JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Jon Banks on April 27, 2021, 05:41:51 PM
-
Will President Biden open the rest of the JFK files this year? The deadline is October 2021
https://www.justsecurity.org/75795/federal-agencies-face-april-deadline-on-secret-jfk-files/
Later this year President Joe Biden will face a decision about the disposition of the last of the U.S. government’s still-secret records related to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963. With an April 26 deadline looming, federal agencies must inform the National Archives later this month about their plans to release the historic documents or continue withholding them. The Archivist is scheduled to make a recommendation by September 26 about the disposition of the records. The president must then decide by October 26 whether to accept or modify the Archivist’s recommendations.
Some 15,834 assassination-related documents remain partially or wholly classified, according to the National Archives. Most of these records were generated by the CIA and FBI. They include contemporaneous reports related to the murder of the 35th president in Dallas on November 22, 1963, files of CIA officers who knew about accused assassin Lee Harvey Oswald, and interviews conducted by congressional investigators in the 1970s.
The legal timetable was established by an executive memo issued by President Donald Trump on October 26, 2017. After hearing from CIA director Mike Pompeo, Trump stated that because “national security, law enforcement, and foreign affairs concerns. I have no choice — today — but to accept those redactions rather than allow potentially irreversible harm to our Nation’s security.”
The release of the material is mandated by the JFK Records Act, passed by Congress in October 1992 in response to the furor over Oliver Stone’s film JFK, which depicted the assassination as the work of senior CIA and Pentagon officials. The act created the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB), which oversaw the declassification of some four million pages of material related to the assassination of JFK and the various investigations into his murder.
The law also allowed government agencies to continue withholding material deemed too sensitive to make public. So, the ARRB released tens of thousands of JFK assassination-related records with “redactions” (blackouts) – sometimes only a name, sometimes entire pages. Thousands of records remained “withheld in full.”
-
Will President Biden open the rest of the JFK files this year?
The answer is found within the question-----
The law also allowed government agencies to continue withholding material deemed too sensitive to make public.
As you might guess... that stipulation will always exist.
-
The answer is found within the question-----As you might guess... that stipulation will always exist.
I agree. Not all secrets will be revealed. But I disagree with what I believe Jerry is implying, the secrets are kept hidden to hide the government’s involvement in the JFK assassination.
Governments, all governments, not just the United States keep secrets, for a long, time. That is what they always do.
The U. S. government kept secrets dating from the Civil War. Some claimed this was done to hide the U. S. government’s involvement with the President Lincoln assassination.
The U. S. government keeps secrets about Area 51. Some claim this is done to hide the U. S. government’s involvement with the aliens and their technology that they have given us.
The U. S. government keeps secrets about activities of the government shortly before, during and after the assassination. Some claim this is done to hide the U. S. government’s involvement with the JFK assassination.
The truth is, the government is always going to find reasons to keep secrets. We can’t judge their guilt or innocence on whether they are keeping secrets because, if we do, we will always conclude that they are guilty.
The secrets from the Civil War were eventually released and did not reveal any U. S. government conspiracy to assassinate the President. Some of the secrets were kept for very good reason. To protect the identities of Southerners who spied for the Union. If their secret got out, they could be murdered.
The Area 51 secrets might be to hide our involvement with aliens, or maybe to keep secret our most advanced military technology.
The “JFK” secrets might be to hide the governments involvement with the assassination, or to keep hidden other facts that are not related to the assassination but which we need to keep secret.
And a lot of secrets are kept, not because they must not be released, but because it would be too much work to go through it all to see what can and cannot be released. It is just easier and cheaper to keep it all secret.
Besides, a mistake can be made where something that should not have been revealed is revealed. This had happened. This is how the public because aware that we were breaking Germany’s Secret Codes during World War II. If this mistake was not made, the public and historians would still not know.
-
The “JFK” secrets might be to hide the governments involvement with the assassination, or to keep hidden other facts that are not related to the assassination but which we need to keep secret.
They're only required to declassify Secrets related to the Kennedy assassination.
My question is, if the case has been closed for 50 years, what could be worth keeping secret today?
-
They're only required to declassify Secrets related to the Kennedy assassination.
My question is, if the case has been closed for 50 years, what could be worth keeping secret today?
My question is, if the case has been closed for 50 years, what could be worth keeping secret today?
Doesn't matter. National Security (whatever that means) will always be the most handy reason.
