Jump to content

International / US / State Law and the Conspiracy

Lee Forman

Recommended Posts

Taken from Torbitt, and in reference to my second point in the original post.

Both firms being directed by the same men, the stated corporate purpose was to encourage trade between nations. Their actual purpose was fourfold:

1.To fund and direct assassination of European, Mid-East and world leaders considered threats to the Western World and to petroleum interests of the backers.

2.To furnish couriers, agents, and management in transporting, depositing and re-channeling funds through Swiss banks for Las Vegas, Miami, Havana and international gambling syndicate.

3.To co-ordinate the espionage activities of the Solidarists and Division Five of the FBI with groups in sympathy with their objectives and to receive and channel funds from the financiers to the action groups.

4.To build, acquire and operate hotels and gambling casinos in the Caribbean, Italy and other tourist areas.30


Chapter IV - The Assassination Attempt on DeGaulle.

A group of Fascist French generals dedicated to keeping Algeria as a French colony were the middle group in the 1961 and 1962 assassination attempts on French General DeGaulle.

A French colonel, Bastien Thiery, commanded the 1962 group of professional assassins who made the actual assassination attempt on DeGaulle. Colonel Thiery set his group of assassins up at an intersection in the suburbs of Paris in this final attempt in 1962 to kill DeGaulle. The gunmen fired more than one hundred rounds in the 1962 Colonel Thiery assassination attempt. But General DeGaulle, traveling in his bullet proof car, evaded being hit, although all of the tires were shot out. The driver increased his speed and the General was saved.

Colonel Bastien Thiery was arrested, tried and executed for the attempt on DeGaulle's life but he was the breaking point between the operating level of that assassination attempt and the people financing and planning it and he went to his death without revealing the connection. General DeGaulle's intelligence, however traced the financing of his attempted assassination into the FBI's Permindex in Switzerland and Centro Mondiale Comerciale in Rome, and he complained to both the governments of Switzerland and Italy causing Permindex to lose its charter and Centro Mondiale Comerciale to be forced to move to Johannesburg, South Africa.

General DeGaulle was furious at the assassination plots and attempted assassination upon himself. He called in his most trusted officers with the French Intelligence Agency and they advised him that they were already working on the investigation to ferret out who was behind DeGaulle's attempted assassination.

The French Intelligence Agency in a very short while completely traced the assassination attempt through Permindex, the Swiss corporation, to the Solidarists, the Fascist White Russian emigre intelligence organization and Division Five, the espionage section of the FBI, into the headquarters of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in Brussels, Belgium.

French intelligence thus determined that the attempts on General DeGaulle's life were being directed from NATO in Brussels through its various intelligence organizations and specifically, Permindex in Switzerland, basically a NATO intelligence front using the remnants of Adolph Hitler's intelligence units in West Germany and also, the intelligence unit of the Solidarists headquartered in Munich, Germany. The overall command of the DeGaulle assassination unit was directed by Division Five of the FBI.

Upon learning that the intelligence groups controlled by the Division Five of the FBI in the headquarters of the NATO organization had planned all of the attempts of his life, DeGaulle was inflamed and ordered all NATO units off of French soils. Under the contract between France and NATO, General DeGaulle could not force them to move for a period of time somewhat exceeding one year; yet, he told NATO to get off the soil of France and put the machinery in operation to remove them within the treaty agreements with the organization.

The Defense Intelligence Agency, the intelligence arm of all armed forces in the United States and Division Five, the counter-espionage agency for the Federal Bureau of Investigation, were both found to have been the controlling agencies in NATO directing the assassination attempts on DeGaulle's life. DIA and Division Five of the FBI were working hand in glove with the White Russian emigre intelligence arm, the Solidarists, and many of the Western European intelligence agencies were not aware of the assassination plan worked directly through NATO headquarters.

Even the high echelons of the United States CIA were not aware of the DIA, FBI and Solidarist directed activities.

Jerry Milton Brooks, a close associate of Maurice Brooks Gatlin, Sr., testified in New Orleans that Gatlin was a transporter for the CIA and Division Five of the FBI. Gatlin in 1962 left New Orleans of behalf of Permindex with $100,000.00 in cash of the FBI's money and delivered the cash on behalf of Division Five and Permindex to the group of Fascist French generals planning the assassination of General DeGaulle. Gatlin flew from New Orleans directly to Paris, France and made the delivery.73

Gatlin was the general counsel to the Anti-Communist League of the Caribbean, and he worked directly under Guy Bannister. In 1964 Gatlin was thrown, pushed, or fell from the sixth floor of the El Panama Hotel in Panama during the middle of the night and was killed instantly.

Guy Bannister had been in charge of the Midwestern FBI Division Five operation with headquarters in Chicago up until 1955. At this time, J. Edgar Hoover shifted Bannister from an official basis with Division Five to a retainer and contractual basis with the espionage section of the agency and moved him to New Orleans where Bannister worked with the New Orleans police department and later from a private office at 544 Camp Street.

In his contractual capacity with Division Five, Bannister had close contacts with all of the armed service intelligence agencies and worked closely with them on the espionage section of the FBI's various projects. Bannister was the officer in charge who dispatched Gatlin with the $100,000.00 cash to Paris for the DeGaulle assassination group.74

We outline the DeGaulle assassination attempt with President Kennedy's assassination because the same organization carried out both operations.


