May 31, 2016

Ukraine Declares War on Journalism New York Times May 31 2016




Names, email addresses and phone numbers of  investigative journalists published online in press-terror of the 'new' Ukraine

KIEV, Ukraine — In July 2014, I went to Donetsk, a separatist-controlled region in eastern Ukraine, to cover the shooting down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. It was a dangerous place at the time. The Ukrainian military and the rebels were shelling each other, and temperamental men with Kalashnikovs who had been known to kidnap journalists were everywhere.
Like many foreign reporters, I was there to relay what was happening to the remains of the downed flight’s 298 passengers and crew members. Before I went to the crash site, I obtained accreditation from the separatists. This did not guarantee that I would be safe, but it was the only way to get past the armed checkpoints.
Now Ukraine has labeled me an accomplice in terrorism.
On May 7, the website Mirotvorets (“Peacemaker”), courtesy of anonymous hackers, published part of the separatists’ accreditation records. My name, email address and phone number were among those of more than 4,000 journalists, including freelancers like me, as well as correspondents from this newspaper, Reuters, the BBC and other outlets. We were collectively labeled “terrorist collaborators” for gaining accreditation from the separatists. The list’s publishers claimed not to know what the consequences would be of releasing this information, but it seemed clear that the intent was to encourage people to take action against the journalists on their own.
Anton Gerashchenko, a member of Ukraine’s Parliament and an adviser to the Ministry of Interior, praised the publication of the list and called for journalists to assist Ukraine in its “information war” with Russia. Condemnation of the list followed from organizations including the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe and the Committee to Protect Journalists. Ukraine’s ombudsman called for the website to be blocked. As criticism built, the people running Mirotvorets said they would take their website offline and the Kiev prosecutor’s office began an investigation into whether or not those running the site had committed a crime.
In response, the interior minister, Arsen Avakov, declared his support for Mirotvorets and accused those who criticized the publication of the list of harboring separatist sympathies. His Facebook post received over 3,000 likes, and the publication of the list is strongly supported by the public. After an official from the Ministry of Information Policy said on TV that the list threatened the lives of journalists her boss, Yuriy Stets, posted an apology on social media, saying that the official did not represent the ministry’s position.
Emboldened by the support, the website is now back online and has posted additional journalists’ contact information. The editors stated that they would not listen to the “whimpering” about “freedom of speech.” An adviser to the head of the Ukrainian Security Service announced that the journalists on the lists were being investigated as potential spies.
These lists are nominally about who has interacted with the separatist rebels, but they create a wider — and more dangerous — precedent. The website and its supporters in government are suggesting that journalists can be divided into two camps: those who support the state and those who are against it, with the implication that journalists who criticize the government should be silenced.
This is dangerous in any society, but especially in Ukraine right now, where critical journalism is especially necessary. Few reforms have gone fully into effect and the country has recently taken a hard turn back toward cronyism. President Petro O. Poroshenko installed a close ally as prime minister, breaking the division of legislative and executive power established after the Maidan Square protests in 2014 that led to the ouster of his predecessor. He also named a crony with no law degree as general prosecutor. As corruption and nepotism threaten the hope of Ukraine’s revolution, journalists are being told that they are helping the enemy just by doing their jobs.
Ukraine has long felt outgunned by Russia’s propaganda machine. Moscow’s state-sponsored TV channels and Internet trolls have tried to divide Ukraine and turn global sentiment against it. Kiev lacks the budget to match those propaganda projects, but many Ukrainian publications and journalists avoid reporting news that looks bad for their country or could serve Russian propaganda. Ukrainian officials recognized this reluctance as a useful political tool. They now seek to explain away any criticism as Russian “hybrid warfare.” That is how Mr. Poroshenko dismissed a New York Times editorial criticizing his failure to tackle corruption.
In trying to encourage “patriotic” journalism, in which the state always receives the benefit of the doubt, Ukrainian officials are actually fostering a journalism culture similar to Russia’s. Russia, too, chastises reporters and publications that publish stories critical of the government for not being patriotic. And that’s why not many do so anymore. Recently, the editorial staff of one of the few remaining independent news organizations in Russia, RBC, was dismissed following government pressure. There are also darker chapters of silencing critical journalists, including accusations of murder.
Most senior Ukrainian officials have avoided commenting on the release of journalists’ names and information. But they should now act in accordance with the Western values that they claim to believe, and condemn the defamation of journalists just for working in separatist-controlled areas. They must also ensure that the offending website is shut down and that the investigation into who published the list results in criminal charges. This alone will not ensure that the country’s news media is free and fair, but it will help set the right tone. Ukraine must not sacrifice press freedom in its struggle to survive war.


An Early Activist Critique of Stalin's Antihomosexual Law of 1934 by Comrade Kurt Hiller

Introduction and Translation by David Thorstad


Monthly Review Press

Introduction

This article, titled "A Chapter of Russian Reaction," translated into English here for the first time, was written in German by longtime homosexual activist Kurt Hiller (1885-1972) from London and published in the Swiss gay journal Der Kreis in 1946.  Hiller had been active in Germany's first homosexual-rights organization, the Wissenschaftlich-humanitäre Komitee (Scientific Humanitarian Committee), headed by Magnus Hirschfeld (1868–1935).  Founded in 1897, the committee was Germany's most prominent gay group.  Its central campaign was reform of Paragraph 175 of the penal code, which criminalized "unnatural lewdness between persons of the male sex."

In the group's first meeting following World War I, in August 1920, it set up a united-front "action committee" of gay groups to fight for repeal of Paragraph 175, and Hiller was chosen to head it.  At the 1928 congress in Copenhagen of the World League for Sexual Reform, Hirschfeld read a paper on the subject of homosexual oppression written by Hiller titled "Appeal to the Second International Congress for Sexual Reform on Behalf of an Oppressed Human Variety."1
Hiller's article "Ethical Tasks of Homosexuals" is one of the most compelling to come out of the pre-Stonewall gay movement.  It first appeared in the July 1913 issue of the Jahrbuch für sexuelle Zwischenstufen (Yearbook for Intermediate Sexual Types), the publication of the Scientific Humanitarian Committee.  (My translation of this article can be seen here: www.williamapercy.com/wiki/index.php?title=David_Thorstad.)

