Clary Shaw and QK/ENCHANT
John McAdams
spook because of his "covert security approval" connected with a
project called QK/ENCHANT.
Nobody knows what this is, but it's supposed to be *really* spooky.
A document from the HSCA, CIA Segregated Collection, puts a different
light on this.
It's Record Number 180-10143-10220, Agency File Number 29-04-01.
The document is a series of handwritten notes, presumably by an HSCA
staffer. It is headed "6/28/78" and "Clay Shaw." The relevant
portion is as follows:
<Quote on>------------------------------------------------
18 Sept. 68
memo re: [REDACTED]
or [REDACTED]
poss. CIA connection -- granted covert
security approval for use under Project
[REDACTED] on an unwitting basis
10 Dec. 62.
<Quote off>--------------------------------------------
Interested lurkers might want to see a CIA memorandum dated 26 April
1967. This is the one that says that "J. Monroe SULLIVAN, #280207,
was granted a covert security approval on 10 December 1962 so that he
could be used in Project [REDACTED]. SHAW has #402897-A."
I *think* that an unredacted version of the latter is available, and
says "QK/ENCHANT." This is what buffs point to in order to label Shaw
a spook.
But his "approval" (not "clearance") was for use on an "unwitting"
basis.
.John
Amethyst
>
.> Conspiracy books frequently claim that Clay Shaw must have been a
.> spook because of his "covert security approval" connected with a
.> project called QK/ENCHANT.
.>
.> Nobody knows what this is, but it's supposed to be *really* spooky.
.>
.> A document from the HSCA, CIA Segregated Collection, puts a different
.> light on this.
.>
.> It's Record Number 180-10143-10220, Agency File Number 29-04-01.
.>
.> The document is a series of handwritten notes, presumably by an HSCA
.> staffer. It is headed "6/28/78" and "Clay Shaw." The relevant
.> portion is as follows:
.>
.> <Quote on>------------------------------------------------
.>
.> 18 Sept. 68
.> memo re: [REDACTED]
.> or [REDACTED]
>
> poss. CIA connection -- granted covert
> security approval for use under Project
> [REDACTED] on an unwitting basis
> 10 Dec. 62.
>
> <Quote off>--------------------------------------------
>
> Interested lurkers might want to see a CIA memorandum dated 26 April
> 1967. This is the one that says that "J. Monroe SULLIVAN, #280207,
> was granted a covert security approval on 10 December 1962 so that he
> could be used in Project [REDACTED]. SHAW has #402897-A."
>
> I *think* that an unredacted version of the latter is available, and
> says "QK/ENCHANT." This is what buffs point to in order to label Shaw
> a spook.
>
> But his "approval" (not "clearance") was for use on an "unwitting"
> basis.
>
> .John
John,
Yes, Col Edward's Office of Security had to approve all personnel.
Recall that Patricia McMillan Johnson was turned down - the first time.
Dreitzes just wrote to me that Shaw was given a security clearance to
take part in QKENCHANT.
His participation required no security clearance, but Office of Security
approval.
CIA was a top-down micro-managed organization in the 60s.
Officers were not allowed to make any contacts, let alone conduct
operations without approval from Headquarters.
Thus, the idea of "rogue agents" out there doing their own thing -
undetected by others in the Station - let alone Headquarters, is sheer
folly.
Rogues are people like the "Real IRA" who conduct unauthorized bombings
in Northern Ireland.
Jerry
leo sgouros
Amethyst wrote:
Sure they could Jer-what the heck are the contact reportsFOR?Besides bumping
into xyz at the embassy function.No ops on their own, but contact? Leo
--
"The only way to abolish war is to make peace heroic"-
John Dewey
Dreitzes
>From Dave Reitzes:
Just one correction: I've never before seen the QKENCHANT document(s?), which
is why I've been asking for someone to produce a citation. As I said before, I
was simply repeating what several writers have said about them, including Jim
di Eugenio and Michael Griffiths. If the CIA has nothing to hide regarding Shaw
-- and I suspect that to be the case -- they're not doing themselves or Shaw's
memory any favors by withholding the details of these questioned operations.
Given my opinion that Garrison never for an instant had a case against Shaw, I
think I have as much of a right as anyone to ask for full disclosure regarding
not only Shaw but any and all operations regarding, operating out of, or
utilizing any facilities of the International Trade Mart of New Orleans, as
well as whatever the CIA knows about the ever-mysterious Centro Mondiale
Commerciale/Permindex entity. I'm not holding my breath, though.
Clark Wilkins
>
>Conspiracy books frequently claim that Clay Shaw must have been a
>
>Nobody knows what this is, but it's supposed to be *really* spooky.