1960 GUATEMALA Military assistance, including the use of B-26 bombers for government of Miguel Ydigoras Fuentes to defeat rebel forces. Successful

1960 ANGOLA Financial and military assistance to rebel forces of Holden Roberto. Inconclusive

1960 LAOS Military assistance, including 400 United States Special Forces troops, to deny the Plain of Jars bad Mekong Basin to Pathet Lao. Inconclusive

1961-1965 LAOS Average of $300 million annually to recruit and maintain L'Armee Clandestine of 35,000 Hmong and Meo tribesmen and 17,000 Thai mercenaries in support of government of Phoumi Nosavan to resist Pathet Lao. Successful

1961-1963 CUBA Assassinate Fidel Castro. Six attempts in this period. Unsuccessful

1961 CUBA Train and support invasion force of Cuban exiles to overthrow Castro government, and assist their invasion at the Bay of Pigs. Cost: $62 million. Unsuccessful

1961 ECUADOR Overthrow government of Hose Velasco Ibarra. Successful

1961 CONGO Precipitate conditions leading to assassination of Patrice Lumumba. Successful

1961 DOMINICAN REPUBLIC Precipitate conditions leading to assassination of Rafael Trujillo. Successful

1961-1966 CUBA Broad sabotage program, including terrorist attacks on coastal targets and bacteriological warfare, in effort to weaken Castro government. Unsuccessful

1962 THAILAND Brigade of 5,000 United States Marines to resist threat to Thai government from Pathet Lao. Successful

1962-1964 BRITISH GUIANA Organize labor strikes and riots to overthrow government of Cheddi Jagan. Successful

1962-1964 BRAZIL Organize campaign of labor strike and propaganda to overthrow government of Joao Goulart. Successful

1963 DOMINICAN REPUBLIC Overthrow government of Juan Bosch in military coup. Successful

1963 SOUTH VIETNAM Precipitate conditions leading to assassination of Ngo Dinh Diem. Successful

1963 ECUADOR Overthrow government of Carlos Julio Arosemena. Successful

1963-1984 EL SALVADOR Organize ORDEN and ANSESAL domestic intelligence networks under direction of General Jose Alberto Medrano and Colonel Nicolas Carranza, and provide intelligence support and training in surveillance, interrogation and assassination techniques. Successful

Let's say that Torbitt [Copeland or whomever] is on track. The same group/groups responsible for the failed attempt on DeGaulle are the same group/groups responsible for 'success' with Kennedy's assassination - an International Conglomeration of businesses and interests. Can't one assume then that Kennedy would be one 'subject' in the overall goals and aims of the project? There is no reason why one wouldn't assume that DeGaulle and Castro, at a minimum, would not have still been targetted for elimination.

What does that mean in regards to the selection of the shooters and operatives in Dealey Plaza - anything?

Let's keep speculating here - as an example - seems highly likely that at least some of the operatives in Dallas were Anti-Castro Cuban Exiles. Therefore, of questionable Citizenship to Cuba - and under some bizarre circumstances relative to relations between the Nation of Cuba and the US.

As per the research of Rivele and others, the Corsican Team - do they have to be French? Connected through the OAS - yes, but even Rivel admitted that he was played by David, and that 2 of his candidates were incorrect. Hungarian? Basque separatists [French or Spanish]? Is it possible that plans to assassinate DeGaulle would have somehow coincided with the Kennedy plan?

What role would be played in a Court of International Law concerning assassins who were not US Citizens? Is it on a Country-by-Country basis, or could these individuals somehow have declared themselves Mercenaries, under the Geneva Convention? Would the Nations that these individuals hailed from need to have been one of the signing parties to the Agreement, in order to justify their having some protection in the event things went wrong or were leaked?

Let's take a look at Mike Hoare - is he Irish? Or does he qualify as something outside the pale of normal conventional warfare, rules and regulations?

From the Geneva Convention.

Art 47. Mercenaries

A mercenary is any person who:

(a) is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;

(:lol: does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities;

© is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party;

(d) is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict;

(e) is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and

(f) has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.

If the assassination was performed on the basis of an International Consortium, which made use of International assets and operatives in Dealey Plaza - what would be the legal ramifications? International Conglomerates and International Intelligence Organizations working in concert with individuals from multiple Nationalities? 'Mercenaries' employed in a protected, 'Citizenship Independent' capacity?




The original title De Moordvrienden doesn’t make much sense translated into English. The literal translation would be something like The Murder Friends. In The Netherlands people are using the expression ‘Moordvrienden’ to describe the relationship between two real good friends. An alternative English title could be something like: Birds of a deadly feather, but this matter still remains to be seen.

De Moordvrienden opens with the development, during and after WWII, of a right wing network, using anticommunism as an argument for involvement in all kind of politcal subversion and criminal affairs. Considering this it’s not so strange that organised crime joined the anticommunist network already during the war. The structure of the anticommunist network is illustrated in De Moordvrienden by the friendly relationship between his Royal Highness Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, the husband of the former Dutch Queen Her Royal Highness Princess Juliana and the Hungarian born banker/Mossad agent Tibor Rosenbaum. The intention of De Moordvrienden is to consider the friendship between these two men and their role in the anticommunist network, in relation to one of the most important events in modern history: the assassination of the American president John F.Kennedy. A short summary of De Moordvrienden follows below.

