin' and Nod." Accompanying Hemming now was Roy Hargraves. Hemming made him wait downstairs. The CIA, aware of the presence of Hemming at Tulane and Broad, watched. He was writing an article for Life magazine, Hemming told Garrison. (Richard Billings smiles and denies that this was so.) "You're heading back to No Name Key and you're leading back to me," Hemming said. "Either I'm stupid or someone is trying to frame my ass, and you're taking the bait." Hemming's alibi is that he was in Miami on November 22nd, at the office of the Miami News. There, he ran into CIA media asset Hal Hendrix, who was about to write a story linking him to Oswald until Angleton's people stopped him, Hemming claims. Hemming fears that he is being recorded. He fears that his foreknowledge of the Kennedy assassination is tantamount to treason. He worries that Garrison's attention will cause him to lose a possible appointment to the CIA's Agency for International Development (AID) in Vietnam. His strategy, like Boxley's, is to divert Garrison's attention away from the CIA. "There were numerous teams of adventurers with paramilitary inclinations trying to get Kennedy," Hemming says. There were two hundred conspiracies. "Maybe Oswald got there ahead of them." He is gifted at double-talk, as he extrapolates about teams blackmailing their sponsors, pretending to have killed Kennedy and demanding money for their silence. Then the sponsors hired the Mafia to silence them. Later Hemming will claim that Guy Banister was one of these sponsors, offering Hemming a suitcase full of cash to shoot Kennedy. Howard K. Davis, present on that occasion, suggests that Hemming could not have resisted telling him about such an offer had it been made. "Just to have this queer pilot isn't enough," Hemming says, as if the dead David Ferrie and not Clay Shaw was now Garrison's chief suspect. "You need to begin all over again." Hemming floats a laundry list of suspects: Dennis Harber; a Minuteman from California named "Colonel Gale"; a Jim Keith; an Edward Claude, a former intelligence officer for the Dade County sheriff; G. Clinton Wheat, an ex-Klansman; oil man H. L. Hunt. He is willing to give up Loran Hall, who, Hemming confides, was in Dallas and could "very well have assassinated the president." Hall was fooling around with Communists, Hemming suggests, an unlikely scenario that Garrison saw through at once. Hall had gotten Sylvia Odio's name from a Ford motor salesman named Nico Crespi. Howard and Seymour, however, Hemming claims, had nothing to do with the assassination. Hemming does not tell Garrison, as he later will tell others, that it was "his people" who were with Oswald when he visited Sylvia Odio and who were "working Oswald on the assassination of Castro operation." "I don't know who you work for," Lou Ivon tells Hemming. Ivon is not easy to fool, the reason why of all the people Hemming meets this day, it is Ivon he respects. "There were more snitches in there than cops," Hemming would remember. "If you knew to a T, it wouldn't do any good," Hemming tells Garrison harshly. "You can't cause me any trouble." Only when Garrison appears not to know the name "Angleton" does Hemming breathe a secret sigh of relief. He offers to "join forces" with Garrison, and asks to read Garrison's files, so that for a month Hemming believes he is actually working for Jim Garrison. He telephones Tom Bethell that he has been unable to find "Nico Crespi," and is irritated that Garrison has not sent him the twenty-six Warren Commission volumes. His phone bill is high, Hemming complains, attempting to pull a Bernardo de Torres. No one at Tulane and Broad falls for it. Upon departing from New Orleans, Hemming telephoned Angleton's office. "Do you think Garrison has heard of U.S. Customs?" Angleton asked, well knowing the role of Customs in Oswald's activities. "Would he go after them?" Hemming says that Garrison had not placed Customs in the case. Yet, Hemming knew, "that's where all the family jewels were." Other information Hemming withheld from Jim Garrison was how Angleton, hating Kennedy, termed him a "KGB mole running the country," and how Allen Dulles, no longer DCI, had ordered the FBI to have Hall recant on the Sylvia Odio story, and say he was not, after all, at Sylvia Odio's. Hemming knew that Bernardo de Torres was working for the CIA during the Garrison investigation. He knew that not only Clay Shaw, but also Oswald had "Q" clearance from the CIA. He calls Lawrence Howard "one of the best shots in the world," and places him at Dealey Plaza as a shooter. At times he lies, as when he told a Garrison volunteer that he knew Thomas Edward Beckham, who was "five foot eleven inches tall," off by four inches. He lies convincingly, with so much passion, that it seems inconceivable that he doesn't believe what he is saying. Digression is his tactic, doubt a stranger. "There is reason to believe he is still working for the CIA," Garrison remarked when Hemming was gone. He drew this conclusion without knowing that only four months earlier, Hemming had turned up at CIA officer Justin P. Gleichauf's house to report on Rolando Masferrer's projected Haitian invasion. CIA concluded that Hemming was targeting his own assets. Hemming "was an informer for the CIA," while claiming to be with Naval Intelligence. When Hemming had applied for regular employment with the Agency in January 1962, he had been turned down, even as Lawrence Houston pondered more than forty reports to his CIA handler filed by Hemming in the fall of 1960 upon his return from Cuba. Hemming did not get the job with AID. His visit to Jim Garrison's office led to CIA's checking again on Hemming and his Interpen (Intercontinental Penetration Forces), Hemming's group of soldiers of fortune training at No Name Key in Florida for sabotage against Cuba. CIA was troubled that Hemming's visit might lead Garrison to focus on Robert