Jump to content
The Education Forum

The KKK Scenario


Tim Gratz
 Share

Recommended Posts

No, I do not mean that Southern racists killed Kennedy.

The CIA sometimes used the name KUBARK.

So KKK stands for KUBARK KILLED KENNEDY.

Of course the theory that the CIA killed Kennedy is a popular one among many assassination researchers.

I want to use this thread to allow proponents of that scenario a place to post evidence to support their "CIA did it" theory.

I also want to start with the question: under what circumstances can it be stated that the CIA, as an institution, killed Kennedy. The question is similar to when a corporation can be held criminally responsible for actions of its officers.

If John McCone had directed his subordinates to kill Kennedy (and they did) then certainly the CIA killed Kennedy.

What if a high-ranking officer of the CIA (not to pick on him but let's say for purposes of this discussion) Richard Helms got together with David Phillips and they involved David Morales in the plot, which included some anti-Castro Cubans. Further assume that McCone was not witting of the plot and no one in the CIA other than Helms, Phillips and Morales participated in it.

Would it then be correct to say that the CIA as an institution killed Kennedy? I think not.

Presumably the anti-Castro Cubans with whom the CIA were working (and funding) would be considered CIA assets but not CIA agents. Certainly if some of those individuals conspired to kill Kennedy, but no CIA officers were involved or even aware of the plot, then it certainly could not be said that "Kubark Killed Kennedy".

One point I am getting at is that if Kennedy was killed by anti-Castro Cubans with whom the CIA was working it would look terrible for the CIA even though no one from the CIA was involved.

From the CIA's stand-point, a cover-up could have been warranted even if only to prevent a discovery that some of its assets had killed Kennedy. For the obvious reason: if a CIA asset killed Kennedy, the speculation would be rife that the asset had taken direction from a CIA officer.

For those of you who believe so strongly that Kubark Killed Kennedy I would invite you to use this thread to comment on who, from the CIA, you believe was involved, and, more importantly, any FACTS you have to support your theory.

Thank you for your attention and expected responses. I am looking forward to see evidence not speculation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have such a rosy view of government!

You want to insure that no one blames the agency, even if their agents acted on this.

If the illegal, immoral and violent CIA programs and covert ops of the late 1950's

and early 1960's set the stage for deniable, off the books operations, well, then the CIA still gets a free pass ...

"it" didn't do it because the DI McCone didn't write the order down and send you a signed copy of the plans ......

If the mindset of CIA MK ULTRA mind control, cancer-to-kill research, induced madness and political murder around the world set the stage and gave skills and training to the killers of Kennedy, do you still say the CIA had no responsibility?

If John Gotti and Vincent the Chin order "Fats" Chicolino to kill Judge Parker,

(under your theory) ... the "Mafia" didn't do anything, just a few "rogues" ...

The system of running unstable and violent individuals, in illegal and poorly designed covert ops, the whole CIA joint agency DOMESTIC operations of the

period...that is the backdrop we are working in front of in order to solve this crime,

and place responsibility ....

Your patriotic denial and willingness to forgive and indulge a classified secret agency until THEY relaease undeniable evidence AGAINST THEMSELVES is misplaced....

I see it more like third century Rome, where the palace guard,

Centurians and generals of the Legions decided who was to be Ceasar.

Blood was shed and no one reading history is surprised. But Dallas ?

Get real............Power is as Power does, and the victor cleans up after....

Edited by Shanet Clark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shanet, are you reading all my posts?

Did I not state that I think that anyone, from the President to the Deputy Director of the CIA who authorized assassination attempts were guilty of criminal conspiracy to commit murder?

For this I am a CIA apologist? With friends like me the CIA needs no enemies!

And I believed I also stated there is no legal difference between plotting to kill a foreign head of state and plotting to kill an American citizen.

The difficulty is that the assassination plots were most likely personally approved by both Eisenhower and Kennedy and, if so, my indictment must include them as well. Historians are more inclined to believe that JFK was witting than Eisenhower was.

But to state that the CIA had dirty programs and plotted the murder of foreign heads of state when such regime change, if not expressly authorized by the President would have at least been welcomed by the President (I mean the end result, not the methodology) is a far cry from proving the CIA plotted Kennedy's murder.

I had agreed with Robert Charles-Dunne that the CIA left itself open for accusations that it participated in the JFK assassination by its involvement in efforts to kill foreign leaders. After further reflection, however, I think the followsing is a good question: can you name a foreign leader the CIA plotted to kill when the removal of such person was inconsistent with the desires of the POTUS? I cannot think of one. Which is why many historians believe the CIA had the implicit, if not written approval of the POTUS. Am I wrong here?

SO: saying the CIA did bad things that furthered presumed presidential objectives is not evidence the CIA killed JFK.

