HATONN; WATERGATE BURGLAR LINKED TO JFK'S DEATH
CREATOR GOD ATON/HATONN
2/23/92 #2 HATONN
Miami, Florida, 1-16-922. MIAMI HERALD:
Watergate burglar Frank Sturgis filed a $5 million lawsuit in Miami Wednesday against a former mistress of Fidel Castro who has linked Sturgis to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
The suit, filed in federal court, says Marita Lorenz made the comments about Sturgis during recent appearances on TV's Geraldo and A Current Affair.
I had nothing to do with the assassination of President Kennedy", Sturgis said. "I want to put a stop once and for all to these libelous lies still being told by Marita Lorenz." [H: Lies? Well, "presumption of innocence until proven of - -"]
Lorenz, who met Castro shortly after the triumph of the Cuban revolution and had a short-lived relationship with him, could not be reached for comment Wednesday.
Although Sturgis' lawsuit focuses on Lorenz's comments in the television shows, she first made the allegations 14 years ago. [H: And who listened 14 years ago?]
In 1978 Lorenz testified before the House Select Committee on Assassinations that Sturgis met Lee Harvey Oswald in Miami at the home of militant exile leader Orlando Bosch shortly before the assassination.
Lorenz also said she heard Oswald, Sturgis and Bosch discuss plans to visit Dallas.
She said that around Nov. 15, 1963, a week before the assassination, she traveled to Dallas by car WITH Oswald, Sturgis, Bosch and other exiles.
Sturgis and Bosch have denied the allegations, and the committee said it could not corroborate the story.
In his lawsuit, Sturgis says Lorenz made similar allegations without verification on the recent TV shows.
In A Current Affair in November, Lorenz said that after Kennedy was killed, Sturgis bragged to her about it.
STURGIS SAYS, "WE GOT (PRES.) KENNEDY."
"He came to see me and he said, 'You know that Dallas job we did?' and I said, 'Not we--you!' and he said, 'Well, we got Kennedy.' "
I find it interesting that this man turns up involved in every major political scandal around!?!
***
3/27/92 #2 HATONN
As you read along in this information, you will note that clandestine activities are not new and were not new at the assassination (MURDER) of John Kennedy. To assume that such a remarkable organization will allow any incriminating evidence to slip through the sieve of operatives is as ridiculous as believing that all those evil conspirators will come forth and commit suicide having found that God disapproves of murder. There have been some thirty years to wipe all that evidence from the files. Do you not think that in that amount of time, without half trying, all documents are destroyed or reconstructed? I note that every typewriter and computer has the ability to print anything put in by any and all key-strikes. I could date this very document October 23, 1963, carry through with the timing and YOU WOULD NEVER KNOW THE DIFFERENCE.
CHECK IT OUT: Just yesterday it was questioned of two persons on the Warren Commission about the sealing of the documents in the first place. The response? Oh, any documents "left over" when a matter is settled are authorized to be sealed for anywhere from 30 to 50 years. WELL, WHAT ABOUT 75 YEARS IF IN FACT THE STATEMENT IS TRUTH? YOU-THE-PEOPLE ARE SET UP TO BE ELABORATELY LIED TO AS NEVER BEFORE. I REMIND YOU: E. HOWARD HUNT WAS THE ONE WHO FIRED THE FIRST FATAL SHOT. THEN A TEXAN USING THE NAME OF "WHITE" (A CIA OPERATIVE) AND THE DRIVER OF THE LIMOUSINE. MOREOVER, THERE WERE OTHERS ALSO FIRING OR AVAILABLE FOR BACKUP FROM ALL OVER THE PLACE IN VARIOUS LOCATIONS TO MAKE SURE NO POSSIBILITIES WERE OVER-LOOKED. YOU MUST FACE FACTS, AMERICA--YOU GET NO TRUTH AND NEITHER SHALL YOU GET IT NOW.
CIA CLANDESTINE MENTALITY
One of Colby's principal functions was to strengthen the Vietnamese economy in order to improve the lot of the average Vietnamese peasant, the thereby make him less susceptible to Vietcong appeals and more loyal to the Thieu government. To win over the peasants, Colby insisted that corruption within the Saigon government had to be greatly reduced. At one point he even proposed a systematic campaign called the "Honor the Nation" program, which was to be an attack on illegal practices at all levels of Vietnamese society. At that time Colby was well aware that black market trafficking in money was one of the biggest corruption problems in Vietnam. All U.S. personnel in Vietnam were under strict orders not to buy Vietnamese piasters on the black market, and a number of Americans had either been court-martialed by the military or fired by their civilian agencies for violating these orders. But Colby also knew that for many years the CIA had been obtaining tens of millions of dollars in piasters on the black market, either in Hong Kong or in Saigon. In this way the agency could get two to three times as much buying power for its American dollars. Additionally, the Clandestine Services claimed, black market piasters were untraceable and thus ideal for secret operations. Given more than 500,00 Americans in Vietnam all using Vietnamese piasters, and a chaotic Vietnamese banking system, the CIA could of course have obtained untraceable or "sterile" money without resorting to the black market. Although from a strict budgetary point of view, the agency's currency purchases were sound fiscal policy; they directly violated both Vietnamese law and U.S. official policy. Moreover, the purchases helped to keep alive the black market which the U.S. government was professedly working to stamp out.
