Jump to content
The Education Forum

Daniel P. Sheehan


John Simkin
 Share

Recommended Posts

John,

Judge King certainly did put the Christic Institute out of business. They were a true threat to the covert action boys, and Dan Sheehan was certainly targeted for retribution for his efforts.

Bill: Dan Sheehan has long been one of my MAJOR heros in life and I have wondered for years now what became of him. He just disappeared. Do you happen to know to where?

Also, the "former Catholic priest" who co-founded COPA would not be the (wonderful) James Douglas would it?

Dawn

Hello Dawn,

Sorry about being so tardy in response, but yes, as John has pointed out, it was Bill Davies. At those first early COPA organizational meetings, I sat between Bill Davies and Peter Dale Scott at tables arranged in a square so we all faced each other - about 30 people, also including Jim Lesar, Dan Alcorn, John Judge, John Newman, and others. I drove down from Atlantic City with Robert C., a Cherry Hill N.J. police Lt. The meetings were held over two days, and during breaks for lunch or afterwards we all walked around the corner to the Hawk & Dove bar. I talked with Davies, who was then from California, more than any of the others, a very mellow guy, though I don't know what happened to him.

The American reporter injured in the bomb explosion in Central America was Tony Avirgan, and the target of the bomb was Sandinesta Commander Zero, a non-communist who fought the Contras.

Although the Christic Institute failed, I think their legal tactics worked and that they should be reapplied to the political assassinations in the United States.

BK

Does anyone have more than a passing interest of the prospect of inviting Peter Dale Scott to visit the Forum to answer questions about his new book "Drugs, Oil, and War: The United States in Afghanistan, Colombia, and Indochina"

I believe this book will be the definitive work on the 'dynamics' of what has been gradually taking place in this country over the last five years i.e. foreign policy especially or, rather the fact that our countries neo-con foreign policy seems synonymous with the conceptualization of a 'third millenium version of the crusades';

I would, like to hear what ideas he has (as well as anybody else, for that matter) on making the ideas expressed in this thread part of the 'intellectual debate' in this country regarding 'our future,' when the extreme right or whatever you wan't to call the "neo-con cabal" which is at the wheel of American foreign policy more or less successfully passes itself off as 'mainstream' to the "Great Unwashed."

The current intellectual debate, at least in the print media between left and right, between those opposed to the neo-conservative agenda and those who advocate it, remind me of a political version of the "Phony-War" or drôle de guerre, as the French put it.

Edited by Robert Howard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 80
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

[quote name='Robert Howard' date='Dec 8 2005, 12:33 AM' post='47807']

Does anyone have more than a passing interest of the prospect of inviting Peter Dale Scott to visit the Forum to answer questions about his new book "Drugs, Oil, and War: The United States in Afghanistan, Colombia, and Indochina"

I believe this book will be the definitive work on the 'dynamics' of what has been gradually taking place in this country over the last five years i.e. foreign policy especially or, rather the fact that our countries neo-con foreign policy seems synonymous with the conceptualization of a 'third millenium version of the crusades';

I would, like to hear what ideas he has (as well as anybody else, for that matter) on making the ideas expressed in this thread part of the 'intellectual debate' in this country regarding 'our future,' when the extreme right or whatever you wan't to call the "neo-con cabal" which is at the wheel of American foreign policy more or less successfully passes itself off as 'mainstream' to the "Great Unwashed."

The current intellectual debate in the media between left and right, between those opposed to the neo-conservative agenda and those who advocate it, remind me of a political version of the "Phony-War" or drôle de guerre, as the French put it.

I believe it would be wonderful for Peter Dale Scott to come onto the forum. I suspect John may have already invited him, but it would not hurt to try again. His thoughts, and work have always been so very correct and insightful. I for one find the thought of 3 more years of Bush, his neo-cons and this war horribly depressing. I don't think the country can even sustain it; they've about broken us financially. I fear the next war Bush starts will be one with nukes: a terrifying prospect. I daresay I am more frightened by this administration and what I fear it is capable of than any before it, including Nixon and Bush 1, who were pretty damn scary too.