Are you aware of any EVIDENCE indicarting CIA involvement in the assasssination?

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tim

I am going to lean toward Shanet in this debate. If participation in a coverup is part of the act (accessory after the fact) then I think the Warren Report is full of examples:

"Are you aware of any EVIDENCE indicarting CIA involvement in the assasssination?"

One of my favorites has to do with Oswald's flight from London to Helsinki. The cost of the flight was exactly $111.90 (WR pg 257). In response to a direct question from the WC the CIA only stated that there were no direct flights from London to Helsinki that would have allowed Oswald to check into the Torni Hotel by the time that he, in fact, did check in. A truthful response to the question asked by the Warren Commission could have allowed the commissioners to examine the passenger records of the flights that were available. Would we may have found a sensitive name among those passengers?

Does inpeading the investigation indicate "CIA involvement?"

I do know that the CIA knew where Oswald was working (Morley) and that the motorcade route was planned after this information was available (WC). Was the CIA negligent or culpable? For myself, this is the interesting question speculate upon.

In California, I believe, if a bar tender continues to pour drinks for an obviously drunk patron and the patron is then involved in a accident that kills another human, the bar tender can be held criminally liable.

Jim Root

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even within the context and paradigm (assumptions) of the Warren Commission,

the Single Bullet and Lone gunman theory, the CIA is at fault

-- The CIA failed to monitor and impede the Dallas assassin, a counter defector who had recently been sighted at communist bloc embassies, a man tied to Hunt, Phillips and DeMorencshildt, a man whose wife was daughter of a KGB/GRU family, a man who was given to Marxist rantings on television, etc.

If nothing else, the CIA failed to do their ACTUAL and LEGITIMATE duty,

and failed to protect the President against hostile possibly foreign controlled threats.

But given the Minsk issue, Edwin Walker, The Baron, David Ferrie and the lookalike sightings, it probably went much much deeper, CIA-wise...

[HE WAS KUBALLED]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To Jim:

You had a very interesting post.

The words "cover-up" are inevitably linked to the "investigation of the assassination.

I never practiced criminal law so I am not aware of the legal distinction between the terms "accessory after the fact" and "obstruction of justice". Logically, one could assume that concealing evidence to prevent law enforcement from either discovering the crime or apprehending the criminal would constitute at least an obstruction of justice. From that perspective, any one who concealed or destroyed evidence obstructed justice and was, in that sense, "involved" with the crime. One difficulty I have is that some crimes require an element of specific intent. In this context, specific intent would mean that it was the actor's specific intent to obstruct justice.

Let us take the destruction of the Hosty note as an example. Arguably, the content of that note had little if any bearing on whether Oswald acted alone. It might have borne on Oswald's propensity to commit violence, irrelevant once Oswald was dead and there would be no trial. The note clearly reflected on the FBI's performance and that is the reason most people assume Hoover destroyed it. But with LHO dead, the destruction of the note, as reprehensible an act as it was, may not constitute the obstruction of justice.

What about when the leadership of the FBI and CIA ordered their subordinates to cease investigating leads bearing on possible foreign complicity in the assassination. Were those orders an obstruction of justice? Arguably so, I would say. Even if following the leads would have demonstrated there was no foreign involvement, the order interfered with the investigation.

By this rationale, even RFK was an accessory after the fact to his brother's murder. We know that on May 7, 1962 RFK was informed (perhaps for the first time but perhaps not) of the CIA/Mafia plots to kill Castro. Yet when the WC asked RFK if he was aware of any other areas that needed investigation, after a delay of several months, he answered no and never disclosed the plots.

Several members of the WC and its staff made statements that the WC would have spent much more time investigating the possibility of a foreign conspiracy had the WC been apprised of those plots.

Certainly the witholding of evidence that LHO was working for a US intelligence agency (if indeed he was) might constitute obstruction, depending again on the need to prove a specific intent to obstruct justice.

However, it is important to note that the destruction of evidence or other acts in furtherance of a "cover-up" does not necessarily imply participation in the crime before the fact.

My preliminary thoughts on your perceptive comments on the responsibility to be assigned to persons and agencies who participated in the cover-up but not the assassination itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To Jim:

By this rationale, even RFK was an accessory after the fact to his brother's murder. We know that on May 7, 1962 RFK was informed (perhaps for the first time but perhaps not) of the CIA/Mafia plots to kill Castro. Yet when the WC asked RFK if he was aware of any other areas that needed investigation, after a delay of several months, he answered no and never disclosed the plots.

End Quote

Tim, it is important to note that as far as RFK knew, the CIA/mafia plots had come to an end in 1961. The CIA neglected to tell him in 62 that the plans were ongoing. They also neglected to tell John McCone. It wasn't till 67 that LBJ knew anything of the AMLASH operation, which had come to a head after Kennedy's death and LBJ's swearing-in.