In the early thirties, the SA and SS member Prince Bernhard, began to work for NW 7, the industrial espionage department of IG Farben. This chemical manufacturing company earned an infamous reputation in history because it financed the nazi party’s rise to power. Bernhard’s employer was looking for a way to gain influence on the highest level in the Netherlands. At that point the management of IG Farben knew the Dutch royal family was looking for someone to mary crownprincess Juliana. Bernhard appeared as the ideal candidate for this marriage and was pushed forward as such by IG Farben. The Dutch government considered itself very lucky to find such an ideal person to marry the crownprincess. Bernhard had an ideal background and was not bad looking either. At the same time the Dutch government never realised that they invited a ‘trojan horse’, because at that point Bernhard was nothing else than an IG Farben mole. Officially Bernhard terminated his duties for IG Farben when he married to Juana, but there is wide evidence that the prince stayed loyal to his former employer and to the companies the German chemical manufacturer was associated with, like the American Standard Oil from the Rockefeller family. His loyalty towards IG Farben remained when the occupation of the Netherlands by nazi Germany began.

During most of the war Bernhard stayed in London, where he got associated with a cooperation between British, Dutch and German intelligence organisations, known as the ‘Englandspiel’. The intention of this covert operation was to round up communist and other leftish resistance groups in the Netherlands in a collective effort between these agencies. The Englandspiel clearly shows that circles in London were more afraid of communism, than of national socialism. On the background of the Englandspiel were the interests of both German and American multinationals, especially those of IG Farben and Standard Oil. National Socialism was seen there as the most effective protection against Soviet communism. Under these conditions there was readiness in both the UK and the USA to come to terms with the nazi’s. Bernhard played a key role in the negociations to come to a reconsilation between the nazi’s and the Anglosaxon estabishment. In his perception the pre-war conditions in the Netherlands and the st of Europe, would not return in case a deal with the Germans would be reached. The prince hated democracy and wanted to rule by himself; in other words he wanted the full power. To reach this, Bernhard was prepared to join any possible alliance. He even wrote a letter to the nazi’s in which he proposed to rule over the Netherlands on their behalf. But in the same period Bernhard also got introduced to representatives of the American intelligence community and the military industrial complex, two grop overlapping each other in all kind of ways. The contacts with both the former nazi network and the Anglosaxon estabishment would be very important in the later life of the prince.

After the war the alliance aganinst communism took care of it that the image of national socialism, as being the main threat to humanity, was immediately replaced by the threat of Soviet communism. Consequently the Cold War was born. Under these conditions the persecution of war criminals had no high priority. Many of the former nazi’s got their old jobs back as a result of this. The cooperation, that had started during the war between Anglsaxon establishment and the structures that were left behind by the nazi’s, continued in the post-war period. For instance: the Americans took over the ‘Abwehr’ spy network that was build up during the war by the nazi Reinhard Gehlen. And under ‘Operation Paperclip’ many nazi were offered the possibilty to escape to the American continent.

Bernhard did everything to widen his influence in the post war period. He was asked by a fromer IG Farben superiorto become a representative for the Lockheed company, from which he took lots of bribes. In 1954 he became the president of the Bilderberg meetings, in which the cooperation between the anglosaxon and former nazi network was strongly represented. This way the Bilderbergers became one of the main strongholds against communism in Europe and the USA. In 1976 evidence appeared that Bernhard had taken bribes from Lockheed. Under pressure caused by this development he had to give up many of his public functions. He was also forced to resign as president of the Bilderbergmeetings. But the prince kept being associated with the highest circles, since he had created an alternative for Bilderberg. In the beginning of the seventies he had founded the 1001 club, a society of financers of the World Wildlife fund. The international elite was widely represented here, just like it was in the Bilderbergers. It was ithe 1001 club where the other key figure in De Moordvrienden, Tibor Rosenbaum, appeared for the first time in relation to Prince Bernhard.

Tibor Rosenbaum was born in Hungary. His parents were religious jews who made their son become a Rabbi. During the war Rosenbaum was strongly associated with zionist organisations, like the ‘Relief and Rescue committee’ from dr. Rudolf Kastner. At the last stage of the war Kastner made deals with the nazi Adolf Eichmann, who made it possible that a small number of prominent zionist jews from Hungary could travel to Palestine. In exchange for this Kastner assisted the nazi’s with the deporatation of the majority of Hungarian jews to the death camps. After the war Rosenbaum remained being influenced by zionism. He travelled to Israel where he came to live in a kibbutz. But he couldn’t get used there to the collective atmosphere there which made him leave Israel shortly after. Subcequently Rosenbaum came to Switserland, where he kept defending zionist interests. He became president of the Jewish Agency and the ‘World Zionist Organisation’. In this period Rosenbaum became very importt for Israel, because he worked for the ‘Israel Corporation’, a fundraising institution that financed the advancement of Israel. This position made him very popular in the jewish state. In the late fifties Rosenbaum founded the ‘Banque du Crédit International’ (BCI). In reality this meant that he became a Mossad agent, because it was through this bank that operations of the Mossad were financed.