Dawn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John wrote:

It has always been the policy of the CIA to deny the truth of these allegations whilst smearing the good name of the investigators. This has been true of all those who have investigated the role of the CIA in the assassination of JFK. Some like Tim Gratz are only too keen to believe these smear stories. In fact, at every opportunity, he takes the side of the CIA against these investigators

Why would I not "take the side of the CIA" as you put it when the evidence for any CIA involvement in the assassination is as thin as a reed? But I repeat myself til I am blue in the face: it was reprehensible beyond any level of condemnation for the CIA to almost literally get "in bed with the devil" in an attempt to murder a foreign head of state. If the preemise of "Ultimate Sacrifice" is correct, it was that moral compromise that allowed the Mafia to kill our president with impunity.

Do I believe left-wingers deliberately distort the facts of the JFK assassination to besmirch and injure the CIA because they know that to do so will ultimately injure the United States, which is their true objective? Absolutely. Is John Simkin part of this scheme? Of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John wrote:

Do I believe left-wingers deliberately distort the facts of the JFK assassination to besmirch and injure the CIA because they know that to do so will ultimately injure the United States, which is their true objective? Absolutely. Is John Simkin part of this scheme? Of course.

Excuse Me for running interferience here, but it's a real stretch to accept the idea that John Simkin's true, secret, agenda is to injure the United States, the home of the free and the brave...who has actually made a difference already by just setting up this network. Thank you John.

And if it wasn't for Tim Gratz's inquisitive and decisive requests, he wouldn't have drawn out and given us the jucey details and solid overall perspective that we've come to expect from Simkin, so its always good to have the devil's advocate at the table to call the hand and make sure we're all playing fair, as the devil is in the details.

But on the same tokin, almost every significant post on a topic of importance is hijacked enroute before it goes anywhere, degenerating into a sophmoric debate that ends nowhere. Is that by ignorance or design?

Anybody who views the assassination of JFK through the lens of a liberal or conservative, democrat or republican, right wing or left wing philosophy, is not even in the game, where truth is the goal.

In the current issue of Rolling Stone, with Madona on the cover, James NSA Bamford premiers his apparent take over of the National Affairs Desk (God Bless HST), profiling John Rendon, a "perception manager" and Jersey Guy who the DOD and CIA paid $100 million dollars, so far, to sell the war in Iraq. Modern Mockingbird Guru.

Among the uses for this money is : "...engaging in 'military deception' on line....contracted to monitor Internet chat rooms in both English and Arabic - and 'participate in these chat rooms when/if tasked....'"

Rendon, by the way, is a, was a liberal democrat behind McGovern and Carter. who supports the whales, so all this liberal v. conservative, democrat v. republican stuff is all BS.

There really is no debate, JFK was murdered, those who killed him took over the government and got away with it, and those responsible are still in power today, and there's nothing you or me can do about it.

And anybody who thinks the CIA or Republicans or left wingers or right wingers are responsible for anything, or bothers to defend them, just don't get it.

BK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill, with all due respect, the Mafia killed JFK (possibly with the help of Castro).

Bill wrote:

Excuse Me for running interferience here, but it's a real stretch to accept the idea that John Simkin's true, secret, agenda is to injure the United States, the home of the free and the brave...who has actually made a difference already by just setting up this network. Thank you John.

Of course it is a stretch, Bill, and I do not for a moment assert that John has such a secret agenda. The whole point of last post was to demonstrate how ridiculous it is to impugn someone's motives with no basis for doing so. But that happens routinely on the Forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill, with all due respect, the Mafia killed JFK (possibly with the help of Castro).

Bill wrote:

Excuse Me for running interferience here, but it's a real stretch to accept the idea that John Simkin's true, secret, agenda is to injure the United States, the home of the free and the brave...who has actually made a difference already by just setting up this network. Thank you John.

Of course it is a stretch, Bill, and I do not for a moment assert that John has such a secret agenda. The whole point of last post was to demonstrate how ridiculous it is to impugn someone's motives with no basis for doing so. But that happens routinely on the Forum.