As John Lauritsen and I wrote in our book on the early homosexual rights movement: "The last of an irregular series of 'Newsletters' of the Scientific Humanitarian Committee was published in February 1933, by Kurt Hiller.  In July of the same year, Hiller was arrested and sent to the Oranienburg concentration camp.  He was fortunate to be released nine months later, after nearly dying from mistreatment in the concentration camp, and he left Germany."2  Here is an excerpt where Hiller speaks in German about his experiences in Nazi captivity: www.etuxx.com/diskussionesn/toene/hiller.mp3.

The tsarist law punishing homosexual sex was abolished following the Russian Revolution.  But in 1934, less than two decades later, Stalin recriminalized same-sex sexual acts.  When André Gide visited the USSR in 1935-36, he reported that homosexuals were considered counterrevolutionaries.

Hiller says that "even the dumbest peasant could grasp the cruelty and idiocy" of laws against same-sex behavior.  No doubt.  But there was virtually no criticism of Stalin's antihomosexual policy from any communist (or even oppositionist) groups until after the 1969 Stonewall Riots that gave a new impulse to the struggle for gay rights and sexual freedom that had begun in the middle of the nineteenth century.  The erasure of almost all leftist support for gay rights following the reaction under Stalin, and the dearth of criticism of the USSR's antisex policies, make Hiller's article all the more striking.  It is written in his usual pithy style and is a unique document that deserves to be rescued from oblivion.

An earlier article by Hiller covering the same ground, and also criticizing the ban on abortion, titled "Retreats in the Soviet Union," was published ten years earlier, in 1936 -- just two years after the new law was promulgated.  It appeared in the exile publication Sozialistische Warte: Blätter für kritsch-aktiven Sozialismus, whose many contributors included a variety of adherents to different tendencies, including Thomas Mann and Leon Trotsky.  Hiller repeated the stinging conclusion to that article -- a criticism of leftist apologists for the USSR -- in the introduction to his 1946 article below.

The notes are mine. -- DT

●   ●   ●

A Chapter of Russian Reaction
by Kurt Hiller

Kurt Hiller

    Whatever one might think of the Soviet Union, it unquestionably merits recognition for two services of historic significance: having undertaken the first tremendous, radical experiment in socialism and, with enormous sacrifice of life and property, having actively helped bring about the collapse of the satanic mob rule of the Nazis.  One can't be thankful enough.  But acknowledging this in no way means castrating oneself critically and turning into a devoted eunuch of Moscow, who stands with crossed arms before his pasha, whose edicts he, for Allah's sake, under no circumstances dares to contradict.  I would expect even of honest European communists to despise, together with me, him who accepts, if Moscow commits them, such reactionary acts that he would never accept if bourgeois or social-democratic governments were guilty of them.
                                                                                                                      K.H.

The Russian penal code of 1845 threatened same-sex acts between adults with "third-class punishment, second degree," that is, with banishment to the lesser removed regions of Siberia (in a penal colony) and prior to that ten to twenty whiplashes.  That was under Nicholas I!  In 1903, Nicholas II gave his people a new penal code that provided for not less than three months' prison for same-sex acts without aggravating circumstances.  Even with aggravating conditions the acts were punished relatively mildly: imprisonment for not less than three years for seduction of minors from 14 to 16 years of age, and of children under 14 -- forced labor for not more than eight years.  Even the remaining acts clearly deserving punishment -- abuse of someone in one's care, the mentally ill, the unconscious, sexual coercion, and blackmail -- were punished similarly.  The 1917 October Revolution did what Cambacérès, in the Napoleonic Code, had already done a century earlier: it removed punishment for simple same-sex intercourse without aggravating circumstances . . . Lenin and his friends were thus not just economic and social but also cultural revolutionaries.3

However, this repeal was in reality not at all so "revolutionary."  In a modest sense, it was progressive; it simply implemented the liberal-bourgeois, radical, rational intent of the eighteenth century, which had already been implemented in the Latin countries in the first half of the nineteenth century, precisely under French influence.  (Chinese and Islamist rationality had preceded this.)

After less than two decades, the Russian Revolution revoked this change.  On March 7, 1934, the RSFSR (that is, Soviet Russia, but not the entire Soviet Union) promulgated a new law on the criminal responsibility for "pederasty," as follows:

    § 154 of the penal code of the RSFSR is expanded in the following manner: sexual intercourse of a man with another man (pederasty) will be punished with imprisonment of three to five years.4

Our criticism is not aimed at the second paragraph of this new § 154a (not quoted here), for it criminally establishes a very justifiable social protection; the outrageous retreat lies in the first paragraph.  It is a retreat compared to the legal situation prevailing in the majority of all bourgeois states, including formerly fascist Italy and the clearly nonliberal Poland of the Pilsudski period.  In the severity of its punishment it is even a step backward compared to the tsarist law of 1903.

A biological minority that, as such, is neither superior to nor inferior to, neither socially useful nor socially harmful to the majority, and at most can only be harmful insofar as attempts are made to repress and persecute it, which, if it is not hard as steel, distorts the character of these human beings and ruins their nervous system -- this in itself healthy variety of person, which can be seen throughout all eras and among all peoples, is represented among a not insignificant number of distinguished artists and thinkers (as well as among human trash and the lowest criminals -- but can normal love deny the fact that most criminals love in the normal way?) -- this minority is here prevented from expressing its fundamental human rights by the most brutal threats from a state that is not led by a Hitler, but rather praises itself internationally as the realization of freedom for all humanity.

Or rather, tries to prevent, through a completely unsuitable means.  This law is not only brutal and reactionary, it is also senseless.  While it no doubt forces the same-sexer into lies and dirty hideaways, it is no more able to force him to be ascetic than a law against sexual intercourse could force the normal majority of the population to abstain from sex.  Even the dumbest peasant could grasp the cruelty and idiocy of such a law.

On the other hand, we find the belief that by legally punishing men who love men they can be changed into men who love women, despite the shocking ignorance of matters pertaining to psychology that it reveals, sometimes even among geniuses.  I don't know whether Barbusse and Gorky were geniuses; I know only that they sometimes expressed the stupidest opinions about the problem of homosexuality and that their influence in Moscow in the area of cultural politics was considerable (the same is true of the individual psychologist Alfred Adler, who did not hesitate to teach that homoeroticism was nothing more than bad intentions: anyone who really wanted to could love in the "correct" way).  In the March 1, 1926, issue of the Paris journal Les Marges, Henri Barbusse denounced the same-sex inclination as "a sign of deep social and moral decadence on the part of a distinct part of present-day society," namely (he was a Marxist), the propertied class.  And as to Maxim Gorky, it is credibly reported that he exclaimed: "Destroy the homosexuals and you destroy fascism!"5  Only a few leftists will acknowledge that this way of thinking is itself fascist.  To be sure, the great earth-shaking changes of terminology have nowadays even seized the terms of both the Left and the Right . . .