In the mean time Tibor Rosenbaum had started a friendly relationship with Prince Bernhard. This friendship can’t be considered separat from zionism becoming a partner in the anticommunist network shortly after the creation of Israel. Although it was national socialims that had killed more than five million jews during the war, it was Soviet communism being seen by the zionists as the main threat from now on. A cooperation between zionists and the existing anti communist network followed as result. While Bernhard could be seen as an important reprentative of the Aglosaxon/nazi component in this structure, Rosenbaum appeared as such in relation to zionism.

Rosenbaum lost his popularity in Israel when his involvement was discovered in illegal speculation with funds from the Israel Corporation. This event would eventually mean the end of Rosenbaum’s BCI. Prince Bernhard tried to protect his friend Rosenbaum from going bankrupt. In an attempt to solve the financial problem of the BCI he sold the castle ‘Warmelo’ to another company from his Hungarian born friend. He did this for an outrageous low price. But the sale of the castle had very little result, since the BCI was going bankrupt anyway. Subcequently Bernhard saw his castle disappear in the BCI bankruptcy. This caused an enormous problem for Bernhard, since the castle was not completely his. Anyway, the prince needed money suddenly at that point. And he needed it fast, which made him beg for money at the companies that bribed him before. The notes he send to the Lockheed company with requests for more money, later formed the essential evidence that the prince had been ‘on the take’.

Before Rosenbaum was unmasked as a fraud, he had gained some popularity with his BCI. Many account holders had ties with the jewish state, which was not so strange since rosenbaum’s bank could be seen as Mossad bank. At the same time the BCI was actively involved in laudering money from the criminal empire of Meyer Lansky. Like Rosenbaum, Lansky was a fierce supporter of the state of Israel. In return for his financial contributions he received protection form the Mossad. The revenues of Lansky’s criminal practices were partly laundered through Bernie Cornfields ‘Investors Overseas Services’ (IOS), in those days a very poular investment company. Rosenbaum appeared as the financial wizard in the background of IOS. Later an enormous financial scandal was caused when IOS was taken over violently by the American criminal Robert Vesco. Like Rosenbaum Vesco was acquainted to Prince Bernhard.

The BCI form Prince Bernhard’s friend Tibor Rosenbaum is mentioned frequently as financer of the Italian/Canadian/American Permindex company. It is at this point where De Moordvrienden takes a step in the direction of the Kennedy assassination. Permindex appears as the link between the anticommunist network, in which Prince Bernhard has manifested himself so prominently, and the theories concerning the fatal shots that were fired on Kennedy on 22 november 1963.

In 1967 Permindex board member Clay Shaw was arrested for involvement in a conspiracy against Kennedy, by New Orleans district attorney Jim Garrison. Prior to the Kennedy assassination Shaw was seen together with Lee Harvey Oswald. Killing the American president was the topic of a conversation where both Shaw and Oswald were present. For Garrison this was enough reason to put Shaw under investigation. He discovered that Shaw had been performing assignments for the CIA. In 1967, however, Jim Garrison couldn’t proove that Shaw was working for the ‘Agency’. This is why Shaw was declared innocent by court eventually, as can be seen in Oliver Stone’s movie JFK. But although Shaw couldn’t be proved guilty, Garrison was able to gather a lot of information on the structure of Permindex and the anticommunist network this company was connected to. Permindex appears in Garrison’s research, as an organisation specialised in political assassinations. Some researchers have paid attention to Peindex in the mean time. Each time this company has been specifically placed in the perspective of the research these people were working on. This way Permindex has been called a front for the CIA, an organisation of former nazi’s, or a ‘Murder inc’ financed by organised crime and the Mossad. These conclusions are all more or less tru, but still the essence of Permindex has never been reached this way. De Moordvrienden approaches this matter differently. For the first time Permindex comes forad as a collective initiative, by the groups represented in the anticommunist network that wanted Kennedy out of the way.

Permindex was founded in the fifties by the Hungarian Ferenc Nagy, who served earlier as a minister in the pro-nazi government of Horty in Hungary during WWII. The communist takeover in his home country turned Nagy into a fierce supporter of anticommunism. Other board members of Permindex had strong affiliations with segments of the anticommunist network as well. Take for instance Major Bloomfield, who was president of the Permindex branche in Montreal. Bloomfield had previously worked for the secret British sabotage organisation ‘Standard Operations Executive’(SOE). During the war SOE cooperated with the predecessor of the CIA, the OSS. Shortly after the war the SOE structures assisted in the development of Israeli intelligence. Like Rosenbaum, Bloomfield was a member of Prince Bernhards 1001 club and had warm feelings towards Israel. Together with Clay Shaw, Bloomfield represented the Anglosaxon intelligence agencies within Permindex, like the CIA. There was reason enough for the CIA to be upset bKennedy, after the ‘bay of pigs’ fiasco. This invasion of Cuba, that was organised by the CIA, was a complete faillure. The CIA and anti-Castro Cubans had to beg Kennedy for military assistance, but he didn’t gave in to that request, because he feared escalation of the conflict with the Soviet Union. As a result of the ‘Bay of Pigs’ fiasco, Allen Dulles and his CIA felt betrayed by Kennedy. Prince Bernhard was very close with CIA icons like Dulles. They were among the circles he go ntroduced to during the war. In 1954 Allen Dulles was one of the founding members of the Bilderbergmeetings.