-
The U. S. government kept secrets dating from the Civil War.
Secrets that were not kept very secret-----The United States has sent troops abroad or militarily struck other countries' territory 216 times since independence from Britain. Since 1945 the U.S has intervened in more than 20 countries throughout the world. Since World War II, the United States actually dropped BOMBS ON 23 COUNTRIES. These include: China 1945-46, Korea 1950-53, China 1950-53, Guatemala 1954, Indonesia 1958, Cuba 1959-60, Guatemala 1960, Congo 1964, Peru 1965, Laos 1964-73, Vietnam 1961-73, Cambodia 1969-70, Guatemala 1967-69, Grenada 1983, Lebanon 1984, Libya 1986, El Salvador 1980s, Nicaragua 1980s, Panama 1989, Iraq 1991-1999, Sudan 1998, Afghanistan 1998, and Yugoslavia 1999. Post World War II, the United States has also assisted in over 20 different coups throughout the world, and the CIA was responsible for half a dozen assassinations of political heads of state.
The following is a comprehensive summary of the imperialist strategy of the United States over the span of the past century: Argentina-1890-Troops sent to Buenos Aires to protect business interests. Chile-1891- Marines sent to Chile and clashed with nationalist rebels. Haiti-1891-American troops suppress a revolt by Black workers on United States-claimed Navassa Island. Hawaii-1893-Navy sent to Hawaii to overthrow the independent kingdom-Hawaii annexed by the United States. Nicaragua-1894-Troops occupied Bluefields, a city on the Caribbean Sea, for a month. China-1894-95-Navy, Army, and Marines landed during the Sino-JapaneseWar. Korea-1894-96 Troops kept in Seoul during the war. Panama-1895-Army, Navy, and Marines landed in the port city of Corinto. China-1894-1900-Troops occupied China during the Boxer Rebellion. Philippines-1898-1910-Navy and Army troops landed after the Philippines fell during the Spanish-American War; 600,000 Filipinos were killed. Cuba-1898-1902-Troops seized Cuba in the Spanish-American War; the United States still maintains troops at Guantanamo Bay today. Puerto Rico-1898-present-Troops seized Puerto Rico in the Spanish-American War and still occupies Puerto Rico today.
Nicaragua-1898-Marines landed at the port of San Juan del Sur. Samoa-1899-Troops landed as a result over the battle for succession to the throne. Panama 1901-14 Navy supported the revolution when Panama claimed independence from Colombia. American troops have occupied the Canal Zone since 1901 when construction for the canal began. Honduras-1903 Marines landed to intervene during a revolution. Dominican Rep-1903-04 Troops landed to protect American interestsduring a revolution. Korea 1904-05 Marines landed during the Russo-Japanese War. Cuba-1906-09-Troops landed during an election. Nicaragua-1907- Troops landed and a protectorate was set up. Honduras-1907-Marines landed during Honduras war with Nicaragua. Panama-1908-Marines sent in during Panama's election.
Nicaragua-1910-Marines landed for a second time in Bluefields and Corinto. Honduras-1911-Troops sent in to protect American interests during Honduras' civil war. China-1911-41-Navy and troops sent to China during continuous flare-ups. Cuba-1912-Troops sent in to protect American interests in Havana. Panama-1912-Marines landed during Panama's election. Honduras-1912-Troops sent in to protect American interests. Nicaragua-1912-33-Troops occupied Nicaragua and fought guerrillas during its 20-year civil war. Mexico-1913-Navy evacuated Americans during revolution. Dominican Rep-1914 Navy fought with rebels over Santo Domingo. Mexico-1914-18-Navy and troops sent in to intervene against nationalists. Haiti-1914-34-Troops occupied Haiti after arevolution and occupied Haiti for 19 years. Dominican Rep-1916-24-Marines occupied the Dominican Republic for eight years. Cuba-1917-33-Troops landed and occupied Cuba for 16 years; Cuba became an economic protectorate.