The statements of both writers, as well as the ridiculous theories of that Doctor Adler from Vienna (one of the old defectors from Freud), reveal one thing: the instinctual hostility of these gentlemen to a type of human being that, based only on their feelings, they find peculiar, incomprehensible, and strange.  One can really only compare this instinctual hatred for what is strange to racism -- which they completely reject.  In other respects, what these writers say betrays considerable social ignorance.  Anyone who has to some degree investigated the sexual-sociological subject knows that among the proletariat sexual anomalies, including same-sex sexuality, are no less prevalent than among the bourgeoisie, and that neither in Germany nor in other countries did or does man-man love have a monopoly in nationalistic circles.  That it is more common in professional armies and uniformed male groups than elsewhere is undeniable, is freely acknowledged by the psychologist from the start, and bears no relation whatever to the nature of the political views prevailing in such armies or groups.  A red sailor, for example, is disposed to engaging in man-man love relationships or practices to the same extent as a brown or black sailor -- not because women are lacking, but because men for whom the lack of women is of no consequence and who feel happiest in a vigorous male-only milieu (which they might not even be consciously aware of) eagerly seek out professions that tend to reflect their ideal in this regard.  Defenders of the Russian government say that it was compelled to adopt that law because groups of lovers had arisen in the Red Army that had become the focus of opposition ("Trotskyist") propaganda.6  The theory that there was such a cause-and-effect link between homoeroticism and political opposition is more naive than naive.  The shoe is on the other foot: governments that consider it appropriate to persecute same-sexers will certainly not arouse any sympathy among them, let alone possibly even change political hate into political love.

If these governments respond by saying that friendship or enmity of this tiny minority is all the same to it, that it has no weight, then they are punishing their own lies.7  For why persecute a minority of no significance?  In fact, one would search in vain for a rational motive behind this shameful legislation.  What is decreed here is uncontrolled instinct -- or cynical intent to cajole the uncontrolled instincts of churchly conservative circles, whose backing one wants to secure by Machiavellian means.  At best, the decision was made by ignorance based on false authorities, and the generally dull, narrow-minded impulse toward the past -- that impulse that recently, in the realm of foreign policy, led, with aspirations going as far as Libya, to exuberant, hyper-tsarist imperialism.



Notes

1  Kurt Hiller, "Appeal to the Second International Congress for Sexual Reform on Behalf of an Oppressed Human Variety," trans. John Lauritsen, in John Lauritsen and David Thorstad, The Early Homosexual Rights Movement (1864-1935), rev. ed. (Ojai, Calif.: Times Change Press, 1995), 106-14; originally published by the Red Butterfly, 1970.

2  Ibid., 47.

3  Cambacérès (1753-1834) was a lawyer during the French Revolution best known for drafting the Napoleonic Code, a civil code that was promulgated by Emperor Napoleon in 1804.  The Constituent Assembly abolished the ancien régime law against sodomy when it revised the penal code in 1791.  Cambacérès was openly homosexual.  His tomb is in Père Lachaise cemetery in Paris.

4  This refers to the first part of the article.  The second part provided for up to eight years in prison "if the act was accompanied by taking advantage of the dependent position of one of the partners, by the use of force, or if it was conducted as a profession or publicly.  All republics were required to insert the statute unchanged into their codes.  In effect, the law raised homosexuality to the level of a state security matter, constituting a peril to the moral fabric of society" (Lauritsen and Thorstad, The Early Homosexual Rights Movement [1864-1935], 78).  RSFSR stands for Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic.

5  Gorky's statement is in his article "Proletarian Humanism," Pravda, May 23, 1934, 3 (quoted in Dan Healey, Homosexual Desire in Revolutionary Russia: The Regulation of Sexual and Gender Dissent [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001], 189-90).  According to Healy, the slogan actually reads "Destroy the homosexuals -- Fascism will disappear," but it has generally been mistranslated as "Destroy homosexuality and fascism will disappear," which obscures its "unmistakably genocidal resonance" (332n37).

The full Barbusse quote is: "I consider that this perversion of a natural instinct, like many other perversions, is a sign of deep social and moral decadence on the part of a distinct part of present-day society."  It appears in a feature in Les Marges titled "Homosexuality in Literature" in which writers were asked to state their views on three questions: (1) "Have you noticed that the homosexual preoccupation has grown in literature since the war?"; (2) "Do you think that the presentation of inverts in the novel, in poetry, or in the theater might have an influence on morals?"; and (3) "If you believe that one must fight against this tendency, by what means?  If you believe one must tolerate it, for what reasons?"  Some three dozen writers responded, with views of homosexuality ranging from favorable to hostile to ironic.

6  So far as I can determine, the (Trotskyist) Left Opposition to Stalin never made an issue out of the re-criminalization of homosexual behavior under Stalin.  Here, Hiller's mention of opposition propaganda as "Trotskyist" most likely refers to the fact that the Stalinist Communist parties often denounced opposition to their policies as "Trotskyite."  They still do.  In 1964, in Prague, I spent an evening with a Communist Party history teacher, and when I criticized the Soviet Union for not doing more to aid the Vietnamese in their struggle against the United States, he replied: "We have a lot of trouble with our Trotskyists."  At the time, the Trotskyist movement had no influence at all in Czechoslovakia.

7  The notion that the homosexual minority had no "weight" is of coincidental interest in that during the debates on homosexuality and gay liberation inside the Trotskyist U.S. Socialist Workers Party in the early 1970s, the leadership, in a "Memorandum on the Gay Liberation Movement" (adopted in August 1973), argued that gay liberation related to a "relatively narrow sector of the population," lacked the "potential mass" and "social weight" of movements for women's and black liberation, and was "much more peripheral to the central issues of the class struggle" than those movements.  It said that it would be a mistake for the SWP to "generally assign comrades to this movement."  The SWP has never published this "Memorandum."  It is discussed in my article "The Socialist Workers Party vs. Gay Liberation (or The Cuckoo Builds a Strange Nest)," available atwww.williamapercy.com/wiki/index.php?title=David_Thorstad.
________________________________________________________________________________

David Thorstad is a longtime gay activist, coauthor of The Early Homosexual Rights Movement (1864-1935), and editor of Gay Liberation and Socialism: Documents from the Discussions on Gay Liberation inside the Socialist Workers Party (1970–1973). 

