People interested in the JFK story will be interested to know that the CIA is due to file papers in court tomorrorow, May 20, to block release of certain JFK assassination-related documents.
The records in question concern a deceased CIA officer named George Joannides. At the time of Kennedy's death, Joannides was the Chief of Psychological Warfare branch of the Agency's JM/WAVE station in Miami.
Among his primary responsibilities were guiding, monitoring and financing the Revolutionary Cuban Student Directorate or DRE, one of the largest and most effective anti-Castro groups in the United States. CIA records show, and the group's former leaders confirm, that Joannides provided them with up $18-25,000 per month while insisting they submit to CIA discipline. Joannides, in his job evaluation of 31 July 1963, was credited with having established control over the group.
Five day later, Lee Harvey Oswald wandered into the DRE's New Orleans delegation, setting off a string of encounters between the pro-Castro ex-Marine and the anti-Castro exiles. Members of the DRE confronted Oswald on a street corner. They stared him down in a courtroom. They sent a DRE member to Oswald's house posing a Castro supporter. They challenged him to a debate on the radio. They made a tape of the debate which was later sent to Joannides. And they issued a press release calling for a congressional investigation of the thoroughly obscure Oswald. This, at a time, when the DRE had been warned to clear its public statements with the Agency.
What, if anything, Joannides made of the encounters between his assets in the DRE and the future accused assassin is unknown. Former leaders of the DRE are divided on the question.
Within an hour of Oswald's arrest on Nov. 22, 1963, the DRE leaders in Miami went public with their documentation of Oswald's pro-Castro ways, thus shaping early press coverage of the accused assasssin. Joannides told the group to take their information to the FBI.
Joannides connection to Oswald's antagonists was not disclosed to the Warren Commission.
In 1978, Joannides was called out of retirement to serve as CIA liaison to the House Select Committee on Assassinations. Joanndides did not disclose his role in the events of 1963 to investigators. HSCA general counsel Bob Blakey says that Joannides's actions constituted obstruction of Congress, a felony. Joannides's support for the DRE was uncovered by the Assassination Records Review Board in 1998. Joannides died in 1991.
I filed suit against the CIA in December 2003 seeking records of Joannides's activities in 1963 and 1978. In December 2004, the CIA gave me about 150 pages of heavily redacted and obviously incomplete records from Joannides's personnel file. The Agency informed me that it retains an unspecified number of records about Joannides actions that it will not release IN ANY FORM.
Thus JFK assassination records are kept secret in 2005 in the name of "national security."
The records that CIA gave me are not reassuring. They show that Joannides travelled to New Orleans in connection with his CIA duties in 1963-64. They also show that he was cleared for two highly sensitive operations in December 1962 and June 1963. The nature of these operations is unknown.
It would be premature and foolish to speculate on what George Joannnides was doing in New Orleans in 1963. What is certain is that he had a professional obligation to report on the activities of the DRE in August and November 1963, especially as they related to Oswald. The CIA is legally obliged to make such records public.
Instead, they are stonewalling in court. This is a disappointing, if not disturbing.
I am interested in hearing from JFK researchers willing to publicly support a call to Congress to enforce the JFK Records Act. I know that the Joannides records are not the only assassination-related material that is being illicitly withheld so I am also interested in hearing from researchers about specific groups of records, known to exist, that have not been released.
Whatever one's interpretation of November 22, 1963, I think we can all agree that these records should be made public immediately.
Jefferson Morley wrote:"I am interested in hearing from JFK researchers
willing to publicly support a call to Congress to enforce the JFK Records Act." Would it help to involve the Attorney-General? Isn't the Justice Department supposed to enforce the Law?
jeffersonm wrote: > People interested in the JFK story will be interested to know that the > CIA is due to file papers in court tomorrorow, May 20, to block release > of certain JFK assassination-related documents.
Jeff,
I've always been hesitant my ownself to climb on bandwagons, but my own curious route from there to here in my reading bumbps into this...what can I say..I read your posts!
It's an engaging part of the tale, and maybe some website somewhere will relate this court proceeding?
David It's just to nice--outside, wireless, and a lady bug strolls across the screen... May 19, 2005
The language of the JFK Records Act indicates that the National Archivist and the Senate and House Committees have jurisdiction for the enforcement of the Act.