World War I -1917-18 - Navy and Army sent to Europe to fight the Axis powers. Russia 1918-22 Navy and troops sent to eastern Russia after the Bolshevik Revolution; Army made five landings. Honduras-1919 Marines sent during Honduras' national elections. Guatemala 1920 Troops occupied Guatemala for two weeks during a union strike.Turkey 1922 Troops fought nationalists in Smyrna. China 1922-27 Navy and Army troops deployed during a nationalist revolt. Honduras 1924-25 Troops landed twice during a national election. Panama 1925 - Troops sent in to put down a general strike. China 1927-34 Marines sent in and stationed for seven years throughout China. El Salvador-1932 Naval warships deployed during the FMLN revolt under Marti. World War II 1941-45 Military fought the Axis powers: Japan, Germany, and Italy. Yugoslavia 1946-Navy deployed off the coast of Yugoslavia in response to the downing of an American plane. Uruguay-1947-Bombers deployed as a show of military force. Greece 1947-49 United States operations insured a victory for the far right in national "elections." Germany -1948 Military deployed in response to the Berlin blockade; the Berlin airlift lasts 444 days. Philippines-1948-54 The CIA directed a civil war against the Filipino Huk revolt. Puerto Rico-1950-Military helped crush an independence rebellion in Ponce. Korean War 1951-53 Military sent in during the war.
Iran-1953-The CIA orchestrated the overthrow of democratically elected Mossadegh and restored the Shah to power. Vietnam-1954-The United States offered weapons to the French in the battle against Ho Chi Minh and the Viet Minh. Guatemala-1954-The CIA overthrew the democratically elected Arbenz and placed Colonel Armas in power. Egypt-1956-Marines deployed to evacuate foreigners after Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal. Lebanon-1958-Navy supported an Army occupation of Lebanon during its civil war. Panama-1958-Troops landed after Panamanians demonstrations threatened the Canal Zone. Vietnam-1950s-75-Vietnam War. Cuba-1961-The CIA-directed Bay of Pigs invasions failed to overthrow the Castro government. Cuba-1962-The Navy quarantines Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Laos-1962 Military occupied Laos during its civil war against the Pathet Lao guerrillas. Panama-1964-Troops sent in and Panamanians shot while protesting the United States presence in the Canal Zone. Indonesia-1965-The CIA orchestrated a military coup. Dominican Rep -1965-66- Troops deployed during a national election. Guatemala-1966-67-Green Berets sent in. Cambodia-1969-75-Military sent in after the VietnamWar expanded into Cambodia. Oman-1970-Marines landed to direct a possible invasion into Iran. Laos-1971-75-Americans carpet-bomb the countryside during Laos' civil war.
Chile-1973-The CIA orchestrated a coup, killing President Allende who had been popularly elected. The CIA helped to establish a military regime under General Pinochet. Cambodia-1975-Twenty-eight Americans killed in an effort to retrieve the crew of the Mayaquez, which had been seized. Angola-1976-92- The CIA backed South African rebels fighting against Marxist Angola. Iran -1980- Americans aborted a rescue attempt to liberate 52 hostages seized in the Teheran embassy. Libya-1981-American fighters shoot down two Libyan fighters. El Salvador-198-92-The CIA, troops, and advisers aid in El Salvador's war against the FMLN. Nicaragua-1981-90-The CIA and NSC directed the Contra War against the Sandinistas. Lebanon-1982-84-Marines occupied Beirut during Lebanon's civil war; 241 were killed in the American barracks and Reagan "redeployed" the troops to the Mediterranean. Honduras-1983-89-Troops sent in to build bases near the Honduran border. Grenada-1983-84-American invasion overthrew the Maurice Bishop government.
Iran-1984-American fighters shot down two Iranian planes over the Persian Gulf. Libya-1986-American fighters hit targets in and around the capital city of Tripoli. Bolivia-1986-The Army assisted government troops on raids of cocaine areas. Iran-1987-88-The United States intervened on the side of Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War. Libya-1989-Navy shot down two more Libyan jets. Virgin Islands-1989-Troops landed during unrest among Virgin Island peoples. Philippines -1989-Air Force provided air cover for government during coup. Panama-1989-90-27,000 Americans landed in overthrow of President Noriega; over 2,000 Panama civilians were killed. Liberia-1990-Troops entered Liberia to evacuate foreigners during civil war. Saudi Arabia-1990-91American troops sent to Saudi Arabia, which was a staging area in the war against Iraq. Kuwait-1991-Troops sent into Kuwait to turn back Saddam Hussein. Somalia-1992-94-Troops occupied Somalia during civil war. Bosnia-1993-95-Air Force jets bombed "no-fly zone" during civil war in Yugoslavia. Haiti-1994-96-American troops and Navy provided a blockade against Haiti's military government. The CIA restored Aristide to power. Zaire-1996-97-Marines sent into Rwanda Hutus' refugee camps in the area where the Congo revolution began. Albania-1997-Troops deployed during evacuation of foreigners. Sudan-1998-American missiles destroyed a pharmaceutical complex where alleged nerve gas components were manufactured. Afghanistan-1998-Missiles launched towards alleged Afghan terrorist training camps.