Over 30,000 Africans have graduated from Cuban universities GRANMA: may 25, 2016

A bronze statue of Ghanaian leader, Kwame Nkrumah, presides over the entrance of the headquarters of the African Union in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, as a tribute to this pioneer of African independence. Photo: Reuters
The University of Havana marked Africa Day, celebrated each May 25, with a panel discussion entitled “Rethinking Africa, its history and contemporaneity”.

During the event, the strong bonds of brotherhood that unite both peoples, stemming from solidarity efforts, and the benefits of cooperation in sectors such as education, health and sports were highlighted.
Clara Pulido, coordinator for Africa and the Middle East of the International Relations Office of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Cuba, noted that consolidating peace, independence and regional integration for development, are common goals.
Referring to social programs and the training of human resources, she explained that more than 30,000 Africans have graduated from Cuban universities.
In the presence of African diplomats, academics and students, Pulido highlighted Cuban collaboration in countries of the African Union (AU), and especially the work of the medical brigade that fought the Ebola epidemic in Guinea Conakry, Sierra Leone and Liberia.
She also expressed thanks for the support provided by member states of the AU in the island’s fight to end the economic, commercial and financial blockade imposed by the United States for over half a century.
Regarding pending issues for the African continent, Pulido pointed to the independence of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, whose territories are still occupied by Morocco.
She also stressed the strong African heritage in Cuba, referring to national heroes such as Antonio Maceo and Juan Almeida Bosque.
The event also provided an opportunity to commemorate the 130th anniversary of the abolition of slavery in the Caribbean nation.

May 30, 2016

The Hidden Government Group: Peter Dale Scott

http://www.voltairenet.org/article187504.html

+

Peter Dale Scott is considered the father of “Deep Politics”— the study of hidden permanent institutions and interests whose influence on the political realm transcends the elected, appointed and career officials who come and go. A Professor of English at Berkeley and a former Canadian diplomat, he is the author of several critically acclaimed books on the pivotal events of our country’s recent past. Daniel Ellsberg said of his book Drugs, Oil and War, “It makes most academic and journalistic explanations of our past and current interventions read like government propaganda written for children.” What follows is based on a recent Scott lecture entitled “The JFK Assassination and Other Deep Events”.

 | OTTAWA (CANADA)  