> Whatever one's interpretation of November 22, 1963, I think we can all > agree that these records should be made public immediately.
Surely there has to be some kind of review before records are made public. It's not inconceivable that people might end up in a Cuban jail or worse if all records are released just like that. Isn't that what the ARRB was for?
jeffersonm wrote: > People interested in the JFK story will be interested to know that the > CIA is due to file papers in court tomorrorow, May 20, to block release > of certain JFK assassination-related documents.
> The records in question concern a deceased CIA officer named George > Joannides. At the time of Kennedy's death, Joannides was the Chief of > Psychological Warfare branch of the Agency's JM/WAVE station in Miami.
> Among his primary responsibilities were guiding, monitoring and > financing the Revolutionary Cuban Student Directorate or DRE, one of > the largest and most effective anti-Castro groups in the United States. > CIA records show, and the group's former leaders confirm, that > Joannides provided them with up $18-25,000 per month while insisting > they submit to CIA discipline. Joannides, in his job evaluation of 31 > July 1963, was credited with having established control over the group.
> Five day later, Lee Harvey Oswald wandered into the DRE's New Orleans > delegation, setting off a string of encounters between the pro-Castro > ex-Marine and the anti-Castro exiles. Members of the DRE confronted > Oswald on a street corner. They stared him down in a courtroom. They > sent a DRE member to Oswald's house posing a Castro supporter. They > challenged him to a debate on the radio. They made a tape of the debate > which was later sent to Joannides. And they issued a press release > calling for a congressional investigation of the thoroughly obscure > Oswald. This, at a time, when the DRE had been warned to clear its > public statements with the Agency.
> What, if anything, Joannides made of the encounters between his assets > in the DRE and the future accused assassin is unknown. Former leaders > of the DRE are divided on the question.
> Within an hour of Oswald's arrest on Nov. 22, 1963, the DRE leaders in > Miami went public with their documentation of Oswald's pro-Castro ways, > thus shaping early press coverage of the accused assasssin. Joannides > told the group to take their information to the FBI.
> Joannides connection to Oswald's antagonists was not disclosed to the > Warren Commission.
> In 1978, Joannides was called out of retirement to serve as CIA liaison > to the House Select Committee on Assassinations. Joanndides did not > disclose his role in the events of 1963 to investigators. HSCA general > counsel Bob Blakey says that Joannides's actions constituted > obstruction of Congress, a felony. Joannides's support for the DRE was > uncovered by the Assassination Records Review Board in 1998. Joannides > died in 1991.
> I filed suit against the CIA in December 2003 seeking records of > Joannides's activities in 1963 and 1978. In December 2004, the CIA gave > me about 150 pages of heavily redacted and obviously incomplete records > from Joannides's personnel file. The Agency informed me that it retains > an unspecified number of records about Joannides actions that it will > not release IN ANY FORM.
> Thus JFK assassination records are kept secret in 2005 in the name of > "national security."
> The records that CIA gave me are not reassuring. They show that > Joannides travelled to New Orleans in connection with his CIA duties in > 1963-64. They also show that he was cleared for two highly sensitive > operations in December 1962 and June 1963. The nature of these > operations is unknown.
> It would be premature and foolish to speculate on what George > Joannnides was doing in New Orleans in 1963. What is certain is that he > had a professional obligation to report on the activities of the DRE in > August and November 1963, especially as they related to Oswald. The CIA > is legally obliged to make such records public.
> Instead, they are stonewalling in court. This is a disappointing, if > not disturbing.
> I am interested in hearing from JFK researchers willing to publicly > support a call to Congress to enforce the JFK Records Act. I know that > the Joannides records are not the only assassination-related material > that is being illicitly withheld so I am also interested in hearing > from researchers about specific groups of records, known to exist, that > have not been released.
> Whatever one's interpretation of November 22, 1963, I think we can all > agree that these records should be made public immediately.
Interesting post. What, if any, relationship did Joannides have with RFK? I always assumed that Robert had a big handle on DRE.
The ARRB scheduled records for release on certain dates. The Bush administration, after the fact, has sought to ignore those release dates and continue to withhold the documents. The Joannides documents are only the latest example.
Martijn Meijering wrote: >> Whatever one's interpretation of November 22, 1963, I think we can all >> agree that these records should be made public immediately.