That was just up until the Clinton administration.
Point is...if the Deep State could assassinate foreign leaders...? You know the rest (http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/Smileys/default2/popcorn_eating.gif)
-
Secrets that were not kept very secret-----That was just up until the Clinton administration.
Point is...if the Deep State could assassinate foreign leaders...? You know the rest (http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/Smileys/default2/popcorn_eating.gif)
You and your 'deep state'. Tis' about as deep as a dry creek. Wait for the flood+
-
You and your 'deep state'. Tis' about as deep as a dry creek. Wait for the flood+
Deep State = Deep Paranoia
-
Deep State = Deep Paranoia
This so-called "deep state" never assassinated a single foreign leader. Not one.
Did they try? Yes but they - the CIA - were ordered or directed to do so by presidents. Castro most notably. Eisenhower reportedly approved a plan to assassinate Lumumba but the plan was not carried out and he was murdered by others.
I'm not going to defend the truly awful things done by the CIA during the Cold War. But almost all of it was done under directions by the president or with their knowledge. This wasn't a "rogue agency" acting on its own. And to argue from "the CIA tried to kill Castro therefore they killed JFK" is such a reach that it's remarkable that anyone tries to make it. Killing a foreign dictator is completely different than killing your own leader. That should be obvious.
-
This so-called "deep state" never assassinated a single foreign leader. Not one.
Did they try? Yes but they - the CIA - were ordered or directed to do so by presidents. Castro most notably. Eisenhower reportedly approved a plan to assassinate Lumumba but the plan was not carried out and he was murdered by others.
I'm not going to defend the truly awful things done by the CIA during the Cold War. But almost all of it was done under directions by the president or with their knowledge. This wasn't a "rogue agency" acting on its own. And to argue from "the CIA tried to kill Castro therefore they killed JFK" is such a reach that it's remarkable that anyone tries to make it. Killing a foreign dictator is completely different than killing your own leader. That should be obvious.
Wait, there's more:
Deep State = Deep Fake
-
They're only required to declassify Secrets related to the Kennedy assassination.
My question is, if the case has been closed for 50 years, what could be worth keeping secret today?
Supposedly methods and sources. I imagine there may be some people still alive today who gave information and were promised confidentiality.
I'll also imagine (I'm full of fantasies today; must have been that second vaccine dose) that some revelations would be embarrassing to, say, the Mexican government. Supposedly several high ranking Mexican officials at the time of the assassination were essentially working for the US. They had been bribed. Might still be alive or it might really upset US/Mexican relations.
As you probably know, Morley is hanging his hat on the Joannides claim. That Joannides knew about Oswald before the assassination and that counter intelligence perhaps used Oswald unwittingly in some operation designed to embarrass the FPCC and Cuba.
-
As you probably know, Morley is hanging his hat on the Joannides claim. That Joannides knew about Oswald before the assassination and that counter intelligence used Oswald in some operation designed to embarrass the FPCC and Cuba.
But did Joannides know? As far as I know, Carlos Bringuier has never said he told his CIA supervisors about his run-ins with Oswald.
-
Supposedly methods and sources. I imagine there may be some people still alive today who gave information and were promised confidentiality.
There certainly could be individuals who need to be protected. At some point, they will be gone and that will not be a valid reason. But "methods" could remain a valid reason indefinitely. In that case, I propose that they name an individual (such as Morley or whomever) to represent the conspiracy people. This person would work with the CIA and be allowed to see the files. They would, of course, have to sign an agreement not to disclose verbatim what is there under penalty of prosecution.
This person would be well-versed on the major issues surrounding Joannides, Phillips and Angleton and any other areas. They would study the files and prepare a report (that the CIA would clear) that could be released that would answer as many questions as would be allowable. I understand this is not a perfect solution, but it is better than nothing and may be the only way to partially resolve the issue. Just my 2 cents.
-
But did Joannides know? As far as I know, Carlos Bringuier has never said he told his CIA supervisors about his run-ins with Oswald.