Tim, it was late last night and I didn't read through the sarcasm, but such accusations happens routinely on every forum.

Now the name of the forum is JFK Assassination debate, which is different from JFK Assassination research, where the purpose isn't to argue different sides of an issue but to take what is known and learn more.

To me the JFK Assassination isn't a sophmoric forensic society debate team issue, but an unsolved homicide that can be solved despite the institutional unwillingness to do so.

Hijacking posts and giving your unasked opinion on every thread is a distraction.

And we know, LBJ knew, I know and everybody who wants to know understands the Mafia, Cuba or the Russkies didn't kill JFK because we - the FBI and NSA - monitored the leaders of these enteties when they received the news of the murder. And besides, such organizations can't be indicted for crimes, only individuals who may be a part of one of those entities, however when we get down to naming names, I'm sure it will be discerned as a domestic, inside job, and thus a coup.

As for Sheehan's tactics, using RICO and Tony A. to go after the covert action boys, well I hope the same tactics are used against those who commit domestic political assassination - including those who killed JFK.

I don't think it will be a matter of opinion or a long debate, but we will all know for sure soon, maybe a few years, but in the end, it will all come out in the cosmic wash.

BK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do I believe left-wingers deliberately distort the facts of the JFK assassination to besmirch and injure the CIA because they know that to do so will ultimately injure the United States, which is their true objective? Absolutely. Is John Simkin part of this scheme? Of course.

This is about the most insane thing you have ever posted Tim. Really, I am truly starting to question your damn sanity. How DRAE you say that those of us who don't share your nazi-assed right wing views lack patriotism and would like to see injury come ot this country!! I am sick to death of your president and his merry band of hoods spouting this garbage for now 5 years.

I remind you that we do still have a 1st amendment here, tho barely. This includes the right of fress expression/speech. I know that your insecure little president cannot handle criticism of any kind and

so he and his adherents attack those with views different from theirs as being "disloyal to America". That is hogwash.

If you really believe John wishes to harm America why do you spend so much time on his forum?

Dawn

[color=#336666]

Bill, with all due respect, the Mafia killed JFK (possibly with the help of Castro).

Well, well well. For a year you have pushed the Castro and/ or/Soviets did it bs, now suddenly it's the Mob, "POSSIBLY with the help of Castro"????

Pray tell, when did you change your view and what was the impetus?

Dawn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill, with all due respect, the Mafia killed JFK (possibly with the help of Castro).

Bill wrote:

Excuse Me for running interferience here, but it's a real stretch to accept the idea that John Simkin's true, secret, agenda is to injure the United States, the home of the free and the brave...who has actually made a difference already by just setting up this network. Thank you John.

Of course it is a stretch, Bill, and I do not for a moment assert that John has such a secret agenda. The whole point of last post was to demonstrate how ridiculous it is to impugn someone's motives with no basis for doing so. But that happens routinely on the Forum.

Tim, it was late last night and I didn't read through the sarcasm, but such accusations happens routinely on every forum.

Now the name of the forum is JFK Assassination debate, which is different from JFK Assassination research, where the purpose isn't to argue different sides of an issue but to take what is known and learn more.

To me the JFK Assassination isn't a sophmoric forensic society debate team issue, but an unsolved homicide that can be solved despite the institutional unwillingness to do so.

Hijacking posts and giving your unasked opinion on every thread is a distraction.

And we know, LBJ knew, I know and everybody who wants to know understands the Mafia, Cuba or the Russkies didn't kill JFK because we - the FBI and NSA - monitored the leaders of these enteties when they received the news of the murder. And besides, such organizations can't be indicted for crimes, only individuals who may be a part of one of those entities, however when we get down to naming names, I'm sure it will be discerned as a domestic, inside job, and thus a coup.

As for Sheehan's tactics, using RICO and Tony A. to go after the covert action boys, well I hope the same tactics are used against those who commit domestic political assassination - including those who killed JFK.

I don't think it will be a matter of opinion or a long debate, but we will all know for sure soon, maybe a few years, but in the end, it will all come out in the cosmic wash.