JPEG - 56.4 kb
Mount Weather entrance.
For some time now, I have been analyzing American history in the light of what I have called structural deep events: events, like the JFK assassination, the Watergate break-in, Iran-Contra, or 9/11, which repeatedly involve law-breaking or violence, are mysterious to begin with, are embedded in ongoing covert processes, have political consequences that enlarge covert government, and are subsequently covered up by systematic falsifications in the mainstream media and internal government records. [1]
The more I study these deep events, the more I see suggestive similarities between them, increasing the possibility that they are not unrelated external intrusions on American history, but parts of an endemic process, sharing to some degree or other a common source. [2]
For example, one factor linking Dallas, Watergate, Iran-Contra, and 9/11, has been the involvement in all four deep events of personnel involved in America’s highest-level emergency planning, known since the 1950s as Continuity of Government (COG) planning, or more colloquially inside the Pentagon as “the Doomsday Project.” A few of these actors may have been located at the top, as overseers of the secret COG system. Others – including some I shall talk about today – were located further down in its secret communications network.
I see this planning group as one among many in what I have chosen to call the American deep state, along with agencies like the CIA and NSA, the private groups like Booz Allen Hamilton to which more than half of the US intelligence budget is outsourced, [3] and finally the powerful banks and corporations whose views are well represented in the CIA and NSA. But if only one group among many, the COG planning group is also special, because of its control of and access to a communications channel, not under government control, that can reach deeply into the US social structure. I discuss these matters at some length in my next book, The American Deep State, due out in November.
COG planning was originally authorized by Truman and Eisenhower as planning for a response to a crippling atomic attack that had decapitated government. In consequence its planning group contemplated extreme measures, including what Alfonso Chardy in 1987 called “suspension of the Constitution.” [4] And yet in Iran-Contra its asset of a secret communications network, developed for the catastrophe of decapitation, was used instead to evade an official embargo on arms sales to Iran that dated back to 1979. My question today is whether the network could have been similarly misused in November 1963.
The Iran-contra misuse has been well-documented. Oliver North supervised the sale of arms to Iran by using his resources as the National Security Council action officer for COG planning, under cover of a “National Program Office” that was overseen by then Vice-President George H. W. Bush. [5] North and his superiors could thus use the COG emergency network, known then as Flashboard, for the arms sales to Iran that had to be concealed from other parts of the Washington bureaucracy as well as the public. So when North had to send emergency instructions for arms delivery to the US Embassy in Lisbon, instructions that directly contravened the embargo prohibiting such sales, he used the Flashboard network to avoid alerting the Ambassador and other unwitting personnel.
The documented example of Iran-Contra allows me to explain what I am saying about the users of the COG network, and also what I am not saying. To begin with, I am not saying that a single “Secret Team” has for decades been using the COG network to manipulate the US Government from outside it. There is no evidence to suggest that North’s actions in Iran-Contra were known to any of his superiors other than CIA chief William Casey and probably George Bush. The point is that a very small group had access to a high-level secret network outside government review, in order to implement a program in opposition to government policy. They succumbed to the temptation to use this secure network that had been designed for other purposes. I have argued elsewhere that this secure network was used again on 9/11, to implement key orders for which the 9/11 Commission could find no records. [6] Whether it was also used for illicit purposes is not known.
It is certain that the COG emergency network program survived North’s demise, and continued to be secretly developed for decades, at a cost of billions, and overseen by a team including Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. It is relevant that the two men’s presence on the committee spanned three administrations – those of Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton — even though at one point under Clinton neither man held a position inside the U.S. government. Such continuity was essential for a group so secret that few records existed of its activities. And on 9/11 COG plans were officially implemented for the first time, by Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, the two men who had planned them for so many years. [7]
Whether or not they knew about Iran-Contra, Cheney and Rumsfeld were on the COG planning committee at the time of Iran-Contra. There is no such obvious link between COG planning and Watergate, but the involvement of COG personnel in Watergate is nonetheless striking. James McCord, one of the Watergate burglars, was a member of a small Air Force Reserve unit in Washington attached to the Office of Emergency Preparedness (OEP) that was assigned “to draw up lists of radicals and to develop contingency plans for censorship of the news media and U.S. mail in time of war.” [8] His unit was part of the Wartime Information Security Program (WISP), which had responsibility for activating “contingency plans for imposing censorship on the press, the mails and all telecommunications (including government communications) [and] preventive detention of civilian ‘security risks,’ who would be placed in military ‘camps.’” [9] In addition, John Dean, perhaps the central Watergate figure, had overseen secret COG activities when serving as the associate deputy attorney general. [10]
In the case of the JFK assassination, I wish to focus on two men who functioned as part of the communications network of the Office of Emergency Planning (OEP), the agency renamed in 1968 as the Office of Emergency Preparedness (to which McCord was attached), and renamed again in 1982 as the National Program Office (for which Oliver North was the action officer). [11]
These two men (there are others) are Winston Lawson, the Secret Service advance man who from the lead car of the motorcade was in charge of the Secret Service radio channels operating in the motorcade; and Jack Crichton, the army intelligence reserve officer who with Deputy Dallas Police Chief George Lumpkin selected the Russian interpreter for Marina Oswald’s first (and falsified) FBI interview. [12]
Lawson has drawn the critical attention of JFK researchers, both for dubious actions he took before and during the assassination, and also for false statements he made after it (some of them under oath). For example, Lawson reported after the assassination that motorcycles were deployed on “the right and left flanks of the President’s car” (17 WH 605). On the morning of November 22, however, the orders had been changed (3 WH 244), so that the motorcycles rode instead, as Lawson himself testified to the Warren Commission, “just back of the President’s car” (4 WH 338; cf. 21 WH 768-70). Captain Lawrence of the Dallas Police testified that that the proposed side escorts were redeployed to the rear on Lawson’s own instructions (7 WH 580-81; cf. 18 WH 809, 21 WH 571). This would appear to have left the President more vulnerable to a possible crossfire.
Early on November 22, at Love Field, Lawson installed, in what would become the lead car, the base radio whose frequencies were used by all Secret Service agents on the motorcade. This radio channel, operated by the White House Communications Agency (WHCA), was used for some key decisions before and after the assassination, yet its records, unlike those of the Dallas Police Department (DPD) Channels One and Two, were never made available to the Warren Commission, or any subsequent investigation. The tape was not withheld because it was irrelevant; on the contrary, it contained very significant information.