Bringuier said he had no contacts with the CIA, that in particular he never knew Joannides who was reportedly the liaison between the CIA and the DRE, the anti-Castro group the CIA funded and that Bringuier was a member of. But Bringuier said he informed the Miami headquarters of the DRE about the Oswald encounters before the assassination. In fact, on August 21, 1963 he issued a press release warning the US government about the dangers Oswald posed.
Again, Joannides was the liaison between the CIA and the DRE; so did Miami tell him about what Bringuier reported? If Bringuier said Oswald was a threat wouldn't they tell Joannides? And Did Joannides (or someone in the CIA) hear about Oswald? Oswald appeared on radio and TV. One would think the CIA would notice all of this activity on his part.
The Bringuier press release is here: https://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0097a.htm
-
There certainly could be individuals who need to be protected. At some point, they will be gone and that will not be a valid reason. But "methods" could remain a valid reason indefinitely. In that case, I propose that they name an individual (such as Morley or whomever) to represent the conspiracy people. This person would work with the CIA and be allowed to see the files. They would, of course, have to sign an agreement not to disclose verbatim what is there under penalty of prosecution.
This person would be well-versed on the major issues surrounding Joannides, Phillips and Angleton and any other areas. They would study the files and prepare a report (that the CIA would clear) that could be released that would answer as many questions as would be allowable. I understand this is not a perfect solution, but it is better than nothing and may be the only way to partially resolve the issue. Just my 2 cents.
Just my 2 cents
And a penny for your thoughts. Now, who gets the extra penny?*
At some point, they will be gone and that will not be a valid reason.
I read that the protection extended to descendants
*Cite: Steven Wright
-
I read that the protection extended to descendants
That may be true. If so, my idea becomes even more relevant. BTW, Morley will never do it since this would prevent him from making baseless claims.
-
That may be true. If so, my idea becomes even more relevant. BTW, Morley will never do it since this would prevent him from making baseless claims.
For Morley this is all about Joannides. I don't think he's promoting it for any other reason. From there he wants to connect things directly to Counter Intelligence and specifically Angleton. And then to a anti-FPCC operation that used/manipulated Oswald.
As to baseless claims: that's an understatement. He once said - but withdrew it later - that Angleton should have been charged with "criminal negligence" for his failure to tell the Secret Service about the threat that Oswald posed to JFK. C'mon, that's silly.
-
This so-called "deep state" never assassinated a single foreign leader. Not one.
Did they try? Yes but they - the CIA - were ordered or directed to do so by presidents. Castro most notably. Eisenhower reportedly approved a plan to assassinate Lumumba but the plan was not carried out and he was murdered by others.
I'm not going to defend the truly awful things done by the CIA during the Cold War. But almost all of it was done under directions by the president or with their knowledge. This wasn't a "rogue agency" acting on its own. And to argue from "the CIA tried to kill Castro therefore they killed JFK" is such a reach that it's remarkable that anyone tries to make it. Killing a foreign dictator is completely different than killing your own leader. That should be obvious.
The CIA in the era of Dulles and Helms almost certainly went rogue a number of times. I'll grant you that the CIA today is more bureaucratic and less inclined to "go rogue" than in the 50s and 60s but there are reasons to think that some employees at the CIA went rogue against President Trump.
President Truman disagreed that the CIA wasn't a rogue agency and called for them to be reined in after JFK was killed.
President Eisenhower warned about the Military Industrial Complex
President Reagan I believe really had no idea what was going on during Iran-Contra. His VP, George HW Bush, likely knew more about Iran-Contra because he had a more intimate relationship with the CIA.
I would define the "Deep State" as a combination of High-Ranking NatSec people, Defense Industry people, some members of the Press, and wealthy oligarchs like Rupert Murdoch and George Soros for example.
To me, the 'Deep State' is just a group of unelected elites who are able to manipulate and influence policy decisions related to national security and foreign policy without being held accountable. I do believe that sort of Power Elite exists within the US and began sometime in the early 20th century (predating the creation of the CIA).
-
For Morley this is all about Joannides. I don't think he's promoting it for any other reason. From there he wants to connect things directly to Counter Intelligence and specifically Angleton. And then to a anti-FPCC operation that used/manipulated Oswald.
As to baseless claims: that's an understatement. He once said - but withdrew it later - that Angleton should have been charged with "criminal negligence" for his failure to tell the Secret Service about the threat that Oswald posed to JFK. C'mon, that's silly.