But it was not only the CIA that couldn’t stand Kennedy, since he also declared war on organised crime. This was reason enough for the ‘National Crime Syndicat’ to have a contract on him. The absolute leader of the National Crime Syndicat was Meyer Lansky, who was mentioned before because of his relation with Tibor Rosenbaum and the Mossad. Through Rosenbaum, Lansky comes forward as one of the dark forces behind Permindex. Lansky hated Kennedy, to start with because of the antisemitism of the American President’s father Joseph. From John F. Kennedy Lansky expected nothing else than hate of jews. Lansky was wrong, because Kennedy didn’t share his fathers antisemitism. But Lansky couldn’t explain Kennedy’s war on crime any other way. Besides there was also another reason why Lansky hated Kennedy, whichs also had to do with Israel. During the elections after which Kennedy became president he was strongly supported by the pro Israel lobby in Israel. They gave him money and advic their followers to vote for him. In exchange the pro Israel lobby expected influence in the US policy towards the middle east. After becoming president Kennedy disappointed the pro Israel lobby. Kennedy decided to widen American influence in this region. This meant that not only Israel, but also other countries in the Middle East, would be supported by the USA. And than there was the matter of the nuclear policy of Israel. After becoming president, Kenenedy was informed by his predecessor Eisenhower, thatIrael was working on a nuclear weapon. Kennedy was strongly against this development. He was in favor of the principle of non proliferation and was afraid that an Israli nuclear force would complicate arms negotiations with the Soviet Union. That’s why he started putting pressure on Israel’s prime minister Ben Goerion, to allow inspection of the nuclear facilities of Israel at Dimona in the Negev desert. When Israel kept refusing this, Isaeli/American relations went downhill. Kennedy was seen at hetime as a main obstacle to Israeli security. His death worked out as a solution for the zionist elite concerning the Israeli nuclear ambitions, since Lyndon B.Johnson never askd any questions about this. This was all together reason enough for the zionist lobby in the US to enter the alliance against Kennedy. In day-to-day routine this came down to a zionist/Mossad involvement in Permindex, such as through the financing of Rosenbaum’s BCI.

A key figure in the board of directors of Permindex was the lawyer Roy Cohn, who was probably the most fierce anticommunist in the crowd connected to this company. In the early days of his career Cohn worked for the law company of CIA director Allen Dulles. Some time later he was the prosecutor in the trial against Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. Their death sentence was seen by Cohn as a big success. Cohn, who was attached to the ‘American Jewish league against communism’, also was a member of the McCarty Committee, that destroyed the lives of many innocent American citizens by accusing them of having communist sympathies.

In Permindex Cohn was the connection between several groups having something against Kennedy. Through his association with mafia hoods like Joseph Bonano (another Permindex board member) he represented organised crime within Permindex. But Cohn was also the connection between Permindex and the Hunts family, the rich oilers from Texas, whos were angry with Kennedy, because he cut their tax benifits. Cohn was also very close with J.Edgar Hoover, the director of the FBI, who saw Kennedy as his main enemy. Hoover was on the point of being fired, like Kennedy did with Allen Dulles. The death of Kennedy made Hoover remaining his position as FBI director.

Other Permindex board members like Clay Shaw and Louis Mortimer Bloomfield peviously had worked for the secret FBI department ‘Division Five’. ‘Pastsy’ Lee Harvey Oswald also worked for Division Five, which became infamous for it’s ‘Cointelpro’, a program aimed at criminalising leftish organisations and black moslim groups. The assassination of Kennedy can be seen as an operation being part of Cointelpro, because criminalising communism was one of the objectives of killing the American president. All the groups involved in this event agreed on this point. After Kennedy got killed a disinformation program started in which the blame was put on (Soviet) communism. In this Oswald appeared as a communist, while in fact he had more contacts in the direction of the far right.

During Cointelpro the Divison Five department of the FBI cooperated with the anti Defamation league of B’nai B’rith (ADL), an organisation representing the interests of Israel in, among other countries, the USA. In its relation with the jewish state, ADL is often mentioned in relation to the Mossad, which on itself was connected in those years by people like CIA agent James Jezus Angleton.

This synopsis gives an impression of the headlines being described in De Moordvrienden, because it is impossible to summarize all the topics being decribed here in just a few pages. Some of the other topics that can’t be described here in full lenght are:

the interests of the weapon industry in the assassination of Kennedy.

Defense Industry Security Command.

the interests of Prince Bernhard’s former employer IG Farben, in the nuclear (weapon) industry.

the intended visit from Kennedy to Indonesia and the interests of Prince Bernhard’s Bilderbergers in this former Dutch colony.

the attempt of Prince Bernhard to have Queen Juliana locked up in a mental hospital, through the so-called ‘Greet Hofmans affair’.

the assassinations of Robert Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, ANC leader Chris Hani, the Maroccan opposition leader Benn Barka and the Italian energy minister Enrico Mattei.

the coalation between the Mossad, the CIA, the French secret service and the Organisation Armee Secret behind the assaults on De Gaulle.

the drugstrade of the Nixon family.

the relations between the Lockheed and Watergate scandals.

the relation between Oswald ‘babysitter’ George de Mohrenschildt and the Dutch journalist Willem Oltmans.

the Valachi papers.

the Souvereign and military Order of Malta

Christine Keeler and Soviet espionage.

the involvement of nazi scientist Werner von Braun in permindex.

the connection between legal casino’s in the Neherlands and the Meyer Lansky criminal empire.