> Surely there has to be some kind of review before records are made > public. It's not inconceivable that people might end up in a Cuban jail > or worse if all records are released just like that. Isn't that what the > ARRB was for?
>> People interested in the JFK story will be interested to know that the >> CIA is due to file papers in court tomorrorow, May 20, to block release >> of certain JFK assassination-related documents.
>> The records in question concern a deceased CIA officer named George >> Joannides. At the time of Kennedy's death, Joannides was the Chief of >> Psychological Warfare branch of the Agency's JM/WAVE station in Miami.
>> Among his primary responsibilities were guiding, monitoring and >> financing the Revolutionary Cuban Student Directorate or DRE, one of >> the largest and most effective anti-Castro groups in the United States. >> CIA records show, and the group's former leaders confirm, that >> Joannides provided them with up $18-25,000 per month while insisting >> they submit to CIA discipline. Joannides, in his job evaluation of 31 >> July 1963, was credited with having established control over the group.
>> Five day later, Lee Harvey Oswald wandered into the DRE's New Orleans >> delegation, setting off a string of encounters between the pro-Castro >> ex-Marine and the anti-Castro exiles. Members of the DRE confronted >> Oswald on a street corner. They stared him down in a courtroom. They >> sent a DRE member to Oswald's house posing a Castro supporter. They >> challenged him to a debate on the radio. They made a tape of the debate >> which was later sent to Joannides. And they issued a press release >> calling for a congressional investigation of the thoroughly obscure >> Oswald. This, at a time, when the DRE had been warned to clear its >> public statements with the Agency.
>> What, if anything, Joannides made of the encounters between his assets >> in the DRE and the future accused assassin is unknown. Former leaders >> of the DRE are divided on the question.
>> Within an hour of Oswald's arrest on Nov. 22, 1963, the DRE leaders in >> Miami went public with their documentation of Oswald's pro-Castro ways, >> thus shaping early press coverage of the accused assasssin. Joannides >> told the group to take their information to the FBI.
>> Joannides connection to Oswald's antagonists was not disclosed to the >> Warren Commission.
>> In 1978, Joannides was called out of retirement to serve as CIA liaison >> to the House Select Committee on Assassinations. Joanndides did not >> disclose his role in the events of 1963 to investigators. HSCA general >> counsel Bob Blakey says that Joannides's actions constituted >> obstruction of Congress, a felony. Joannides's support for the DRE was >> uncovered by the Assassination Records Review Board in 1998. Joannides >> died in 1991.
>> I filed suit against the CIA in December 2003 seeking records of >> Joannides's activities in 1963 and 1978. In December 2004, the CIA gave >> me about 150 pages of heavily redacted and obviously incomplete records >> from Joannides's personnel file. The Agency informed me that it retains >> an unspecified number of records about Joannides actions that it will >> not release IN ANY FORM.
>> Thus JFK assassination records are kept secret in 2005 in the name of >> "national security."
>> The records that CIA gave me are not reassuring. They show that >> Joannides travelled to New Orleans in connection with his CIA duties in >> 1963-64. They also show that he was cleared for two highly sensitive >> operations in December 1962 and June 1963. The nature of these >> operations is unknown.
>> It would be premature and foolish to speculate on what George >> Joannnides was doing in New Orleans in 1963. What is certain is that he >> had a professional obligation to report on the activities of the DRE in >> August and November 1963, especially as they related to Oswald. The CIA >> is legally obliged to make such records public.
>> Instead, they are stonewalling in court. This is a disappointing, if >> not disturbing.
>> I am interested in hearing from JFK researchers willing to publicly >> support a call to Congress to enforce the JFK Records Act. I know that >> the Joannides records are not the only assassination-related material >> that is being illicitly withheld so I am also interested in hearing >> from researchers about specific groups of records, known to exist, that >> have not been released.
>> Whatever one's interpretation of November 22, 1963, I think we can all >> agree that these records should be made public immediately.
> Interesting post. What, if any, relationship did Joannides have with > RFK? I always assumed that Robert had a big handle on DRE.
Russ Burr wrote: > jeffersonm wrote: > > People interested in the JFK story will be interested to know that the > > CIA is due to file papers in court tomorrorow, May 20, to block release > > of certain JFK assassination-related documents.
> > The records in question concern a deceased CIA officer named George > > Joannides. At the time of Kennedy's death, Joannides was the Chief of > > Psychological Warfare branch of the Agency's JM/WAVE station in Miami.