Morley seems to be onto something with Joannides, who was the CIA's liason for the HSCA.
Why would they choose him as the liason without disclosing his connection to the DRE? That seems rogue.
Also, the CIA confirmed that Joannides had a second home in New Orleans but hasn't disclosed the specific dates that he lived there or visited New Orleans in 1963.
https://jfkfacts.org/cia-admits-joannides-had-a-residence-in-new-orleans/
Given that he was running the DRE operation in 1963, it's not only possible but probable that he was familiar with Oswald prior to JFK's assassination.
I don't think it's a smoking gun proving a conspiracy of course but I do think it's embarrassing for the CIA and other agencies to admit that the President's alleged assassin was under surveillance leading up to November 1963...
-
For Morley this is all about Joannides. I don't think he's promoting it for any other reason. From there he wants to connect things directly to Counter Intelligence and specifically Angleton. And then to a anti-FPCC operation that used/manipulated Oswald.
As to baseless claims: that's an understatement. He once said - but withdrew it later - that Angleton should have been charged with "criminal negligence" for his failure to tell the Secret Service about the threat that Oswald posed to JFK. C'mon, that's silly.
Right. My forthcoming book will have a chapter on some of his claims about Phillips even though, as you say, Joannides/Angleton is his current focus.
-
Bringuier said he had no contacts with the CIA, that in particular he never knew Joannides who was reportedly the liaison between the CIA and the DRE, the anti-Castro group the CIA funded and that Bringuier was a member of. But Bringuier said he informed the Miami headquarters of the DRE about the Oswald encounters before the assassination. In fact, on August 21, 1963 he issued a press release warning the US government about the dangers Oswald posed.
Again, Joannides was the liaison between the CIA and the DRE; so did Miami tell him about what Bringuier reported? If Bringuier said Oswald was a threat wouldn't they tell Joannides? And Did Joannides (or someone in the CIA) hear about Oswald? Oswald appeared on radio and TV. One would think the CIA would notice all of this activity on his part.
The Bringuier press release is here: https://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0097a.htm
This is good info. Joannides files (the ones the CIA wont release) so would contain his contact with the Miami DRE and the info they were receiving from Carlos Bringuier on Oswald. All this would have been in Joannides possession prior to the assassination. But I don't see any evidence that Joannides or the CIA were directing anything based on this info.
Joannides might simply have been a receptacle of information that just happened to be coming in about Oswald.
-
This is good info. Joannides files (the ones the CIA wont release) so would contain his contact with the Miami DRE and the info they were receiving from Carlos Bringuier on Oswald. All this would have been in Joannides possession prior to the assassination. But I don't see any evidence that Joannides or the CIA were directing anything based on this info.
Joannides might simply have been a receptacle of information that just happened to be coming in about Oswald.
There are a couple of good pieces here (below) on this matter. It include exchanges between Dale Myers and Morley on Morley's claims about Bringuier and what he knew, told Miami, et cetera. They're from Myers's site.
The first: http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2008/06/last-word-bringuier-joannides-and-dre.html
And here: http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2008/02/cia-vs-jefferson-morley.html
Bringuier emphasizes that by the summer of 1963 that his New Orleans delegation of the DRE was quite small - him and 2-3 younger Cubans, received no money from Miami (or the CIA), and that he was running it himself on his own time. So it's entirely conceivable to me that Joannides was focused on handling the Miami contingent and the NO delegation was dismissed as meaningless. And again, Bringuier says he never met Joannides.
-
There are a couple of good pieces here (below) on this matter. It include exchanges between Dale Myers and Morley on Morley's claims about Bringuier and what he knew, told Miami, et cetera. They're from Myers's site.
The first: http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2008/06/last-word-bringuier-joannides-and-dre.html
And here: http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2008/02/cia-vs-jefferson-morley.html
Bringuier emphasizes that by the summer of 1963 that his New Orleans delegation of the DRE was quite small - him and 2-3 younger Cubans, received no money from Miami (or the CIA), and that he was running it himself on his own time. So it's entirely conceivable to me that Joannides was focused on handling the Miami contingent and the NO delegation was dismissed as meaningless. And again, Bringuier says he never met Joannides.
So you think it's totally not a problem that the CIA brought Joannides out of retirement to be the liason for the HSCA without disclosing his relationship with the DRE?