K. Brown and on the JMWAVE station's activities. The Agency had to admit to the FBI that Hemming was a source. Soon the ONI was inquiring of Hoover what information he had on Hemming. Then the Defense Investigative Program Office asked <' Naval Intelligence for its Hemming files. Five days after Hemming's visit, Lawrence Laborde's son, Michael, appeared at Tulane and Broad. His goal was to divert Jim Garrison's attention from his father and to implicate Hemming and Hargraves. Hargraves had called David Ferrie shortly before the assassination, Michael claimed. Then he told the Bureau: "You have to stop Garrison before he harms the country." At the end of July another CIA asset, Frank Bartes, that cousin of Dr. Frank Silva, whose name appears in Oswald's notebook as "Bardes," arrived with a message from Hemming. He wants to be a friend to this office; he wants "to do whatever he can to help you," Bartes says. A decade later, Hemming admitted to HSCA investigator Gaeton Fonzi that he had lied to Jim Garrison. "I created smoke myself," he confessed. He had passed on to Garrison useless "smoked" names through "cut-outs." Garrison's West Coast volunteers had begun to focus on the specious Hemming names, California-based right-wingers who had nothing to do with the assassination. Garrison perceived, correctly, that Hemming's "mission was to add to the confusion." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Charles-Dunne Posted December 5, 2005 Share Posted December 5, 2005 Here is the relevant passage in Joan Mellen's book, A Farewell to Justice (pages 248-252) Hemming .... lies convincingly, with so much passion, that it seems inconceivable that he doesn't believe what he is saying. Digression is his tactic, doubt a stranger. ------------------------ "There is reason to believe he is still working for the CIA," Garrison remarked when Hemming was gone. He drew this conclusion without knowing that only four months earlier, Hemming had turned up at CIA officer Justin P. Gleichauf's house to report on Rolando Masferrer's projected Haitian invasion. CIA concluded that Hemming was targeting his own assets. Hemming "was an informer for the CIA," while claiming to be with Naval Intelligence. ------------------------ A decade later, Hemming admitted to HSCA investigator Gaeton Fonzi that he had lied to Jim Garrison. "I created smoke myself," he confessed. He had passed on to Garrison useless "smoked" names through "cut-outs." Garrison's West Coast volunteers had begun to focus on the specious Hemming names, California-based right-wingers who had nothing to do with the assassination. Garrison perceived, correctly, that Hemming's "mission was to add to the confusion." Apparently, I'm not alone in concluding that GPH's role here is disingenuous, at best. This may explain how Gerry and Tim Gratz became instant kissing cousins. Distract, distort, mislead and lie. Of course, one can never entirely disregard everything that Gerry says, because good disinformation is grounded in fact, but then extrapolated into something unrecognizable as the truth. I've always relished the summation given by Ronald Augustinovich to author Dick Russell: "Half of what I'll tell you might be truth, and the other half bullxxxx. But all of it is what I was told. That's part of the game in the intelligence business. You confuse your own operatives with false information; maybe nobody knows the full truth about a particular assignment." I always enjoy reading Gerry's posts, particularly the ones that make sense, albeit with the knowledge that the bulk of their content may be hooey. Attempting to discern which portion is true, and which is not, is the tricky part. For example, Gerry claims that he and his paramilitary cohorts were drafted to provide security for JFK at Miami International Airport, a claim that I find preposterous on its face. In rebuttal to my suggestion that this was a nose-stretcher, Gerry further claimed that there is photographic and film evidence of their presence there on that occasion. Despite the purported existence of this proof for his claim, Gerry seems unconcerned about obtaining or providing it to refute naysayers such as me. This strikes one as a rather cavalier approach, considering that such evidence would exponentially improve his credibility for those of us who tend to disbelieve him. Instead, we are berated and hectored and characterized as somehow unworthy of being taken seriously. Or gross aspersions are cast about our sexuality, or gender, or what-have-you. I, for one, would love to see that film and photo evidence showing Hemming and crew were press-ganged into providing JFK with additional security during such a 'hotspot' visit. It might tell us more about Secret Service protocols than that agency has admitted to date, and may explain at least part of the reason that Secret Service wrote a letter of thanks to the CIA for helping out with the President's security during that Florida visit. If Hemming and crew were at the MIA for that security task, who would have shoe-horned them into that position? Who had the credibility with the Secret Service to vouch for a bunch of gun-happy irregulars? And, if they showed up unarmed [and, hence, all but useless] as Gerry has claimed, what was their purpose? If not to provide security, perhaps it was to keep a watchful eye open for chinks and deficiencies in the SS playbook that could be exploited only days later. If Gerry has been misdirecting interested parties for the past three-plus decades, I suggest it is because he has a personal stake in doing so, not because he has been retained for the purpose by CIA or any other party. His initial worry about Garrison seemed to be that: "....Garrison might consider as suspects the men training with him for sabotage against Cuba." One wonders if that same fear is what motivates him still? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now