Subject: Re: Jim Garrison vs. the CIA: TKO Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1999 11:38:09 -0700 From: Haizen Paige Organization: The Cosmic Palette Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk Dave Reitzes wrote: > > A CIA memorandum of June 20, 1967, lays out precisely who among those > involved with the Garrison investigation had "Agency connections." Here > they are:Subject: Did Maxwell Taylor Predict CIA Coup? From: nksy@sfo.com Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't. Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk, alt.conspiracy.jfk >From the JFK Lancer site: (quote on) [capitalized sentences are not author's emphasis.] The New York Times, October 3, 1963 In the Nation [column] "The Intra-Administration War in Vietnam" by Arthur Krock WASHINGTON, Oct 2 The Central Intelligence Agency is getting a very bad press in dispatches from Vietnam to American newspapers and in articles originating in Washington. Like the Supreme Court when under fire, the C. I.A. cannot defend itself in public retorts to criticisms of its activities as they occur. But, unlike the Supreme Court, the C. I. A. has no open record of its activities on which the public can base a judgment of the validity of the criticisms. Also, the agency is precluded from using the indirect defensive tactic which is constantly employed by all other Government units under critical fire. This tactic is to give information to the press, under a seal of confidence, that challenges or rebuts the critics. But the C. I. A. cannot father such inspired articles, because to do so would require some disclosure of its activities. And not only does the effectiveness of the agency depend on the secrecy of its operations. Every President since the C. I. A. was created has protected this secrecy from claimants Congress or the public through the press, for examples of the right to share any part of it. With High Frequency This Presidential policy has not, however, always restrained other executive units from going confidentially to the press with attacks on C. I. A. operations in their common field of responsibility. And usually it has been possible to deduce these operational details from the nature of the attacks. But the peak of the practice has recently been reached in Vietnam and in Washington. This is revealed almost every day now in dispatches from reporters in close touch with intra-Administration critics of the C. I. A. with excellent reputations for reliability. One reporter in this category is Richard Starnes of the Scripps-Howard newspapers. Today, under a Saigon dateline, he related that, "ACCORDING TO A HIGH UNITED STATES SOURCE HERE, TWICE THE C. I. A. FLATLY REFUSED TO CARRY OUT INSTRUCTIONS FROM AMBASSADOR HENRY CABOT LODGE [AND] IN ONE INSTANCE FRUSTRATED A PLAN OF ACTION MR. LODGE BROUGHT FROM WASHINGTON BECAUSE THE AGENCY DISAGREED WITH IT." [My emphasis]. Among the views attributed to United States officials on the scene, including one described as a "very high American official who has spent much of his life in the service of democracy" are the following: THE C. I. A.'S GROWTH WAS "LIKENED TO A MALIGNANCY" WHICH THE "VERY HIGH OFFICIAL WAS NOT SURE EVEN THE WHITE HOUSE COULD CONTROL"ANY LONGER." "IF THE UNITED STATES EVER EXPERIENCES [AN ATTEMPT AT A COUP TO OVERTHROW THE GOVERNMENT] IT WILL COME FROM THE C. I. A. AND NOT THE PENTAGON." THE AGENCY "REPRESENTS A TREMENDOUS POWER AND TOTAL UNACCOUNTABILITY TO ANYONE." [Again, my emphasis]. Disorderly Government WHATEVER ELSE THESE PASSAGES DISCLOSE, THEY MOST CERTAINLY ESTABLISH THAT REPRESENTATIVES OF OTHER EXECUTIVE BRANCHES HAVE EXPANDED THEIR WAR AGAINST THE C. I. A. FROM THE INNER GOVERNMENT COUNCILS TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE VIA THE PRESS. [My emphasis]. And published simultaneously are details of the agency's operations in Vietnam that can come only from the same critical official sources. This is disorderly government. And the longer the President tolerates it the period already is considerable the greater will grow its potential of hampering the real war against the Vietcong and the impression of a very indecisive Administration in Washington. The C. I. A. may be guilty as charged. Since it cannot, or at any rate will not, openly defend its record in Vietnam, or defend it by the same confidential press "briefings" employed by its critics, the public is not in a position to judge. Nor is this department, which sought and failed to get even the outlines of the agency's case in rebuttal. But Mr. Kennedy will have to make judgment if the spectacle of war within the Executive branch is to be ended and the effective functioning of the C. I. A. preserved. And when he makes this judgment, hopefully he also will make it public, as the appraisal of fault on which it is based. Doubtless recommendations as to what his judgment should be were made to him today by Secretary of Defense McNamara and General Taylor on their return from their fact-finding expedition into the embattled official jungle in Saigon. [end] (quote off) It should be noted that there were only 3 "high United States officials" in Vietnam at the time of Richard Starnes dispatch: Amb. Lodge, Sec. of Defense McNamara, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Maxwell Taylor. So who does the following description match? (quote on) Among the views attributed to United States officials on the scene, including one described as a "very high American official who has spent much of his life in the service of democracy" are the following: THE C. I. A.'S GROWTH WAS "LIKENED TO A MALIGNANCY" WHICH THE "VERY HIGH OFFICIAL WAS NOT SURE EVEN THE WHITE HOUSE COULD CONTROL"ANY LONGER." "IF THE UNITED STATES EVER EXPERIENCES [AN ATTEMPT AT A COUP TO OVERTHROW THE GOVERNMENT] IT WILL COME FROM THE C. I. A. AND NOT THE PENTAGON." THE AGENCY "REPRESENTS A TREMENDOUS POWER AND TOTAL UNACCOUNTABILITY TO ANYONE." (quote off) Maxwell Taylor "spent much of his life in the service of democracy" but I seriously doubt if the same could be said of Lodge or McNamara. 