> > Among his primary responsibilities were guiding, monitoring and > > financing the Revolutionary Cuban Student Directorate or DRE, one of > > the largest and most effective anti-Castro groups in the United States. > > CIA records show, and the group's former leaders confirm, that > > Joannides provided them with up $18-25,000 per month while insisting > > they submit to CIA discipline. Joannides, in his job evaluation of 31 > > July 1963, was credited with having established control over the group.
> > Five day later, Lee Harvey Oswald wandered into the DRE's New Orleans > > delegation, setting off a string of encounters between the pro-Castro > > ex-Marine and the anti-Castro exiles. Members of the DRE confronted > > Oswald on a street corner. They stared him down in a courtroom. They > > sent a DRE member to Oswald's house posing a Castro supporter. They > > challenged him to a debate on the radio. They made a tape of the debate > > which was later sent to Joannides. And they issued a press release > > calling for a congressional investigation of the thoroughly obscure > > Oswald. This, at a time, when the DRE had been warned to clear its > > public statements with the Agency.
> > What, if anything, Joannides made of the encounters between his assets > > in the DRE and the future accused assassin is unknown. Former leaders > > of the DRE are divided on the question.
> > Within an hour of Oswald's arrest on Nov. 22, 1963, the DRE leaders in > > Miami went public with their documentation of Oswald's pro-Castro ways, > > thus shaping early press coverage of the accused assasssin. Joannides > > told the group to take their information to the FBI.
> > Joannides connection to Oswald's antagonists was not disclosed to the > > Warren Commission.
> > In 1978, Joannides was called out of retirement to serve as CIA liaison > > to the House Select Committee on Assassinations. Joanndides did not > > disclose his role in the events of 1963 to investigators. HSCA general > > counsel Bob Blakey says that Joannides's actions constituted > > obstruction of Congress, a felony. Joannides's support for the DRE was > > uncovered by the Assassination Records Review Board in 1998. Joannides > > died in 1991.
> > I filed suit against the CIA in December 2003 seeking records of > > Joannides's activities in 1963 and 1978. In December 2004, the CIA gave > > me about 150 pages of heavily redacted and obviously incomplete records > > from Joannides's personnel file. The Agency informed me that it retains > > an unspecified number of records about Joannides actions that it will > > not release IN ANY FORM.
> > Thus JFK assassination records are kept secret in 2005 in the name of > > "national security."
> > The records that CIA gave me are not reassuring. They show that > > Joannides travelled to New Orleans in connection with his CIA duties in > > 1963-64. They also show that he was cleared for two highly sensitive > > operations in December 1962 and June 1963. The nature of these > > operations is unknown.
> > It would be premature and foolish to speculate on what George > > Joannnides was doing in New Orleans in 1963. What is certain is that he > > had a professional obligation to report on the activities of the DRE in > > August and November 1963, especially as they related to Oswald. The CIA > > is legally obliged to make such records public.
> > Instead, they are stonewalling in court. This is a disappointing, if > > not disturbing.
> > I am interested in hearing from JFK researchers willing to publicly > > support a call to Congress to enforce the JFK Records Act. I know that > > the Joannides records are not the only assassination-related material > > that is being illicitly withheld so I am also interested in hearing > > from researchers about specific groups of records, known to exist, that > > have not been released.
> > Whatever one's interpretation of November 22, 1963, I think we can all > > agree that these records should be made public immediately.
> Interesting post. What, if any, relationship did Joannides have with > RFK? I always assumed that Robert had a big handle on DRE.
> Russ
Whatever Intelligence Agency LHO may have worked for, I seriously that Agency will never publicly admit it. Why? Because Hoover's FBI and LBJ's WC identified LHO as JFK's killer. No Agency can hope to stay in business if the American public thinks it employs presidential assassins. This is the damage Hoover's FBI and the WC did to both LHO (if he was a good guy) and the CIA at that time in American history, IMHO. It would be wonderful for the historical record if the Agency would come clean about LHO, this generation can handle the truth of those days gone by. Most of the older generation already suspected LHO was a company man anyway.
Russ Burr wrote: > Interesting post. What, if any, relationship did Joannides have with > RFK? I always assumed that Robert had a big handle on DRE.