Intertel and the inheritance of Permindex.

De Moordvrienden concludes by stating that Kennedy was not killed by one person, or one group of persons. Instead this American President was assassinated by an international network, representing several anti communist groups, pointing in the direction of Anglosaxon intelligence agencies, zionist organisations and structures left behind by nazi’s and other far right European circles.

It remains a question how much knowledge Prince Bernhard had of Kennedy’s death. In those days he certainly had a prominent position in the anti communist network, that became so manifest in the theories surrounding the Kennedy assassination. Besides that the prince has been in contact with numerous people that came forward in the investigation of New Orleans district attorney Jim Garrison, not only in the direction of the Anglosaxon agencies, but towards zionist organisations as well. But De Moordvrienden also shows that the prince had much to gain from the death of Kennedy, especialliy when it came to the interests of his buddies in the military industrial complex and Bilderberg.

So, allthough his name is never mentioned before by researchers of the Kennedy assassination, according to De Moordvrienden, there is reason enough to associate Bernhard with the death of John F. Kennedy. Because much of his illegal practices are of course being covered by his royal appearance, we are left with several possibilities. In the first place it’s centainly possible that Prince Bernhard still has some secret knowledge concerning the Kennedy assassination. It’s even possible that he had some kind of role in this event, like his friends Rosenbaum and Dulles did. Another possibility is that he played a role in this without having knowdledge of it himself and that he was used on the basis of the ‘need-to-know’ principle, by regions above him. The chance that this happened doesn’t seem to be large, but it’s a possibility, since Bernhard was ‘sacrificed’ later on through the lockheed scandal, which was attached on itself to the downfall of Rosenbaum’s BCI. But all cases the name of Prince Bernhard should be put on the list of people, who together form the landscape surrounding the Kennedy assassination. This is the main point De moordvrienden wants to make.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great post, Lee. A very plausible scenario, IMO. Interestingly, Gatlin and Bannister both die shortly after the assassination. There's no reason at all why JFK wouldn't have been one of the group's targets. He was against most of what they stood for, and he stood for what they were against.

The International mercenary idea is a strong argument, too. I've never been able to accept the notion that the snipers were American.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great post, Lee. A very plausible scenario, IMO. Interestingly, Gatlin and Bannister both die shortly after the assassination. There's no reason at all why JFK wouldn't have been one of the group's targets. He was against most of what they stood for, and he stood for what they were against.

The International mercenary idea is a strong argument, too. I've never been able to accept the notion that the snipers were American.

Thanks Mark!

It should be noted, that when efforts have been made to determine the identity of agents that used the cryptos QJ/WIN and WI/ROGUE - many times they arrive at non-US Citizens. QJ/WIN, for example, has been said to have been Jose Mankel, Mozes Maschkivitzan, etc.

Win appear in the pages of the Church report as a truly despicable creature. He is described as a European gangster of a certain notoriety, with a background in espionage and a reputation as an assassin. O'Donnell testified that WIN had undertaken certain delicate missions for the CIA....

WI/ROGUE is also thought to have not been a US Citizen - Christian David, Lucien Sarti, etc.

Although both cryptos may have been used for multiple contracted assassins. One of these was allegedly in Paris at the time of the assassination - the whole poison pen routine.

Roland 'Bud' Culligan, an American, who also may have used one of the crypto's above, claims that he was not part of the operation in Dealey Plaza.

AM/LASH is thought to have been Major Roland Cubela - a Cuban.

There is also the information concerning a German sniper, and the intercept in Mexico City. I can't find the transcript.

Then of course we have all the research on John Bowen's camp, and Mexican assassins, Cuban assassins. Etc. Etc.

Here's something interesting I stumbled over today, which unfortunately has nothing to do with the thread...


Americans from all parties were furious with Kennedy for various pretexts. Many began calling for a new Cuban invasion, agreeing with Barry Goldwater's demand that Kennedy "do anything that needs to be done to get rid of that cancer. If it means war, let it mean war."20 Kennedy was accused of being soft on Communism for living up to his no-invasion pledge to the Soviets, and when he then proposed signing a Limited Nuclear Test Ban Treaty with them, his popularity dropped even further.21

The nation's columnists expressed their fury towards the president, and political cartoonists pictured Kennedy with his head being chopped off by a guillotine. Richard Nixon warned, "There'll be...blood spilled before [the election is] over,"22 and a cartoon in The Washington Post portrayed Nixon digging a grave. Many editorialists were even more blunt. The Delaware State News editorialized: "Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus. His name right now happens to be Kennedy let's shoot him, literally, before Christmas."23