The WHCA actually reports to this day on its website that the agency was “a key player in documenting the assassination of President Kennedy.” [13] However it is not clear for whom this documentation was conducted, or why it was not made available to the Warren Commission, the House Select Committee on Assassinations, or the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB). [14] It should have been.
For one thing, the WHCA tape, as Vincent Palamara has written, contains the “key” to the unresolved mystery of who, after the shooting, redirected the motorcade to Parkland hospital. The significance of this apparently straightforward command, about which there was much conflicting testimony, is heightened when we read repeated orders on the Dallas Police radio transcript to “cut all traffic for the ambulance going to Parkland code 3” (17 WH 395) – the ambulance in question having nothing to do with the president (whose shooting had not yet been announced on the DPD radio). In fact the ambulance had been dispatched about ten minutes before the assassination to pick someone from in front of the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD), who was wrongly suspected of having suffered an epileptic seizure. [15]
Lawson later reported to the Secret Service that he heard on his radio “that we should proceed to the nearest hospital.” He wrote also that he “requested Chief Curry to have the hospital contacted,” and then that “Our Lead Car assisted the motorcycles in escorting the President’s vehicle to Parkland Hospital” (17 WH 632), cf. 21 WH 580). [16] In other words, after hearing something on the WHCA radio, Lawson helped ensure that the President’s limousine would follow the route already set up by the motorcycles for the epileptic. (In his very detailed Warren Commission testimony, Lawson said nothing about the route having already been cleared. On the contrary he testified that “we had to do some stopping of cars and holding our hands out the windows and blowing the sirens and horns to get through” (4 WH 354).
The WHCA radio channel used by Lawson and others communicated almost directly to the WHCA base at Mount Weather in Virginia, the base facility of the COG network. From there, Secret Service communications were relayed to the White House, via the batteries of communications equipment connecting Mount Weather with the White House and “Raven Rock” — the underground Pentagon sixty miles north of Washington — as well as with almost every US military unit stationed around the globe. [17]
Jack Crichton, head of the 488th Army Intelligence Reserve unit of Dallas, was also part of this Mount Weather COG network. This was in his capacity as chief of intelligence for Dallas Civil Defense, which worked out of an underground Emergency Operating Center. As Russ Baker reports, “Because it was intended for ‘continuity of government’ operations during an attack, [the Center] was fully equipped with communications equipment.” [18] In retrospect the Civil Defense Program is remembered derisively, for having advised schoolchildren, in the event of an atomic attack, to hide their heads under their desks. [19] But in 1963 civil defense was one of the urgent responsibilities assigned to the Office of Emergency Planning, which is why Crichton, as much as Secret Service agent Lawson, could be in direct touch with the OEP’s emergency communications network at Mount Weather.
Jack Crichton is of interest because he, along with DPD Deputy Chief George Lumpkin of the 488th Army Intelligence Reserve unit, was responsible for choosing a Russian interpreter for Marina Oswald from the right-wing Russian community. This man was Ilya Mamantov, who translated for Marina Oswald at her first DPD interview on November 22. What she allegedly said in Russian at this interview was later used to bolster what I have called the “phase one” story, still promoted from some CIA sources, that Russia and/or Cuba were behind the assassination.
As summarized by the FBI, Mamantov’s account of Marina’s Russian testimony was as follows:
MARINA OSWALD advised that LEE HARVEY OSWALD owned a rifle which he used in Russia about two years ago. She observed what she presumed to be the same rifle in a blanket in the garage at [Ruth Paine’s residence]…. MARINA OSWALD stated that on November 22, she had been shown a rifle in the Dallas Police Department…. She stated that it was a dark color like the one that she had seen, but she did not recall the sight. [20]
These specific details – that Marina said she had seen a rifle that was dark and scopeless – were confirmed in an affidavit (signed by Marina and Mamantov, 24 WH 219) that was taken by DPD officer B.L. Senkel (24 WH 249). They were confirmed again by Ruth Paine, who witnessed the Mamantov interview, (3 WH 82). They were confirmed again the next night in an interview of Marina by the Secret Service, translated by Mamantov’s close friend Peter Gregory. But a Secret Service transcript of the interview reveals that the source of these details was Gregory, not Marina:
(Q) This gun, was it a rifle or a pistol or just what kind of a gun? Can she answer that?
(A) It was a gun
Mr. Gregory asked: Can you describe it?
NOTE: Subject said: I cannot describe it because a rifle to me like all rifles.
Gregory translation: She said she cannot describe it. It was sort of a dark rifle just like any other common rifle…
Subject in Russian: It was a hump (or elevation) but I never saw through the scope….
Gregory translation: She says there was an elevation on the rifle but there was no scope – no telescope. [21]
We have to conclude not just that Gregory had falsified Marina’s testimony (“a rifle to me like all rifles”); but so probably had his friend Mamantov, who later testified no less than seven times to the Warren Commission that Marina had used the word “dark” to describe the gun. There were others in Dallas who claimed that Oswald’s gun indeed had been scopeless, until Oswald had a scope installed on it by Dallas gunsmith Dial Ryder. The Warren Report elaborately refuted this corroborated claim, and concluded that “the authenticity of the repair tag” used to support it was “subject to grave doubts.” (WR 317).
We can see here, what the Warren Commission did not wish to see, signs of a conspiracy to misrepresent Marina’s testimony, and possibly to link Oswald’s gun to a dark and scopeless rifle he had in the Soviet Union. Our concerns that Mamantov misrepresented her lead us to concerns about why two Army Intelligence Reserve officers from the 488th unit (Jack Crichton and Deputy DPD Chief George Lumpkin) selected Mamantov as her interpreter. Our concerns are increased when we see that B.L. Senkel, the DPD officer who took Marina’s suspect affidavit, was the partner of F.P. Turner, who collected the dubious rifle repair tag (24 WH 328), and that both men spent most of November 22 with DPD Deputy Chief Lumpkin. For example, they were with Lumpkin in the pilot car of the motorcade when Lumpkin was communicating with Winston Lawson in the lead car behind them.
I conclude that when we look at the conduct of the two men we know to have been parts of the COG emergency communications network in Dallas, we see patterns of sinister behavior that also involved others, or what we may call conspiratorial behavior. These concatenated efforts to implicate Oswald in a phase-one conspiracy narrative lead me to propose a hypothesis for which I have neither evidence nor an alternative explanation: namely, that someone on the WHCA network may have been the source for the important unexplained description on the Dallas Police tapes of a suspect who had exactly the false height and weight (5 feet 10 inches, 165 pounds) recorded for Oswald in his FBI and CIA files.
08Note that there are no other known sources ascribing this specific height and weight to Oswald. For example, when he was arrested and charged in Dallas that same day, Oswald was recorded as having a height of 5’9 ½ inches, and a weight of 131 pounds. [22] The first reference to Oswald as 5’10”, 165 pounds, was that offered by Oswald’s mother Marguerite to FBI Agent Fain in May 1960, when Oswald himself was absent in Russia. [23]
The DPD officer contributing the description on the Police Channel was Inspector Herbert Sawyer, who allegedly had heard it from someone outside the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD) whom he could not identify or describe. [24] The Warren Report said categorically that his source was Howard Brennan (WR 5), and that on the evening of November 22, Brennan “identified Oswald as the person in the lineup who bore the closest resemblance to the man in the window but he said that he was unable to make a positive identification” (WR 145). But there are many reasons to doubt this, starting with conflicts in Brennan’s own testimony (as Anthony Summers reported in Conspiracy, pp. 109-10) . And Ian Griggs has made a strong case that Brennan never saw Oswald in a line-up that evening. (There are police records placing Oswald in three line-ups that day, and corroborating witness reports of them; but there is no evidence whatever that Brennan attended any of the three.) [25]