7 weeks before the assassination of JFK it appears likely that America's highest ranking military man raised the possibility of an attempt by the CIA to overthrow the government. High-level speculation of a CIA coup d'etat started before the Russians ever chimed in, even before the assassination itself. Cliff Varne Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Share what you know. Learn what you don't. > > 1. Carlos Jose Bringuier ("Occasional contact with New Orleans office, > DCS.") > > 2. Laurence J. Laborde (Description redacted in 1977 release) > > 3. Jack N. Rogers (DCS contact, "Lawyer who has been in touch with > Garrison's staff.") > > 4. Emilio Santana (Description redacted in 1977 release) > > 5. Schlumberger Well Surveying Corporation (Description redacted in 1977 > release) > > 6. Clay L. Shaw ("Contact with DCS office, New Orleans, from December 1948 > to May 1956.") > > 7. Cecil Maxwell Shilstone ("Member of group of New Orleans businessmen > supplying GARRISON with funds.") > > A memorandum of September 29, 1967, adds these names: Carlos Quiroga, > Rudolph Ricardo Davis, Victor Paneque, and Fernando Fernandez, all in > relation to "the training camp at Lacombe, which Garrison falsely asserts > was run by CIA." > > The June 20, 1967, memo has another list. "The following persons, also > involved in the investigation, have claimed association with the Agency": > > 1. William Wayne Dalzell (claimed DCS contacts) > > 2. Gordon Dwane Novel ("Continues to imply CIA contact, which his > attorneys in Ohio and Louisiana now flatly assert. Thorough checks prove > the claim false.") A transcript of the famous "Mr. Weiss" letter follows, > along with summaries of a number of press clippings about Novel's claims. > > 3. Edward Stewart Suggs, aka Jack S. Martin ("An unstable person who > reportedly claimed a CIA tie and who has asserted that he works for > GARRISON. The assertion about CIA is false.") > > "GARRISON has charged that many others are linked to CIA, including the > five Cuban assassins and every defense attorney in the case." > > A memorandum of September 7, 1967, reports, "Two persons, Donald P. NORTON > and Gordon Duane NOVEL, have publicly but falsely claimed affiliation with > the CIA." "On 4 August 1967 the DCS office received a telephone call from > a man who identified himself as Jules R. KIMBLE of 7003 Vicksburg St., New > Orleans. He said that 'Garrison was trying to connect him with CIA' but > that he did not know why." "All Headquarters checks on KIMBLE were > negative." > > A memorandum of September 29, 1967, reports, "Garrison has falsely stated > that Gordon D. Novel was a CIA agent and that one of his lawyers, Stephen > Plotkin, was paid by CIA." "Actually, Novel has never at any time had any > association with the Agency nor has his lawyer, Stephen Plotkin." "Donald > P. Norton . . . has falsely claimed in a newspaper article that he worked > for CIA from 1957 to 1966, and that in 1962 Clay Shaw gave him $50,000, > which he took to Monterrey, Mexico and gave to Oswald." "There is no truth > in Norton's story in any respect." > > A memorandum of December 10, 1968, adds another name to the list of people > falsely claiming an association with the CIA: Richard Case Nagell. > > The memorandum continues, "Certainly, the story of CIA's connections and > interrelationships would be enough to at least confuse a jury thoroughly. > Shaw's lawyers have no way of refuting these stories except by attacking > the credibility of the witnesses or introducing other witnesses to impeach > their stories. They have so far no government information which they can > use for this purpose. The Government, and particularly CIA, is placed in a > quandary. If it were to deny the Norton and Novel stories, which are > wholly false, it would have to make some partial admissions at least in > connection with Laborde, Santana, Paneque, Bringuier, and others. Shaw > himself was a contact of the Domestic Contact Service's New Orleans office > from 1948 to 1956 and introduced General Cabell, then Deputy Director of > Central Intelligence, when he addressed the New Orleans Foreign Policy > Association in May 1961. In view of this dilemma, the Department of > Justice has so far taken the position that if any effort is made by either > the prosecution or defense to involve CIA in the trial, the Government > will claim executive privilege. This, too, can be turned by Garrison into > a claim that it is part of the whole cover up by the establishment and > particularly by CIA. No alternative to the claim of privilege appears to > be available, however. To protect the Government's position on privilege, > it would appear that the Government cannot take any action publicly to > refute Garrison's claims and the testimony of his witnesses, as the > Louisiana judge would almost certainly take the position that any such > public statement would negate the privilege." > > The memo concludes, "At the present time, therefore, there is no action we > can recommend for the Director or the Agency to take. If during the trial > it appears that Shaw may be convicted on information that could be refuted > by CIA, we may be in for some difficult decisions. There is one positive > aspect at the present time, which is that outside of Louisiana the US > press and public opinion appear to be extremely skeptical if not scornful > of Garrison's allegations. We can only wait and see whether the trial will > influence this attitude either way. [signed] Lawrence R, Houston, General > Counsel." > > Dave > > "Who Speaks for Clay Shaw?" > http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shaw1.htm