Kennedy's aides warned him of an increase in the number of death threats toward him. His trip to Dallas, known as the "hate capital of Dixie," was seen as particularly dangerous. His aides begged him to cancel his trip. Senator J. William Fulbright told him, "Dallas is a very dangerous place...I wouldn't go there. Don't you go."25 Vice President Lyndon Johnson, writing the opening lines of the speech he intended to make in Austin after the Dallas visit, planned to open with: "Mr. President, thank God you made it out of Dallas alive!"26 Dallas judges and leading citizens warned the President he should not come to the city because of the danger of assassination. The day before the assassination, as handbills were passed out in Dallas with Kennedy's picture under the headline "Wanted For Treason," militants of the John Birch Society and other violent groups flooded into Dallas, and hundreds of reporters flew in from all over the country, alerted that something might happen to the president.27

Kennedy himself sensed consciously he might be shot. Two months before the actual assassination, he made a home movie "just for fun" of himself being assassinated.28

22. Time, November 22, 1963, p. 1.

23. Delaware State News, October 18, 1963, cited in William Manchester, The Death of a President: November 20-November 25, 1963. New York: Harper & Row, 1967, p. 46.

25. Manchester, The Death of a President, p. 39.

26. Beschloss, The Crisis Years, p. 665.

27. Woffard, Of Kennedys and Kings, p. 343.

28. Aaron Latham, "The Dark Side of the American Dream," Rolling Stone, August 5, 1982, p. 18.

- lee

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
International Law of Armed Conflict

The indicative syllabus: for this module includes: History and sources of the law of armed conflict; Basic principles of the law of armed conflict, e.g. distinction and proportionality; Customary and Treaty law; Applicability of the law of armed conflict; the armed forces of the belligerents including insurgents and terrorists. · Conduct of Hostilities; Methods and means of warfare: Target restraints; Prohibited practices and weapons; Command responsibility; Air Operations; Maritime Warfare. Protection of victims: Prisoners of War; Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked; Civilians and Occupation of Territory. Negotiations between belligerents · Humanitarian rules during internal armed conflict; ‘Asymmetric’ conflicts; Terrorism and the jus in bello. · Application of the law of armed conflict during peace keeping and peace enforcing operations. Enforcement of the law of armed conflict; Role of the International Committee of the Red Cross. War crimes: definitions; State jurisdiction under national and international law; defences. International criminal tribunals: Nuremberg, Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone and the International Criminal Court. Incorporation of international law of armed conflict into national law and use of national courts for the prosecution breaches of the laws of armed conflict.



Attempts to put limits on wartime behavior have been around since the beginning of recorded history and there have been numerous attempts to codify the rules of appropriate military conduct.

In the sixth century BCE, Chinese warrior Sun Tzu suggested putting limits on the way that wars were conducted.

Around 200 BCE, the notion of war crimes as such appeared in the Hindu code of Manu.

In 1305, the Scottish national hero Sir William Wallace was tried for the wartime murder of civilians.

Hugo Grotius wrote "On the Law of War and Peace" in 1625, focusing on the humanitarian treatment of civilians.

In 1865, Confederate officer Henry Wirz was executed for murdering Federal prisoners of war at the Andersonville prisoner of war camp. He was only one of several people who were tried for similar offenses.

In fact, it's been the past century and a half that has really seen a qualitative jump in the degree to which constraints have been placed on warring parties, and only this century that an international body has been formed to police the nations of the world.

The first Geneva Convention was signed in 1864 to protect the sick and wounded in war time. This first Geneva Convention was inspired by Henri Dunant, founder of the Red Cross. Ever since then, the Red Cross has played an integral part in the drafting and enforcement of the Geneva Conventions.

These included the 1899 treaties, concerning asphyxiating gases and expanding bullets. In 1907, 13 separate treaties were signed, followed in 1925 by the Geneva Gas Protocol, which prohibited the use of poison gas and the practice of bacteriological warfare.

In 1929, two more Geneva Conventions dealt with the treatment of the wounded and prisoners of war. In 1949, four Geneva Conventions extended protections to those shipwrecked at sea and to civilians.

The Hague Convention on the Protection of Cultural Property was signed in 1954, the United Nations Convention on Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Techniques followed in 1977, together with two Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, extending their protections to civil wars.

There is no one "Geneva Convention." Like any other body of law, the laws of war have been assembled piecemeal, and are, in fact, still under construction.

It is impossible to produce a complete and up-to-date list of war crimes. Even today, weapon systems such as land mines are being debated at the highest levels of international policy.

What follows is a basic reference to the most common protections and prohibitions, as provided for in the four 1949 Geneva Conventions and the two 1977 protocols.

International Rules About Soldiers

The Geneva Conventions and supplementary protocols make a distinction between combatants and civilians.

The two groups must be treated differently by the warring sides and, therefore, combatants must be clearly distinguishable from civilians.

Although this obligation benefits civilians by making it easier for the warring sides to avoid targeting non-combatants, soldiers also benefit because they become immune from prosecution for acts of war.

For example, a civilian who shoots a sholdier may be liable for murder while a soldier who shoots an enemy soldier and is captured may not be punished.

In order for the distinction between combatants and civilians to be clear, combatants must wear uniforms and carry their weapons openly during military operations and during preparation for them.

The exceptions are medical and religious personnel, who are considered non-combatants even though they may wear uniforms. Medical personnel may also carry small arms to use in self-defense if illegally attacked.

The other exception are mercenaries, who are specifically excluded from protections. Mercenaries are defined as soldiers who are not nationals of any of the parties to the conflict and are paid more than the local soldiers.

Combatants who deliberately violate the rules about maintaining a clear separation between combatant and noncombatant groups — and thus endanger the civilian population — are no longer protected by the Geneva Convention.

Combatants who do fall within the guidelines of the Geneva Conventions enjoy the following protections:

Prisoners of war must be treated humanely. Specifically, prisoners must not be subject to torture or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind. They must also be protected against violence, intimidation, insults and public curiosity. The public display of POWs is also prohibited.

When questioned — in the prisoner's native language — prisoners of war must only give their names, ranks, birth dates and serial numbers. Prisoners who refuse to answer may not be threatened or mistreated.

Prisoners of war must be immediately evacuated away from a combat zone and must not be unnecessarily exposed to danger. They may not be used as human shields.

Finally, and most importantly, prisoners of war may not be punished for the acts they committed during the fighting unless the opposing side would have punished its own soldiers for those acts as well.

International Rules About Civilians

Both the fourth Geneval Convention and the two Additional Protocols extend protections to civilians during war time.

Civilians are not to be subject to attack. This includes direct attacks on civilians and indiscriminate attacks against areas in which civilians are present.

There is to be no destruction of property unless justified by military necessity.

Individuals or groups must not be deported, regardless of motive.

Civilians must not be used as hostages.

Civilians must not be subject to outrages upon personal dignity.

Civilians must not be tortured, raped or enslaved.

Civilians must not be subject to collective punishment and reprisals.

Civilians must not receive differential treatment based on race, religion, nationality, or political allegiance.

Warring parties must not use or develop biological or chemical weapons and must not allow children under 15 to participate in hostilities or to be recruited into the armed forces.

International Rules About Journalists

Customs have changed since the 1949 conventions were signed. In the first half of this century, journalists were considered civilian members of military, often wore uniforms, and became prisoners of war when captured.

The first, second and third Geneva Conventions extend to war correspondents all the protections due to combatants. They were not to be treated as spies and, even though their notebooks and film could be confiscated, they did not have to respond to interrogation. If they were sick or wounded, they must receive medical treatment and, if they were captured, they must be treated humanely.

This changed with the adoption of the 1977 Protocols, which explicitly recognized journalists to be civilians and due to all the civilian protections.

Now, journalists must not be deliberately targeted, detained, or otherwise mistreated any more than any other civilian.

This means that journalists now have an obligation to differentiate themselves from combatants by not wearing uniforms or openly carrying firearms.

Grievance Procedures

If a person or a group of people feels that their rights have been violated, there are a number of agencies and organization to whom they may turn for help.

Many of these agencies and organizations collect case histories and other documentation of war crimes and human rights abuses for the purposes of distributing them to the media. A few organizations will even help journalists find sources and transportation. Some representatives of these organizations speak on the record, others only for background information.

When dealing with such an organization, the journalist should respect the organization's official policies when it comes to press contacts while at the same time recognizing that some may also provide additiona information provided that some requirements are met. These requirements may include not attributing the information to that organization, finding a second source for the information or using the information in such a way that it does not expose the organization's employees or sources to any danger. These are all reasonable requests and a reporter should abide by these restrictions in order not to jeopardize the agencies' humanitarian mission or future relationships with journalists.

These agencies and organizations include, but are not limited to:

The International Committee of the Red Cross

The United Nations, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, and the International Criminal Court.

Committee on the Rights of the Child

War Crimes Tribunal on Former Yugoslavia

International War Crimes Tribunal for Rwanda

Inter-American Court on Human Rights

Inter-American Commission on Human Rights

Amnesty International

Human Rights Watch

Medecins Sans Frontieres (Doctors Without Borders)

Local human rights groups, military commanders, elected officials

The Conventions

There are four Geneva Conventions, signed August 12, 1949, and the two additional Protocols of June 8, 1977.

Convention I

For the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, Geneva, 12 August 1949: Sets forth the protections for members of the armed forces who become wounded or sick.

Convention II

For the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea,Geneva, 12 August 1949: Extends these protections to wounded, sick and shipwrecked members of naval forces.

Convention III

Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949 lists the rights of prisoners of war.

Convention IV

Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949: Deals with the protection of the civilian population in times of war.

Protocol I

Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, 8 June 1977: Eextends protection to victims of wars against racist regimes, wars of self determination, and against alien oppression.

Protocol II

Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Proection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts, 8 June 1977: Extends protection to victims of internal conflicts in which an armed opposition controls enough territory to enable them to carry out sustained military operations.

Copyright © 2003 Maria Trombly. All rights reserved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites






The qualifications of belligerents

Article 1. The laws, rights, and duties of war apply not only to armies, but also to militia and volunteer

corps fulfilling the following conditions:

1. To be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

2. To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance;

3. To carry arms openly; and

4. To conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

In countries where militia or volunteer corps constitute the army, or form part of it, they are included under the denomination "army."

Just as I did look back, the man in the business suit raised the gun. I saw him rest it on the pickets in the fence. . . .


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

  • Create New...