The CIA also continues to fight against declassifying files related to Joannides despite the fact that he died years ago.
Jeff Morley wants to know if Joannides spent time in New Orleans in 1963. That question seems relevant to JFK Assassination research. And for reasons that we don't currently know, the CIA won't answer the question...
-
So you think it's totally not a problem that the CIA brought Joannides out of retirement to be the liason for the HSCA without disclosing his relationship with the DRE?
The CIA also continues to fight against declassifying files related to Joannides despite the fact that he died years ago.
Jeff Morley wants to know if Joannides spent time in New Orleans in 1963. That question seems relevant to JFK Assassination research. And for reasons that we don't currently know, the CIA won't answer the question...
Re Joannides: It may be a problem; it may not. It shouldn't have been done. As you probably know, Blakey was furious when he found out. Rightly so.
I'll crib from Myers and echo his view (AMSPELL was the code name for the DRE):
"That is why the CIA records on George Joannides could prove to be valuable. As Mr. Morley rightly points out, “[During the 1978 HSCA investigation,] Joannides did not take the opportunity to say that the accused assassin had been in contact with his assets, rather, he concealed his working relationship with the DRE in 1963. He provided only a handful of miscellaneous AMSPELL documents to investigators… In fact, four decades after the fact, the most important AMSPELL records are missing from CIA archives – perhaps intentionally.”
However, Mr. Morley is also right to point out, and perhaps emphasize more than he has, that “…As a result [of the gap in AMSPELL records], it is hard to draw any firm conclusions about the contacts between the DRE and Oswald…” [Our Man in Mexico City, page 177]."
So release the material.
Questions: Wouldn't Joannides, if he had gone to NO, have met with Bringuier to get more information on Oswald? Bringuier insists that he never met Joannides. And if the DRE in Miami told Joannides about this Bringuier/Oswald encounter before the assassination why do the records show they told him about it afterwards? Isn't once enough?
I just don't think there's any there there. Oswald was a nobody and I simply don't see the CIA having any interest in him for any reasons.
-
They're only required to declassify Secrets related to the Kennedy assassination.
My question is, if the case has been closed for 50 years, what could be worth keeping secret today?
It would be too easy to release information that should not be released. Information that has nothing to do with the Kennedy assassination but gives the name of someone who helped us, or who we believed might help us, get information in Cuba. If the wrong information is released, someone in Cuba or their children could get arrested or worse.
It takes a lot of effort to comb through a ton documents to decide, it’s ok, we can release them. Only do discover, too late, that the wrong information was released. It is so much easier, and safer, for the government to just keep everything secret. That is generally what the U. S. government has decided to do. That is what other governments have decided to do.
That’s what they did with the secret information from the American Civil War. And as a result of this decision, maybe some people who helped the Union during the war didn’t get murdered by the KKK. Eventually, all that information was released, and none of it showed that the U. S. government was involved in the assassination of President Lincoln. I don’t expect anything different when all the secret information from the 1960’s is released.
Also, remember the government has had problems with scanning a ton of information, deciding it’s okay to release it all, and then later discover their mistake. It was just such a mistake that allowed information about the Allies Ultra code breaking of World War II to be released to the public in the 1970’s. The government would have liked to have kept that information a secret, so the Soviets and others don’t discover how even seemingly invulnerable codes might get broken. Of course, it probably didn’t matter because I expect the Soviets learned of this during the war. But it does show how easily the wrong information can be released accidentally when a massive release of “obsolete” secrets are released. Much easier and safer to just hold on to the secrets.
It is interesting that the thousands who worked against Ultra, and broke it, all kept their secret. Including Turning who was unjustly punished for homosexuality. But even this was not enough to turn against his country and reveal his truly great secret and his great contribution to saving Britain. Not even in the hopes of a less cruel penalty from the judge. But this continuous dedication to oath and duty was undone because some bureaucrat decided to have scan over a bunch of documents and not realizing their significance, released them. Whose to say the same thing wouldn’t happen if all the “JFK” secrets were released?
-
Re Joannides: It may be a problem; it may not. It shouldn't have been done. As you probably know, Blakey was furious when he found out. Rightly so.