During the mid-1960's while Colby was still in Washington, the Bureau of the Budget learned that the CIA budget for Vietnam provided for dollar expenditures figured at the legal exchange rate. Since in truth the agency was buying its piasters on the black market, it actually had two to three times more piasters to spend in Vietnam than its budget showed. The Bureau of the Budget then insisted that all figures be listed at the actual black market rate, so at least examiners of the agency's budget in Washington would have a true idea of how much money the CIA was spending. The bureau then also tried to cut U.S. government costs by having the CIA buy piasters for other agencies on the black market. The agency was unenthusiastic about this idea and managed to avoid doing it, not because massive black market purchases would have negated the government's avowed efforts to support the piaster, but because the agency did not want the secrecy of its money-exchange operation disturbed.
Compared to other aspect of the Vietnam war, the CIA's use of the black market is not a major issue. It simply points up the fact that the CIA is not bound by the same rules that apply to the rest of the government. The Central Intelligence Agency Act of 1949 makes this clear: "The sums made available to the Agency may be expended without regard to the provisions of law and regulations relating to the expenditures of Government." The CIA in Vietnam even escaped the Johnson administration's worldwide edict that all cars purchased by the American government would be of American manufacture. While State Department and AID personnel were forced to navigate Saigon's narrow streets in giant Chevrolets and Plymouths, the agency motorpool was full of much smaller and more practical Japanese Toyotas. [H: Now I ask you, is it not fun to unravel the web and find all those tid-bits which YOU THOUGHT were new in today's concerns?]
Thus, a William Colby can, with no legal or ethical conflict, propose programs to end corruption in Vietnam while at the same time condoning the CIA's dubious money practices. And extending the concept of the agency's immunity to law and morals, a Colby can devise and direct terror tactics, secret wars and the like, all in the name of democracy. This is the clandestine mentality: a separation of personal morality and conduct from actions, no matter how debased, which are taken in the name of the United States government and, more specifically, the Central Intelligence Agency.
When Colby left his post as deputy ambassador to Vietnam in 1971, the CIA immediately "rehired" him and Director Helms appointed him Executive Director-Comptroller, the number-three position in the agency. When James Schlesinger took over the agency in early 1973, he made Colby chief of the Clandestine Services. In May 1973, at the height of the personnel shake-ups caused by the Watergate affair, President Nixon moved Schlesinger to the Defense Department and named Colby to head the CIA. Thus, after about four months under the directorship of the outsider Schlesinger, control of the agency was again in the hands of a clandestine operator.
KENNEDY KILLERS
[H: When Watergate is under reference, it must always be remembered that the break-in was to retrieve PICTURES which were being held for blackmail which totally incriminated E. Howard Hunt, Nixon and George Bush as being present and INVOLVED INTIMATELY AND DIRECTLY WITH THE ASSASSINATION OF JFK, MOREOVER, YOU WILL FIND KISSINGER AND OTHER VERY HIGH-OPERATIVES AND POLITICIANS INVOLVED TO THEIR BLACK EVIL HEARTS.]
Senator Harold Hughes, for one, expressed grave reservations about Colby's appointment as CIA Director in a Senate speech on August 1, 1973: "I am fearful of a man whose experience has been so largely devoted to clandestine operations involving the use of force and manipulation of factions in foreign governments. Such a man may become so enamored with these techniques that he loses sight of the higher purposes and moral constraints which should guide our country's activities abroad.
* * *
Deeply embedded within the clandestine mentality is the belief that human ethics and social laws have no bearing on covert operation or their practitioners. The intelligence profession, because of its lofty "natural security" goals, is free from all moral restrictions. There is no need to wrestle with technical legalisms or judgments as to whether something is right or wrong. The determining factors in secret operations are purely pragmatic: Does the job need to be done? Can it be done? And can secrecy (or plausible denial) be maintained? [H: Do you not think that all of these questions are pretty well covered in the release of any secret documents as might be released by the CIA? The need is certainly there to make covering documents which clean the actions: it certainly needs to be done if the CIA is to be cleared and acceptance of the "fixed" Warren Commission (by the way, Earl Warren and Gerald Ford are both members of the Committee of 300!) is to be received by the "people". It also CAN BE DONE--EASILY AND WITHOUT DIVULGING ONE IOTA OF SECRECY AND ALLOW THAT PLAUSIBLE DENIAL TO BE MAINTAINED. WAKE UP, "WE-THE-PEOPLE"!!]
One of the lessons learned from the Watergate experience is the scope of this amorality and its influence on the clandestine mentality. E. Howard Hunt claimed that his participation in the Watergate break-in and the other operations of the plumbers group was in "what I believed to be the...the best interest of my country." [H: Facts are that the "opposition" had pictures of Hunt with firing gun in action.] In this instance, at least, we can accept Hunt as speaking sincerely. He was merely reflecting an attitude that is shared by most CIA operators when carrying out the orders of their superiors.