Definitely very interesting. I'd love to have the documents Jefferson Morley is after. Still, the CIA may have good reasons for wanting to redact some of the information. I wonder if the judge who has to decide on this will get the chance to read the information in unredacted form? My guess is no. Does anyone here know for sure?
And if turns out there was a strong DRE-RFK link, that would be explosive wouldn't it?
>>> People interested in the JFK story will be interested to know that the >>> CIA is due to file papers in court tomorrorow, May 20, to block release >>> of certain JFK assassination-related documents.
>>> The records in question concern a deceased CIA officer named George >>> Joannides. At the time of Kennedy's death, Joannides was the Chief of >>> Psychological Warfare branch of the Agency's JM/WAVE station in Miami.
>>> Among his primary responsibilities were guiding, monitoring and >>> financing the Revolutionary Cuban Student Directorate or DRE, one of >>> the largest and most effective anti-Castro groups in the United States. >>> CIA records show, and the group's former leaders confirm, that >>> Joannides provided them with up $18-25,000 per month while insisting >>> they submit to CIA discipline. Joannides, in his job evaluation of 31 >>> July 1963, was credited with having established control over the group.
>>> Five day later, Lee Harvey Oswald wandered into the DRE's New Orleans >>> delegation, setting off a string of encounters between the pro-Castro >>> ex-Marine and the anti-Castro exiles. Members of the DRE confronted >>> Oswald on a street corner. They stared him down in a courtroom. They >>> sent a DRE member to Oswald's house posing a Castro supporter. They >>> challenged him to a debate on the radio. They made a tape of the debate >>> which was later sent to Joannides. And they issued a press release >>> calling for a congressional investigation of the thoroughly obscure >>> Oswald. This, at a time, when the DRE had been warned to clear its >>> public statements with the Agency.
>>> What, if anything, Joannides made of the encounters between his assets >>> in the DRE and the future accused assassin is unknown. Former leaders >>> of the DRE are divided on the question.
>>> Within an hour of Oswald's arrest on Nov. 22, 1963, the DRE leaders in >>> Miami went public with their documentation of Oswald's pro-Castro ways, >>> thus shaping early press coverage of the accused assasssin. Joannides >>> told the group to take their information to the FBI.
>>> Joannides connection to Oswald's antagonists was not disclosed to the >>> Warren Commission.
>>> In 1978, Joannides was called out of retirement to serve as CIA liaison >>> to the House Select Committee on Assassinations. Joanndides did not >>> disclose his role in the events of 1963 to investigators. HSCA general >>> counsel Bob Blakey says that Joannides's actions constituted >>> obstruction of Congress, a felony. Joannides's support for the DRE was >>> uncovered by the Assassination Records Review Board in 1998. Joannides >>> died in 1991.
>>> I filed suit against the CIA in December 2003 seeking records of >>> Joannides's activities in 1963 and 1978. In December 2004, the CIA gave >>> me about 150 pages of heavily redacted and obviously incomplete records >>> from Joannides's personnel file. The Agency informed me that it retains >>> an unspecified number of records about Joannides actions that it will >>> not release IN ANY FORM.
>>> Thus JFK assassination records are kept secret in 2005 in the name of >>> "national security."
>>> The records that CIA gave me are not reassuring. They show that >>> Joannides travelled to New Orleans in connection with his CIA duties in >>> 1963-64. They also show that he was cleared for two highly sensitive >>> operations in December 1962 and June 1963. The nature of these >>> operations is unknown.
>>> It would be premature and foolish to speculate on what George >>> Joannnides was doing in New Orleans in 1963. What is certain is that he >>> had a professional obligation to report on the activities of the DRE in >>> August and November 1963, especially as they related to Oswald. The CIA >>> is legally obliged to make such records public.
>>> Instead, they are stonewalling in court. This is a disappointing, if >>> not disturbing.
>>> I am interested in hearing from JFK researchers willing to publicly >>> support a call to Congress to enforce the JFK Records Act. I know that >>> the Joannides records are not the only assassination-related material >>> that is being illicitly withheld so I am also interested in hearing >>> from researchers about specific groups of records, known to exist, that >>> have not been released.
>>> Whatever one's interpretation of November 22, 1963, I think we can all >>> agree that these records should be made public immediately.
>> Interesting post. What, if any, relationship did Joannides have with >> RFK? I always assumed that Robert had a big handle on DRE.