BK

------------------------------

A while back, during a rather lengthy telephone conversation with a forum member, and one who is NOT conversant in the law -- I made reference to "The Why" I had gone into the "Habeas Corpus" matter in such depth and detail.

I further explained that: I had focused upon Justice Field because, quite soon I will submit some articles which show that -- beginning with "Marbury vs. Madison", thru "In Re: Neagle [the Field case]; some experts show just how the "Imperial Presidency" began, and has since been "legalized" by both the Courts & the Congress.

Because of the current "Theory of Law", and which is embedded in 200+ years of repeated enacting and affirming of said laws, we have a "Presidency" which is fully authorized to take us to war, pre-emptively or otherwise [viz: covert actions]!! And moreover, any challenges to the ongoing wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, or soon to be Syria or Iran; are TOTALLY JUSTIFIED, under all theories of constitutional and international law !!

[That is: Save an extreme series of amendment(s) to the U.S. Constitution, which is highly unlikely !!]

Upon explaining that: In the remote event that should someone be indicted for the murder of JFK, and that individual (or group) claims immunity -- by having had the status as a "Lawful Combatant/Belligerent" -- ALL charges MUST be dismissed !!

Moreover, should said "Combatant/Belligerent" identify himself as having been the subject of --- or had a lawful "Liege") which was then under an even "de facto" State-of-War status; the accused WALKS !!

A "de facto" State-of-War has existed, for instance: With North Korea, since, and despite the signing of the "Armistice" at Pan Mun Jom during the evening of July 27th, 1953 [Korean Time, as it was still July 26th here in the U.S., and Fidel was attacking Moncada Barracks almost at the same moment as the signing !!]

A lawful "de facto" State-of-War has existed since the 15th of April, 1961 -- between the United States and The Republic of Cuba, and this because of the "Belligerent Actions" -- which are now styled as the "Bay of Pigs" ["Playa Giron" in Cuba]

The very same lawful authority follows "Shrub-43" throughout his every move since taking office. He never had to go to Congress, nor make stupid references during the "State-of-The-Union" or anywhere else. Only a joint resolution in "Revocation" of these powers, which preceded even F.D.R.; will act to change anything currently underway !!

Back to JFK. Should any shooter claim "Lawful Combatant/Belligerent Status", he [or they] must prove the following:

[A] In accordance with Treaties, Int'l Law, The Rules of Land Warfare, U.S. Constitution Article which permits "Letters of Marque" -- said accused must demonstrate they were indeed members of a "Foreign Prince, Power, or State";

That they wore a uniform [no laws of any nation/state describes what type of uniform] with an "Insignia-Recognizable-at-a-Distance", and that throughout, they "Carried-Arms-Openly"; and,

[C] That the singular method for avoidance of being charged as a spy/assassin, is by "Demonstrating" a certifiable "Commission-to-Cruise" !!

If said shooter wore a police uniform, carried arms openly, and had mounted a foreign belligerent's "National Crest" upon their hats or chests, THEY WALK. However, any disciplined-in-the-law foreign minister, or attorney general, would necessarily, not only have taken pre-incident photographs -- but also would have filmed the attack !!

Moreover, the "lawful Commander" would have directed his "Chain-of-Command-Subordinates" to insure that a sufficient number of both witnesses and camera-persons had been stationed [both film & still] on the scene. This would "lawfully" protect the "legalities" of the killing of a "Commander-in-Chief", who centuries ago -- was considered a "Lawful Combatant" himself !!

Towards the end of my diatribe, this member mentioned his extensive interviews of an individual who claimed participation in the "Killing" of JFK; and moreover, had photographs showing him to be in a foreign uniform -- and that very uniform was that of a known "Belligerent" [Foreign, Prince, Power, or State] !!

"WHITE-OUT" Anybody ??!!

Chairs,

GPH

________________________________

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gerry, that's an interesting take on the assassination.

Is this veiled information, or is it just a theory with a basis in law??