Hunt expanded on this point when interrogated before a federal grand jury in April 1973 by Assistant U.S. Attorney Earl Silbert.
SILBERT: Now while you worked at the White House, were you ever a participant or did you ever have knowledge of any other so-called "bag job" or entry operations?
HUNT: No, sir.
SILBERT: Were you aware of or did you participate in any other what might commonly be referred to as illegal activities?
HUNT: Illegal?
SILBERT: Yes, sir.
HUNT: I have no recollection of any, no sir.
SILBERT: What about clandestine activities?
HUNT: Yes, sir.
SILBERT: All right. What about that?
HUNT: I'm not quibbling, but there's quite a difference between something that's illegal and something that's clandestine.
[H: THERE IS ALSO A MASSIVE DIFFERENCE IN WHAT IS "ILLEGAL" AND WHAT IS "UNLAWFUL".]
SILBERT: Well, in your terminology, would the entry into Mr. Fielding's (Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist) office have been clandestine, illegal, neither or both?
HUNT: I would simply call it an entry operation conducted under the auspices of competent authority.
[H: So when you get released documents which are altered, reproduced, conjured, etc., you will find it all simply under "the auspices of competent authority". In the instance of release of Assassination related documents--it will be directly under the auspices of the President of the United States to cover his own assets and those of his buddies in crime. That "President" by the way, lest you forget--IS GEORGE HERBERT WALKER BUSH--who was, AT THE TIME, AN ACTIVE MEMBER AND OPERATIVE OF THE CIA.]
Within the CIA, similar activities are undertaken with the consent of "competent authority". The Watergate conspirators, assured that "national security" was at stake, did not question the legality or the morality of their methods; nor do most CIA operators. [H: Harken back to the weeping "patriot", Oliver North as he lied directly to the Congress and to you-the-people and you wanted to run him for President because of his criminal activities!] Hundreds if not thousands of CIA men have participated in similar operations, usually--but not always--in foreign countries; all such operations are executed in the name of "national security". The clandestine mentality not only allows it; it veritably WILLS IT.
BRAZILIAN PLANE HIJACK ALLOWED
In early October 1969, the CIA learned through a secret agent that a group of radicals was about to hijack a plane in Brazil and escape to Cuba. This intelligence was forwarded to CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia and from there sent on an "eyes only" basis to Henry Kissinger at the White House and top officials of the State Department, the Defense Department, and the National Security Agency. Within a few days, on October 8, the same radicals identified in the CIA report commandeered at gunpoint a Brazilian commercial airliner with 49 people aboard, and after a refueling stop in Guyana, forced the pilot to fly to Havana. Neither the CIA nor the other agencies of the U.S. government which had advance warning of the radicals' plans moved to stop the crime from being committed, although at the time the official policy of the United States--as enunciated by the President--was to take all possible measures to stamp out aerial piracy.
Afterwards, when officials of the State Department questioned their colleagues in the CIA on why preventative measures had not been taken to abort the hijacking, the agency's clandestine operators delayed more than a month before responding. During the interim, security forces in Brazil succeeded in breaking up that country's principal revolutionary group and killing its leader, Carlos Marighella. Shortly after the revolutionary leader's death on November 4, the CIA informally passed word back to the State Department noting that if any action had been taken to stop the October skyjacking, the agency's penetration of the radical movement might have been exposed and Marighella's organization could not have been destroyed. While it was never quite clear whether the agent who alerted the clandestine operators to the hijacking had also fingered Marighella, that was the impression the CIA tried to convey to the State Department. The agency implied it had not prevented the hijacking because to have done so would have lessened the chances of scoring the more important goal of "neutralizing" Marighella and his followers. To the CIA's clandestine operators, the end--wiping out the Brazilian radical movement--apparently had justified the means, thus permitting the hijacking to take place and needlessly endangering forty-nine innocent lives in the process.
During the next twenty-five years American foreign policy was to be dominated (and still is) by the concept of containing Communism; almost always the means employed in pursuit of "national security" have been justified by the end. Since the "free world" was deemed to be under attack by a determined enemy, sincere men in the highest government posts believed--and still do believe--that their country could not survive without resorting to the same distasteful methods employed by the other side. In recent years the intensity of the struggle has been reduced as monolithic Communism has split among several centers of power; as a result, there have been tactical changes in America's conduct of foreign affairs. Yet the feeling remains strong among the nation's top officials, in the CIA and elsewhere, that America is responsible for what happens in other countries and that it has an inherent right--a sort of modern Manifest Destiny--to intervene in other countries' internal affairs. Changes may have occurred at the negotiating table, but not in the planning arena; intervention--either military or covert--is still the rule.
***
Source: THE PHOENIX LIBERATOR, March 31, 1992, Volume 18, Number 11, Pages 11-13.
Documents transcribed into HTML format by R. Montana.