There is another strong reason to doubt that the source was Brennan. Brennan testified later to the Warren Commission that he saw his suspect in a window of the Texas School Book Depository, “standing up and leaning against the left window sill.” Pressed to describe how much of the suspect he saw, Brennan answered, “I could see probably his whole body, from his hips up. But at the time that he was firing the gun, a possibility from his belt up” (3 WH 144).
The awkwardness of Brennan’s language draws attention to the fundamental problem about the description. It is hard to imagine anyone giving a full height and weight estimate from seeing someone who was only partially visible in a window. So there are intrinsic grounds for believing the description must have come from another source. And when we see that the same description is found in Oswald’s FBI and CIA files — and nowhere else – there are reasons to suspect the source was from government secret files.
We have seen that there was interaction in Dallas between the WHCA and DPD radio channels, thanks to the WHCA portable radio that Lawson had installed in the lead car of the presidential motorcade. [26] This radio in turn was in contact by police radio with the pilot car ahead of it, carrying Dallas Police Department (DPD) Deputy Chief Lumpkin of the 488th Army Intelligence Reserve unit. [27] At the same time, as noted above, it was in contact with the COG nerve center at Mount Weather, Virginia. And Mount Weather had the requisite secret communications to receive information from classified intelligence files, without other parts of the government being alerted.
Permit me at this moment an instructive digression. It is by now well established that Kennedy in 1963 was concerned enough by “the threat of far-right treason” that he urgently persuaded Hollywood director John Frankenheimer “to turn [the novel] Seven Days in May into a movie.” [28] In this book, a charismatic superior officer, Air Force General James Mattoon Scott, intend[s] to stage a coup d’état …. According to the plan, an undisclosed Army combat unit known as ECOMCON (Emergency COMmunications CONtrol) will seize control of the country’s telephone, radio, and television networks, while the conspiracy directs the military and its allies in Congress and the media from “Mount Thunder” (a continuity of government base based on Mount Weather).
It is no secret also that in 1963 Kennedy had aroused major right-wing dissatisfaction, largely because of signs of his increasing rapprochement with the Soviet Union. The plot of the book and movie reflects the concern of liberals at the time about generals like General Edwin Walker, who had resigned in 1961 after Kennedy criticized his political activities in the Army. (Walker had given his troops John Birch Society literature, along with the names of right-wing candidates to vote for.) [29] We can assume however that Kennedy had no firm evidence of a Mount Weather conspiracy: if he had, it is unlikely his response would have just been to sponsor a fictionalized movie.
It is important at this stage to point out that, although COG elements like Mount Weather were considered part of the Pentagon, the COG “government in waiting” was at no time under military control. On the contrary, President Eisenhower had ensured that it was broadly based at the top, so its planners included some of the nation’s top corporate leaders, like Frank Stanton of CBS. [30] By all accounts of COG leadership in the decades after Reagan took office in 1981, this so-called “shadow government” still included CEOs of private corporations, like Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, as well as three former CIA directors: Richard Helms, [31] James Schlesinger, and George Bush.
Alfonso Chardy wrote in 1987 that the “virtual parallel government” empowering North to run Iran-Contra had also developed “a secret contingency plan that called for suspension of the Constitution, turning control of the United States over to FEMA.” [32] Subsequently North was questioned in the Iran-Contra Hearings about this charge, but was prevented by the Committee Chairman, Democratic Senator Inouye, from answering in a public session.
Later, investigating the powerful COG planning group, CNN called it “a hidden government [in the USA] about which you know nothing.” [33] James Mann emphasized its hawkish continuity, unaffected by changes of presidency in the White House:
Cheney and Rumsfeld were, in a sense, a part of the permanent, though hidden, national security apparatus of the United States, inhabitants of a world in which Presidents come and go, but America always keeps on fighting.” [34]
Going one step further, Andrew Cockburn quoted a Pentagon source to support a claim that a COG planning group under Clinton was now for the first time staffed “almost exclusively with Republican hawks.” In the words of his source, “You could say this was a secret government-in-waiting. The Clinton administration was extraordinarily inattentive, [they had] no idea what was going on.” [35]
The Pentagon official’s description of COG planners as a “secret government-in-waiting” under Clinton (which still included both Cheney and Rumsfeld) is very close to the standard definition of a cabal, as a group of persons secretly united to bring about a change or overthrow of government. A very similar situation existed under Jimmy Carter, when some of those who would later figure in Iran-Contra (notably George H.W. Bush and Theodore Shackley) worked with chiefs of foreign intelligence services (the so-called Safari Club) “to start working with [former DCI Richard] Helms [then U.S. Ambassador to Iran] and his most trusted operatives outside of Congressional and even Agency purview.” [36] This group began by backing guerrilla forces in Africa (notably UNITA of Jonas Savimbi in Angola), which they knew would not be backed by the CIA under William Colby or Stansfield Turner. [37]
But some of these figures, notably Alexandre de Marenches of the French spy agency SDECE, became involved with Casey, Bush, Shackley, and others in a 1980 plot – the so-called Republican “October Surprise” – to prevent the reelection of Jimmy Carter. The essence of this plot was to frustrate Carter’s efforts to repatriate the hostages seized in the U.S. Tehran Embassy, by negotiating a Republican deal with the Iranians that would be more to their liking. (The hostages in fact were returned hours after Reagan took office in 1981.) [38]
This Republican hostage plot in 1980 deserves to be counted as a fifth structural deep event in recent US history. Unquestionably the illicit contacts with Iran established by the October Surprise Group in 1980 became, as Alfonso Chardy wrote, the “genesis” of the Iran-Contra arms deals overseen by the COG/ Mount Weather planners in 1984-86. [39]
In an important interview with journalist Robert Parry, the veteran CIA officer Miles Copeland claimed that a “CIA within the CIA” inspired the 1980 plot, having concluded by 1980 that Jimmy Carter (in Copeland’s words) “had to be removed from the presidency for the good of the country.” [40] Copeland made it clear to Parry that he shared this view that Carter “represented a grave threat to the nation,” and former Mossad agent Ari Ben-Menashe told Parry that Copeland himself was in fact “the conceptual father” of the 1980 arms-for-hostages deal, and had “brokered [the] Republican cooperation with Israel.” [41] And Copeland, together with his client Adnan Khashoggi whom he advised, went on with Shackley to help launch the 1984-85 Iranian arms deals as well.
However, just as Knebel in Seven Days may have overestimated the military component in the COG Mount Weather leadership, so Copeland may have dwelt too exclusively on the CIA component behind the October Surprise Group. In The Road to 9/11, I suggested that this CIA network overlapped with a so-called “Project Alpha,” working at the time for David Rockefeller and the Chase Manhattan Bank on Iran issues, which was chaired by the veteran establishment figure John J. McCloy. [42]
