CIA Operation Mockingbird Document Collection

A compilation of many controversial documents culled from dozens of internet sources and FOIA filings. Operation Mockin

3,442 190 45MB

English Pages 1486

Report DMCA / Copyright

DOWNLOAD FILE

Polecaj historie

CIA Operation Mockingbird Document Collection

Table of contents :
Operation Mockingbird-An Overview and History-12
Anderson Cooper, CIA Operative_ apfn.org-5
Bought and Paid for Central Bankster-Owned LameStreamMedia and their _Propaganda Matrix_-6
CIA AND THE MEDIA How Americas Most Powerful News Media Worked Hand in Glove with the Central Intelligence Agency and Why the Church Committee Covered It Up BY CARL BERNSTEIN-21
CIA Disinformation in Action- Operation Mockingbird and the Washington Post-Whale.to-19
CIA Propaganda and Disinformation integratingdarkandlight.com-6
CIA's Family Jewels-
Depraved Spies and Moguls of the CIA's Operation MOCKINGBIRD by Alex Constantine-4
Friends_of_Liberty_-_Pipeline_News_disagrees_w_Fahey_on_Bob_Nova
How the Washington Post Censors the News. A Letter to the Washington Post by Julian C-23
MOCKINGBIRD_The_Subversion_Of_The_Free_Press_By_The_CIA
MOCKINGBIRDTheSubversionOfTheFreePressByTheCIA-67
MOCKINGBIRDTheSubversionOfTheFreePressByTheCIA-WhatReallyHappened-22
Operation Mockingbird - [1999] Testimony of Mr. William Schaap on the role of the U.S
Operation Mockingbird - 9_11 Review-28
OPERATION MOCKINGBIRD - AFPN.COM Parts 1-4-
OPERATION_MOCKINGBIRD_Part_1
SIGHTINGS Operation Mockingbird The Subversion Of America's Free Press By The CIA-22
The_CIAs_Project_MOCKINGBIRD_-_Ongoing_Covert_Control_of_the_Med
Operation Mockingbird - Parts 1-3-71
Operation Mockingbird - SPARTACUS-EDUCATIONAL.COM-38
Operation Mockingbird - BlackHistoryMonth2014.com
Operation Mockingbird - CIA Media Manipulation-28
Operation Mockingbird-27
Operation_Mockingbird_-_The_Subversion_Of_Americas_Free_Press_By
Pipe Dreams_ the CIA, Drugs, and the Media
Operation_Mockingbird_The_CIA_and_Propaganda
Operation Mockingbird - CIA owns the Media _ 911Blogger
Operation Mockingbird - Factbites-7
Operation Mockingbird - THE-á MIGHTY-á WURLITZER-á PLAYS-á ON by Gary Webb Chapter 14 from In the Buzzsaw edited by Kristina Borjesson
Operation Mockingbird (CIA_FBI control of the media--The Mighty Wurlitzer)-3
Operation Mockingbird The CIA's Operation Mockingbird Manipulated Media-5
Operation Mockingbird_ CIA Media Manipulation-3
Operation Mockingbird_ The CIA and Propaganda-4
Operation Mockingbird-CIA-5
Operation_Mockingbird_-_CIA_Media_Manipulation
Operation_Mockingbird_-_Government_Control_of_Mainstream_Media
Operation_Mockingbird_CIA_Controls_The_Mainstream_Media
Operation_Mockingbird_Exposed_Congressional_Hearing_Proves_The_C
Operation_Mockingbird_New_York_Times_confesses_to_role_in_subver
SourceWatch has Revised the History of the CIA's Operation Mockingbird - The Constantine Report
SourceWatch has Revised the History of the CIA's Operation Mockingbird
Stepford Spook and the New Operation Mockingbird-2
SUBVERTING THE MEDIA - DeepBlackLies-5
Talk_Operation Mockingbird - SourceWatch-5
The CIA and journalism - SourceWatch
TheAmericanMediaisControlled-6
UK_Gay_News_-_Operation_Mockingbird_County_Rallies_to_Aid_Dying_

Citation preview

Operation Mockingbird  ­An Overview and History­ 

  Article with Links at: ​ http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKmockingbird.htm  In 1948 ​ Frank Wisner​  was appointed director of the Office of Special Projects. Soon  afterwards it was renamed the Office of Policy Coordination (OPC). This became the  espionage and counter­intelligence branch of the ​ Central Intelligence Agency​ . Wisner  was told to create an organization that concentrated on "propaganda, economic  warfare; preventive direct action, including sabotage, anti­sabotage, demolition and  evacuation measures; subversion against hostile states, including assistance to  underground resistance groups, and support of indigenous anti­Communist elements in  threatened countries of the free world."  Later that year Wisner established Mockingbird, a program to influence the domestic  American media. Wisner recruited ​ Philip Graham​  (​ Washington Post​ ) to run the project  within the industry. Graham himself recruited others who had worked for military  intelligence during the war. This included ​ James Truitt​ , Russell Wiggins, Phil Geyelin,  John Hayes and Alan Barth. Others like ​ Stewart Alsop​ , ​ Joseph Alsop​  ​ and​  ​ James  Reston​ ,​  ​ were recruited from within the ​ Georgetown Set​ . According to ​ Deborah Davis  (​ Katharine the Great​ ): "By the early 1950s, Wisner 'owned' respected members of the  New York Times, Newsweek, CBS and other communications vehicles."  In 1951 ​ Allen W. Dulles​  persuaded ​ Cord Meyer​  to join the CIA. However, there is  evidence that he was recruited several years earlier and had been spying on the liberal  organizations he had been a member of in the later 1940s. According to ​ Deborah Davis​ ,  Meyer became Mockingbird's "principal operative".   One of the most important journalists under the control of Operation Mockingbird was  Joseph Alsop​ , whose articles appeared in over 300 different newspapers. Other  journalists willing to promote the views of the CIA included ​ Stewart Alsop​  (​ New York  Herald Tribune​ ), ​ Ben Bradlee​  ​ (​ Newsweek​ ), ​ James Reston​  (​ New York Times​ ), ​ C. D.  Jackson​  (​ Time Magazine​ ), ​ Walter Pincus​  ​ (​ Washington Post​ ), William C. Baggs (​ Miami  News​ ), Herb Gold (​ Miami News​ ) and Charles Bartlett (​ Chattanooga Times​ ). According  to ​ Nina Burleigh​  (​ A Very Private Woman​ ) these journalists sometimes wrote articles that  were commissioned by ​ Frank Wisner​ . The CIA also provided them with classified  information to help them with their work.  

After 1953 the network was overseen by ​ Allen W. Dulles​ , director of the ​ Central  Intelligence Agency​ . By this time Operation Mockingbird had a major influence over 25  newspapers and wire agencies. These organizations were run by people with  well­known right­wing views such as ​ William Paley​  (CBS), ​ Henry Luce​  (​ Time Magazine  and ​ Life Magazine​ ), ​ Arthur Hays Sulzberger​  (​ New York Times​ ), ​ Alfred Friendly  (managing editor of the ​ Washington Post​ ), Jerry O'Leary (​ Washington Star​ )​ , ​ Hal  Hendrix​  (​ Miami News​ ), ​ Barry Bingham Sr.​ , (​ Louisville Courier­Journal​ ), James Copley  (Copley News Services) and Joseph Harrison (​ Christian Science Monitor​ ).  The ​ Office of Policy Coordination​  (OPC) was funded by siphoning of funds intended for  the ​ Marshall Plan​ . Some of this money was used to bribe journalists and publishers.  Frank Wisner​  ​ was constantly looked for ways to help convince the public of the dangers  of communism. In 1954 Wisner arranged for the funding the Hollywood production of  Animal Farm​ , the animated allegory based on the book written by ​ George Orwell​ .  According to ​ Alex Constantine​  (​ Mockingbird: The Subversion Of The Free Press By The  CIA​ ), in the 1950s, "some 3,000 salaried and contract CIA employees were eventually  engaged in propaganda efforts". Wisner was also able to restrict newspapers from  reporting about certain events. For example, the CIA plots to overthrow the  governments of Iran and Guatemala.   Thomas Braden​ , head of the of International Organizations Division (IOD), played an  important role in Operation Mockingbird. Many years later he revealed his role in these  events: "If the director of CIA wanted to extend a present, say, to someone in Europe ­ a  Labour leader ­ suppose he just thought, This man can use fifty thousand dollars, he's  working well and doing a good job ­ he could hand it to him and never have to account  to anybody... There was simply no limit to the money it could spend and no limit to the  people it could hire and no limit to the activities it could decide were necessary to  conduct the war ­ the secret war.... It was a multinational. Maybe it was one of the first.  Journalists were a target, labor unions a particular target ­ that was one of the activities  in which the communists spent the most money."   In August, 1952, the Office of Policy Coordination and the Office of Special Operations  (the espionage division) were merged to form the Directorate of Plans (DPP). ​ Frank  Wisner​  became head of this new organization and ​ Richard Helms​  became his chief of  operations. Mockingbird was now the responsibility of the DPP.   J. Edgar Hoover​  became jealous of the CIA's growing power.​  ​ He described the OPC as  "Wisner's gang of weirdos" and began carrying out investigations into their past. It did  not take him long to discover that some of them had been active in left­wing politics in  the 1930s. This information was passed to who started making attacks on members of  the OPC. Hoover also gave McCarthy details of an affair that ​ Frank Wisner​  ​ had with  Princess Caradja in ​ Romania​  during the war. Hoover, claimed that Caradja was a  Soviet agent.  

Joseph McCarthy​  also began accusing other senior members of the CIA as being  security risks. McCarthy claimed that the CIA was a "sinkhole of communists" and  claimed he intended to root out a hundred of them. One of his first targets was ​ Cord  Meyer​ , who was still working for Operation Mockingbird. In August, 1953, ​ Richard  Helms​ , Wisner's deputy at the OPC, told Meyer that ​ Joseph McCarthy​  had accused him  of being a communist. The ​ Federal Bureau of Investigation​  added to the smear by  announcing it was unwilling to give Meyer "security clearance". However, the FBI  refused to explain what evidence they had against Meyer. ​ Allen W. Dulles​  ​ and both  came to his defence and refused to permit a FBI interrogation of Meyer.   Joseph McCarthy​  did not realise what he was taking on. Wisner unleashed Mockingbird  on McCarthy. ​ Drew Pearson​ , ​ Joe Alsop​ , ​ Jack Anderson​ , ​ Walter Lippmann​  and ​ Ed  Murrow​  all went into attack mode and McCarthy was permanently damaged by the  press coverage orchestrated by Wisner.  Mockingbird was very active during the overthrow of ​ Jacobo Arbenz​  in Guatemala.  People like ​ Henry Luce​  was able to censor stories that appeared too sympathetic  towards the plight of Arbenz. ​ Allen W. Dulles​  was even able to keep left­wing journalists  from travelling to Guatemala. This including Sydney Gruson of the ​ New York Times​ .   Frank Wisner​  was also interested in influencing Hollywood. As ​ Hugh Wilford​  points out in  The Mighty Wurlitzer: How the CIA Played America​  (2008): “Fortunately for the CIA, two  factors predisposed the major Hollywood studios that dominated the industry to take a  responsible position in the cultural Cold War. One was a strong tendency toward self­censorship,  the result of many years' experience avoiding the commercially disastrous effects of giving  offense to either domestic pressure groups like the American Legion or foreign audiences. The  other was the fact that the men who ran the studios were intensely patriotic and anticommunist ­  they saw it as their duty to help their government defeat the Soviet threat."  Frank Wisner​  was helped by the fact that the ​ House of Un­American Activities Committee  (HUAC)​ , chaired by ​ J. Parnell Thomas​ , was carrying out an investigation into the Hollywood  Motion Picture Industry. The HUAC interviewed 41 people who were working in Hollywood.  These people attended voluntarily and became known as "friendly witnesses". During their  interviews they named nineteen people who they accused of holding left­wing views.  One of those named, ​ Bertolt Brecht​ , a playwright, gave evidence and then left for ​ East  Germany​ . Ten others: ​ Herbert Biberman​ , ​ Lester Cole​ , ​ Albert Maltz​ , ​ Adrian Scott​ ,  Samuel Ornitz​ , ​ Dalton Trumbo​ , ​ Edward Dmytryk​ , ​ Ring Lardner Jr​ ., ​ John Howard  Lawson​  and ​ Alvah Bessie​  refused to answer any questions​  and were sent to prison and  were blacklisted from the industry.  The ​ CIA​  and ​ FBI​  ​ also provided right­wing television producer, ​ Vincent Harnett​ , with  information about left­wing figures in the industry. In June 1950 Harnett published ​ Red  Channels​ , a pamphlet listing the names of 151 writers, directors and performers who they 

claimed had been members of subversive organisations before the ​ Second World War​  but had  not so far been blacklisted.   Lee J. Cobb​  was one of those actors who was originally blacklisted but eventually cooperated  with the ​ HUAC​ : “When the facilities of the government of the United States are drawn on an  individual it can be terrifying. The blacklist is just the opening gambit ­ being deprived of work.  Your passport is confiscated. That's minor. But not being able to move without being tailed is  something else. After a certain point it grows to implied as well as articulated threats, and people  succumb. My wife did, and she was institutionalized. In 1953 the HCUA did a deal with me. I  was pretty much worn down. I had no money. I couldn't borrow. I had the expenses of taking  care of the children. Why am I subjecting my loved ones to this? If it's worth dying for, and I am  just as idealistic as the next fellow. But I decided it wasn't worth dying for, and if this gesture  was the way of getting out of the penitentiary I'd do it. I had to be employable again.”  According to ​ Frances Stonor Saunders​ , the author of ​ Who Paid the Piper?​  (2000), ​ Frank  Wisner​  recruited several important figures for Operation Mockingbird. This included former  OSS filmmaker ​ John Ford​  and studio bosses ​ Cecil B. DeMille​  (Paramount Pictures) and ​ Darryl  Zanuck​  (Twentieth Century­Fox).   Another important figure in this group was Howard Hughes, the boss of RKO Pictures. As  Charles Higham​  points out in ​ Howard Hughes: The Secret Life​  (2004)​ , this was also good  for business: “Hughes’s crusade against Communism” was “exacerbated by his desire to have  Hughes Aircraft profit from the Korean and any future anti­Soviet wars”. For example, in June  1950, General ​ Ira Eaker​  "signed an across­the­board agreement giving Hughes a monopoly in  interceptors for the U.S. Air Force… despite the fact that it was in breach of the Sherman  anti­monopolies act… By the end of 1950, the war had made Hughes even richer than before.”   Another important figure in this conspiracy was ​ C. D. Jackson​ . He had joined the ​ Office of  Strategic Services​  (OSS) in 1943. The following year he was appointed Deputy Chief at  the Psychological Warfare Division at ​ Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary  Force​  (SHAEF). ​ After the war, he became Managing Director of ​ Time­Life International​ .  When it became clear that ​ Dwight D. Eisenhower​  stood a good chance of becoming president,  the CIA arranged for Jackson to join his campaign. This involved Jackson writing speeches for  Eisenhower. Jackson was rewarded in February 1953 by being appointed as Special Assistant to  the President. This included the role of Eisenhower's liaison between the CIA and the Pentagon.  According to the ​ Eisenhower Presidential Library​  files in ​ Abilene​ , ​ Kansas​ , Jackson's "area  responsibility was loosely defined as international affairs, cold war planning, and psychological  warfare. His main function was the coordination of activities aimed at interpreting world  situations to the best advantage of the United States and her allies and exploiting incidents which  reflected negatively on the Soviet Union , Communist China and other enemies in the Cold  War."   Jackson was also involved in Operation Mockingbird. This was revealed after the death of ​ C. D.  Jackson​ . On December 15, 1971, Mrs. C.D. Jackson gave her husband’s papers to the Dwight 

D. Eisenhower Library. This included details that Jackson was in contact with a ​ CIA​  agent in  Hollywood's ​ Paramount Studios​ . The agent is not named by Jackson but ​ Frances Stonor  Saunders​  claims in ​ Who Paid the Piper?​  (2000) that it was ​ Carleton Alsop​ , a CIA agent  employed by ​ Frank Wisner​ . There is no doubt that Alsop was one of the CIA agents working at  Paramount. However, ​ Hugh Wilford​  argues in ​ The Mighty Wurlitzer: How the CIA Played  America​  (2008) that it was a senior executive at Paramount, ​ Lugi G. Laraschi​ , was the most  important CIA figure at the studio. Laraschi was the head of foreign and domestic censorship at  the studio, whose job was to “iron out any political, moral or religious problems”. Other studios,  including ​ MGM​  and ​ RKO​ , had similar officers, and were probably CIA placements. In a private  letter to ​ Sherman Adams​ , Jackson claims the role of these CIA placements was “to insert in their  scripts and in their action the right ideas with the proper subtlety”.   Although the main objective of Operation Mockingbird was to influence the production of  commercial films the ​ CIA​  also occasionally initiated film projects. The best documented  instance of this concerns an animated version of ​ Animal Farm​ , a satirical allegory about  Stalinism​  by ​ George Orwell​ . The book was highly popular when it was published in 1945 and it  was only natural that the studios should be interested in making a film of the book. The problem  for the CIA was that Orwell was a socialist whose book attacked both communism and  capitalism. Therefore, it was important to make a film that restricted it to a condemnation of  Joseph Stalin​  and the ​ Soviet Union​ .   In 1950 Wisner’s OPC arranged for ​ Joe Bryan​  to recruit anti­communist documentary­maker  Louis de Rochemont​  to produce a movie version of the tale. It was decided to get the film made  in Britain to disguise CIA involvement in the project. Rochemont employed the British  animation studio of husband and wife ​ John Halas​  and ​ Joy Batchelor​  to make the film. Most of  the funding came from a CIA shell corporation, Touchstone. ​ E. Howard Hunt​  was one of those  agents involved in the production of the film whose role was to remove the socialist elements in  Orwell’s allegory.   One unnamed member of the OPC sent a letter to ​ John Halas​  called for the addition of scenes  showing the other farms (that represented capitalist countries) in a more flattering light. The  most important demand was to change the ending of ​ Animal Farm​ . The CIA did not like the  scene where the pigs and dogs face a liberation­style uprising of the other animals. The letter  included the following: “It is reasonable to expect that if Orwell were to write the book today, it  would be considerably different and that the changes would tend to make it even more positively  anti­Communist and possibly somewhat more favorable to the Western powers.”   One of the main concerns of the CIA was the portrayal of race­relations in Hollywood movies. It  was argued that the left was using this issue to undermine the idea that America was a  democracy based on equal rights. Letters from Jackson sent to the producers of films called for  scenes showing African Americans mixing on equal terms with whites. One of Jackson’s  proposals involved “planting black spectators in a crowd watching a golf game in the Martin and  Lewis comedy The Caddy”.  

In 1955 ​ Graham Greene​  published ​ The Quiet American​ . The novel is set in ​ Vietnam​  and  involves the relationship between Thomas Fowler and Alden Pyle. Fowler is a veteran British  journalist in his fifties, who has been covering the war in Vietnam for over two years. Pyle, the  “Quiet American” of the title, is officially an aid worker, but is really employed by the CIA. It is  believed that the Pyle character is partly based on that of ​ Edward Lansdale​ .   Greene had worked for the British Secret Service during the ​ Second World War​ . Although a  fairly successful novelist at the time, Greene was also employed by ​ The Times​  and ​ Le Figaro​  as  a journalist. Between 1951 to 1954 spent a long period of time in Saigon. In 1953 Lansdale  became a CIA advisor on special counter­guerrilla operations to French forces against the ​ Viet  Minh​ .   While it is true that ​ Graham Greene​  admitted that he never had the "misfortune to meet"  Lansdale, the two men did know a lot about each other. Lansdale recalls that in 1954 he had  dinner with Peg and Tilman Durdin at the ​ Continental Hotel​  in ​ Saigon​ . Greene was also there  having a meal with several French officers. Lansdale claims that after he and the Durdins were  leaving, Greene said something in French to his companions and the men began booing him.   Lansdale definitely thought that Pyle was based on him. He told ​ Cecil B. Currey​  on 15th  February, 1984: "Pyle was close to Trinh Minh Thé, the guerrilla leader, and also had a dog that  went with him everywhere ­ and I was the only American close to Trinh Minh Thé and my  poodle Pierre went everything with me."  In the book Pyle is sent to ​ Vietnam​  by his government, ostensibly as a member of the American  Economic Mission, but that assignment was only a cover for his real role as a ​ CIA​  agent.  According to one critic "Pyle was the embodiment of well­meaning American­style politics, and  he blundered through the intrigue, treachery, and confusion of Vietnamese politics, leaving a trail  of blood and suffering behind him." As Fowler points out in the novel, Pyle was attempting to  "win the East for Democracy". However, according to Fowler, what the people of Vietnam really  wanted was "enough rice" to eat. What is more: "They don't want to be shot at. They want one  day to be much the same as another. They don't want our white skins around telling them what  they want."   When the book was published in the United States in 1956 it was condemned as anti­American.  Pyle (Lansdale) is portrayed as someone whose belief in the justice of American foreign policy  allows him to ignore the appalling consequences of his actions. It was criticized by ​ The New  Yorker​  for portraying Americans as murderers.  The director, producer and screenwriter, ​ Joseph L. Mankiewicz​  was chosen to make the film of  The Quiet American​ . He visited Saigon in 1956 and was introduced to ​ Edward Lansdale​ , whose  cover was working at the International Rescue Committee’s office. The most controversial scene  in the book is the bombing of a Saigon square in 1952 by a Vietnamese associate of Lansdale’s,  General ​ Trinh Minh Thé​ . In the novel, Greene suggests that Pyle/Lansdale, was behind the 

bombing. Lansdale suggested to Mankiewicz that the film should show that the bombing was  “actually having been a Communist action”.   When he returned home Mankiewicz wrote to ​ John O’Daniel​ , the chairman of the ​ American  Friends of Vietnam​  that he intended to completely change the anti­American attitude of Greene’s  book. This included the casting of ​ Second World War​  hero, ​ Audie Murphy​ , as Alden Pyle.   In a letter that ​ Edward Lansdale​  wrote to ​ Ngo Dinh Diem​  he praised Mankiewicz’s treatment of  the story as “an excellent change from Mr. Greene’s novel of despair” and “that it will help win  more friends for you and Vietnam in many places in the world where it is shown."  As ​ Hugh Wilford​  pointed out: “It was a brilliantly devious maneuver of postmodern literary  complexity: by helping to rewrite a story featuring a character reputedly based on himself,  Lansdale had transformed an anti­American tract into a cinematic apology for U.S. policy ­ and  his own actions­in Vietnam.”   Graham Greene​  was furious with Mankiewicz’s treatment ofhis novel. "Far was it from my  mind, when I wrote The Quiet American that the book would become a source of spiritual profit  to one of the most corrupt governments in Southeast Asia."   In 1955 President ​ Dwight Eisenhower​  established the 5412 Committee in order to keep  a check on the CIA's covert activities. The committee (also called the Special Group)  included the CIA director, the national security adviser, and the deputy secretaries at  State and Defence and had the responsibility to decide whether covert actions were  "proper" and in the national interest. It was also decided to include ​ Richard B. Russell​ ,  chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. However, as ​ Allen W. Dulles​  was  later to admit, because of "plausible deniability" planned covert actions were not  referred to the 5412 Committee.     

 

 

The Very Best Men  

The Mighty Wurlitzer  

   Dwight Eisenhower​  became concerned about CIA covert activities and in 1956  appointed ​ David Bruce​  as a member of the President's Board of Consultants on Foreign  Intelligence Activities (PBCFIA). Eisenhower asked Bruce to write a report on the CIA. It  was presented to Eisenhower on 20th December, 1956. Bruce argued that the CIA's  covert actions were "responsible in great measure for stirring up the turmoil and raising  the doubts about us that exists in many countries in the world today." Bruce was also  highly critical of Mockingbird. He argued: "what right have we to go barging around in  other countries buying newspapers and handling money to opposition parties or  supporting a candidate for this, that, or the other office."   After ​ Richard Bissell​  lost his post as Director of Plans in 1962, ​ Tracy Barnes​  took over  the running of Mockingbird. According to ​ Evan Thomas​  (​ The Very Best Men​ ) Barnes  planted editorials about political candidates who were regarded as pro­CIA.   In 1963, ​ John McCone​ , the director of the CIA, discovered that Random House  intended to publish ​ Invisible Government​  by ​ David Wise​  and ​ Thomas Ross​ . McCone  discovered that the book intended to look at his links with the ​ Military Industrial  Congress Complex​ . The authors also claimed that the CIA was having a major influence  on American foreign policy. This included the overthrow of Mohammed Mossadegh in  Iran (1953) and ​ Jacobo Arbenz​  in Guatemala (1954). The book also covered the role  that the CIA played in the ​ Bay of Pigs​  operation, the attempts to remove President  Sukarno in Indonesia and the covert operations taking place in ​ Laos​  and ​ Vietnam​ .   John McCone​  called in Wise and Ross to demand deletions on the basis of galleys the  CIA had secretly obtained from Random House. The authors refused to made these  changes and Random House decided to go ahead and publish the book. The ​ CIA  considered buying up the entire printing of ​ Invisible Government​  but this idea was  rejected when Random House pointed out that if this happened they would have to print  a second edition. McCone now formed a special group to deal with the book and tried to  arrange for it to get bad reviews.    

  Katharine the Great  

  A Personal History  

   Invisible Government​  was published in 1964. It was the first full account of America's  intelligence and espionage apparatus. In the book Wise and Ross argued that the  "Invisible Government is made up of many agencies and people, including the  intelligence branches of the State and Defense Departments, of the Army, Navy and Air  Force". However, they claimed that the most important organization involved in this  process was the ​ CIA​ .   John McCone​  ​ also attempted to stop Edward Yates from making a documentary on the  CIA for the National Broadcasting Company (NBC). This attempt at censorship failed  and NBC went ahead and broadcast this critical documentary.   In June, 1965, ​ Desmond FitzGerald​  was appointed as head of the Directorate for Plans.  He now took charge of Mockingbird. At the end of 1966 FitzGerald discovered that  Ramparts​ , a left­wing publication, was planning to publish that the CIA had been  secretly funding the National Student Association. FitzGerald ordered Edgar Applewhite  to organize a campaign against the magazine. Applewhite later told ​ Evan Thomas​  for  his book, ​ The Very Best Men​ : "I had all sorts of dirty tricks to hurt their circulation and  financing. The people running Ramparts were vulnerable to blackmail. We had awful  things in mind, some of which we carried off."  This dirty tricks campaign failed to stop ​ Ramparts​  publishing this story in March, 1967.  The article, written by ​ Sol Stern​ , was entitled NSA and the CIA. As well as reporting ​ CIA  funding of the National Student Association it exposed the whole system of  anti­Communist front organizations in Europe, Asia, and South America. It named ​ Cord  Meyer​  ​ as a key figure in this campaign. This included the funding of the literary journal  Encounter​ . 

In May 1967 ​ Thomas Braden​  ​ responded to this by publishing an article entitled, I'm  Glad the CIA is Immoral, in the ​ Saturday Evening Post​ , where he defended the activities  of the International Organizations Division unit of the CIA. Braden also confessed that  the activities of the ​ CIA​  had to be kept secret from Congress. As he pointed out in the 

article: "In the early 1950s, when the cold war was really hot, the idea that Congress  would have approved many of our projects was about as likely as the John Birch  Society's approving Medicare."  Meyer's role in Operation Mockingbird was further exposed in 1972 when he was  accused of interfering with the publication of a book, ​ The Politics of Heroin in Southeast  Asia​  by ​ Alfred W. McCoy​ . The book was highly critical of the CIA's dealings with the  drug traffic in Southeast Asia. The publisher, who leaked the story, had been a former  colleague of Meyer's when he was a liberal activist after the war.   Further details of Operation Mockingbird was revealed as a result of the ​ Frank Church  investigations (Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to  Intelligence Activities) in 1975. According to the Congress report published in 1976:  "The CIA currently maintains a network of several hundred foreign individuals around  the world who provide intelligence for the CIA and at times attempt to influence opinion  through the use of covert propaganda. These individuals provide the CIA with direct  access to a large number of newspapers and periodicals, scores of press services and  news agencies, radio and television stations, commercial book publishers, and other  foreign media outlets." Church argued that the cost of misinforming the world cost  American taxpayers an estimated $265 million a year.   Frank Church​  ​ showed that it was CIA policy to use clandestine handling of journalists  and authors to get information published initially in the foreign media in order to get it  disseminated in the United States. Church quotes from one document written by the  Chief of the Covert Action Staff on how this process worked (page 193). For example,  he writes: “Get books published or distributed abroad without revealing any U.S.  influence, by covertly subsidizing foreign publicans or booksellers.” Later in the  document he writes: “Get books published for operational reasons, regardless of  commercial viability”. Church goes onto report that “over a thousand books were  produced, subsidized or sponsored by the CIA before the end of 1967”. All these books  eventually found their way into the American market­place. Either in their original form  (Church gives the example of the ​ Penkovskiy Papers​ ) or repackaged as articles for  American newspapers and magazines.     In another document published in 1961 the Chief of the Agency’s propaganda unit  wrote: “The advantage of our direct contact with the author is that we can acquaint him  in great detail with our intentions; that we can provide him with whatever material we  want him to include and that we can check the manuscript at every stage… (the  Agency) must make sure the actual manuscript will correspond with our operational and  propagandistic intention.”     Church quotes ​ Thomas H. Karamessines​  as saying: “If you plant an article in some  paper overseas, and it is a hard­hitting article, or a revelation, there is no way of  guaranteeing that it is not going to be picked up and published by the Associated Press  in this country” (page 198).     By analyzing CIA documents Church was able to identify over 50 U.S. journalists who 

were employed directly by the Agency. He was aware that there were a lot more who  enjoyed a very close relationship with the CIA who were “being paid regularly for their  services, to those who receive only occasional gifts and reimbursements from the CIA”  (page 195).     Church pointed out that this was probably only the tip of the iceberg because the CIA  refused to “provide the names of its media agents or the names of media organizations  with which they are connected” (page 195). Church was also aware that most of these  payments were not documented. This was the main point of the ​ Otis Pike Report​ . If  these payments were not documented and accounted for, there must be a strong  possibility of financial corruption taking place. This includes the large commercial  contracts that the CIA was responsible for distributing. Pike’s report actually highlighted  in 1976 what eventually emerged in the 1980s via the activities of CIA operatives such  as ​ Edwin Wilson​ , ​ Thomas Clines​ , ​ Ted Shackley​ , ​ Raphael Quintero​ , ​ Richard Secord​  and  Felix Rodriguez​ .     Church also identified ​ E. Howard Hunt​  as an important figure in Operation Mockingbird.  He points out how Hunt arranged for books to be reviewed by certain writers in the  national press. He gives the example of how Hunt arranged for a “CIA writer under  contract” to write a hostile review of a ​ Edgar Snow​  book in the ​ New York Times​  (page  198).     Church comes up with this conclusion to his examination of this issue: “In examining the  CIA’s past and present use of the U.S. media, the Committee finds two reasons for  concern. The first is the potential, inherent in covert media operations, for manipulating  or incidentally misleading the American public. The second is the damage to the  credibility and independence of a free press which may be caused by covert  relationships with the U.S. journalists and media organizations.”  In February, 1976, ​ George Bush​ , the recently appointed Director of the CIA announced  a new policy: “Effective immediately, the CIA will not enter into any paid or contract  relationship with any full­time or part­time news correspondent accredited by any U.S.  news service, newspaper, periodical, radio or television network or station.” However,  he added that the CIA would continue to “welcome” the voluntary, unpaid cooperation of  journalists.   Carl Bernstein​ , who had worked with ​ Bob Woodward​  in the investigation of ​ Watergate​ ,  provided further information about Operation Mockingbird in an article in ​ The Rolling  Stone​  in October, 1977. Bernstein claimed that over a 25 year period over 400  American journalists secretly carried out assignments for the ​ CIA​ : "Some of the  journalists were Pulitzer Prize winners, distinguished reporters who considered  themselves ambassadors­without­portfolio for their country. Most were less exalted:  foreign correspondents who found that their association with the Agency helped their  work; stringers and freelancers who were as interested it the derring­do of the spy  business as in filing articles, and, the smallest category, full­time CIA employees  masquerading as journalists abroad." 

It is almost certain that Bernstein had encountered Operation Mockingbird while working  on his Watergate investigation. For example, ​ Deborah Davis​  (​ Katharine the Great​ ) has  argued that Deep Throat was senior CIA official, ​ Richard Ober​ , who was running  Operation Chaos for ​ Richard Nixon​  during this period.  According to researchers such as ​ Steve Kangas​ , ​ Angus Mackenzie​  ​ and ​ Alex  Constantine​ , Operation Mockingbird was not closed down by the CIA in 1976. For  example, in 1998 Kangas argued that CIA asset Richard Mellon Scaife ran "Forum  World Features, a foreign news service used as a front to disseminate CIA propaganda  around the world."   On 8th February, 1999, Kangas was found dead in the bathroom of the Pittsburgh  offices of Richard Mellon Scaife. He had been shot in the head. Officially he had  committed suicide but some people believe he was murdered. In an article in ​ Salon  Magazine​ , (19th March, 1999) Andrew Leonard asked: "Why did the police report say  the gun wound was to the left of his head, while the autopsy reported a wound on the  roof of his mouth? Why had the hard drive on his computer been erased shortly after his  death? Why had Scaife assigned his No. 1 private detective, Rex Armistead, to look into  Kangas' past? 

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/Mockingbird4.htm

Anderson Cooper, CIA Operative?

apfn.org

  Not only is CNN “journalist” Anderson Cooper the great-great grandson of robber baron Cornelius “Commodore” Vanderbilt and the son of trust fund baby and designer jean hucksteress Gloria Vanderbilt, he is also a CIA operative, according to Radar Online. “Following his sophomore and junior years at Yale—a well-known recruiting ground for the CIA—Cooper spent his summers interning Thursday September 07th 2006, at the agency’s monolithic headquarters in Langley, Virginia, in a program for students interested in intelligence work. His involvement 10:27 am with the agency ended there, and he chose not to pursue a job with the agency after graduation, according to a CNN spokeswoman, who confirmed details of Cooper’s CIA involvement to Radar.” Or did he? As revealed during the Church Committee investigation in 1975, the CIA had a long-standing relationship with the corporate media, dubbed “Operation Mockingbird” by Deborah Davis, former Village Voice writer and author of Katherine The Great (New York: Sheridan Square Press, 1991). In her book, Davis quotes Philip Graham, the late editor Washington Post, as saying: “You could get a journalist cheaper than a good call girl, for a couple hundred dollars a month.” Of course, Cooper, a bona fide Ritchie Rich, doesn’t need a couple hundred dollars a month, but may be doing the CIA’s work for other reasons, or he may be “owned” by the spook agency, as Frank Wisner and Allen Dulles owned “respected members of the New York Times, Newsweek, CBS and other communications vehicles, plus stringers,” according to a CIA source cited by Davis (see Alex Constantine, Tales from the Crypt: The Depraved Spies and Moguls of the CIA’s Operation Mockingbird). “Media assets … eventually include ABC, NBC, CBS, Time, Newsweek, Associated Press, United Press International (UPI), Reuters, Hearst Newspapers, Scripps-Howard, Copley News Service, etc. and 400 journalists, who have secretly carried out assignments according to documents on file at CIA headquarters, from intelligence-gathering to serving as go-betweens,” writes Mary Louise for Prison Planet. “The CIA had infiltrated the nation’s businesses, media, and universities with tens of thousands of on-call operatives by the 1950’s. CIA Director Dulles had staffed the CIA almost exclusively with Ivy League graduates, especially from Yale with figures like George Herbert Walker Bush from the ‘Skull and Crossbones’ Society.” Personally, I have come to the conclusion that the media is not only influenced by the CIA… the media is the CIA. Many Americans think of their supposedly free press as a watchdog on government, mainly because the press itself shamelessly promotes that myth. One of the first tenets for the control of a population is to control all sources of information the population receives and mostly because of the pervasive CIA and Operation Mockingbird, the mainstream American Press is a controlled multi-national corporate/government megaphone. They are up to their eyeballs in dirty deeds and there will never be an end to the corruption that prevails unless the CIA is abolished. Otherwise, the CIA will just keep on using their tricks of propaganda, stuffed ballot boxes, purchased elections, extortion, blackmail, drug trafficking, sexual intrigue, kidnapping, beating, torture, intimidation, economic sabotage, false stories about opponents in the local media, infiltration and Page 1 of 15

disruption of opposing political parties, demolition and evacuation procedures, May 07, 2015 09:22:18PM MDT

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/Mockingbird4.htm

disruption of opposing political parties, demolition and evacuation procedures, death squads, and politically motivated assassinations. According to Steve Kangas, the late journalist who mysteriously committed suicide (shot twice in the head, à la Gary Webb) in the offices of CIA asset Richard Mellon Scaife, the “CIA has always recruited the nation’s elite: millionaire businessmen, Wall Street brokers, members of the national news media, and Ivy League scholars…. Historically, the CIA and society’s elite have been one and the same people. This means that their interests and goals are one and the same as well.” No doubt Anderson Cooper’s “interests and goals are one and the same” as the CIA and the ruling elite. However, this does not mean he is actually a snoop agency mole inserted in CNN. Nonetheless, his supposed flirtation with the agency, and his Ivy League background, specifically at Yale, are suspicious, to say the least. http://kurtnimmo.com/?p=555 Media contacts According to Carl Bernstein 400 reporters were working for the CIA as part of Operation Mockingbird. These include, but are not limited to: CBS (William S. Paley) Chattanooga Times (Charles Bartlett) Christian Science Monitor (Joseph Harrison) Copley News Services (James Copley) Louisville Courier-Journal (Barry Bingham, Sr.) The Miami News (William C. Baggs, Herb Gold, Hal Hendrix) Newsweek (Ben Bradlee) New York Herald Tribune (Stewart Alsop) New York Times (Arthur Hays Sulzberger) Time Magazine (Alfred Friendly, Charles Douglas Jackson, Henry Luce) Washington Post (Walter Pincus) Washington Star (Jerry O'Leary) Carl Bernstein. The CIA and the Media, Rolling Stone Magazine, October 20, 1977. Operation Mockingbird. A detailed article with internal links on the individuals involved and external links to other articles on the subject. Operation Mockingbird, SourceWatch. Alex Constantine. The Subversion Of The Free Press By The CIA, What Really Happened. Disinfopedia - Operation Mockingbird. This site compiles many of the allegations made regarding Operation Mockingbird on the web. Discussion about Operation Mockingbird and Search Engines

CIA LEAK: JUDITH MILLER OPERATION MOCKINGBIRD ASSET! http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/10-18-05/discussion.cgi.24.html Propaganda Page 2 of 15

May 07, 2015 09:22:18PM MDT

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/Mockingbird4.htm

Propaganda Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - Cite This Source new!

Propaganda is a specific type of message presentation directly aimed at influencing the opinions of people, rather than impartially providing information. Literally translated from the Latin gerundive as "things which must be disseminated," in some cultures the term is neutral or even positive, while in others the term has acquired a strong negative connotation. Its connotations can also vary over time. For instance, in English, "propaganda" was originally a neutral term used to describe the dissemination of information in favor of a certain cause. Over time, however, the term acquired the negative connotation of disseminating false or misleading information in favor of a certain cause. Strictly speaking, a message does not have to be untrue to qualify as propaganda, but it may omit so many pertinent truths that it becomes highly misleading. In English the term propaganda overlaps with distinct terms like indoctrination (ideological views established by repetition rather than verification) and mass suggestion (broader strategic methods). In practice, the terms are often used synonymously. Historically, the most common use of the term propaganda is in political contexts; in particular to refer to certain efforts sponsored by governments, political groups, and other often covert interests. In the early 20th century the term was also used by the founders of the nascent public relations industry to describe their activities; this usage died out around the time of World War II. Individually propaganda functions as self-deception. Culturally it works within religions, politics, and economic entities like those which both favor and oppose globalization. At the left, right, or mainstream, propaganda knows no borders; as is detailed by Roderick Hindery. Hindery further argues that debates about most social issues can be productively revisited in the context of asking "what is or is not propaganda?" Not to be overlooked is the link between propaganda, indoctrination, and terrorism. Mere threats to destroy are often as socially disruptive as physical devastation itself. See also religious terrorism. Purpose of propaganda The aim of propaganda is to influence people's opinions actively, rather than merely to communicate the facts about something. For example, propaganda might be used to garner either support or disapproval of a certain position, rather than to simply present the position. What separates propaganda from "normal" communication is in the subtle, often insidious, ways that the message attempts to shape opinion. For example, propaganda is often presented in a way that attempts to deliberately evoke a strong emotion, especially by suggesting illogical (or non-intuitive) relationships between concepts. An appeal to one's emotions is, perhaps, a more obvious propaganda method than those utilized by some other more subtle and insidious forms. For instance, propaganda may be transmitted indirectly or implicitly, through an ostensibly fair and balanced debate or argument. This can be done to great effect in conjunction with a broadly targeted, broadcast news format. In such a setting, techniques like, "red herring", and other ploys (such as Ignoratio elenchi), are often used to divert the audience from a critical issue, while the intended message is suggested through indirect means. This sophisticated type of diversion utilizes the appearance of lively debate within, what is actually, a carefully focused spectrum, to generate and justify deliberately conceived assumptions. This technique avoids the distinctively biased appearance of one sided rhetoric, and works by presenting a contrived premise for an argument as if it were a universally accepted and obvious truth, so that the audience naturally assumes to be Page 3 of 15 Mayit 07, 2015 09:22:18PM MDT

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/Mockingbird4.htm of one sided rhetoric, and

works by presenting a contrived premise for an argument as if it were a universally accepted and obvious truth, so that the audience naturally assumes it to be correct. By maintaining the range of debate in such a way that it appears inclusive of differing points of view, so as to suggest fairness and balance, the suppositions suggested become accepted as fact. Here is such an example of a hypothetical situation in which the opposing viewpoints are supposedly represented: the hawk (see: hawkish) says, "we must stay the course", and the dove says, "The war is a disaster and a failure", to which the hawk responds, "In war things seldom go smoothly and we must not let setbacks affect our determination", the dove retorts, "setbacks are setbacks, but failures are failures." As one can see, the actual validity of the war is not discussed and is never in contention. One may naturally assume that the war was not fundamentally wrong, but just the result of miscalculation, and therefore, an error, instead of a crime. Thus, by maintaining the appearance of equitable discourse in such debates, and through continuous inculcation, such focused arguments succeed in compelling the audience to logically deduce that the presupposions of debate are unequivocal truisms of the given subject. The method of propaganda is essential to the word's meaning as well. A message does not have to be untrue to qualify as propaganda. In fact, the message in modern propaganda is often not blatantly untrue. But even if the message conveys only "true" information, it will generally contain partisan bias and fail to present a complete and balanced consideration of the issue. Another common characteristic of propaganda is volume (in the sense of a large amount). For example, a propagandist may seek to influence opinion by attempting to get a message heard in as many places as possible, and as often as possible. The intention of this approach is to a) reinforce an idea through repetition, and b) exclude or "drown out" any alternative ideas. In English, the word "propaganda" now carries strong negative (as well as political) connotations, although it has not always done so. It was formerly common for political organizations to refer to their own material as propaganda. Other languages do not necessarily regard the term as derogatory and hence usage may lead to misunderstanding in communications with non-native English speakers. For example, in Portuguese and some Spanish language speaking countries, particularly in the Southern Cone, the word "propaganda" usually means the most common manipulation of information—"advertising". Famed public relations pioneer Edward L. Bernays in his classic studies eloquently describes propaganda as the purpose of communications. In Crystallizing Public Opinion, for example, he dismisses the semantic differentiations (“Education is valuable, commendable, enlightening, instructive. Propaganda is insidious, dishonest, underhanded, misleading.”) and instead concentrates on purposes. He writes (p. 212), “Each of these nouns carries with it social and moral implications. . . . The only difference between ‘propaganda’ and ‘education,’ really, is in the point of view. The advocacy of what we believe in is education. The advocacy of what we don’t believe in is propaganda.” The reason propaganda exists and is so widespread is because it serves various social purposes, necessary ones, often popular yet potentially corrupting. Many institutions such as media and government itself are literally propaganda-addicts, co-dependent on each other and the fueling influence of the propaganda system that they help create and maintain. Propagandists have an advantage through knowing what they want to promote and to whom, and although they often resort to various two-way forms of communication this is done in order to make sure their one-sided purposes are achieved. Special kt 10:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Types Page 4 of 15

of propaganda

May 07, 2015 09:22:18PM MDT

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/Mockingbird4.htm

Types of propaganda Propaganda shares techniques with advertising and public relations. In fact, advertising and public relations can be thought of as propaganda that promotes a commercial product or shapes the perception of an organization, person or brand, though in post-WWII usage the word "propaganda" more typically refers to political or nationalist uses of these techniques or to the promotion of a set of ideas. Propaganda also has much in common with public information campaigns by governments, which are intended to encourage or discourage certain forms of behavior (such as wearing seat belts, not smoking, not littering and so forth). Again, the emphasis is more political in propaganda. Propaganda can take the form of leaflets, posters, TV and radio broadcasts and can also extend to any other medium. In the case of the United States, there is also an important legal distinction between advertising (a type of overt propaganda) and what the Government Accountability Office (GAO), an arm of the United States Congress, refers to as "covert propaganda." Journalistic theory generally holds that news items should be objective, giving the reader an accurate background and analysis of the subject at hand. On the other hand, advertisements generally present an issue in a very subjective and often misleading light, primarily meant to persuade rather than inform. If the reader believes that a paid advertisement is in fact a news item, the message the advertiser is trying to communicate will be more easily "believed" or "internalized." Such advertisements are considered obvious examples of "covert" propaganda because they take on the appearance of objective information rather than the appearance of propaganda, which is misleading. Federal law specifically mandates that any advertisement appearing in the format of a news item must state that the item is in fact a paid advertisement. The Bush Administration has come under fire for allegedly producing and disseminating covert propaganda in the form of television programs, aired in the United States, which appeared to be legitimate news broadcasts and did not include any information signifying that the programs were not generated by a private-sector news source. Propaganda, in a narrower use of the term, connotates deliberately false or misleading information that supports or furthers a political cause or the interests of those in power. The propagandist seeks to change the way people understand an issue or situation for the purpose of changing their actions and expectations in ways that are desirable to the interest group. Propaganda, in this sense, serves as a corollary to censorship in which the same purpose is achieved, not by filling people's minds with approved information, but by preventing people from being confronted with opposing points of view. What sets propaganda apart from other forms of advocacy is the willingness of the propagandist to change people's understanding through deception and confusion rather than persuasion and understanding. The leaders of an organization know the information to be one sided or untrue, but this may not be true for the rank and file members who help to disseminate the propaganda.   More in line with the religious roots of the term, it is also used widely in the debates about new religious movements (NRMs), both by people who defend them and by people who oppose them. The latter pejoratively call these NRMs cults. Anti-cult activists and countercult activists accuse the leaders of what they consider cults of using propaganda extensively to recruit followers and keep them. Some social scientists, such as the late Jeffrey Hadden, and

CESNUR Page 5 of 15

affiliated scholars accuse ex-members of "cults" who became vocal critics May 07,and 2015the 09:22:18PM MDT

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/Mockingbird4.htm

CESNUR affiliated scholars accuse ex-members of "cults" who became vocal critics and the anti-cult movement of making these unusual religious movements look bad without sufficient reasons. Propaganda is a mighty weapon in war. In this case its aim is usually to dehumanize and create hatred toward a supposed enemy, either internal or external. The technique is to create a false image in the mind. This can be done by using special words, special avoidance of words or by saying that the enemy is responsible for certain things he never did. Most propaganda wars require the home population to feel the enemy has inflicted an injustice, which may be fictitious or may be based on facts. The home population must also decide that the cause of their nation is just. Propaganda is also one of the methods used in psychological warfare, which may also involve false flag operations. The term propaganda may also refer to false information meant to reinforce the mindsets of people who already believe as the propagandist wishes. The assumption is that, if people believe something false, they will constantly be assailed by doubts. Since these doubts are unpleasant (see cognitive dissonance), people will be eager to have them extinguished, and are therefore receptive to the reassurances of those in power. For this reason propaganda is often addressed to people who are already sympathetic to the agenda. This process of reinforcement uses an individual's predisposition to self-select "agreeable" information sources as a mechanism for maintaining control.   Propaganda can be classified according to the source and nature of the message. White propaganda generally comes from an openly identified source, and is characterized by gentler methods of persuasion, such as standard public relations techniques and one-sided presentation of an argument. Black propaganda is identified as being from one source, but is infact from another. This is most commonly to disguise the true origins of the propaganda, be it from an enemy country or from an organization with a negative public image. Gray propaganda Is propaganda without any identifiable souce or author. In scale, these different types of propaganda can also be defined by the potential of true and correct information to compete with the propaganda. For example, opposition to white propaganda is often readily found and may slightly discredit the propaganda source. Opposition to gray propaganda, when revealed (often by an inside source), may create some level of public outcry. Opposition to black propaganda is often unavailable and may be dangerous to reveal, because public cognizance of black propaganda tactics and sources would undermine or backfire the very campaign the black propagandist supported. Propaganda may be administered in very insidious ways. For instance, disparaging disinformation about history, certain groups or foreign countries may be encouraged or tolerated in the educational system. Since few people actually double-check what they learn at school, such disinformation will be repeated by journalists as well as parents, thus reinforcing the idea that the disinformation item is really a "well-known fact," even though no one repeating the myth is able to point to an authoritative source. The disinformation is then recycled in the media and in the educational system, without the need for direct governmental intervention on the media. Such permeating propaganda may be used for political goals: by giving citizens a false impression of the quality or policies of their country, they may be incited to rejectMay certain Page 6 of 15 07, 2015 09:22:18PM MDT

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/Mockingbird4.htm Such permeating propaganda

may be used for political goals: by giving citizens a false impression of the quality or policies of their country, they may be incited to reject certain proposals or certain remarks or ignore the experience of others. See also: black propaganda, marketing, advertising History of propaganda   Etymology In late Latin, propaganda meant "things to be propagated". In 1622, shortly after the start of the Thirty Years' War, Pope Gregory XV founded the Congregatio de Propaganda Fide ("Congregation for Propagating the Faith"), a committee of Cardinals with the duty of overseeing the propagation of Christianity by missionaries sent to non-Catholic countries. Therefore, the term itself originates with this Roman Catholic Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith (sacra congregatio christiano nomini propagando or, briefly, propaganda fide), the department of the pontifical administration charged with the spread of Catholicism and with the regulation of ecclesiastical affairs in non-Catholic countries (mission territory). The actual Latin stem propagand- conveys a sense of "that which ought to be spread". Originally the term was not intended to refer to misleading information. The modern political sense dates from World War I, and was not originally pejorative. Propaganda has been a human activity as far back as reliable recorded evidence exists. The writings of Romans like Livy are considered masterpieces of pro-Roman statist propaganda. The Behistun Inscription, made around 515 BCE and detailing the rise of Darius I to the Persian throne, can also be seen as an early example of propaganda. 19th and 20th centuries' propaganda Gabriel Tarde's Laws of Imitation (1890) and Gustave Le Bon's The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind (1897) were two of the first codifications of propaganda techniques, which influenced many writers afterward, including Sigmund Freud. Hitler's Mein Kampf is heavily influenced by Le Bon's theories. Journalist Walter Lippman, in Public Opinion (1922) also worked on the subject, as well as psychologist Edward Bernays, a nephew of Freud, early in the 20th century. During World War I, Lippman and Bernays were hired by then United States President, Woodrow Wilson, to participate in the Creel Commission, the mission of which was to sway popular opinion in favor of entering the war, on the side of the United Kingdom. The Creel Commission provided themes for speeches by "four-minute men" at public functions, and also encouraged censorship of the American press. The Commission was so unpopular that after the war, Congress closed it down without providing funding to organize and archive its papers.   The war propaganda campaign of Lippman and Bernays produced within six months such an intense anti-German hysteria as to permanently impress American business (and Adolf Hitler,

among Page 7 of 15

others) with the potential of large-scale propaganda to control public opinion. May 07,Bernays 2015 09:22:18PM MDT

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/Mockingbird4.htm

among others) with the potential of large-scale propaganda to control public opinion. Bernays coined the terms "group mind" and "engineering consent", important concepts in practical propaganda work. The current public relations industry is a direct outgrowth of Lippman's and Bernays' work and is still used extensively by the United States government. For the first half of the 20th century Bernays and Lippman themselves ran a very successful public relations firm. World War II saw continued use of propaganda as a weapon of war, both by Hitler's propagandist Joseph Goebbels and the British Political Warfare Executive, as well as the United States Office of War Information. In the early 2000s, the United States government developed and freely distributed a video game known as America's Army. The stated intention of the game is to encourage players to become interested in joining the U.S. Army. According to a poll by I for I Research, 30% of young people who had a positive view of the military said that they had developed that view by playing the game. Russian revolution Russian revolutionaries of the 19th and 20th centuries distinguished two different aspects covered by the English term propaganda. Their terminology included two terms: агитация (agitatsiya), or agitation, and пропаганда, or propaganda, see agitprop (agitprop is not, however, limited to the Soviet Union, as it was considered, before the October Revolution, to be one of the fundamental activity of any Marxist activist; this importance of agit-prop in Marxist theory may also be observed today in trotskyists circles, who insist on the importance of leaflets distribution). Soviet propaganda meant dissemination of revolutionary ideas, teachings of Marxism, and theoretical and practical knowledge of Marxist economics, while agitation meant forming favorable public opinion and stirring up political unrest. These activities did not carry negative connotations (as they usually do in English) and were encouraged. Expanding dimensions of state propaganda, the Bolsheviks actively used transportation such as trains, aircraft and other means. Josef Stalin's regime built the largest fixed-wing aircraft of the 1930s, Tupolev ANT-20, exclusively for this purpose. Named after the famous Soviet writer Maxim Gorky who had recently returned from fascist Italy, it was equipped with a powerful radio set called "Voice from the sky", printing and leaflet-dropping machinery, radiostations, photographic laboratory, film projector with sound for showing movies in flight, library, etc. The aircraft could be disassembled and transported by railroad if needed. The giant aircraft set a number of world records. Nazi Germany Most propaganda in Germany was produced by the Ministry for Public Enlightenment and Propaganda (Propagandaministerium, or "Promi" (German abbreviation)). Joseph Goebbels was placed in charge of this ministry shortly after Hitler took power in 1933. All journalists, writers, and artists were required to register with one of the Ministry's subordinate chambers for the press, fine arts, music, theater, film, literature, or radio. The Page 8 of 15

Nazis believed in propaganda as a vital tool in achieving their goals. Adolf Hitler , 2015 09:22:18PM MDT May 07,

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/Mockingbird4.htm

The Nazis believed in propaganda as a vital tool in achieving their goals. Adolf Hitler, Germany's Führer, was impressed by the power of Allied propaganda during World War I and believed that it had been a primary cause of the collapse of morale and revolts in the German home front and Navy in 1918 (see also: Dolchstoßlegende). Hitler would meet nearly every day with Goebbels to discuss the news and Goebbels would obtain Hitler's thoughts on the subject; Goebbels would then meet with senior Ministry officials and pass down the official Party line on world events. Broadcasters and journalists required prior approval before their works were disseminated. Nazi propaganda before the start of World War II had several distinct audiences:   German audiences were continually reminded of the struggle of the Nazi Party and Germany against foreign enemies and internal enemies, especially Jews. Ethnic Germans in countries such as Czechoslovakia, Poland, the Soviet Union, and the Baltic states were told that blood ties to Germany were stronger than their allegiance to their new countries. Potential enemies, such as France and the United Kingdom, were told that Germany had no quarrel with the people of the country, but that their governments were trying to start a war with Germany. All audiences were reminded of the greatness of German cultural, scientific, and military achievements. Until the conclusion of the Battle of Stalingrad on February 4, 1943, German propaganda emphasized the prowess of German arms and the supposed humanity German soldiers had shown to the peoples of occupied territories. Pilots of the Allied bombing fleets were depicted as cowardly murderers, and Americans in particular as gangsters in the style of Al Capone. At the same time, German propaganda sought to alienate Americans and British from each other, and both these Western belligerents from the Soviets. After Stalingrad, the main theme changed to Germany as the sole defender of what they called "Western European culture" against the "Bolshevist hordes". The introduction of the V-1 and V-2 "vengeance weapons" was emphasized to convince Britons of the hopelessness of defeating Germany. On June 23, 1944, the Nazis permitted the Red Cross to visit concentration camp Theresienstadt in order to dispel rumours about the Final Solution to the Jewish question. In reality, Theresienstadt was a transit camp for Jews en route to extermination camps, but in a sophisticated propaganda effort, fake shops and cafés were erected to imply that the Jews lived in relative comfort. The guests enjoyed the performance of a children's opera, Brundibar, written by inmate Hans Krása. The hoax was so successful for the Nazis that they went on to make a propaganda film at Theresienstadt. Shooting of the film began on February 26, 1944. Directed by Kurt Gerron, it was meant to show how well the Jews lived under the "benevolent" protection of the Third Reich. After the shooting, most of the cast, and even the filmmaker himself, were deported to the concentration camp of Auschwitz. Goebbels committed suicide shortly after Hitler on April 30, 1945. In his stead, Hans Fritzsche, who had been head of the Radio Chamber, was tried and acquitted by the Nuremberg war crimes tribunal. Cold Page 9 of 15

War propaganda

May 07, 2015 09:22:18PM MDT

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/Mockingbird4.htm

Cold War propaganda The United States and the Soviet Union both used propaganda extensively during the Cold War. Both sides used film, television, and radio programming to influence their own citizens, each other, and Third World nations. The United States Information Agency operated the Voice of America as an official government station. Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty, which were in part supported by the Central Intelligence Agency, provided grey propaganda in news and entertainment programs to Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union respectively. The Soviet Union's official government station, Radio Moscow, broadcast white propaganda, while Radio Peace and Freedom broadcast grey propaganda. Both sides also broadcast black propaganda programs in periods of special crises. In 1948, the United Kingdom's Foreign Office created the IRD (Information Research Department) which took over from wartime and slightly post-war departments such as the Ministry of Information and dispensed propaganda via various media such as the BBC and publishing. The ideological and border dispute between the Soviet Union and People's Republic of China resulted in a number of cross-border operations. One technique developed during this period was the "backwards transmission," in which the radio program was recorded and played backwards over the air. (This was done so that messages meant to be received by the other government could be heard, while the average listener could not understand the content of the program.) Soviet propaganda appeared in Soviet Union education, as well. Propaganda went so far in school that it sometimes even interfered with learning. When one learned history, one would never learn any history except for Russia's, but even that was not at all valid. There were often lies spread about how life in America and other Western countries was, and how rich the U.S.S.R. was compared to them. Also, the Soviets used classic novels, such as the American favorite Uncle Tom's Cabin to spread communist propaganda. The overall motif and message was twisted to an anti-American message and was fed to the schools. In the Americas, Cuba served as a major source and a target of propaganda from both black and white stations operated by the CIA and Cuban exile groups. Radio Habana Cuba, in turn, broadcast original programming, relayed Radio Moscow, and broadcast The Voice of Vietnam as well as alleged confessions from the crew of the USS Pueblo. One of the most insightful authors of the Cold War was George Orwell, whose novels Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four are virtual textbooks on the use of propaganda. Though not set in the Soviet Union, these books are about totalitarian regimes in which language is constantly corrupted for political purposes. These novels were used for explicit propaganda. The CIA, for example, secretly commissioned an animated film adaptation of Animal Farm in the 1950s with small changes to the original story to suit its own needs. Special kt 11:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC) Afghanistan In the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan, psychological operations tactics were employed to demoralize the Taliban and to win the sympathies of the Afghan population. At least six EC-130E Commando Solo aircraft were used to jam local radio transmissions and transmit replacement propaganda messages. Page 10 ofLeaflets 15

were also dropped throughout Afghanistan, offering rewards for Osama bin07,Laden and May 2015 09:22:18PM MDT

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/Mockingbird4.htm

Leaflets were also dropped throughout Afghanistan, offering rewards for Osama bin Laden and other individuals, portraying Americans as friends of Afghanistan and emphasizing various negative aspects of the Taliban. Another shows a picture of Mohammed Omar in a set of crosshairs with the words "We are watching". Iraq During the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Iraqi Information Minister Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf repeatedly claimed Iraqi forces were decisively winning every battle. Even up to the overthrow of the Iraqi government at Baghdad, he maintained that the United States would soon be defeated, in contradiction with all other media. Due to this, he quickly became a cult figure in the West, and gained recognition on the website WeLoveTheIraqiInformationMinister.com The Iraqis, misled by his propaganda, on the other hand, were shocked when instead Iraq was defeated. In November 2005, various media outlets, including The Chicago Tribune and the Los Angeles Times, alleged that the United States military had manipulated news reported in Iraqi media in an effort to cast a favorable light on its actions while demoralizing the insurgency. Lt. Col. Barry Johnson, a military spokesman in Iraq, said the program is "an important part of countering misinformation in the news by insurgents", while a spokesman for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said the allegations of manipulation were troubling if true. The Department of Defense has confirmed the existence of the program. More recently, The New York Times (see external links below) published an article about how the Pentagon has started to use contractors with little experience in journalism or public relations to plant articles in the Iraqi press. These articles are usually written by US soldiers without attribution or are attributed to a non-existent organization called the "International Information Center." Planting propaganda stories in newspapers was done by both the Allies and Central Powers in the First World War and the Axis and Allies in the Second; this is the latest version of this technique. Techniques of propaganda generation A number of techniques which are based on social psychological research are used to generate propaganda. Many of these same techniques can be found under logical fallacies, since propagandists use arguments that, while sometimes convincing, are not necessarily valid. Some time has been spent analyzing the means by which propaganda messages are transmitted. That work is important but it is clear that information dissemination strategies only become propaganda strategies when coupled with propagandistic messages. Identifying these messages is a necessary prerequisite to study the methods by which those messages are spread. That is why it is essential to have some knowledge of the following techniques for generating propaganda:   Appeal to authority: Appeals to authority cite prominent figures to support a position idea, argument, or course of action. Appeal to fear: Appeals to fear seek to build support by instilling fear in the general population, for example, Joseph Goebbels exploited Theodore Kaufman's Germany Must Perish! to claim that the Allies sought the extermination of the German people. Argumentum ad nauseam: Uses tireless repetition. An idea once repeated enough Page 11 of 15

times, is taken as the truth. Works best when media sources are limited and by Maycontrolled 07, 2015 09:22:18PM MDT

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/Mockingbird4.htm

times, is taken as the truth. Works best when media sources are limited and controlled by the propagator. Bandwagon: Bandwagon and inevitable-victory appeals attempt to persuade the target audience to take the course of action that "everyone else is taking."   Inevitable victory: invites those not already on the bandwagon to join those already on the road to certain victory. Those already or at least partially on the bandwagon are reassured that staying aboard is their best course of action. Join the crowd: This technique reinforces people's natural desire to be on the winning side. This technique is used to convince the audience that a program is an expression of an irresistible mass movement and that it is in their best interest to join. Black-and-White fallacy: Presenting only two choices, with the product or idea being propagated as the better choice. (Eg. You can have an unhealthy, unreliable engine, or you can use Brand X oil) Common man: The "plain folks" or "common man" approach attempts to convince the audience that the propagandist's positions reflect the common sense of the people. It is designed to win the confidence of the audience by communicating in the common manner and style of the target audience. Propagandists use ordinary language and mannerisms (and clothe their message in face-to-face and audiovisual communications) in attempting to identify their point of view with that of the average person. Direct order: This technique hopes to simplify the decision making process. The propagandist uses images and words to tell the audience exactly what actions to take, eliminating any other possible choices. Authority figures can be used to give the order, overlapping it with the Appeal to authority technique, but not necessarily. The Uncle Sam "I want you" image is an example of this technique. Euphoria: The use of an event that generates euphoria or happiness in lieu of spreading more sadness, or using a good event to try to cover up another. Or creating a celebrateable event in the hopes of boosting morale. Euphoria can be used to take one's mind from a worse feeling. i.e. a holiday or parade. Falsifying information: The creation or deletion of information from public records, in the purpose of making a false record of an event or the actions of a person during a court session, or possibly a battle, etc. Pseudoscience is often used in this way. Flag-waving: An attempt to justify an action on the grounds that doing so will make one more patriotic, or in some way benefit a group, country, or idea. The feeling of patriotism which this technique attempts to inspire may diminish or entirely omit one's capability for rational examination of the matter in question. Glittering generalities: Glittering generalities are emotionally appealing words applied to a product or idea, but which present no concrete argument or analysis. A famous example is the campaign slogan "Ford has a better idea!" Intentional vagueness: Generalities are deliberately vague so that the audience may supply its own interpretations. The intention is to move the audience by use of undefined phrases, without analyzing their validity or attempting to determine their reasonableness or application. The intent is to cause people to draw their own interpretations rather than simply being presented with an explicit idea. In trying to "figure out" the propaganda, the audience foregoes judgment of the ideas presented. Their validity, reasonableness and application is not considered.

Page 12 of 15

 

May 07, 2015 09:22:18PM MDT

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/Mockingbird4.htm

  Obtain disapproval or Reductio ad Hitlerum: This technique is used to persuade a target audience to disapprove of an action or idea by suggesting that the idea is popular with groups hated, feared, or held in contempt by the target audience. Thus if a group which supports a certain policy is led to believe that undesirable, subversive, or contemptible people support the same policy, then the members of the group may decide to change their original position. Oversimplification: Favorable generalities are used to provide simple answers to complex social, political, economic, or military problems. Rationalization: Individuals or groups may use favorable generalities to rationalize questionable acts or beliefs. Vague and pleasant phrases are often used to justify such actions or beliefs. Red herring: Presenting data that is irrelevant, then claiming that it validates your argument. Scapegoating: Assigning blame to an individual or group that isn't really responsible, thus alleviating feelings of guilt from responsible parties and/or distracting attention from the need to fix the problem for which blame is being assigned. Slogans: A slogan is a brief, striking phrase that may include labeling and stereotyping. Although slogans may be enlisted to support reasoned ideas, in practice they tend to act only as emotional appeals. Opposing slogans about warfare in Iraq or the Middle East, for example, such as "blood for oil" or "cut and run," are considered by some to have stifled debate. On the other hand, the names of the military campaigns, such as "enduring freedom" or "just cause", may also be regarded to be slogans, devised to prevent free thought on the issues. Stereotyping or Name Calling or Labeling: This technique attempts to arouse prejudices in an audience by labeling the object of the propaganda campaign as something the target audience fears, hates, loathes, or finds undesirable. For instance, reporting on a foreign country or social group may focus on the stereotypical traits that the reader expects, even though they are far from being representative of the whole country or group; such reporting often focuses on the anecdotal.   Testimonial: Testimonials are quotations, in or out of context, especially cited to support or reject a given policy, action, program, or personality. The reputation or the role (expert, respected public figure, etc.) of the individual giving the statement is exploited. The testimonial places the official sanction of a respected person or authority on a propaganda message. This is done in an effort to cause the target audience to identify itself with the authority or to accept the authority's opinions and beliefs as its own. See also, damaging quotation   Transfer: Also known as association, this is a technique of projecting positive or negative qualities (praise or blame) of a person, entity, object, or value (an individual, group, organization, nation, patriotism, etc.) to another in order to make the second more acceptable or to discredit it. It evokes an emotional response, which stimulates the target to identify with recognized authorities. Often highly visual, this technique often utilizes symbols (for example, the Swastika used in Nazi Germany, originally a symbol for health Page 13 of 15

and prosperity) superimposed over other visual images. An example of common use09:22:18PM of May 07, 2015 MDT

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/Mockingbird4.htm

and prosperity) superimposed over other visual images. An example of common use of this technique in America is for the President to be filmed or photographed in front of the American flag. Unstated assumption: This technique is used when the propaganda concept the propagandist want to transmit would seem less credible if explicitly stated. It is instead repeatedly assumed or implied. Virtue words: These are words in the value system of the target audience which tend to produce a positive image when attached to a person or issue. Peace, happiness, security, wise leadership, freedom, etc. are virtue words. See ""Transfer"". See also: doublespeak, meme, cult of personality, spin, demonization, factoid Techniques of propaganda transmission Common media for transmitting propaganda messages include news reports, government reports, historical revision, junk science, books, leaflets, movies, radio, television, and posters. In the case of radio and television, propaganda can exist on news, current-affairs or talk-show segments, as advertising or public-service announce "spots" or as long-running advertorials. The magazine Tricontinental, issued by the Cuban OSPAAAL organization, folds propaganda posters and places one in each copy, allowing a very broad distribution of pro-Fidel Castro propaganda. Ideally a propaganda campaign will follow a strategic transmission pattern to fully indoctrinate a group. This may begin with a simple transmission such as a leaflet dropped from a plane or an advertisement. Generally these messages will contain directions on how to obtain more information, via a web site, hotline, radio program, et cetera. The strategy intends to initiate the individual from information recipient to information seeker through reinforcement, and then from information seeker to opinion leader through indoctrination. A successful propaganda campaign includes this cyclical meme-reproducing process. The Propaganda Model The propaganda model is a theory advanced by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky that alleges systemic biases in the mass media and seeks to explain them in terms of structural economic causes. First presented in their 1988 book Manufacturing Consent: the Political Economy of the Mass Media, the propaganda model views the private media as businesses selling a product — readers and audiences (rather than news) — to other businesses (advertisers). The theory postulates five general classes of "filters" that determine the type of news that is presented in news media. These five are:   1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Ownership of the medium Medium's funding sources Sourcing Flak Anti-communist ideology

The first three (ownership, funding, and sourcing) are generally regarded by the authors as Page 14 ofbeing 15

the most important.

May 07, 2015 09:22:18PM MDT

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/Mockingbird4.htm

being the most important. Although the model was based mainly on the characterization of United States media, Chomsky and Herman believe the theory is equally applicable to any country that shares the basic economic structure and organizing principles which the model postulates as the cause of media biases. After the disintegration of the Soviet Union, Chomsky stated that the new filter replacing communism would be terrorism and Islam.   http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Propaganda

Page 15 of 15

May 07, 2015 09:22:18PM MDT

http://involuntaryservant.blogspot.com/2009/03/bought-and-paid-for-central-bankster.html

The Bought and Paid for Central Bankster-Owned LameStreamMedia and their "Propaganda Matrix"

blogspot.com

Important: Please see my companion piece on how often the MainStreamMedia is caught completely and obviously lying.. often on national tell-a-vision.

My favorite analogy about the LameStreamMedia is that the former Soviet Union was a very poor country. They could only afford 2 state propaganda organs: Pravda and Izvestia. In Russian Pravda means "Truth" and Izvestia is loosely translated as "The News". The running joke in the Soviet Union was: There is no truth in Pravda and there is no news in Izvestia. We are a very wealthy country... We have 6 major propaganda organs.

This article illustrates how the organized crime oligarchy that controls the country and much of the world has been using their almost complete control of virtual everything the average person sees on a given day to weave an artificially-created reality with regard to politics/economics/history when they are not distracting the population with sports & mindless entertainment, corrupting their morals, predicatively programing them, or practicing other propaganda crimes. The first part of the article below offers a number of media ownership charts that detail how a small handful of six corporations own and control, essentially, every major television station, cable network, radio station, magazine publisher, magazine distributor, book publisher, chain book store, theme park, record company, major internet property, movie studio and theater chain. The second part of the article details how the organized crime oligarchy is able to influence control of the content through a handful of organizations that give key journalists in the MainStreamMedia food chain their marching orders and control editorial approval and content. For activists and those wanting to wake up others, we suggest printing out the 2006 Media Ownership Chart and then running it through the printer again while printing the Media Ownership and Bilderberg, CFR, and CIA Operation Mockingbird Control of the Media document on the same page which will then give you one document, with overview, and link to this article that you can share with others.

Download a High Res Printable PDF Version Here

Media Ownership Chart - 2006 but still relevant today Print Over Document with Overview and Link to This Article: Media Ownership and Bilderberg, CFR, and CIA Page 1 ofOperation 6

Mockingbird Control of the Media

Jun 22, 2016 12:26:29AM MDT

http://involuntaryservant.blogspot.com/2009/03/bought-and-paid-for-central-bankster.html

CIA Operation Mockingbird Control of the Media Directions: Print the 2006 Media Ownership Chart PDF 1st, then run that same sheet of paper through the printer again while printing the document: Media Ownership and Bilderberg, CFR, and CIA Operation Mockingbird Control of the Media on the same page to create a one-page overview with link to this article.

Download the Complete Chart in High Res PDF Here.

Download Full Chart in PDF Here.

Download Full Chart Here.

Central Bankster control of the media extends past ownership of the production and distribution mechanisms of the physical infrastructure to control of the content. The main identifiable vehicles for creating/managing/controlling the content of MainStreamMedia are: Operation Mockingbird - A CIA program that was made public during the Church committee hearings in 1975 where it was disclosed that the CIA had hundreds of foreign journalists on the payroll. A quote from the commission: "The CIA currently maintains a network of several hundred foreign individuals around the world who provide intelligence for the CIA and at times attempt to influence opinion through the use of covert propaganda. These individuals provide the CIA with direct access to a large number of newspapers and periodicals, scores of press services and news agencies, radio and television stations, commercial book publishers, and other foreign media outlets." If the CIA was doing something so corrupt, illegal, and unconstitutional in 1975 then it would be naive to think that they aren't still operating the same network today. Resources: PrisonPlanet.com analysis, Wikipedia, Operation Mockingbird - An Overview and History

Page 2 of 6

Jun 22, 2016 12:26:29AM MDT

http://involuntaryservant.blogspot.com/2009/03/bought-and-paid-for-central-bankster.html

The Council on Foreign Relations, Bilderberg, and Trilateral Commission Media Puppets Members of The Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission dominate key positions in America's government, military, industries, media outlets and educational foundations and institutions. The following is a partial list of current CFR members and the positions of influence they hold in society. The CFR's membership is limited to 3,000, and there are only 325 Trilateral Commission members. ________________________________________ BB = Member of the Bilderberg Group (The "Generals") CFR = Member of the Council on Foreign Relations TC = Member of the Trilateral Commission

The LameStreamMedia Deceivers/Traitors/Judas Goats

CBS: Laurence A. Tisch, CEO -- CFR Roswell Gilpatric -- CFR James Houghton -- CFR, TC Henry Schacht -- CFR, TC Dan Rather -- CFR Richard Hottelet -- CFR Frank Stanton -- CFR NBC/RCA: John F. Welch, CEO -- CFR Jane Pfeiffer -- CFR Lester Crystal -- CFR, TC R.W. Sonnenfeidt -- CFR, TC John Petty -- CFR Tom Brokaw -- CFR David Brinkley -- CFR John Chancellor -- CFR Marvin Kalb -- CFR Irving R. Levine -- CFR Herbert Schlosser -- CFR Peter G. Peterson -- CFR John Sawhill -- CFR ABC: Thomas S. Murphy, CEO -- CFR Barbara Walters -- CFR John Connor -- CFR Diane Sawyer -- CFR John Scall -- CFR Public Broadcast Service: Robert Mcneil -- CFR Jim Lehrer -- CFR Page 3 of 6

Jun 22, 2016 12:26:29AM MDT

http://involuntaryservant.blogspot.com/2009/03/bought-and-paid-for-central-bankster.html Robert Mcneil -- CFR

Jim Lehrer -- CFR C. Hunter-Gault -- CFR Hodding Carter III -- CFR Daniel Schorr -- CFR Associated Press: Stanley Swinton -- CFR Harold Anderson -- CFR Katharine Graham -- CFR, TC Reuters: Michael Posner -- CFR Baltimore Sun: Henry Trewhitt -- CFR Washington Times: Arnaud De Borchgrave -- CFR Children's TV Workshop (Sesame Street): Joan Ganz Cooney, Pres. -- CFR Cable News Network (CNN): W. Thomas Johnson, Pres. -- TC Daniel Schorr -- CFR U.S. News & World Report: David Gergen -- TC New York Times Co.: Richard Gelb -- CFR William Scranton -- CFR, TC John F. Akers, Dir. -- CFR Louis V. Gerstner, Jr., Dir. -- CFR George B. Munroe, Dir. -- CFR Donald M. Stewart, Dir. -- CFR Cyrus R. Vance, Dir. -- CFR A.M. Rosenthal -- CFR Seymour Topping -- CFR James Greenfield -- CFR Max Frankel -- CFR Jack Rosenthal -- CFR John Oakes -- CFR Harrison Salisbury -- CFR H.L. Smith -- CFR Steven Rattner -- CFR Richard Burt -- CFR Flora Lewis -- CFR Time, Inc.: Ralph Davidson -- CFR Donal M. Wilson -- CFR Henry Grunwald -- CFR Alexander Heard -- CFR Sol Linowitz -- CFR Thomas Watson, Jr. -- CFR Strobe Talbott -- CFR Newsweek/Washington Post: Katharine Graham -- CFR N.4Deb. Page of 6

Katzenbach -- CFR

Jun 22, 2016 12:26:29AM MDT

http://involuntaryservant.blogspot.com/2009/03/bought-and-paid-for-central-bankster.html

N. Deb. Katzenbach -- CFR Robert Christopher -- CFR Osborne Elliot -- CFR Phillip Geyelin -- CFR Murry Marder -- CFR Maynard Parker -- CFR George Will -- CFR, TC Robert Kaiser -- CFR Meg Greenfield -- CFR Walter Pincus -- CFR Murray Gart -- CFR Peter Osnos -- CFR Don Oberdorfer -- CFR Dow Jones & Co (Wall Street Journal): Richard Wood -- CFR Robert Bartley -- CFR, TC Karen House -- CFR National Review: Wm. F. Buckley, Jr. -- CFR Readers Digest: George V. Grune, CEO -- CFR William G. Bowen, Dir. -- CFR Syndicated Columnists Geogia Anne Geyer -- CFR Ben J. Wattenberg -- CFR Resources: Chart of Bilderberg, Trilateral Commission, and CFR Media/Govt'/Military/Banking/Commercial Domination, What Do We Do About It? Turn off the LameStreamMedia - Turn off their TeeVee programs, take out their bookmarks, delete their RSS, stop listening to their podcasts, stop seeing their movies, don't shop in their book stores, cancel cable TeeVee (but not the self-directed high speed internet :-), cancel their magazines and newspapers, etc. Expose this system of control to others and get them to turn off the LameStreamMedia as well. Find what I call "The Authentic Voices" on the Internet who are exposing the truth http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ - Best Alternative News Aggregator http://www.InfoWars.com - Alex Jones' news site http://www.prisonplanet.tv/- Alex Jones' Documentary Films - Subscribe today! http://www.dollarcollapse.com/ - Best Financial News Aggregator http://www.gata.org/ - Information on the manipulation of the gold market http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/ - Hundreds of prominent skeptics http://www.madcowprod.com - MadCowMorningNews by Independent Journalist Daniel Hopsicker Covers Intelligence Agency Drug Dealing http://www.danielhopsicker.tv - MadCow Videos http://www.involuntaryservant.blogspot.com/ Page 5 of 6

- My humble effort

Jun 22, 2016 12:26:29AM MDT

http://involuntaryservant.blogspot.com/2009/03/bought-and-paid-for-central-bankster.html

http://www.involuntaryservant.blogspot.com/ - My humble effort http://www.youtube.com/user/EtienneBoetie - My humble YouTube Channel

Page 6 of 6

Jun 22, 2016 12:26:29AM MDT

http://www.carlbernstein.com/magazine_cia_and_media.php

Carl Bernstein

carlbernstein.com

THE CIA AND THE MEDIA How Americas Most Powerful News Media Worked Hand in Glove with the Central Intelligence Agency and Why the Church Committee Covered It Up BY CARL BERNSTEIN

After leaving The Washington Post in 1977, Carl Bernstein spent six months looking at the relationship of the CIA and the press during the Cold War years. His 25,000-word cover story, published in Rolling Stone on October 20, 1977, is reprinted below. THE CIA AND THE MEDIA BY CARL BERNSTEIN In 1953, Joseph Alsop, then one of America’s leading syndicated columnists, went to the Philippines to cover an election. He did not go because he was asked to do so by his syndicate. He did not go because he was asked to do so by the newspapers that printed his column. He went at the request of the CIA. Alsop is one of more than 400 American journalists who in the past twenty‑five years have secretly carried out assignments for the Central Intelligence Agency, according to documents on file at CIA headquarters. Some of these journalists’ relationships with the Agency were tacit; some were explicit. There was cooperation, accommodation and overlap. Journalists provided a full range of clandestine services—from simple intelligence gathering to serving as go‑betweens with spies in Communist countries. Reporters shared their notebooks with the CIA. Editors shared their staffs. Some of the journalists were Pulitzer Prize winners, distinguished reporters who considered themselves ambassadors without‑portfolio for their country. Most were less exalted: foreign correspondents who found that their association with the Agency helped their work; stringers and freelancers who were as interested in the derring‑do of the spy business as in filing articles; and, the smallest category, full‑time CIA employees masquerading as journalists abroad. In many instances, CIA documents show, journalists were engaged to perform tasks for the CIA with the consent of the managements of America’s leading news organizations. The history of the CIA’s involvement with the American press continues to be shrouded by an official policy of obfuscation and deception for the following principal reasons: ■ The use of journalists has been among the most productive means of intelligence‑gathering employed by the CIA. Although the Agency has cut back sharply on the use of reporters since 1973 primarily as a result of pressure from the media), some journalist‑operatives are still posted abroad. ■ Further investigation into the matter, CIA officials say, would inevitably reveal a series of embarrassing relationships in the 1950s and 1960s with some of the most powerful organizations and individuals in American journalism. Among the executives who lent their cooperation to the Agency were Williarn Paley of the Columbia Broadcasting System, Henry Luce of Tirne Inc., Arthur Hays Sulzberger of the New York Times, Barry Bingham Sr. of the LouisviIle Courier‑Journal, and James Copley of the Copley News Service. Other organizations which cooperated with the CIA include the American Broadcasting Company, the National Broadcasting Company, the Associated Press, United Press International, Reuters, Hearst Newspapers, Scripps‑Howard, Page 1 of 21

Newsweek magazine, the Mutual Broadcasting System, the Miami Herald and03:34:04AM the old MDT Oct 10, 2016

http://www.carlbernstein.com/magazine_cia_and_media.php

Scripps‑Howard, Newsweek magazine, the Mutual Broadcasting System, the Miami Herald and the old Saturday Evening Post and New York Herald‑Tribune. By far the most valuable of these associations, according to CIA officials, have been with the New York Times, CBS and Time Inc. The CIA’s use of the American news media has been much more extensive than Agency officials have acknowledged publicly or in closed sessions with members of Congress. The general outlines of what happened are indisputable; the specifics are harder to come by. CIA sources hint that a particular journalist was trafficking all over Eastern Europe for the Agency; the journalist says no, he just had lunch with the station chief. CIA sources say flatly that a well‑known ABC correspondent worked for the Agency through 1973; they refuse to identify him. A high‑level CIA official with a prodigious memory says that the New York Times provided cover for about ten CIA operatives between 1950 and 1966; he does not know who they were, or who in the newspaper’s management made the arrangements. The Agency’s special relationships with the so‑called “majors” in publishing and broadcasting enabled the CIA to post some of its most valuable operatives abroad without exposure for more than two decades. In most instances, Agency files show, officials at the highest levels of the CIA usually director or deputy director) dealt personally with a single designated individual in the top management of the cooperating news organization. The aid furnished often took two forms: providing jobs and credentials “journalistic cover” in Agency parlance) for CIA operatives about to be posted in foreign capitals; and lending the Agency the undercover services of reporters already on staff, including some of the best‑known correspondents in the business. In the field, journalists were used to help recruit and handle foreigners as agents; to acquire and evaluate information, and to plant false information with officials of foreign governments. Many signed secrecy agreements, pledging never to divulge anything about their dealings with the Agency; some signed employment contracts., some were assigned case officers and treated with. unusual deference. Others had less structured relationships with the Agency, even though they performed similar tasks: they were briefed by CIA personnel before trips abroad, debriefed afterward, and used as intermediaries with foreign agents. Appropriately, the CIA uses the term “reporting” to describe much of what cooperating journalists did for the Agency. “We would ask them, ‘Will you do us a favor?’”.said a senior CIA official. “‘We understand you’re going to be in Yugoslavia. Have they paved all the streets? Where did you see planes? Were there any signs of military presence? How many Soviets did you see? If you happen to meet a Soviet, get his name and spell it right .... Can you set up a meeting for is? Or relay a message?’” Many CIA officials regarded these helpful journalists as operatives; the journalists tended to see themselves as trusted friends of the Agency who performed occasional favors—usually without pay—in the national interest. “I’m proud they asked me and proud to have done it,” said Joseph Alsop who, like his late brother, columnist Stewart Alsop, undertook clandestine tasks for the Agency. “The notion that a newspaperman doesn’t have a duty to his country is perfect balls.” From the Agency’s perspective, there is nothing untoward in such relationships, and any ethical questions are a matter for the journalistic profession to resolve, not the intelligence community. As Stuart Loory, former Los Angeles Times correspondent, has written in the Columbia Journalism Review: ‘If even one American overseas carrying a press card is a paid informer for the CIA, then all Americans with those credentials are suspect .... If the crisis of confidence faced by the news business—along with the government—is to be overcome, journalists must be willing to focus on themselves the same spotlight they so relentlessly train on others!’ But as Loory also noted: “When it was reported... that newsmen themselves were on the payroll of the CIA, the story caused a brief stir, and then was dropped.” Page 2 of 21

Oct 10, 2016 03:34:04AM MDT

http://www.carlbernstein.com/magazine_cia_and_media.php

During the 1976 investigation of the CIA by the Senate Intelligence Committee, chaired by Senator Frank Church, the dimensions of the Agency’s involvement with the press became apparent to several members of the panel, as well as to two or three investigators on the staff. But top officials of the CIA, including former directors William Colby and George Bush, persuaded the committee to restrict its inquiry into the matter and to deliberately misrepresent the actual scope of the activities in its final report. The multivolurne report contains nine pages in which the use of journalists is discussed in deliberately vague and sometimes misleading terms. It makes no mention of the actual number of journalists who undertook covert tasks for the CIA. Nor does it adequately describe the role played by newspaper and broadcast executives in cooperating with the Agency. THE AGENCY’S DEALINGS WITH THE PRESS BEGAN during the earliest stages of the Cold War. Allen Dulles, who became director of the CIA in 1953, sought to establish a recruiting‑and‑cover capability within America’s most prestigious journalistic institutions. By operating under the guise of accredited news correspondents, Dulles believed, CIA operatives abroad would be accorded a degree of access and freedom of movement unobtainable under almost any other type of cover. American publishers, like so many other corporate and institutional leaders at the time, were willing to commit the resources of their companies to the struggle against “global Communism.” Accordingly, the traditional line separating the American press corps and government was often indistinguishable: rarely was a news agency used to provide cover for CIA operatives abroad without the knowledge and consent of either its principal owner, publisher or senior editor. Thus, contrary to the notion that the CIA insidiously infiltrated the journalistic community, there is ample evidence that America’s leading publishers and news executives allowed themselves and their organizations to become handmaidens to the intelligence services. “Let’s not pick on some poor reporters, for God’s sake,” William Colby exclaimed at one point to the Church committee’s investigators. “Let’s go to the managements. They were witting.”  In all, about twenty‑five news organizations including those listed at the beginning of this article) provided cover for the Agency. In addition to cover capability, Dulles initiated a “debriefing” procedure under which American correspondents returning from abroad routinely emptied their notebooks and offered their impressions to Agency personnel. Such arrangements, continued by Dulles’ successors, to the present day, were made with literally dozens of news organizations. In the 1950s, it was not uncommon for returning reporters to be met at the ship by CIA officers. “There would be these guys from the CIA flashing ID cards and looking like they belonged at the Yale Club,” said Hugh Morrow, a former Saturday Evening Post correspondent who is now press secretary to former vice‑president Nelson Rockefeller. “It got to be so routine that you felt a little miffed if you weren’t asked.” CIA officials almost always refuse to divulge the names of journalists who have cooperated with the Agency. They say it would be unfair to judge these individuals in a context different from the one that spawned the relationships in the first place. “There was a time when it wasn’t considered a crime to serve your government,” said one high‑level CIA official who makes no secret of his bitterness. “This all has to be considered in the context of the morality of the times, rather than against latter‑day standards—and hypocritical standards at that.” Many journalists who covered World War II were close to people in the Office of Strategic Services, the wartime predecessor of the CIA; more important, they were all on the same side. When the war ended and many OSS officials went into the CIA, it was only natural that these relationships would continue. Meanwhile, the first postwar generation of journalists entered the profession; they shared the same political and professional values as their mentors. “You had a gang of people who worked together during World War II and never got over it,” said one Agency official. “They were genuinely motivated and highly susceptible Page 3 of 21

to intrigue and being on the inside. Then in the Fifties and Sixties there was national Octa10, 2016 03:34:04AM MDT

http://www.carlbernstein.com/magazine_cia_and_media.php

susceptible to intrigue and being on the inside. Then in the Fifties and Sixties there was a national consensus about a national threat. The Vietnam War tore everything to pieces—shredded the consensus and threw it in the air.” Another Agency official observed: “Many journalists didn’t give a second thought to associating with the Agency. But there was a point when the ethical issues which most people had submerged finally surfaced. Today, a lot of these guys vehemently deny that they had any relationship with the Agency.” From the outset, the use of journalists was among the CIA’s most sensitive undertakings, with full knowledge restricted to the Director of Central Intelligence and a few of his chosen deputies. Dulles and his successors were fearful of what would happen if a journalist‑operative’s cover was blown, or if details of the Agency’s dealings with the press otherwise became public. As a result, contacts with the heads of news  organizations were normally initiated by Dulles and succeeding Directors of Central Intelligence; by the deputy directors and division chiefs in charge of covert operations—Frank Wisner, Cord Meyer Jr., Richard Bissell, Desmond FitzGerald, Tracy Barnes, Thomas Karamessines and Richard Helms himself a former UPI correspondent); and, occasionally, by others in the CIA hierarchy known to have an unusually close social relationship with a particular publisher or broadcast executive.1 James Angleton, who was recently removed as the Agency’s head of counterintelligence operations, ran a completely independent group of journalist‑operatives who performed sensitive and frequently dangerous assignments; little is known about this group for the simple reason that Angleton deliberately kept only the vaguest of files. The CIA even ran a formal training program in the 1950s to teach its agents to be journalists. Intelligence officers were “taught to make noises like reporters,” explained a high CIA official, and were then placed in major news organizations with help from management. “These were the guys who went through the ranks and were told ‘You’re going to he a journalist,’” the CIA official said. Relatively few of the 400‑some relationships described in Agency files followed that pattern, however; most involved persons who were already bona fide journalists when they began undertaking tasks for the Agency. The Agency’s relationships with journalists, as described in CIA files, include the following general categories: ■ Legitimate, accredited staff members of news organizations—usually reporters. Some were paid; some worked for the Agency on a purely voluntary basis. This group includes many of the best‑known journalists who carried out tasks for the CIA. The files show that the salaries paid to reporters by newspaper and broadcast networks were sometimes supplemented by nominal payments from the CIA, either in the form of retainers, travel expenses or outlays for specific services performed.  Almost all the payments were made in cash. The accredited category also includes photographers, administrative personnel of foreign news bureaus and members of broadcast technical crews.) Two of the Agency’s most valuable personal relationships in the 1960s, according to CIA officials, were with reporters who covered Latin America—Jerry O’Leary of the Washington Star and Hal Hendrix of the Miami News, a Pulitzer Prize winner who became a high official of the International Telephone and Telegraph Corporation. Hendrix was extremely helpful to the Agency in providing information about individuals in Miami’s Cuban exile community. O’Leary was considered a valued asset in Haiti and the Dominican Republic. Agency files contain lengthy reports of both men’s activities on behalf of the CIA. O’Leary maintains that his dealings were limited to the normal give‑and‑take that goes on between reporters abroad and their sources. CIA officials dispute the contention: “There’s no question Jerry reported for us,” said one. “Jerry did assessing and spotting [of prospective agents] but he was better as a reporter Page 4 of 21

for us.” Referring to O’Leary’s denials, the official added: “I don’t know what in he’s Octthe 10, world 2016 03:34:04AM MDT

http://www.carlbernstein.com/magazine_cia_and_media.php

reporter for us.” Referring to O’Leary’s denials, the official added: “I don’t know what in the world he’s worried about unless he’s wearing that mantle of integrity the Senate put on you journalists.” O’Leary attributes the difference of opinion to semantics. “I might call them up and say something like, ‘Papa Doc has the clap, did you know that?’ and they’d put it in the file. I don’t consider that reporting for them.... it’s useful to be friendly to them and, generally, I felt friendly to them. But I think they were more helpful to me than I was to them.” O’Leary took particular exception to being described in the same context as Hendrix. “Hal was really doing work for them,” said O’Leary. “I’m still with the Star. He ended up at ITT.” Hendrix could not be reached for comment. According to Agency officials, neither Hendrix nor O’Leary was paid by the CIA. ■ Stringers2 and freelancers. Most were payrolled by the Agency under standard contractual terms. Their journalistic credentials were often supplied by cooperating news organizations. some filed news stories; others reported only for the CIA. On some occasions, news organizations were not informed by the CIA that their stringers were also working for the Agency. ■ Employees of so‑called CIA “proprietaries.” During the past twenty‑five years, the Agency has secretly bankrolled numerous foreign press services, periodicals and newspapers—both English and foreign language—which provided excellent cover for CIA operatives. One such publication was the Rome Daily American, forty percent of which was owned by the CIA until the 1970s. The Daily American went out of business this year, ■ Editors, publishers and broadcast network executives. The CIAs relationship with most news executives differed fundamentally from those with working reporters and stringers, who were much more subject to direction from the Agency. A few executives—Arthur Hays Sulzberger of the New York Times among them—signed secrecy agreements. But such formal understandings were rare: relationships between Agency officials and media executives were usually social—”The P and Q Street axis in Georgetown,” said one source. “You don’t tell Wilharn Paley to sign a piece of paper saying he won’t fink.” ■ Columnists and commentators. There are perhaps a dozen well known columnists and broadcast commentators whose relationships with the CIA go far beyond those normally maintained between reporters and their sources. They are referred to at the Agency as “known assets” and can be counted on to perform a variety of undercover tasks; they are considered receptive to the Agency’s point of view on various subjects. Three of the most widely read columnists who maintained such ties with the Agency are C.L. Sulzberger of the New York Times, Joseph Alsop, and the late Stewart Alsop, whose column appeared in the New York Herald‑Tribune, the Saturday Evening Post and Newsweek. CIA files contain reports of specific tasks all three undertook. Sulzberger is still regarded as an active asset by the Agency. According to a senior CIA official, “Young Cy Sulzberger had some uses.... He signed a secrecy agreement because we gave him classified information.... There was sharing, give and take. We’d say, ‘Wed like to know this; if we tell you this will it help you get access to so‑and‑so?’ Because of his access in Europe he had an Open Sesame. We’d ask him to just report: ‘What did so‑and‑so say, what did he look like, is he healthy?’ He was very eager, he loved to cooperate.” On one occasion, according to several CIA officials, Sulzberger was given a briefing paper by the Agency which ran almost verbatim under the columnist’s byline in the Times. “Cycame out and said, ‘I’m thinking of doing a piece, can you give me some background?’” a CIA officer said. “We gave it to Cy as a background piece and Cy gave it to the printers and put his name on it.” Sulzberger denies that any incident occurred. “A lot of baloney,” he said. Sulzberger claims that he was never formally “tasked” by the Agency and that he “would never get caught near the spook business. My relations were totally informal—I had a goodmany friends,” he said. “I’m sure they consider me an asset. They can ask me questions. They find out you’re going to Slobovia and they say, Page 5 of‘Can 21

we talk to you when you get back?’ ... Or they’ll want to know if the head of the Ruritanian Oct 10, 2016 03:34:04AM MDT

http://www.carlbernstein.com/magazine_cia_and_media.php

say, ‘Can we talk to you when you get back?’ ... Or they’ll want to know if the head of the Ruritanian government is suffering from psoriasis. But I never took an assignment from one of those guys.... I’ve known Wisner well, and Helms and even McCone [former CIA director John McCone] I used to play golf with. But they’d have had to he awfully subtle to have used me. Sulzberger says he was asked to sign the secrecy agreement in the 1950s. “A guy came around and said, ‘You are a responsible newsman and we need you to sign this if we are going to show you anything classified.’ I said I didn’t want to get entangled and told them, ‘Go to my uncle [Arthur Hays Sulzberger, then publisher of the New York Times] and if he says to sign it I will.’” His uncle subsequently signed such an agreement, Sulzberger said, and he thinks he did too, though he is unsure. “I don’t know, twenty‑some years is a long time.” He described the whole question as “a bubble in a bathtub.” Stewart Alsop’s relationship with the Agency was much more extensive than Sulzberger’s. One official who served at the highest levels in the CIA said flatly: “Stew Alsop was a CIA agent.” An equally senior official refused to define Alsop’s relationship with the Agency except to say it was a formal one. Other sources said that Alsop was particularly helpful to the Agency in discussions with, officials of foreign governments—asking questions to which the CIA was seeking answers, planting misinformation advantageous to American policy, assessing opportunities for CIA recruitment of well‑placed foreigners. “Absolute nonsense,” said Joseph Alsop of the notion that his brother was a CIA agent. “I was closer to the Agency than Stew was, though Stew was very close. I dare say he did perform some tasks—he just did the correct thing as an American.... The Founding Fathers [of the CIA] were close personal friends of ours. Dick Bissell [former CIA deputy director] was my oldest friend, from childhood. It was a social thing, my dear fellow. I never received a dollar, I never signed a secrecy agreement. I didn’t have to.... I’ve done things for them when I thought they were the right thing to do. I call it doing my duty as a citizen. Alsop is willing to discuss on the record only two of the tasks he undertook: a visit to Laos in 1952 at the behest of Frank Wisner, who felt other American reporters were using anti‑American sources about uprisings there; and a visit to the Phillipines in 1953 when the CIA thought his presence there might affect the outcome of an election. “Des FitzGerald urged me to go,” Alsop recalled. “It would be less likely that the election could be stolen [by the opponents of Ramon Magsaysay] if the eyes of the world were on them. I stayed with the ambassador and wrote about what happened.” Alsop maintains that he was never manipulated by the Agency. “You can’t get entangled so they have leverage on you,” he said. “But what I wrote was true. My view was to get the facts. If someone in the Agency was wrong, I stopped talking to them—they’d given me phony goods.” On one occasion, Alsop said, Richard Helms authorized the head of the Agency’s analytical branch to provide Alsop with information on Soviet military presence along the Chinese border. “The analytical side of the Agency had been dead wrong about the war in Vietnam—they thought it couldn’t be won,” said Alsop. “And they were wrong on the Soviet buildup. I stopped talking to them.” Today, he says, “People in our business would be outraged at the kinds of suggestions that were made to me. They shouldn’t be. The CIA did not open itself at all to people it did not trust. Stew and I were trusted, and I’m proud of it.” MURKY DETAILS OF CIA RELATIONSHIPS WITH INDIVIDUALS and news organizations began trickling out in 1973 when it was first disclosed that the CIA had, on occasion, employed journalists. Those reports, combined with new information, serve as casebook studies of the Agency’s use of journalists for intelligence purposes. They include: ■ The New York Times. The Agency’s relationship with the Times was by far its most valuable among newspapers, according to CIA officials. From 1950 to 1966, about ten CIA employees were provided Times Page 6 of 21cover

under arrangements approved by the newspaper’s late publisher, ArthurOct Hays Sulzberger. 10, 2016 03:34:04AM MDT

http://www.carlbernstein.com/magazine_cia_and_media.php

Times cover under arrangements approved by the newspaper’s late publisher, Arthur Hays Sulzberger. The cover arrangements were part of a general Times policy—set by Sulzberger—to provide assistance to the CIA whenever possible. Sulzberger was especially close to Allen Dulles. “At that level of contact it was the mighty talking to the mighty,” said a high‑level CIA official who was present at some of the discussions. “There was an agreement in principle that, yes indeed, we would help each other. The question of cover came up on several occasions.  It was agreed that the actual arrangements would be handled by subordinates.... The mighty didn’t want to know the specifics; they wanted plausible deniability. A senior CIA official who reviewed a portion of the Agency’s files on journalists for two hours onSeptember 15th, 1977, said he found documentation of five instances in which the Times had provided cover for CIA employees between 1954 and 1962. In each instance he said, the arrangements were handled by executives of the Times; the documents all contained standard Agency language “showing that this had been checked out at higher levels of the New York Times,” said the official. The documents did not mention Sulzberger’s name, however—only those of subordinates whom the official refused to identify. The CIA employees who received Times credentials posed as stringers for the paper abroad and worked as members of clerical staffs in the Times’ foreign bureaus. Most were American; two or three were foreigners. CIA officials cite two reasons why the Agency’s working relationship with the Times was closer and more extensive than with any other paper: the fact that the Times maintained the largest foreign news operation in American daily journalism; and the close personal ties between the men who ran both institutions. Sulzberger informed a number of reporters and editors of his general policy of cooperation with the Agency. “We were in touch with them—they’d talk to us and some cooperated,” said a CIA official. The cooperation usually involved passing on information and “spotting” prospective agents among foreigners. Arthur Hays Sulzberger signed a secrecy agreement with the CIA in the 1950s, according to CIA officials—a fact confirmed by his nephew, C.L. Sulzberger. However, there are varying interpretations of the purpose of the agreement: C.L. Sulzberger says it represented nothing more than a pledge not to disclose classified information made available to the publisher. That contention is supported by some Agency officials. Others in the Agency maintain that the agreement represented a pledge never to reveal any of the Times’ dealings with the CIA, especially those involving cover. And there are those who note that, because all cover arrangements are classified, a secrecy agreement would automatically apply to them. Attempts to find out which individuals in the Times organization made the actual arrangements for providing credentials to CIA personnel have been unsuccessful. In a letter to reporter Stuart Loory in 1974, Turner Cadedge, managing editor of the Times from 1951 to 1964, wrote that approaches by the CIA had been rebuffed by the newspaper. “I knew nothing about any involvement with the CIA... of any of our foreign correspondents on the New York Times. I heard many times of overtures to our men by the CIA, seeking to use their privileges, contacts, immunities and, shall we say, superior intelligence in the sordid business of spying and informing. If any one of them succumbed to the blandishments or cash offers, I was not aware of it. Repeatedly, the CIA and other hush‑hush agencies sought to make arrangements for ‘cooperation’ even with Times management, especially during or soon after World War II, but we always resisted. Our motive was to protect our credibility.”

According Page 7 of 21

to Wayne Phillips, a former Timesreporter, the CIA invoked Arthur Hays Sulzberger’s name Oct 10, 2016 03:34:04AM MDT

http://www.carlbernstein.com/magazine_cia_and_media.php

According to Wayne Phillips, a former Timesreporter, the CIA invoked Arthur Hays Sulzberger’s name when it tried to recruit him as an undercover operative in 1952 while he was studying at Columbia University’s Russian Institute. Phillips said an Agency official told him that the CIA had “a working arrangement” with the publisher in which other reporters abroad had been placed on the Agency’s payroll. Phillips, who remained at the Times until 1961, later obtained CIA documents under the Freedom of Information Act which show that the Agency intended to develop him as a clandestine “asset” for use abroad. On January 31st, 1976, the Times carried a brief story describing the ClAs attempt to recruit Phillips. It quoted Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, the present publisher, as follows: “I never heard of the Times being approached, either in my capacity as publisher or as the son of the late Mr. Sulzberger.” The Times story, written by John M. Crewdson, also reported that Arthur Hays Sulzberger told an unnamed former correspondent that he might he approached by the CIA after arriving at a new post abroad. Sulzberger told him that he was not “under any obligation to agree,” the story said and that the publisher himself would be “happier” if he refused to cooperate. “But he left it sort of up to me,” the Times quoted its former reporter as saying. “The message was if I really wanted to do that, okay, but he didn’t think it appropriate for a Times correspondent” C.L. Sulzberger, in a telephone interview, said he had no knowledge of any CIA personnel using Times cover or of reporters for the paper working actively for the Agency. He was the paper’s chief of foreign service from 1944 to 1954 and expressed doubt that his uncle would have approved such arrangements. More typical of the late publisher, said  Sulzberger, was a promise made to Allen Dulles’ brother, John Foster, then secretary of state, that no Times staff member would be permitted to accept an invitation to visit the People’s Republic of China without John Foster Dulles’ consent. Such an invitation was extended to the publisher’s nephew in the 1950s; Arthur Sulzberger forbade him to accept it. “It was seventeen years before another Times correspondent was invited,” C.L. Sulzberger recalled. ■ The Columbia Broadcasting System. CBS was unquestionably the CIAs most valuable broadcasting asset. CBS President William Paley and Allen Dulles enjoyed an easy working and social relationship. Over the years, the network provided cover for CIA employees, including at least one well‑known foreign correspondent and several stringers; it supplied outtakes of newsfilm to the CIA3; established a formal channel of communication between the Washington bureau chief and the Agency; gave the Agency access to the CBS newsfilm library; and allowed reports by CBS correspondents to the Washington and New York newsrooms to be routinely monitored by the CIA. Once a year during the 1950s and early 1960s, CBS correspondents joined the CIA hierarchy for private dinners and briefings. The details of the CBS‑CIA arrangements were worked out by subordinates of both Dulles and Paley. “The head of the company doesn’t want to know the fine points, nor does the director,” said a CIA official. “Both designate aides to work that out. It keeps them above the battle.” Dr. Frank Stanton, for 25 years president of the network, was aware of the general arrangements Paley made with Dulles—including those for cover, according to CIA officials. Stanton, in an interview last year, said he could not recall any cover arrangements.) But Paley’s designated contact for the Agency was Sig Mickelson, president of CBS News between 1954 and 1961. On one occasion, Mickelson has said, he complained to Stanton about having to use a pay telephone to call the CIA, and Stanton suggested he install a private line, bypassing the CBS switchboard, for the purpose. According to Mickelson, he did so. Mickelson is now president of Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty, both of which were associated with the CIA for many years. In 1976, CBS News president Richard Salant ordered an in‑house investigation of the network's dealings with the CIA. Some of its findings were first disclosed by Robert Scheer in the Los Angeles Times.) But Salant's Page 8 of 21

report makes no mention of some of his own dealings with the Agency, whichOct continued into the MDT 10, 2016 03:34:04AM

http://www.carlbernstein.com/magazine_cia_and_media.php

Salant's report makes no mention of some of his own dealings with the Agency, which continued into the 1970s. Many details about the CBS‑CIA relationship were found in Mickelson's files by two investigators for Salant. Among the documents they found was a September 13th, 1957, memo to Mickelson fromTed Koop, CBS News bureau chief  in Washington from 1948 to 1961. It describes a phone call to Koop from Colonel Stanley Grogan of the CIA: "Grogan phoned to say that Reeves [J. B. Love Reeves, another CIA official] is going to New York to be in charge of the CIA contact office there and will call to see you and some of your confreres. Grogan says normal activities will continue to channel through the Washington office of CBS News." The report to Salant also states: "Further investigation of Mickelson's files reveals some details of the relationship between the CIA and CBS News.... Two key administrators of this relationship were Mickelson and Koop.... The main activity appeared to be the delivery of CBS newsfilm to the CIA.... In addition there is evidence that, during 1964 to 1971, film material, including some outtakes, were supplied by the CBS Newsfilm Library to the CIA through and at the direction of Mr. Koop4.... Notes in Mr. Mickelson's files indicate that the CIA used CBS films for training... All of the above Mickelson activities were handled on a confidential basis without mentioning the words Central Intelligence Agency. The films were sent to individuals at post‑office box numbers and were paid for by individual, nor government, checks. ..." Mickelson also regularly sent the CIA an internal CBS newsletter, according to the report. Salant's investigation led him to conclude that Frank Kearns, a CBS‑TV reporter from 1958 to 1971, "was a CIA guy who got on the payroll somehow through a CIA contact with somebody at CBS." Kearns and Austin Goodrich, a CBS stringer, were undercover CIA employees, hired under arrangements approved by Paley. Last year a spokesman for Paley denied a report by former CBS correspondent Daniel Schorr that Mickelson and he had discussed Goodrich's CIA status during a meeting with two Agency representatives in 1954. The spokesman claimed Paley had no knowledge that Goodrich had worked for the CIA. "When I moved into the job I was told by Paley that there was an ongoing relationship with the CIA," Mickelson said in a recent interview. "He introduced me to two agents who he said would keep in touch. We all discussed the Goodrich situation and film arrangements. I assumed this was a normal relationship at the time. This was at the height of the Cold War and I assumed the communications media were cooperating—though the Goodrich matter was compromising. At the headquarters of CBS News in New York, Paley's cooperation with the CIA is taken for granted by many news executives and reporters, despite tile denials. Paley, 76, was not interviewed by Salant's investigators. "It wouldn't do any good," said one CBS executive. "It is the single subject about which his memory has failed." Salant discussed his own contacts with the CIA, and the fact he continued many of his predecessor's practices, in an interview with this reporter last year. The contacts, he said, began in February 1961, "when I got a phone call from a CIA man who said he had a working relationship with Sig Mickelson. The man said, 'Your bosses know all about it.'"  According to Salant, the CIA representative asked that CBS continue to supply the Agency with unedited newstapes and make its correspondents available for debriefingby Agency officials. Said Salant: "I said no on talking to the reporters, and let them see broadcast tapes, but no outtakes.  This went on for a number of years—into the early Seventies." In 1964 and 1965, Salant served on a super-secret CIA task force which explored methods of beaming American propaganda broadcasts to the People's Republic of China. The other members of the four‑man study team were Zbigniew Brzezinski, then a professor at Columbia University; William Griffith, then professor of political science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology., and John Haves, then vice‑president of the Washington Post Company for radio‑TV5. The principal government officials associated with the project were Cord Meyer of the CIA; McGeorge Bundy, then special to the MDT Page 9 of 21 Oct assistant 10, 2016 03:34:04AM

http://www.carlbernstein.com/magazine_cia_and_media.php vice‑president of the Washington Post Company

for radio‑TV5. The principal government officials associated with the project were Cord Meyer of the CIA; McGeorge Bundy, then special assistant to the president for national security; Leonard Marks, then director of the USIA; and Bill Moyers, then special assistant to President Lyndon Johnson and now a CBS correspondent. Salant's involvement in the project began with a call from Leonard Marks, "who told me the White House wanted to form a committee of four people to make a study of U.S. overseas broadcasts behind the Iron Curtain." When Salant arrived in Washington for the first meeting he was told that the project was CIA sponsored. "Its purpose," he said, "was to determine how best to set up shortwave broadcasts into Red China." Accompanied by a CIA officer named Paul Henzie, the committee of four subsequently traveled around the world inspecting facilities run by Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty both CIA‑run operations at the time), the Voice of America and Armed Forces Radio. After more than a year of study, they submitted a report to Moyers recommending that the government establish a broadcast service, run by the Voice of America, to be beamed at the People's Republic of China. Salant has served two tours as head of CBS News, from 1961‑64 and 1966‑present. At the time of the China project he was a CBS corporate executive.) ■ Time and Newsweek magazines. According to CIA and Senate sources, Agency files contain written agreements with former foreign correspondents and stringers for both the weekly news magazines.  The same sources refused to say whether the CIA has ended all its associations with individuals who work for the two publications. Allen Dulles often interceded with his good friend, the late Henry Luce, founder of Time and Life magazines, who readily allowed certain members of his staff to work for the Agency and agreed to provide jobs and credentials for other CIA operatives who lacked journalistic experience. For many years, Luce's personal emissary to the CIA was C.D. Jackson, a Time Inc., vice‑president who was publisher of Life magazine from 1960 until his death in 1964.While a Time executive, Jackson coauthored a CIA‑sponsored study recommending the reorganization of the American intelligence services in the early 1950s. Jackson, whose Time‑Life service was interrupted by a one‑year White House tour as an assistant to President Dwight Eisenhower, approved specific arrangements for providing CIA employees with Time‑Life cover. Some of these arrangements were made with the knowledge of Luce's wife, Clare Boothe. Other arrangements for Time cover, according to CIA officials including those who dealt with Luce), were made with the knowledge of Hedley Donovan, now editor‑in‑chief of Time Inc. Donovan, who took over editorial direction of all Time Inc. publications in 1959, denied in a telephone interview that he knew of any such arrangements. "I was never approached and I'd be amazed if Luce approved such arrangements," Donovan said. "Luce had a very scrupulous regard for the difference between journalism and government." In the 1950s and early 1960s, Time magazine's foreign correspondents attended CIA "briefing" dinners similar to those the CIA held for CBS. And Luce, according to CIA officials, made it a regular practice to brief Dulles or other high Agency officials when he returned from his frequent trips abroad. Luce and the men who ran his magazines in the 1950s and 1960s encouraged their foreign correspondents to provide help to the CIA, particularly information that might be useful to the Agency for intelligence purposes or recruiting foreigners. At Newsweek, Agency sources reported, the CIA engaged the services of' several foreign correspondents and stringers under arrangements approved by senior editors at the magazine. Newsweek's stringer in Rome in the mid‑Fifties made little secret of the fact that he worked for the CIA. Malcolm Muir, Newsweek's editor from its founding in 1937 until its sale to the Washington Post Company in 1961, said in a recent interview that his dealings with the CIA were limited to private briefings he gave Allen Dulles after trips abroad and arrangements he approved for regular debriefing of Newsweek correspondents by the Agency.

He10said Page of 21that

he had never provided cover for CIA operatives, but that others high in the OctNewsweek 10, 2016 03:34:04AM MDT

http://www.carlbernstein.com/magazine_cia_and_media.php

He said that he had never provided cover for CIA operatives, but that others high in the Newsweek organization might have done so without his knowledge. "I would have thought there might have been stringers who were agents, but I didn't know who they were," said Muir. "I do think in those days the CIA kept pretty close touch with all responsible reporters. Whenever I heard something that I thought might be of interest to Allen Dulles, I'd call him up.... At one point he appointed one of his CIA men to keep in regular contact with our reporters, a chap that I knew but whose name I can't remember. I had a number of friends in Alien Dulles' organization." Muir said that Harry Kern, Newsweek's foreign editor from 1945 until 1956, and Ernest K. Lindley, the magazine's Washington bureau chief during the same period "regularly checked in with various fellows in the CIA." "To the best of my knowledge." said Kern, "nobody at Newsweek worked for the CIA... The informal relationship was there. Why have anybody sign anything? What we knew we told them [the CIA] and the State Department.... When I went to Washington, I would talk to Foster or Allen Dulles about what was going on. ... We thought it was admirable at the time. We were all on the same side." CIA officials say that Kern's dealings with the Agency were extensive. In 1956, he left Newsweek to run Foreign Reports, a Washington‑based newsletter whose subscribers Kern refuses to identify. Ernest Lindley, who remained at Newsweek until 1961, said in a recent interview that he regularly consulted with Dulles and other high CIA officials before going abroad and briefed them upon his return. "Allen was very helpful to me and I tried to reciprocate when I could," he said. "I'd give him my impressions of people I'd met overseas. Once or twice he asked me to brief a large group of intelligence people; when I came back from the Asian‑African conference in 1955, for example; they mainly wanted to know about various people." As Washington bureau chief, Lindley said he learned from Malcolm Muir that the magazine's stringer in southeastern Europe was a CIA contract employee—given credentials under arrangements worked out with the management. "I remember it came up—whether it was a good idea to keep this person from the Agency; eventually it was decided to discontinue the association," Lindley said. When Newsweek waspurchased by the Washington Post Company, publisher Philip L. Graham was informed by Agency officials that the CIA occasionally used the magazine for cover purposes, according to CIA sources. "It was widely known that Phil Graham was somebody you could get help from," said a former deputy director of the Agency. "Frank Wisner dealt with him." Wisner, deputy director of the CIA from 1950 until shortly before his suicide in 1965, was the Agency's premier orchestrator of "black" operations, including many in which journalists were involved. Wisner liked to boast of his "mighty Wurlitzer," a wondrous propaganda instrument he built, and played, with help from the press.) Phil Graham was probably Wisner's closest friend. But Graharn, who committed suicide in 1963, apparently knew little of the specifics of any cover arrangements with Newsweek, CIA sources said. In 1965‑66, an accredited Newsweek stringer in the Far East was in fact a CIA contract employee earning an annual salary of $10,000 from the Agency, according to Robert T. Wood, then a CIA officer in the Hong Kong station. Some, Newsweek correspondents and stringers continued to maintain covert ties with the Agency into the 1970s, CIA sources said. Information about Agency dealings with the Washington Post newspaper is extremely sketchy. According to CIA officials, some Post stringers have been CIA employees, but these officials say they do not know if anyone in the Post management was aware of the arrangements. All editors‑in‑chief and managing editors of the Post since 1950 say they knew of no formal Agency relationship Page 11 of 21

with either stringers or members of the Post staff. “If anything was done itOct was by Phil MDT 10,done 2016 03:34:04AM

All editors‑in‑chief and managing editors of the http://www.carlbernstein.com/magazine_cia_and_media.php

Post since 1950 say they knew of no formal Agency

relationship with either stringers or members of the Post staff. “If anything was done it was done by Phil without our knowledge,” said one. Agency officials, meanwhile, make no claim that Post staff members have had covert affiliations with the Agency while working for the paper.6 Katharine Graham, Philip Graham’s widow and the current publisher of the Post, says she has never been informed of any CIA relationships with either Post or Newsweek personnel. In November of 1973, Mrs. Graham called William Colby and asked if any Post stringers or staff members were associated with the CIA. Colby assured her that no staff members were employed by the Agency but refused to discuss the question of stringers. ■ The Louisville Courier‑Journal. From December 1964 until March 1965, a CIA undercover operative named Robert H. Campbell worked on the Courier‑Journal. According to high‑level CIA sources, Campbell was hired by the paper under arrangements the Agency made with Norman E. Isaacs, then executive editor of the Courier‑Journal. Barry Bingham Sr., then publisher of the paper, also had knowledge of the arrangements, the sources said. Both Isaacs and Bingham have denied knowing that Campbell was an intelligence agent when he was hired. The complex saga of Campbell’s hiring was first revealed in a Courier‑Journal story written by James R Herzog on March 27th, 1976, during the Senate committee’s investigation, Herzog’s account began: “When 28‑year‑old Robert H. Campbell was hired as a Courier‑Journal reporter in December 1964, he couldn’t type and knew little about news writing.” The account then quoted the paper’s former managing editor as saying that Isaacs told him that Campbell was hired as a result of a CIA request: “Norman said, when he was in Washington [in 1964], he had been called to lunch with some friend of his who was with the CIA [and that] he wanted to send this young fellow down to get him a little knowledge of newspapering.” All aspects of Campbell’s hiring were highly unusual. No effort had been made to check his credentials, and his employment records contained the following two notations: “Isaacs has files of correspondence and investigation of this man”; and, “Hired for temporary work—no reference checks completed or needed.” The level of Campbell’s journalistic abilities apparently remained consistent during his stint at the paper, “The stuff that Campbell turned in was almost unreadable,” said a former assistant city editor. One of Campbell’s major reportorial projects was a feature about wooden Indians. It was never published. During his tenure at the paper, Campbell frequented a bar a few steps from the office where, on occasion, he reportedly confided to fellow drinkers that he was a CIA employee. According to CIA sources, Campbell’s tour at the Courier‑Journal was arranged to provide him with a record of journalistic experience that would enhance the plausibility of future reportorial cover and teach him something about the newspaper business. The Courier‑Journal’s investigation also turned up the fact that before coming to Louisville he had worked briefly for the Hornell, New York, Evening Tribune, published by Freedom News, Inc. CIA sources said the Agency had made arrangements with that paper’s management to employ Campbell.7 At the Courier‑Journal, Campbell was hired under arrangements made with Isaacs and approved by Bingham, said CIA and Senate sources. “We paid the Courier‑Journal so they could pay his salary,” said an Agency official who was involved in the transaction. Responding by letter to these assertions, Isaacs, who left Louisville to become president and publisher of the Wilmington Delaware) News & Journal, said: “All I can do is repeat the simple truth—that never, under any circumstances, or at any time, have I ever knowingly hired a government agent. I’ve also tried to dredge my memory, but Campbell’s hiring meant so little to me that nothing emerges.... None of this is to say that I couldn’t have been ‘had.’”.Barry Bingham Sr., said last year in a telephone interview that he had no specific memory of Campbell’s hiring and denied that knew Page 12 he of 21

of any arrangements between the newspaper’s management and the CIA. CIA OctHowever, 10, 2016 03:34:04AM MDT

http://www.carlbernstein.com/magazine_cia_and_media.php

that he knew of any arrangements between the newspaper’s management and the CIA. However, CIA officials said that the Courier‑Journal, through contacts with Bingham, provided other unspecified assistance to the Agency in the 1950s and 1960s. The Courier‑Journal’s detailed, front‑page account of Campbell’s hiring was initiated by Barry Bingham Jr., who succeeded his father as editor and publisher of the paper in 1971. The article is the only major piece of self‑investigation by a newspaper that has appeared on this subject.8 ■ The American Broadcasting Company and the National Broadcasting Company. According to CIA officials, ABC continued to provide cover for some CIA operatives through the 1960s. One was Sam Jaffe who CIA officials said performed clandestine tasks for the Agency. Jaffe has acknowledged only providing the CIA with information. In addition, another well‑known network correspondent performed covert tasks for the Agency, said CIA sources. At the time of the Senate bearings, Agency officials serving at the highest levels refused to say whether the CIA was still maintaining active relationships with members of the ABC‑News organization. All cover arrangements were made with the knowledge off ABC executives, the sources said. These same sources professed to know few specifies about the Agency’s relationships with NBC, except that several foreign correspondents of the network undertook some assignments for the Agency in the 1950s and 1960s. “It was a thing people did then,” said Richard Wald, president of NBC News since 1973. “I wouldn’t be surprised if people here—including some of the correspondents in those days—had connections with the Agency.” ■ The Copley Press, and its subsidiary, the Copley News Service. This relationship, first disclosed publicly by reporters Joe Trento and Dave Roman in Penthouse magazine, is said by CIA officials to have been among the Agency’s most productive in terms of getting “outside” cover for its employees. Copley owns nine newspapers in California and Illinois—among them the San Diego Union and Evening Tribune. The Trento‑Roman account, which was financed by a grant from the Fund for Investigative Journalism, asserted that at least twenty‑three Copley News Service employees performed work for the CIA. “The Agency’s involvement with the Copley organization is so extensive that it’s almost impossible to sort out,” said a CIA official who was asked about the relationship late in 1976. Other Agency officials said then that James S. Copley, the chain’s owner until his death in 1973, personally made most of the cover arrangements with the CIA. According to Trento and Roman, Copley personally volunteered his news service to then‑president Eisenhower to act as “the eyes and ears” against “the Communist threat in Latin and Central America” for “our intelligence services.”  James Copley was also the guiding hand behind the Inter‑American Press Association, a CIA‑funded organization with heavy membership among right‑wing Latin American newspaper editors. ■ Other major news organizations. According to Agency officials, CIA files document additional cover arrangements with the following news‑gathering organizations, among others: the New York Herald‑Tribune, the Saturday‑Evening Post, Scripps‑Howard Newspapers, Hearst Newspapers Seymour K. Freidin, Hearst’s current London bureau chief and a former  Herald‑Tribune editor and correspondent, has been identified as a CIA operative by Agency sources), Associated Press,9 United Press International, the Mutual Broadcasting System, Reuters and the Miami Herald. Cover arrangements with the Herald, according to CIA officials, were unusual in that they were made “on the ground by the CIA station in Miami, not from CIA headquarters. “And that’s just a small part of the list,” in the words of one official who served in the CIA hierarchy. Like many sources, this official said that the only way to end the uncertainties about aid furnished the Agency by journalists Page 13 of 21

is to disclose the contents of the CIA files—a course opposed by almost allOct of 10, the2016 thirty‑five 03:34:04AM MDT

http://www.carlbernstein.com/magazine_cia_and_media.php

journalists is to disclose the contents of the CIA files—a course opposed by almost all of the thirty‑five present and former CIA officials interviewed over the course of a year. COLBY CUTS HIS LOSSES THE CIA’S USE OF JOURNALISTS CONTINUED VIRTUALLY unabated until 1973 when, in response to public disclosure that the Agency had secretly employed American reporters, William Colby began scaling down the program. In his public statements, Colby conveyed the impression that the use of journalists had been minimal and of limited importance to the Agency. He then initiated a series of moves intended to convince the press, Congress and the public that the CIA had gotten out of the news business. But according to Agency officials, Colby had in fact thrown a protective net around his valuable intelligence in the journalistic community. He ordered his deputies to maintain Agency ties with its best journalist contacts while severing formal relationships with many regarded as inactive, relatively unproductive or only marginally important. In reviewing Agency files to comply with Colby’s directive, officials found that many journalists had not performed useful functions for the CIA in years. Such relationships, perhaps as many as a hundred, were terminated between 1973 and 1976. Meanwhile, important CIA operatives who had been placed on the staffs of some major newspaper and broadcast outlets were told to resign and become stringers or freelancers, thus enabling Colby to assure concerned editors that members of their staffs were not CIA employees. Colby also feared that some valuable stringer‑operatives might find their covers blown if scrutiny of the Agency’s ties with journalists continued. Some of these individuals were reassigned to jobs on so‑called proprietary publications—foreign periodicals and broadcast outlets secretly funded and staffed by the CIA. Other journalists who had signed formal contracts with the CIA—making them employees of the Agency—were released from their contracts, and asked to continue working under less formal arrangements. In November 1973, after many such shifts had been made, Colby told reporters and editors from the New York Times and the Washington Star that the Agency had “some three dozen” American newsmen “on the CIA payroll,” including five who worked for “general‑circulation news organizations.” Yet even while the Senate Intelligence Committee was holding its hearings in 1976, according to high‑level CIA sources, the CIA continued to maintain ties with seventy‑five to ninety journalists of every description—executives, reporters, stringers, photographers, columnists, bureau clerks and members of broadcast technical crews. More than half of these had been moved off CIA contracts and payrolls but they were still bound by other secret agreements with the Agency. According to an unpublished report by the House Select Committee on Intelligence, chaired by Representative Otis Pike, at least fifteen news organizations were still providing cover for CIA operatives as of 1976. Colby, who built a reputation as one of the most skilled undercover tacticians in the CIA’s history, had himself run journalists in clandestine operations before becoming director in 1973. But even he was said by his closest associates to have been disturbed at how extensively and, in his view, indiscriminately, the Agency continued to use journalists at the time he took over. “Too prominent,” the director frequently said of some of the individuals and news organizations then working with the CIA. Others in the Agency refer to their best‑known journalistic assets as “brand names.”) “Colby’s concern was that he might lose the resource altogether unless we became a little more careful about who we used and how we got them,” explained one of the former director’s deputies. The thrust of

Colby’s Page 14 of 21subsequent

actions was to move the Agency’s affiliations away from the so‑called and toMDT Oct 10,“majors” 2016 03:34:04AM

http://www.carlbernstein.com/magazine_cia_and_media.php

Colby’s subsequent actions was to move the Agency’s affiliations away from the so‑called “majors” and to concentrate them instead in smaller newspaper chains, broadcasting groups and such specialized publications as trade journals and newsletters. After Colby left the Agency on January 28th, 1976, and was succeeded by George Bush, the CIA announced a new policy: “Effective immediately, the CIA will not enter into any paid or contractual relationship with any full‑time or part‑time news correspondent accredited by any U.S. news service, newspaper, periodical, radio or television network or station” At the time of the announcement, the Agency acknowledged that the policy would result in termination of less than half of the relationships with the 50 U.S. journalists it said were still affiliated with the Agency. The text of the announcement noted that the CIA would continue to “welcome” the voluntary, unpaid cooperation of journalists. Thus, many relationships were permitted to remain intact. The Agency’s unwillingness to end its use of journalists and its continued relationships with some news executives is largely the product of two basic facts of the intelligence game: journalistic cover is ideal because of the inquisitive nature of a reporter’s job; and many other sources of institutional cover have been denied the CIA in recent years by businesses, foundations and educational institutions that once cooperated with the Agency. “It’s tough to run a secret agency in this country,” explained one high‑level CIA official. “We have a curious ambivalence about intelligence. In order to serve overseas we need cover. But we have been fighting a rear‑guard action to try and provide cover. The Peace Corps is off‑limits, so is USIA, the foundations and voluntary organizations have been off‑limits since ‘67, and there is a self‑imposed prohibition on Fulbrights [Fulbright Scholars]. If you take the American community and line up who could work for the CIA and who couldn’t there is a very narrow potential. Even the Foreign Service doesn’t want us. So where the hell do you go? Business is nice, but the press is a natural. One journalist is worth twenty agents. He has access, the ability to ask questions without arousing suspicion.” ROLE OF THE CHURCH COMMITTEE DESPITE THE EVIDENCE OF WIDESPREAD CIA USE OF journalists, the Senate Intelligence Committee and its staff decided against questioning any of the reporters, editors, publishers or broadcast executives whose relationships with the Agency are detailed in CIA files. According to sources in the Senate and the Agency, the use of journalists was one of two areas of inquiry which the CIA went to extraordinary lengths to curtail. The other was the Agency’s continuing and extensive use of academics for recruitment and information gathering purposes. In both instances, the sources said, former directors Colby and Bush and CIA special counsel Mitchell Rogovin were able to convince key members of the committee that full inquiry or even limited public disclosure of the dimensions of the activities would do irreparable damage to the nation’s intelligence‑gathering apparatus, as well as to the reputations of hundreds of individuals. Colby was reported to have been especially persuasive in arguing that disclosure would bring on a latter‑day “witch hunt” in which the victims would be reporters, publishers and editors. Walter Elder, deputy to former CIA director McCone and the principal Agency liaison to the Church committee, argued that the committee lacked jurisdiction because there had been no misuse of journalists by the CIA; the relationships had been voluntary. Elder cited as an example the case of the Louisville

Courier‑Journal . Page 15 of 21

“Church and other people on the committee were on the chandelier about Oct 10,the 2016 03:34:04AM MDT

http://www.carlbernstein.com/magazine_cia_and_media.php

Courier‑Journal. “Church and other people on the committee were on the chandelier about the Courier‑Journal,” one Agency official said, “until we pointed out that we had gone to the editor to arrange cover, and that the editor had said, ‘Fine.’” Some members of the Church committee and staff feared that Agency officials had gained control of the inquiry and that they were being hoodwinked. “The Agency was extremely clever about it and the committee played right into its hands,” said one congressional source familiar with all aspects of the inquiry. “Church and some of the other members were much more interested in making headlines than in doing serious, tough investigating. The Agency pretended to be giving up a lot whenever it was asked about the flashy stuff—assassinations and secret weapons and James Bond operations. Then, when it came to things that they didn’t want to give away, that were much more important to the Agency, Colby in particular called in his chits. And the committee bought it.” The Senate committee’s investigation into the use of journalists was supervised by William B. Bader, a former CIA intelligence officer who returned briefly to the Agency this year as deputy to CIA director Stansfield Turner and is now a high‑level intelligence official at the Defense Department. Bader was assisted by David Aaron, who now serves as the deputy to Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter’s national security adviser. According to colleagues on the staff of the Senate inquiry, both Bader and Aaron were disturbed by the information contained in CIA files about journalists; they urged that further investigation he undertaken by the Senate’s new permanent CIA oversight committee. That committee, however, has spent its first year of existence writing a new charter for the CIA, and members say there has been little interest in delving further into the CIA’s use of the press. Bader’s investigation was conducted under unusually difficult conditions. His first request for specific information on the use of journalists was turned down by the CIA on grounds that there had been no abuse of authority and that current intelligence operations might he compromised. Senators Walter Huddleston, Howard Baker, Gary Hart, Walter Mondale and Charles Mathias—who had expressed interest in the subject of the press and the CIA—shared Bader’s distress at the CIA’s reaction. In a series of phone calls and meetings with CIA director George Bush and other Agency officials, the senators insisted that the committee staff be provided information about the scope of CIA‑press activities. Finally, Bush agreed to order a search of the files and have those records pulled which deals with operations where journalists had been used. But the raw files could not he made available to Bader or the committee, Bush insisted. Instead, the director decided, his deputies would condense the material into one‑paragraph sum­maries describing in the most general terms the activities of each individual journalist. Most important, Bush decreed, the names of journalists and of the news organizations with which they were affiliated would be omitted from the summaries. However, there might be some indication of the region where the journalist had served and a general description of the type of news organization for which he worked. Assembling the summaries was difficult, according to CIA officials who supervised the job. There were no “journalist files” per se and information had to be collected from divergent sources that reflect the highly compartmentalized character of the CIA. Case officers who had handled journalists supplied some names. Files were pulled on various undercover operations in which it seemed logical that journalists had been used. Significantly, all work by reporters for the Agency under the category of covert operations, not foreign intelligence.) Old station records were culled. “We really had to scramble,” said one official. After several weeks, Bader began receiving the summaries, which numbered over 400 by the time the Agency said it had completed searching its files.

The Page 16 Agency of 21

played an intriguing numbers game with the committee. Those who prepared material sayMDT Oct 10,the 2016 03:34:04AM

http://www.carlbernstein.com/magazine_cia_and_media.php

The Agency played an intriguing numbers game with the committee. Those who prepared the material say it was physically impossible to produce all of the Agency’s files on the use of journalists. “We gave them a broad, representative picture,” said one agency official. “We never pretended it was a total description of the range of activities over 25 years, or of the number of journalists who have done things for us.” A relatively small number of the summaries described the activities of foreign journalists—including those working as stringers for American publications. Those officials most knowledgeable about the subject say that a figure of 400 American journalists is on the low side of the actual number who maintained covert relationships and undertook clandestine tasks. Bader and others to whom he described the contents of the summaries immediately reached some general conclusions: the sheer number of covert relationships with journalists was far greater than the CIA had ever hinted; and the Agency’s use of reporters and news executives was an intelligence asset of the first magnitude. Reporters had been involved in almost every conceivable kind of operation. Of the 400‑plus individuals whose activities were summarized, between 200 and 250 were “working journalists” in the usual sense of the term—reporters, editors, correspondents, photographers; the rest were employed at least nominally) by book publishers, trade publications and newsletters. Still, the summaries were just that: compressed, vague, sketchy, incomplete. They could be subject to ambiguous interpretation. And they contained no suggestion that the CIA had abused its authority by manipulating the editorial content of American newspapers or broadcast reports. Bader’s unease with what he had found led him to seek advice from several experienced hands in the fields of foreign relations and intelligence. They suggested that he press for more information and give those members of the committee in whom he had the most confidence a general idea of what the summaries revealed. Bader again went to Senators Huddleston, Baker, Hart, Mondale and Mathias. Meanwhile, he told the CIA that he wanted to see more—the full files on perhaps a hundred or so of the individuals whose activities had been summarized. The request was turned down outright. The Agency would provide no more information on the subject. Period. The CIA’s intransigence led to an extraordinary dinner meeting at Agency headquarters in late March 1976. Those present included Senators Frank Church who had now been briefed by Bader), and John Tower, the vice‑chairman of the committee; Bader; William Miller, director of the committee staff; CIA director Bush; Agency counsel Rogovin; and Seymour Bolten, a high‑level CIA operative who for years had been a station chief in Germany and Willy Brandt’s case officer. Bolten had been deputized by Bush to deal with the committee’s requests for information on journalists and academics. At the dinner, the Agency held to its refusal to provide any full files. Nor would it give the committee the names of any individual journalists described in the 400 summaries or of the news organizations with whom they were affiliated. The discussion, according to participants, grew heated. The committee’s representatives said they could not honor their mandate—to determine if the CIA had abused its authority—without further information. The CIA maintained it could not protect its legitimate intelligence operations or its employees if further disclosures were made to the committee. Many of the journalists were contract employees of the Agency, Bush said at one point, and the CIA was no less obligated to them than to any other agents. Finally, a highly unusual agreement was hammered out: Bader and Miller would be permitted to examine “sanitized” versions of the full files of twenty‑five journalists selected from the summaries; but the names of the journalists and the news organizations which employed them would be blanked out, as would the identities of other CIA employees mentioned in the files. Church and Tower would be permitted to examine the unsanitizedversions of five of the twenty‑five files—to attest that the CIA was not hiding anything except the names. The whole deal was contingent on an agreement that neither Bader, Miner, Tower nor Church would reveal the contents of the files to other members of the committee or staff. Bader began Page 17 of 21

reviewing the 400‑some summaries again. His object was to select twenty‑five that, on the MDT Oct 10, 2016 03:34:04AM

http://www.carlbernstein.com/magazine_cia_and_media.php

Bader began reviewing the 400‑some summaries again. His object was to select twenty‑five that, on the basis of the sketchy information they contained, seemed to represent a cross section. Dates of CIA activity, general descriptions of news organizations, types of journalists and undercover operations all figured in his calculations. From the twenty‑five files he got back, according to Senate sources and CIA officials, an unavoidable conclusion emerged: that to a degree never widely suspected, the CIA in the 1950s, ‘60s and even early ‘70s had concentrated its relationships with journalists in the most prominent sectors of the American press corps, including four or five of the largest newspapers in the country, the broadcast networks and the two major newsweekly magazines. Despite the omission of names and affiliations from the twenty‑five detailed files each was between three and eleven inches thick), the information was usually sufficient to tentatively identify either the newsman, his affiliation or both—particularly because so many of them were prominent in the profession. “There is quite an incredible spread of relationships,” Bader reported to the senators. “You don’t need to manipulate Time magazine, for example, because there are Agency people at the management level.” Ironically, one major news organization that set limits on its dealings with the CIA, according to Agency officials, was the one with perhaps the greatest editorial affinity for the Agency’s long‑range goals and policies: U.S. News and World Report. The late David Lawrence, the columnist and founding editor of U.S. News, was a close friend of Allen Dulles. But he repeatedly refused requests by the CIA director to use the magazine for cover purposes, the sources said. At one point, according to a high CIA official, Lawrence issued orders to his sub‑editors in which he threatened to fire any U.S. News employee who was found to have entered into a formal relationship with the Agency. Former editorial executives at the magazine confirmed that such orders had been issued. CIA sources declined to say, however, if the magazine remained off‑limits to the Agency after Lawrence’s death in 1973 or if Lawrence’s orders had been followed.) Meanwhile, Bader attempted to get more information from the CIA, particularly about the Agency’s current relationships with journalists. He encountered a stone wall. “Bush has done nothing to date,” Bader told associates. “None of the important operations are affected in even a marginal way.” The CIA also refused the staffs requests for more information on the use of academics. Bush began to urge members of the committee to curtail its inquiries in both areas and conceal its findings in the final report. “He kept saying, ‘Don’t fuck these guys in the press and on the campuses,’ pleading that they were the only areas of public life with any credibility left,” reported a Senate source. Colby, Elder and Rogovin also implored individual members of the committee to keep secret what the staff had found. “There were a lot of representations that if this stuff got out some of the biggest names in journalism would get smeared,” said another source. Exposure of the CIA’s relationships with journalists and academics, the Agency feared, would close down two of the few avenues of agent recruitment still open. “The danger of exposure is not the other side,” explained one CIA expert in covert operations. “This is not stuff the other side doesn’t know about. The concern of the Agency is that another area of cover will be denied.” A senator who was the object of the Agency’s lobbying later said: “From the CIA point of view this was the highest, most sensitive covert program of all.... It was a much larger part of the operational system than has been indicated.” He added, “I had a great compulsion to press the point but it was late .... If we had demanded, they would have gone the legal route to fight it.” Indeed, time was running out for the committee. In the view of many staff members, it had squandered its resources in the search for CIA assassination plots and poison pen letters. It had undertaken the inquiry into journalists almost as an afterthought. The dimensions of the program and the CIA’s sensitivity to providing Page 18 of 21

information on it had caught the staff and the committee by surprise. The CIA Octoversight 10, 2016 03:34:04AM MDT

http://www.carlbernstein.com/magazine_cia_and_media.php

providing information on it had caught the staff and the committee by surprise. The CIA oversight committee that would succeed the Church panel would have the inclination and the time to inquire into the subject methodically; if, as seemed likely, the CIA refused to cooperate further, the mandate of the successor committee would put it in a more advantageous position to wage a protracted fight .... Or so the reasoning went as Church and the few other senators even vaguely familiar with Bader’s findings reached a decision not to pursue the matter further. No journalists would be interviewed about their dealings with the Agency—either by the staff or by the senators, in secret or in open session. The specter, first raised by CIA officials, of a witch hunt in the press corps haunted some members of the staff and the committee. “We weren’t about to bring up guys to the committee and then have everybody say they’ve been traitors to the ideals of their profession,” said a senator. Bader, according to associates, was satisfied with the decision and believed that the successor committee would pick up the inquiry where he had left it. He was opposed to making public the names of individual journalists. He had been concerned all along that he had entered a “gray area” in which there were no moral absolutes. Had the CIA “manipulated” the press in the classic sense of the term? Probably not, he concluded; the major news organizations and their executives had willingly lent their resources to the Agency; foreign correspondents had regarded work for the CIA as a national service and a way of getting better stories and climbing to the top of their profession. Had the CIA abused its authority? It had dealt with the press almost exactly as it had dealt with other institutions from which it sought cover — the diplomatic service, academia, corporations. There was nothing in the CIA’s charter which declared any of these institutions off‑limits to America’s intelligence service. And, in the case of the press, the Agency had exercised more care in its dealings than with many other institutions; it had gone to considerable lengths to restrict its role to information‑gathering and cover.10 Bader was also said to be concerned that his knowledge was so heavily based on information furnished by the CIA; he hadn’t gotten the other side of the story from those journalists who had associated with the Agency. He could be seeing only “the lantern show,” he told associates. Still, Bader was reasonably sure that he had seen pretty much the full panoply of what was in the files. If the CIA had wanted to deceive him it would have never given away so much, he reasoned. “It was smart of the Agency to cooperate to the extent of showing the material to Bader,” observed a committee source. “That way, if one fine day a file popped up, the Agency would be covered. They could say they had already informed the Congress.” The dependence on CIA files posed another problem. The CIA’s perception of a relationship with a journalist might be quite different than that of the journalist: a CIA official might think he had exercised control over a journalist; the journalist might think he had simply had a few drinks with a spook. It was possible that CIA case officers had written self‑serving memos for the files about their dealings with journalists, that the CIA was just as subject to common bureaucratic “cover‑your‑ass” paperwork as any other agency of government. A CIA official who attempted to persuade members of the Senate committee that the Agency’s use of journalists had been innocuous maintained that the files were indeed filled with “puffing” by case officers. “You can’t establish what is puff and what isn’t,” he claimed. Many reporters, he added, “were recruited for finite [specific] undertakings and would be appalled to find that they were listed [in Agency files] as CIA operatives.” This same official estimated that the files contained descriptions of about half a dozen reporters and correspondents who would be considered “famous”—that is, their names would be recognized by most Americans. “The files show that the CIA goes to the press for and just as often that the press comes to the CIA,” he observed. “...There is a tacit agreement in many of these cases that there is going to be a quid pro quo”—i.e., that the reporter is going to get good stories from the Agency and that the CIA will pick up some valuable services from the reporter.

Whatever Page 19 of 21

the interpretation, the findings of the Senate committees inquiry into the useOct of 10, journalists were MDT 2016 03:34:04AM

http://www.carlbernstein.com/magazine_cia_and_media.php

Whatever the interpretation, the findings of the Senate committees inquiry into the use of journalists were deliberately buried—from the full membership of the committee, from the Senate and from the public. “There was a difference of opinion on how to treat the subject,” explained one source. “Some [senators] thought these were abuses which should be exorcized and there were those who said, ‘We don’t know if this is bad or not.’” Bader’s findings on the subject were never discussed with the full committee, even in executive session. That might have led to leaks—especially in view of the explosive nature of the facts. Since the beginning of the Church committee’s investigation, leaks had been the panel’s biggest collective fear, a real threat to its mission. At the slightest sign of a leak the CIA might cut off the flow of sensitive information as it did, several times in other areas), claiming that the committee could not be trusted with secrets. “It was as if we were on trial—not the CIA,” said a member of the committee staff. To describe in the committee’s final report the true dimensions of the Agency’s use of journalists would cause a furor in the press and on the Senate floor. And it would result in heavy pressure on the CIA to end its use of journalists altogether. “We just weren’t ready to take that step,” said a senator. A similar decision was made to conceal the results of the staff’s inquiry into the use of academics. Bader, who supervised both areas of inquiry, concurred in the decisions and drafted those sections of the committee’s final report. Pages 191 to 201 were entitled “Covert Relationships with the United States Media.” “It hardly reflects what we found,” stated Senator Gary Hart. “There was a prolonged and elaborate negotiation [with the CIA] over what would be said.” Obscuring the facts was relatively simple. No mention was made of the 400 summaries or what they showed. Instead the report noted blandly that some fifty recent contacts with journalists had been studied by the committee staff—thus conveying the impression that the Agency’s dealings with the press had been limited to those instances. The Agency files, the report noted, contained little evidence that the editorial content of American news reports had been affected by the CIA’s dealings with journalists. Colby’s misleading public statements about the use of journalists were repeated without serious contradiction or elaboration. The role of cooperating news executives was given short shrift. The fact that the Agency had concentrated its relationships in the most prominent sectors of the press went unmentioned. That the CIA continued to regard the press as up for grabs was not even suggested. Former ‘Washington Post’ reporter CARL BERNSTEIN is now working on a book about the witch hunts of the Cold War. Footnotes: 1 John McCone, director of the Agency from 1961 to 1965, said in a recent interview that he knew about "great deal of debriefing and exchanging help" but nothing about any arrangements for cover the CIA might have made with media organizations. "I wouldn't necessarily have known about it," he said. "Helms would have handled anything like that. It would be unusual for him to come to me and say, 'We're going to use journalists for cover.' He had a job to do. There was no policy during my period that would say, 'Don't go near that water,' nor was there one saying, 'Go to it!'" During the Church committee bearings, McCone testified that his subordinates failed to tell him about domestic surveillance activities or that they were working on plans to assassinate Fidel Castro. Richard Helms was deputy director of the Agency at the time; he became director in 1966. 2 A stringer is a reporter who works for one or several news organizations on a retainer or on a piecework basis. 3 From the CIA point of view, access to newsfilm outtakes and photo libraries is a matter of extreme importance. The Agency's photo archive is probably the greatest on earth; its graphic sources include satellites, photoreconnaissance, planes, miniature cameras ... and the American press. During the 1950s and the Agency obtained carte‑blanche borrowing privileges in the photo libraries of 2016 literally dozensMDT Page 20 1960s, of 21 Oct 10, 03:34:04AM

http://www.carlbernstein.com/magazine_cia_and_media.php satellites, photoreconnaissance, planes, miniature

cameras ... and the American press. During the 1950s and 1960s, the Agency obtained carte‑blanche borrowing privileges in the photo libraries of literally dozens of American newspapers, magazines and television, outlets. For obvious reasons, the CIA also assigned high priority to the recruitment of photojournalists, particularly foreign‑based members of network camera crews. 4 On April 3rd, 1961, Koop left the Washington bureau to become head of CBS, Inc.’s Government Relations Department — a position he held until his retirement on March 31st, 1972.  Koop, who worked as a deputy in the Censorship Office in World War II, continued to deal with the CIA in his new position, according to CBS sources. 5 Hayes, who left the Washington Post Company in 1965 to become U.S. Ambassador to Switzerland, is now chairman of the board of Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty — both of which severed their ties with the CIA in 1971.  Hayes said he cleared his participation in the China project with the late Frederick S. Beebe, then chairman of the board of the Washington Post Company.  Katharine Graham, the Post’s publisher, was unaware of the nature of the assignment, he said.  Participants in the project signed secrecy agreements. 6 Philip Geyelin, editor of the Post editorial page, worked for the Agency before joining the Post. 7 Louis Buisch, presidentof the publishing company of the Hornell, New York, Evening Tribune, told the Courier‑Journal in 1976 that he remembered little about the hiring of Robert Campbell. "He wasn't there very long, and he didn't make much of an impression," said Buisch, who has since retired from active management of the newspaper. 8 Probably the most thoughtful article on the subject of the press and the CIA was written by Stuart H. Loory and appeared in the September‑October 1974 issue of Columbia Journalism Review. 9 Wes Gallagher, general manager of the Associated Press from 1962 to 1976, takes vigorous exception to the notion that the Associated Press might have aided the Agency. "We've always stayed clear on the CIA; I would have fired anybody who worked for them. We don't even let our people debrief." At the time of the first disclosures that reporters had worked for the CIA, Gallagher went to Colby. "We tried to find out names. All he would say was that no full‑time staff member of the Associated Press was employed by the Agency. We talked to Bush. He said the same thing." If any Agency personnel were placed in Associated Press bureaus, said Gallagher, it was done without consulting the management of the wire service. But Agency officials insist that they were able to make cover arrangements through someone in the upper management levelsof Associated Press, whom they refuse to identify. 10 Many journalists and some CIA officials dispute the Agency's claim that it has been scrupulous in respecting the editorial integrity of American publications and broadcast outlets.

Page 21 of 21

Oct 10, 2016 03:34:04AM MDT

6/2/2016

CIA Disinformation in Action: Operation Mockingbird and the Washington Post

[back]

CIA Disinformation in Action: Operation Mockingbird and the Washington Post Mockingbird examples with introduction by H. Michael Sweeney, proparanoid.com   Document by Julian Holmes No copyright - Public Domain Permissions not required   The very lengthy (25 pages typwritten) document below is actually a letter to the Washington Post by Julian C. Holmes, in which he takes the Post to task for decades of disinformation - typically in the form of combating what the Post likes to describe as 'conspiracy theory' which, in the end, turns out to be conspiracy fact.  This uncopyrighted document was borrowed with permission from Michael Rivero's excellent http://www.whatreallyhappened.com Web site. In an unusual format, Holmes carefully documents each accusation with footnotes, a valuable tool for the reader.  This is no mere rant, no mere opinionated dissatisfaction, no angry response dashed off without thinking.  No, it is an indictment.  Nestled within the over 100 footnotes and the not quite as many individual examples of supression and distrotions of truth, and even fabrications of 'truth', is a root-most clue to the real problem - a problem which reader should take care not to miss grasping... That is the covert role played by the Washington Post in CIA's Operation Mockingbird, which is the infiltration and control of American media to insure that you and I never quite hear the truth as it really is.  You will learn how the owner/publisher of the Post, Phillip Graham and graduate of the Army Intelligence School was literally the founding director of Operation Mockingbird on behalf of CIA.  The significance is amplified when it is understood that Mockingbird was not simply the sell out of a newspaper. It was the organized infiltration and in some cases the actual take over of the top 25 newpapers in the United States, major television networks, high-profile magazines, the wire services (Reuters was an outright CIA owned and operated front until 'sold' to 'private' interests) and even motion picture studios.  Since then, of course, it has expanded further. For more information, visit Rivero's site and read the excellent piece found there by author Alex Constantine, Tales From They Crypt. We might expect a fascist dictatorship to use the motto-policy of "Do what we tell you or else!"  We would prefer to believe that our own democratic and free nation's motto-policy would be "Do what you think best."  However, thanks to a secret government and CIA, it is actually "Do what we tell you to think best."  That may have been what Eisenhower was warning us about when he coined the the phrase "military industrial complex" in his farewell address.  In my own writing I have followed his lead and updated the phrase to that of simply: MIIM, the Military Industrial Intelligence Media complex. Subscribe to the Washington Post, dear sheep, and welcome to the New World Order. Or, listen to Holmes and decide for yourself. It is still your choice to make, despite what they would have you believe... April 25, 1992 Richard Harwood, Ombudsman The Washington Post 1150 15th Street NW Washington, DC 20071 Dear Mr. Harwood, Though the Washington Post does not over-extend itself in the pursuit of hard news, just let drop the faintest rumor of a government "conspiracy", and a klaxon horn goes off in the news room. Aroused from http://www.whale.to/b/mock.html

1/19

6/2/2016

CIA Disinformation in Action: Operation Mockingbird and the Washington Post

apathy in the daily routine of reporting assignations and various other political and social sports events, editors and reporters scramble to the phones. The klaxon screams its warning: the greatest single threat to herd-journalism, corporate profits, and government stability the dreaded "CONSPIRACY THEORY"!! It is not known whether anyone has actually been hassled or accosted by any of these frightful spectres, but their presence is announced to Post readers with a salvo of warnings to avoid the tricky, sticky webs spun by the wacko "CONSPIRACY THEORISTS". Recall how the Post saved us from the truth about Iran-Contra. Professional conspiracy exorcist Mark Hosenball was hired to ridicule the idea that Oliver North and his CIA-associated gangsters had conspired to do wrong (*1). And when, in their syndicated column, Jack Anderson and Dale Van Atta discussed some of the conspirators, the Post sprang to protect its readers, and the conspirators, by censoring the Anderson column before printing it (*2). But for some time the lid had been coming off the Iran-Contra conspiracy. In 1986, the Christic Institute, an interfaith center for law and public policy, had filed a lawsuit alleging a U.S. arms-for-drugs trade that helped keep weapons flowing to the CIA-Contra army in Nicaragua, and cocaine flowing to U.S. markets (*3). In 1988 Leslie Cockburn published Out of Control, a seminal work on our bizarre, illegal war against Nicaragua (*4). The Post contributed to this discovery process by disparaging the charges of conspiracy and by publishing false information about the drug-smuggling evidence presented to the House Subcommittee on Narcotics Abuse and Control. When accused by Committee Chairman Charles Rangel (D-NY). of misleading reporting, the Post printed only a partial correction and declined to print a letter of complaint from Rangel (*5). Sworn testimony before Senator John Kerry's Subcommittee on Terrorism, Narcotics, and International Operations confirmed U.S. Government complicity in the drug trade (*6). With its coverup of the arms/drug conspiracy evaporating, the ever-accommodating Post shifted gears and retained Hosenball to exorcise from our minds a newly emerging threat to domestic tranquility, the "October Surprise" conspiracy (*7). But close on the heels of Hosenball and the Post came Barbara Honegger and then Gary Sick who authored independently, two years apart, books with the same title, "October Surprise" (*8). Honegger was a member of the Reagan/Bush campaign and transition teams in 1980. Gary Sick, professor of Middle East Politics at Columbia University, was on the staff of the National Security Council under Presidents Ford, Carter, and Reagan. In 1989 and 1991 respectively, Honegger and Sick published their evidence of how the Republicans made a deal to supply arms to Iran if Iran would delay release of the 52 United States hostages until after the November 1980 election. The purpose of this deal was to quash the possibility of a pre-election release(an October surprise). which would have bolstered the reelection prospects for President Carter. Others published details of this alleged Reagan-Bush conspiracy. In October 1988, Playboy Magazine ran an expose "An Election Held Hostage"; FRONTLINE did another in April 1991 (*9). In June, 1991 a conference of distinguished journalists, joined by 8 of the former hostages, challenged the Congress to "make a full, impartial investigation" of the election/hostage allegations. The Post reported the statement of the hostages, but not a word of the conference itself which was held in the Dirksen Senate Office Building Auditorium (*10). On February 5, 1992 a gun-shy, uninspired House of Representatives begrudgingly authorized an "October Surprise" investigation by a task force of 13 congressmen headed by Lee Hamilton (D-IN). who had chaired the House of Representatives Iran-Contra Committee. Hamilton has named as chief team counsel Larry Barcella, a lawyer who represented BCCI when the Bank was indicted in 1988 (*11). Like the Washington Post, Hamilton had not shown interest in pursuing the U.S. arms-for-drugs operation http://www.whale.to/b/mock.html

2/19

6/2/2016

CIA Disinformation in Action: Operation Mockingbird and the Washington Post

(*12). He had accepted Oliver North's lies,and as Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee he derailed House Resolution 485 which had asked President Reagan to answer questions about Contra support activities of government officials and others (*13). After CIA operative John Hull (from Hamilton's home state). was charged in Costa Rica with "international drug trafficking and hostile acts against the nation's security", Hamilton and 18 fellow members of Congress tried to intimidate Costa Rican President Oscar Arias Sanchez into handling Hull's case "in a manner that will not complicate U.S.-Costa Rican relations" (*14). The Post did not report the Hamilton letter or the Costa Rican response that declared Hull's case to be "in as good hands as our 100 year old uninterrupted democracy can provide to all citizens" (*15). Though the Post does its best to guide our thinking away from conspiracy theories, it is difficult to avoid the fact that so much wrongdoing involves government or corporate conspiracies: In its COINTELPRO operation, the FBI used disinformation, forgery, surveillance, false arrests, and violence to illegally harass U.S.citizens in the 60's (*16). The CIA's Operation MONGOOSE illegally sabotaged Cuba by "destroying crops, brutalizing citizens, destabilizing the society, and conspiring with the Mafia to assassinate Fidel Castro and other leaders" (*17). "Standard Oil of New Jersey was found by the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice to be conspiring with I.G.Farben...of Germany. ...By its cartel agreements with Standard Oil, the United States was effectively prevented from developing or producing [fo rWorld War-II] any substantial amount of synthetic rubber," said Senator Robert LaFollette of Wisconsin (*18). U.S. Government agencies knowingly withheld information about dosages of radiation "almost certain to produce thyroid abnormalities or cancer" that contaminated people residing near the nuclear weapons factory at Hanford, Washington (*19). Various branches of Government deliberately drag their feet in getting around to cleaning up the Nation's dangerous nuclear weapons sites (*20). State and local governments back the nuclear industry's secret public relations strategy (*21). "The National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society and some twenty comprehensive cancer centers, have misled and confused the public and Congress by repeated claims that we are winning the war against cancer. In fact, the cancer establishment has continually minimized the evidence for increasing cancer rates which it has largely attributed to smoking and dietary fat, while discounting or ignoring the causal role of avoidable eposures to industrial carcinogens in the air, food, water, and the workplace." (*22). The Bush Administration coverup of its pre-Gulf-War support of Iraq "is yet another example of the President's people conspiring to keep both Congress and the American people in the dark" (*23). If you think about it, conspiracy is a fundamental aspect of doing business in this country. Take the systematic and cooperative censorship of the Persian Gulf War by the Pentagon and much of the news media (*24). Or the widespread plans of business and government groups to spend $100 million in taxes to promote a distorted and truncated history of Columbus in America (*25). along the lines of the Smithsonian Institution's "fusion of the two worlds", (*26). rather than examining more realistic aspects of the Spanish http://www.whale.to/b/mock.html

3/19

6/2/2016

CIA Disinformation in Action: Operation Mockingbird and the Washington Post

invasion, like "anger, cruelty, gold, terror, and death" (*27). Or circumstances surrounding the U.S. