Will Pres. Biden release the JFK Files?

[Richard Smith]

You may be right. Which is why I don’t understand why most LN’ers aren’t more supportive of declassifying the remaining documents.

If you’re right that there’s no “There-there”, best case scenario is it reduces the number of JFK CT’ers.

Also it seems like some of you don’t understand that government secrets have a shelf-life. I can’t imagine that there are many JFK-era government agents or assets alive today who haven’t already had their covers blown.

If Biden gives in and extends the deadline as Trump did four years ago, he’s just kicking the can to the next President…

I'm fully supportive of complete disclosure of any and all information relating to the JFK assassination.  I'm not aware of LNer who is not.  I would even support testing Oswald's pants and shoes for Tippit's DNA etc. 

[Jon Banks]

As for the argument that there is ‘embarrassing information’ in the remaining classified documents, what could be more embarrassing than stuff we already know about the FBI and CIA?

COINTELPRO, Hoover harassing and threatening MLK Jr, MK-Ultra, Iran-Contra, kidnapping and torturing Terror suspects for example.

More embarrassing than all of the above?

[Denis Pointing]

You may be right. Which is why I don’t understand why most LN’ers aren’t more supportive of declassifying the remaining documents.

If you’re right that there’s no “There-there”, best case scenario is it reduces the number of JFK CT’ers.

Also it seems like some of you don’t understand that government secrets have a shelf-life. I can’t imagine that there are many JFK-era government agents or assets alive today who haven’t already had their covers blown.

If Biden gives in and extends the deadline as Trump did four years ago, he’s just kicking the can to the next President…

I'm afraid you're missing the point, Jon. If a security agency promises to never disclose information concerning an informer/asset, not just names, that promise has to be upheld. If not, no present-day or future informant/asset will ever trust that agency again.

[Jon Banks]

I'm afraid you're missing the point, Jon. If a security agency promises to never disclose information concerning an informer/asset, not just names, that promise has to be upheld. If not, no present-day or future informant/asset will ever trust that agency again.

Never as in “as long as the agent/asset is alive?”

Or never as in “never-ever”?

I can understand if some agents/assets are still alive.

I don’t understand if it’s related to people who are dead like Joannides.

And names can be redacted if these agencies must not reveal the names of certain people…

[Denis Pointing]

Never as in “as long as the agent/asset is alive?”

Or never as in “never-ever”?

I can understand if some agents/assets are still alive.

I don’t understand if it’s related to people who are dead like Joannides.

And names can be redacted if these agencies must not reveal the names of certain people…

Even if dead there's still the family and friends to consider. Also, even with names redacted, there may be seemingly innocuous clues that point to a particular agent/asset, especially so if the agent/asset is already under suspicion. If a firm promise is given to not reveal any info that may jeopardise the identity, ever, that promise has to be upheld. No if's, but's, or maybe's here. Personally, I don't believe the names of the agents/assets from the civil war should have been released. That promise should, must be ironclad.

[Ray Mitcham]

Even if dead there's still the family and friends to consider. Also, even with names redacted, there may be seemingly innocuous clues that point to a particular agent/asset, especially so if the agent/asset is already under suspicion. If a firm promise is given to not reveal any info that may jeopardise the identity, ever, that promise has to be upheld. No if's, but's, or maybe's here. Personally, I don't believe the names of the agents/assets from the civil war should have been released. That promise should, must be ironclad.

For once I agree with Denis 

[Jon Banks]

Even if dead there's still the family and friends to consider. Also, even with names redacted, there may be seemingly innocuous clues that point to a particular agent/asset, especially so if the agent/asset is already under suspicion. If a firm promise is given to not reveal any info that may jeopardise the identity, ever, that promise has to be upheld. No if's, but's, or maybe's here. Personally, I don't believe the names of the agents/assets from the civil war should have been released. That promise should, must be ironclad.

Secrecy is only justified for active covert operations or active investigations.

Whatever operations those people were involved with 60 years ago are no longer active.


Declassification of the JFK Files is the Law. They are obligated to obey the Law unless Biden gives them an extension.

The Act requires that each assassination record be publicly disclosed in full and be made available in the collection no later than the date that is 25 years after the October 26, 1992 date of enactment (which was October 26, 2017), unless the President of the United States certifies that: (1) continued postponement is made necessary by an identifiable harm to the military defense, intelligence operations, law enforcement, or conduct of foreign relations; and (2) the identifiable harm is of such gravity that it outweighs the public interest in disclosure.

The definition of "assassination record" was left broad by the Act and determined in practice by the ARRB; a final definition was published in the Federal Register on June 28, 1995

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_John_F._Kennedy_Assassination_Records_Collection_Act_of_1992#:~:text=An%20Act%20to%20provide%20for,Kennedy.&text=The%20President%20John%20F.,%2C%20effective%20October%2026%2C%201992.