Martin Shackelford wrote: > The ARRB scheduled records for release on certain dates. The Bush > administration, after the fact, has sought to ignore those release dates > and continue to withhold the documents.
I knew about the delayed releases, but didn't know that the Bush administration was trying to ignore them. Has the law been changed to allow this, or are they just doing it anyway?
> The Joannides documents are only > the latest example.
But the ARRB never saw those, right? Does that mean people now have to follow a regular FOIA procedure, just as they would about say Abu Ghraib?
>People interested in the JFK story will be interested to know that the >CIA is due to file papers in court tomorrorow, May 20, to block release >of certain JFK assassination-related documents.
>The records in question concern a deceased CIA officer named George >Joannides. At the time of Kennedy's death, Joannides was the Chief of >Psychological Warfare branch of the Agency's JM/WAVE station in Miami.
>Among his primary responsibilities were guiding, monitoring and >financing the Revolutionary Cuban Student Directorate or DRE, one of >the largest and most effective anti-Castro groups in the United States. >CIA records show, and the group's former leaders confirm, that >Joannides provided them with up $18-25,000 per month while insisting >they submit to CIA discipline. Joannides, in his job evaluation of 31 >July 1963, was credited with having established control over the group.
>Five day later, Lee Harvey Oswald wandered into the DRE's New Orleans >delegation, setting off a string of encounters between the pro-Castro >ex-Marine and the anti-Castro exiles. Members of the DRE confronted >Oswald on a street corner. They stared him down in a courtroom. They >sent a DRE member to Oswald's house posing a Castro supporter. They >challenged him to a debate on the radio. They made a tape of the debate >which was later sent to Joannides. And they issued a press release >calling for a congressional investigation of the thoroughly obscure >Oswald. This, at a time, when the DRE had been warned to clear its >public statements with the Agency.
>What, if anything, Joannides made of the encounters between his assets >in the DRE and the future accused assassin is unknown. Former leaders >of the DRE are divided on the question.
>Within an hour of Oswald's arrest on Nov. 22, 1963, the DRE leaders in >Miami went public with their documentation of Oswald's pro-Castro ways, >thus shaping early press coverage of the accused assasssin. Joannides >told the group to take their information to the FBI.
>Joannides connection to Oswald's antagonists was not disclosed to the >Warren Commission.
>In 1978, Joannides was called out of retirement to serve as CIA liaison >to the House Select Committee on Assassinations. Joanndides did not >disclose his role in the events of 1963 to investigators. HSCA general >counsel Bob Blakey says that Joannides's actions constituted >obstruction of Congress, a felony. Joannides's support for the DRE was >uncovered by the Assassination Records Review Board in 1998. Joannides >died in 1991.
>I filed suit against the CIA in December 2003 seeking records of >Joannides's activities in 1963 and 1978. In December 2004, the CIA gave >me about 150 pages of heavily redacted and obviously incomplete records >from Joannides's personnel file. The Agency informed me that it retains >an unspecified number of records about Joannides actions that it will >not release IN ANY FORM.
>Thus JFK assassination records are kept secret in 2005 in the name of >"national security."
>The records that CIA gave me are not reassuring. They show that >Joannides travelled to New Orleans in connection with his CIA duties in >1963-64. They also show that he was cleared for two highly sensitive >operations in December 1962 and June 1963. The nature of these >operations is unknown.
>It would be premature and foolish to speculate on what George >Joannnides was doing in New Orleans in 1963. What is certain is that he >had a professional obligation to report on the activities of the DRE in >August and November 1963, especially as they related to Oswald. The CIA >is legally obliged to make such records public.
>Instead, they are stonewalling in court. This is a disappointing, if >not disturbing.
>I am interested in hearing from JFK researchers willing to publicly >support a call to Congress to enforce the JFK Records Act. I know that >the Joannides records are not the only assassination-related material >that is being illicitly withheld so I am also interested in hearing >from researchers about specific groups of records, known to exist, that >have not been released.
>Whatever one's interpretation of November 22, 1963, I think we can all >agree that these records should be made public immediately.
LOL!! Not in this newsgroup:-)
I would also like to see the report on Oswald's CIA debriefing after his return from Russia, that was uncovered in the PBS documentary.