>
>
>It's Record Number 180-10143-10220, Agency File Number 29-04-01.
>
>
><Quote on>------------------------------------------------
>
>18 Sept. 68
> memo re: [REDACTED]
>
>poss. CIA connection -- granted covert
> security approval for use under Project
> [REDACTED] on an unwitting basis
> 10 Dec. 62.
>
><Quote off>--------------------------------------------
>
>Interested lurkers might want to see a CIA memorandum dated 26 April
>1967. This is the one that says that "J. Monroe SULLIVAN, #280207,
>was granted a covert security approval on 10 December 1962 so that he
>could be used in Project [REDACTED]. SHAW has #402897-A."
>
>I *think* that an unredacted version of the latter is available, and
>says "QK/ENCHANT." This is what buffs point to in order to label Shaw
>a spook.
>
Maybe I'm not following here but it looks like the person granted
security clearance here on 12/10/62 on an unwitting basis was Sullivan.
Isn't this what we get when we combine the 4/26/67 memo with the 9/18/68
one?
>But his "approval" (not "clearance") was for use on an "unwitting"
>basis.
>
This part I follow. The Office of Security issued a clearance approval
to use Sullivan (You say Shaw) on an unwitting basis which does not imply
that he, Sullivan, had some sort of secret status or rating.
As I read your presentation, one could conclude that Shaw requested the
Office of Security to clear Sullivan as an unwitting participant to
QK/ENCHANT and approval was granted.
>..John
I'm not sure you show it was Shaw, rather than Sullivan, whom Office of
Security cleared on 12/10/62 as "unwitting".
Second, QK/ENCHHANT is only one of two CIA operations to include Shaw.
You have to make this case twice.
However, your sharing this info is greatly appreciated and I look forward
to seeing what you can do with the rest of the "problem".
Also, does anyone know who J. Monroe Sullivan is?
.Clark
jpsh...@my-dejanews.com
NNX...@prodigy.com (Clark Wilkins) wrote:
>
....
> Also, does anyone know who J. Monroe Sullivan is?
>
I believe he was the head of the San Francisco Trade Mart. This is where
Shaw was supposed to give a speech on 11/22/63.
Jerry Shinley
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
John McAdams
wrote:
But the 9/18/69 documents -- apparently notes by an HSCA staffer --
had "Clay Shaw" written at the top. And all the entries appeared to
be about Shaw.
I'll happily send you the document, if you would like. Decide for
youself whether the notation was about Shaw.
>
>>But his "approval" (not "clearance") was for use on an "unwitting"
>>basis.
>>
>
>This part I follow. The Office of Security issued a clearance approval
>to use Sullivan (You say Shaw) on an unwitting basis which does not imply
>that he, Sullivan, had some sort of secret status or rating.
> As I read your presentation, one could conclude that Shaw requested the
>Office of Security to clear Sullivan as an unwitting participant to
>QK/ENCHANT and approval was granted.
>
>
>I'm not sure you show it was Shaw, rather than Sullivan, whom Office of
>Security cleared on 12/10/62 as "unwitting".
If you are referring to the dates, it's perfectly possible that both
were granted security "approval" on the same day. Or that the HSCA
staffer was referring to the 4/26/67 document, perhaps as quoted in a
9/18/68 document. If the staffer was doing so, he or she may well
have had access to material redacted for the general public, or other
documents unknown to us to supply the "unwitting" part.
The 4/26/67 document does not say "unwitting."
Does anybody know right offhand whether these documents were released
by the ARRB, without redactions?
>Second, QK/ENCHHANT is only one of two CIA operations to include Shaw.
>You have to make this case twice.
OK, what was the other one?
And talking to the DCS doesn't count, as least if the intention is to
make him out to be an agent or spook.
.John
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
>
>>From Dave Reitzes:
>
>Just one correction: I've never before seen the QKENCHANT document(s?), which
>is why I've been asking for someone to produce a citation. As I said before, I
>was simply repeating what several writers have said about them, including Jim
>di Eugenio and Michael Griffiths. If the CIA has nothing to hide regarding Shaw
>-- and I suspect that to be the case -- they're not doing themselves or Shaw's
>memory any favors by withholding the details of these questioned operations.
>Given my opinion that Garrison never for an instant had a case against Shaw, I
>think I have as much of a right as anyone to ask for full disclosure regarding
>not only Shaw but any and all operations regarding, operating out of, or
>utilizing any facilities of the International Trade Mart of New Orleans, as
>well as whatever the CIA knows about the ever-mysterious Centro Mondiale
>Commerciale/Permindex entity. I'm not holding my breath, though.
>
>
>
I guess the first question is whether all -- or at least key --
documents have been recently released, perhaps under prodding from the
ARRB.