Or am I stepping out of bounds here by asking?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John wrote:

It has always been the policy of the CIA to deny the truth of these allegations whilst smearing the good name of the investigators. This has been true of all those who have investigated the role of the CIA in the assassination of JFK. Some like Tim Gratz are only too keen to believe these smear stories. In fact, at every opportunity, he takes the side of the CIA against these investigators

Why would I not "take the side of the CIA" as you put it when the evidence for any CIA involvement in the assassination is as thin as a reed? But I repeat myself til I am blue in the face: it was reprehensible beyond any level of condemnation for the CIA to almost literally get "in bed with the devil" in an attempt to murder a foreign head of state. If the preemise of "Ultimate Sacrifice" is correct, it was that moral compromise that allowed the Mafia to kill our president with impunity.

Do I believe left-wingers deliberately distort the facts of the JFK assassination to besmirch and injure the CIA because they know that to do so will ultimately injure the United States, which is their true objective? Absolutely. Is John Simkin part of this scheme? Of course.

I wish the United States no harm at all. Every time I visit the country I am impressed by the generousity and optimism of the American people. My problem is not with the American people but with the American political system. A system that votes people like George Bush into office.

I also think that America has the most corrupt political system in the Western World. The JFK assassination cover-up is just one example of this corruption. I will do anything I can to help the American people to clean up its system. This Forum is just one example of my "agenda". My website is another. Nor do I restrict my criticism to the United States. The UK government has also become increasingly corrupt. This is partly as a result of the activities of the CIA (see what they did to the Labour government after the Second World War)and successive American governments, especially the current one.

For another view on the dangers of the current administration see the speech made by Harold Pinter yesterday when accepting the Nobel Prize for Literature:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5582

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gerry, that's an interesting take on the assassination.

Is this veiled information, or is it just a theory with a basis in law??

Or am I stepping out of bounds here by asking?

-----------------------------------

Bobby Kennedy issued "Letters-of-Marque" to Harry, Manolo, Angelo, et al. during the Spring of 1963. This was subsequent to my having obtained "Commissions-to-Cruise" for Tony Cuesta's "Comandos L". [All such documents, and copies were maintained in secure safes, and would be presented IF the need later arose.]

However, those issued for Felipe Vidal Santiago's "F.L.N.", Eduardo "Bayo" Perez's "F.R.C.", et al. followed somewhat later !!

If you read Dickey Chappelle's story ["Fire in The Wind", by Roberta Ostroff]; you will find the scene where we all go down to the U.S. Post Office/Federal Couthouse, Miami, Florida. at midnight.

Felipe [as did Noriega, when he lawfully declared his "Belligerency" against the U.S. - 1989] properly raised the Banner of his organization ["Liege"] in his left hand, while holding a recognizable weapon in his right, "Loudly Declared His Belligerency" against the extant Republic of Cuba !!

Dickey properly recorded and photographed said event. The following day, all relevant materials were sent by "Registered Mail" to: The A.G. (RFK), The O.A.S., The Swiss, and the U.N. !!

On the early morning of Felipe's execution at "El Paredon" in the moat of La Cabana Fortress, Fidel Castro openly stated that: "....This is THE ONLY counter-revolutionary who has acted in accordance with International Law....but that will NOT save his life...for he came here to murder me...!!

The legal scholars who had assisted RFK; even before his 1963 issuance [and safe storage in a safe] of "Letters-of-Marque-and-Reprisal" to various "Lawful Combatants" -- had determined that:

Indeed the "War Powers Act", and the Constitutional delegation of Congressional powers to the Executive; fully endorsed an Attorney General's issuance thereof !!

Later,

GPH

____________________

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John wrote:

It has always been the policy of the CIA to deny the truth of these allegations whilst smearing the good name of the investigators. This has been true of all those who have investigated the role of the CIA in the assassination of JFK. Some like Tim Gratz are only too keen to believe these smear stories. In fact, at every opportunity, he takes the side of the CIA against these investigators

Why would I not "take the side of the CIA" as you put it when the evidence for any CIA involvement in the assassination is as thin as a reed? But I repeat myself til I am blue in the face: it was reprehensible beyond any level of condemnation for the CIA to almost literally get "in bed with the devil" in an attempt to murder a foreign head of state. If the preemise of "Ultimate Sacrifice" is correct, it was that moral compromise that allowed the Mafia to kill our president with impunity.