I will conclude by again quoting James Mann’s dictum that the Mount Weather COG leadership constitutes a “permanent, though hidden, national security apparatus of the United States, … a world in which Presidents come and go, but America always keeps on fighting.” [43] And I would like this audience to investigate whether elements of this enduring leadership, with its ever-changing mix of CIA veterans and civilian leaders, may have constituted “a secret government-in-waiting,” not just under Clinton in the 1990s, not just under Carter in 1980, but also under Kennedy in November 1963.
[1] Peter Dale Scott, The American Deep State: Wall Street, Big Oil, and the Attack on U.S. Democracy (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2014 [forthcoming]).
[2] For a partial list of anomalies between the JFK assassination and 9/11, see Peter Dale Scott, The War Conspiracy: JFK, 9/11, and the Deep Politics of War (New York: Skyhorse, 2013), 341-96.
[3] Tim Shorrock, Spies for Hire (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2008), 6.
[4] Alfonso Chardy, “Reagan Aides and the Secret Government,”Miami Herald, July 5, 1987: “Some of President Reagan’s top advisers have operated a virtual parallel government outside the traditional Cabinet departments and agencies almost from the day Reagan took office, congressional investigators and administration officials have concluded.”
[5] James Bamford, A Pretext for War: 9/11, Iraq, and the abuse of America’s intelligence agencies (New York: Doubleday, 2004), 72.
[6] Peter Dale Scott, The Road to 9/11: Wealth, Empire, and the Future of America (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2007), 213-14, 219-29.
[7] Bamford, A Pretext for War, 71-81.
[8] Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, All the President’s Men (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1974), 23.
[9] Jim Hougan, Secret Agenda (New York: Random House, 1984), 16. For more on WISP, see David Wise, The Politics of Lying: Government Deception, Secrecy, and Power (New York: Random House, 1973), 134-37.
[10] John Dean, Worse Than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush (New York: Little Brown, 2004), 120. In addition Howard Baker, in 1973 the ranking Republican member of the Senate Committee that investigated Watergate, was later part of the COG secret leadership (CNN Special Assignment, November 17, 1991).
[11] James Mann, Rise of the Vulcans: The History of Bush’s War Cabinet (New York: Viking, 2004), 142.
[12Warren Commission Hearings, Vol. 9, p.106 (or 9 WH 106) ; Scott, Deep Politics, 275-76; Russ Baker, Family of Secrets: The Bush Dynasty, the Powerful Forces That Put It in the White House, and What Their Influence Means for America (New York: Bloomsbury Press, 2009), 119-22.
[13] “White House Communications Agency,” Signal Corps Regimental History.
[14] In the 1990s the WHCA supplied statements to the ARRB concerning communications between Dallas and Washington on November 22 (NARA #172-10001-10002 to NARA #172-10000-10008). The Assassination Records Review Board also attempted to obtain from the WHCA the unedited original tapes of conversations from Air Force One on the return trip from Dallas, November 22, 1963. (Edited and condensed versions of these tapes had been available since the 1970s from the Lyndon Baines Johnson Library in Austin, Texas.) The attempt was unsuccessful: “The Review Board’s repeated written and oral inquiries of the White House Communications Agency did not bear fruit. The WHCA could not produce any records that illuminated the provenance of the edited tapes.” See Assassinations Records Review Board: Final Report, chapter 6, Part 1, 116.
[15] 17 WH 394-95, 23 WH 841; 17 WH 368, 395; Scott, Deep Politics and the Death of JFK, 273-74, 278. The alleged epileptic walked away from the ambulance after it arrived at Highland (Warren Commission Document 1245, 6-10).
[16] Statement of Special Agent Winston E. Lawson [to Secret Service],” 17 WH 632; Scott, Deep Politics and the Death of JFK, 278.
[17] Richard Pollock, “The Mysterious Mountain,” The Progressive, March, 1976; cf. “Mount Weather’s ‘Government-in-Waiting,’”.
[18] Russ Baker, Family of Secrets, 121.
[19] Dee Garrison, Bracing for Armageddon: Why Civil Defense Never Worked (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006), 46.
[20] Warren Commission Exhibit 1778, 23 WH 383-84.
[21] Commission Document 344 – SS Howard Tape Copy of 01 Dec 1963, p. 23.
[22] Lee Harvey Oswald fingerprint card, 17 WH 308. The heaviest Oswald actually weighed was 150 pounds, when he left the Marines in 1959 (19 WH 584, 595).
[23] FBI report by Special Agent Fain, dated May 12, 1960, 17 WH 706. In the same report Marguerite named Oswald’s father as “Edward Lee Oswald.” His actual name was Robert Edward Lee Oswald (WR 669-70).
[24] Testimony of Inspector Herbert Sawyer, 6 WH 321-22: “I remember that he was a white man and that he wasn’t young and he wasn’t old.” Cf. Dallas Police Channel Two Tape at 12:25 PM (23 WH 916).
[26] Statement of Secret Service Winston Lawson, 17 WH 630: “I checked with Chief Curry as to location of Lead Car [at Love Field] and had WHCA portable radio put in and checked.”
[27] “The lead car was in radio contact with the pilot car by police radio, and with the Presidential limousine by Secret Service portable radios” (Pamela McElwain-Brown, “The Presidential Lincoln Continental SS-100-X,” Dealey Plaza Echo, Volume 3, Issue 2, 23). Cf. Scott, Deep Politics and the Death of JFK, 272-75 (Lumpkin).
[28] David Talbot, Brothers: the hidden history of the Kennedy years (New York: Free Press, 2007), 148.
[29] Jonathan M. Schoenwald, A time for choosing: the rise of modern American conservatism (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), .
[31CNN Special Assignment, November 17, 1991.
[32] Alfonso Chardy, “Reagan Aides and the Secret Government,”Miami Herald, July 5, 1987: “Some of President Reagan’s top advisers have operated a virtual parallel government outside the traditional Cabinet departments and agencies almost from the day Reagan took office, congressional investigators and administration officials have concluded.”
[33CNN Special Assignment, November 17, 1991.
[34] James Mann, Rise of the Vulcans, 145.
[35] Andrew Cockburn, Rumsfeld: His Rise, Fall, and Catastrophic Legacy (New York: Scribner, 2007), 88.
[36] Joseph J. Trento, Prelude to terror: the rogue CIA and the legacy of America’s private intelligence network (New York: Carroll & Graf, 2005), 61.
[37] Piero Gleijeses, Visions of Freedom: Havana, Washington, Pretoria and the struggle for Southern Africa, 1976-1991 (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, [2013]), 66-68; Elaine Windrich, “The Laboratory of Hate: The Role of Clandestine Radio in the Angolan War,” International Journal of Cultural Studies 3(2), 2000.
[38] Alfonso Chardy, “Reagan Aides and the Secret Government,”Miami Herald, July 5, 1987: “The group, led by campaign foreign policy adviser Richard Allen, was founded out of concern Carter might pull off an “October surprise” such as a last-minute deal for the release of the hostages before the Nov. 4 election. One of the group’s first acts was a meeting with a man claiming to represent Iran who offered to release the hostages to Reagan.
Allen — Reagan’s first national security adviser— and another campaign aide, Laurence Silberman, told The Herald in April of the meeting. they said McFarlane, then a Senate Armed Services Committee aide, arranged and attended it. McFarlane later became Reagan’s national security adviser and played a key role in the Iran-contra affair. Allen and Silberman said they rejected the offer to release the hostages to Reagan.” [The Iranian was Houshang Lavi, and after Lavi’s death Robert Parry confirmed from Lavi’s diary that the meeting did take place].
[39] Alfonso Chardy, “Reagan Aides and the Secret Government,”Miami Herald, July 5, 1987.
[40] “America’s False History Allows the Powerful to Commit Crimes Without Consequence,” Mark Karlin Interview of Robert Parry, January 15, 2013, Truthout Interview.
[41] Robert Parry, Trick or Treason, 175.
[42] Peter Dale Scott, The Road to 9/11: Wealth, Empire, and the Future of America (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2007), 81-83, 88. A key figure was CIA veteran and Copeland friend Archibald Roosevelt, in 1980 a Carter foe and also employee of the Chase Manhattan Bank.
[43] Mann, Rise of the Vulcans, 145.

Featured Story

Dejemos que la izquierda de Estados Unidos tenga cuidado! por Andrew Taylor 23.06.2021

La Administración Biden ha habilitado una nueva "Iniciativa contra el terrorismo doméstico" para defender "The Homeland"...