I'll crib from Myers and echo his view (AMSPELL was the code name for the DRE):
"That is why the CIA records on George Joannides could prove to be valuable. As Mr. Morley rightly points out, “[During the 1978 HSCA investigation,] Joannides did not take the opportunity to say that the accused assassin had been in contact with his assets, rather, he concealed his working relationship with the DRE in 1963. He provided only a handful of miscellaneous AMSPELL documents to investigators… In fact, four decades after the fact, the most important AMSPELL records are missing from CIA archives – perhaps intentionally.”
However, Mr. Morley is also right to point out, and perhaps emphasize more than he has, that “…As a result [of the gap in AMSPELL records], it is hard to draw any firm conclusions about the contacts between the DRE and Oswald…” [Our Man in Mexico City, page 177]."
So release the material.
Questions: Wouldn't Joannides, if he had gone to NO, have met with Bringuier to get more information on Oswald? Bringuier insists that he never met Joannides. And if the DRE in Miami told Joannides about this Bringuier/Oswald encounter before the assassination why do the records show they told him about it afterwards? Isn't once enough?
I just don't think there's any there there. Oswald was a nobody and I simply don't see the CIA having any interest in him for any reasons.
The CIA could've chosen anyone to be their liaison for the HSCA. They didn't coincidentally choose the guy who had a conflict of interest. That was intentional.
If there's no "There" as far as Joannides', the DRE, and Oswald, why has the CIA fought so hard in court to keep his records secret?
If he never lived in New Orleans or visited there in 1963, why doesn't the agency come out and say that? They've confirmed that he had a residence in NO, which should carry more weight that Bringuer's statements. Maybe he didn't know Joannides (people who work with spies aren't always aware that they're working with spies) but we can be certain that Joannides knew the DRE members in NO.
Aside from that, I'm aware that the government unnecessarily keeps some things secret. I'm also aware that there likely is no "Smoking Gun" proving a Conspiracy in Kennedy's assassination hidden in the classified documents.
At worst, I expect that there may be some documents that embarrass the CIA, FBI, and other agencies.
The biggest reason today for the persistence of belief in the idea that there was a Conspiracy in Kennedy's assassination is the lack of Transparency from the various government agencies involved. At best, more Transparency will decrease the belief that there was a Conspiracy.
-
It would be too easy to release information that should not be released. Information that has nothing to do with the Kennedy assassination but gives the name of someone who helped us, or who we believed might help us, get information in Cuba. If the wrong information is released, someone in Cuba or their children could get arrested or worse.
That's not an acceptable explanation.
These agencies have had decades to filter through the remaining documents and decide what stuff isn't related to the JFK assassination. The deadline for 2021 (if Biden doesn't give them another extension) is October. They have a few more months to filter through the remaining documents.
Cuba's Intel Agency likely knows who all of our assets in Cuba in the 1960s were. Their counter-intelligence was very good. Hence why all CIA attempts to overthrow or kill Castro failed.
The USSR is gone but Russia's spies likely know most of our relevant secrets from the 1960s too.
Secret information usually has a shelf-life. The truth always gets out eventually.
The CIA just recently finally admitted their role in Iran's 1953 Coup but most people knew of their role years before their official admission.
Short of the fact that some spies and assets may still be alive, I can't imagine any secret worth keeping for 60 years.
-
Old Joe probably can't even remember what he had for breakfast much less who JFK was. The FBI and CIA used sources and methods to investigate the real or imagined connections between Oswald and Russia, Cuba, the mob etc. Some of those sources may still be alive today and disclosure of their identities could put them and/or their families at risk. In addition, these agencies are notoriously secretive erring on the side of nondisclosure of information for obvious reasons. So no great sinister mystery that some files have not been released. And when all the files are released, CTers will pore over them to discover nothing. And then move on to the next thing without missing a beat. JFK CTers are always the bridesmaid and never the bride. Evidence of conspiracy always just eludes them.
-
Old Joe probably can't even remember what he had for breakfast much less who JFK was. The FBI and CIA used sources and methods to investigate the real or imagined connections between Oswald and Russia, Cuba, the mob etc. Some of those sources may still be alive today and disclosure of their identities could put them and/or their families at risk. In addition, these agencies are notoriously secretive erring on the side of nondisclosure of information for obvious reasons. So no great sinister mystery that some files have not been released. And when all the files are released, CTers will pore over them to discover nothing. And then move on to the next thing without missing a beat. JFK CTers are always the bridesmaid and never the bride. Evidence of conspiracy always just eludes them.
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…
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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…
-
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.
-
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 Thumb1:
-
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.