Do I believe left-wingers deliberately distort the facts of the JFK assassination to besmirch and injure the CIA because they know that to do so will ultimately injure the United States, which is their true objective? Absolutely. Is John Simkin part of this scheme? Of course.

The only person who has utilized evidence as "thin as a reed" here is you. Your "nonexistent" case for Castro's culpability (which has since morphed into the slightly more solid case for the Mob's culpability) in the assassination is/was based entirely on could-haves and would-haves. I find it particularly humorous that you fault Garrison's case because his only witness to the overt act of conspiracy was Perry Russo* (leaving aside the other evidence against Shaw). This a good deal better than the smoke from which you constructed your theory.

Your thesis that the reason "left-wingers" implicate the CIA in the assassination is to harm the United States is so laughable, I don't know where to begin. So I won't. It speaks for itself.

*Russo, by the way, was an extreme right-winger, probably more so than yourself. This makes his testimony all the more compelling to me, because I find it doubtful that he would fabricate a right-wing conspiracy to murder JFK (whom he despised).

Edited by Owen Parsons
Link to comment
Share on other sites

John wrote:

It has always been the policy of the CIA to deny the truth of these allegations whilst smearing the good name of the investigators. This has been true of all those who have investigated the role of the CIA in the assassination of JFK. Some like Tim Gratz are only too keen to believe these smear stories. In fact, at every opportunity, he takes the side of the CIA against these investigators

Why would I not "take the side of the CIA" as you put it when the evidence for any CIA involvement in the assassination is as thin as a reed? But I repeat myself til I am blue in the face: it was reprehensible beyond any level of condemnation for the CIA to almost literally get "in bed with the devil" in an attempt to murder a foreign head of state. If the preemise of "Ultimate Sacrifice" is correct, it was that moral compromise that allowed the Mafia to kill our president with impunity.

Do I believe left-wingers deliberately distort the facts of the JFK assassination to besmirch and injure the CIA because they know that to do so will ultimately injure the United States, which is their true objective? Absolutely. Is John Simkin part of this scheme? Of course.

The only person who has utilized evidence as "thin as a reed" here is you. Your "nonexistent" case for Castro's culpability (which has since morphed into the slightly more solid case for the Mob's culpability) in the assassination is/was based entirely on could-haves and would-haves. I find it particularly humorous that you fault Garrison's case because his only witness to the overt act of conspiracy was Perry Russo* (leaving aside the other evidence against Shaw). This a good deal better than the smoke from which you constructed your theory.

Your thesis that the reason "left-wingers" implicate the CIA in the assassination is to harm the United States is so laughable, I don't know where to begin. So I won't. It speaks for itself.

Owen, Tim has already admitted he was joking when he said that John hated the U.S. He was trying to point out how ridiculous it is to take someone's interpretation of a particular incident and attribute it to their world view. Tim has always insisted his views on the assassination are not directly related to his Republicanism. I think he has a valid point. While I believe Tim's proximity to Cuba and the anti-Castro Cuban community has blinded him somewhat to the likelihood of a right-wing conspiracy, I don't think his right-wing views are entirely responsible for his interpretation of the assassination. If they were he'd be in lock-step with Russo and insist Oswald was a legitimate commie sympathizer. Instead, Tim insists Oswald was an undercover U.S. intelligence asset framed by the real culprits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was seeing so much red after reading that post that I missed Tim's explanation. Whoops.

I know Tim believes that Oswald was an intelligence asset (thus cutting himself off from most of the CIA's cooked evidence of Commie links to the assassination). This takes some intellectual courage and I commend him for it. I don't buy his protestations that his assassination views aren't linked to his political ideology, though. I don't think its a coincidence that a card-carrying Buckleyite would just happen to come to the conclusion that Castro engineered the assassination.

Edited by Owen Parsons
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...