Of course, the Canal St. incident was staged in order to undermine the FPCC, a mortal enemy of the FBI. Oswald likewise, tried to damage the ACLU by pretending to be authorized to receive mail for them.
Oswald was working for the FBI and indirectly, for the DRE, a fact that had to have been known to their CIA controllers. The CIA will never release those documents, because they would reveal that fact.
The part that we all overlooked, was that Oswald was indeed, a "nut". He was totally obsessed with becoming a spy and an anticommunist informant - enough so that he tried to kill himself when he thought his big chance in Russia would fall through, and enough to literally break into tears when he couldn't get into Cuba.
jeffersonm wrote: > The language of the JFK Records Act indicates that the National > Archivist and the Senate and House Committees have jurisdiction for the > enforcement of the Act.
Can you post the names of the committeepersons? Perhaps researchers could lobby those from their states.
Has the National Archivist shown any recognition of his responsibilities under the Statute?
I don't know of any evidence that Joannides had any relationship with RFK or that RFK had any ties to the DRE. During the missile crisis, Dick Helms, with more a touch of impatience, recommended the DRE's seriousness of purpose to Bobby, with the clear implication that JFK's Cuba policy lacked seriousness.
While the CIA's stonewalling is reprehensible and probably illegal, I am skeptical about arguments that the government will "never" release certain kinds of damaging information.
By that logic, the CIA never would have released the Joannides story.
But they did. And they did because they were forced to.
There is no omnipotent intelligence in the government that decrees: "no damaging information about the JFK assassination shall be released."
Rather, intelligent searching and enforcement of the law will maximize the scope of the public record on the JFK case and from that information new dimensions of the story, if they exist, will become apparent.
To put it less abstractly, I think we know more than they do at this point.
> Martin Shackelford wrote: >> The ARRB scheduled records for release on certain dates. The Bush >> administration, after the fact, has sought to ignore those release dates >> and continue to withhold the documents.
> I knew about the delayed releases, but didn't know that the Bush > administration was trying to ignore them. Has the law been changed to > allow this, or are they just doing it anyway?
>> The Joannides documents are only the latest example.
> But the ARRB never saw those, right? Does that mean people now have to > follow a regular FOIA procedure, just as they would about say Abu Ghraib?
If they are JFK assassination related, the CIA was OBLIGATED BY LAW to make them available to the ARRB.
People should call the Joannides story and other examples of non-compliance with the JFK Records Act to their own representatives with copies to Senators Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Jon Cornyn (R-TX). They are the leading advocates of open government in the Senate at this point.
No, the Archvist has not yet shown any awareness of his responsibilitie under the Act.
While the CIA's stonewalling is reprehensible and probably illegal, I am skeptical about arguments that the government will "never" release certain kinds of damaging information.
By that logic, the CIA never would have released the Joannides story.
But they did. And they did because they were forced to.
There is no omnipotent intelligence in the government that decrees: "no damaging information about the JFK assassination shall be released."
Rather, intelligent searching and enforcement of the law will maximize the scope of the public record on the JFK case and from that information new dimensions of the story, if they exist, will become apparent.
To put it less abstractly, I think we know more than they do at this point.
Martijn Meijering wrote: > Martin Shackelford wrote:
>> The ARRB scheduled records for release on certain dates. The Bush >> administration, after the fact, has sought to ignore those release >> dates and continue to withhold the documents.
> I knew about the delayed releases, but didn't know that the Bush > administration was trying to ignore them. Has the law been changed to > allow this, or are they just doing it anyway?
>> The Joannides documents are only the latest example.
> But the ARRB never saw those, right? Does that mean people now have to > follow a regular FOIA procedure, just as they would about say Abu Ghraib?
DRE was more right-wing--linked with INCA in New Orleans. Brigage 2506 was more liberal, run by Artime, close to RFK, who after the assassination told one of them, "One of your guys did this."
>> Interesting post. What, if any, relationship did Joannides have with >> RFK? I always assumed that Robert had a big handle on DRE.
> Definitely very interesting. I'd love to have the documents Jefferson > Morley is after. Still, the CIA may have good reasons for wanting to > redact some of the information. I wonder if the judge who has to decide > on this will get the chance to read the information in unredacted form? > My guess is no. Does anyone here know for sure?
> And if turns out there was a strong DRE-RFK link, that would be > explosive wouldn't it?