Despite the impassioned pleas of many CIA apologists (mostly Kennedy haters), the historical record is clear that members of the CIA, in part through their deceptive use of plausible denial, conduted their own foreign policy between 1961 and 1966. They were undoubtedly out of control. The Bayo-Pawley Affair, which appears to have had CIA backing even though it was a right-wing plot designed to embarrass the President is but one example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pat, it is a thoughtful post.

Arguably, RFK should have informed the WC of the plots even though he had been told they had been terminated. Then the WC could have investigated whether they were really terminated.

And of course there is some indication both JFK and RFK were witting of the Cubela caper.

And what about Operation Mongoose and the continued sabotage efforts against Cuba, definitely Kennedy approved operations.

Nobody's hands were clean here.

In fact, some commentators believe RFK wanted Dulles to serve on the WC precisely because he thought Dulles would help "keep the lid on" the U.S. secret war against Castro.

Re the cover-up, however, put yourself in the shoes of LBJ. Whether or not Castro did indeed kill Kennedy, LBJ had some powerful evidence pointing in that direction. LBJ feared that if that evidence was pursued and a Castro link was in fact determined, the public would demand an invasion of Cuba which could provoke a nuclear war resulting in the deaths of millions of innocent Americans. LBJ could not predict in advance the result of a thorough investigation.

If you were in his shoes, what would you do? Since retaliation against Cuba would not bring JFK back, would punishing JFK's killer be worth sacrificing the lives of millions of American citizens? You know, I suspect JFK, who struggled so hard to prevent a nuclear exchange, would himself have applauded the decision to cover up.

Remember when the decision had to be made, LBJ had no idea where the investigation would lead. I think it would have led to Cuba. If I am wrong and an investigation would have cleared Castro whether or not it found the actual conspirators, that was a result LBJ could not have predicted up-front.

We do not know now, and, unfortunately may never know with any certainty who killed JFK because of that fateful decision. But that decision may be why we are all still alive to debate these issues.

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pat and Tim

I have spent a great deal of time thinking about why various people and organizations would have involved themselves within a "cover-up" IF they were not actually involved in a conspiracy to assassinate the President. Robert Kennedy is, of course, the most conspicuous in this area. Hosty's distruction of a note is very suspicious but his actions before the assassination are very professional. His testimony is enlightning, even more so since the revelations of Jefferson Morley and John Neuman can track his notes to the highest levels of the CIA (in reading his testimony it seems that Dulles and McCloy are shocked by the revelation of his November 4th note being made public....it was never assigned an exhibit number!).

To believe that Dulles and McCloy were not aware of US intelligence efforts to destablize foreign governments that were in conflict with US Policy is unbelivable from my perspective. We now know that they were both aware of Nosenko and his defection although the official story was that only Warren was briefed on Nosenko.

This is an interesting train of thought:

"it is important to note that the destruction of evidence or other acts in furtherance of a "cover-up" does not necessarily imply participation in the crime before the fact."

While I am not sure I agree with you I'm also not sure I disagree in dealing with this case, at least with the before the fact aspect. When it comes to this "crime of the century" the coverup is as intriguing as the actual assassination. While some may believe the Warren Report, indepth reading allows one to find fault (with our without intent) with so many aspects of it that we tend to see conspirators everywhere. I for one believe any conspiracy would have to have been conceived by a few individuals at most. The fact that so many conspiracy theories exist (potentially involving so many different groups and people) may be the greatest protection any actual conspirators have/had.

If Oswald had been used by intelligence agencies (both US and foreign) many people would have a reason to cover their behinds. Kennedy had as many enemies as any polititician could ever have had...each wanting to distance themselves from the assassination (in the case of the mafia maybe enjoy having people give them credit for the assassination). In this aspect Oswald may have been the "patsy" that had to be covered up to protect the misdeeds of so many others. Etc. Etc.

The possibility that someone or group may have invisioned and encouraged this type of speculation intrigues me. Is it beyond belief that that person/group would have to be at the highest level of government?

Jim Root

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I, too, have come to the conclusion that the cover-up was quite likely an entirely separate act from the murder. LBJ, who had had little foreign policy experience, was suddenly thrown into the spotlight. He looked out and saw the likes of James Sourwine and Thomas Mann salivating over the opportunity to turn JFK's death into an excuse for war. He turned to his buddy Hoover to help him silence the sound of marching feet, and, unwittingly, covered up his predeccessor's murder. It's certainly possible.

After reading the mountains of testimony, and comparing them to the memoirs of those involved, it's clear a lot of mistakes were made. LBJ's decisions in November and December 63 certainly set a tone for those on the WC---trust Hoover and don't look too hard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...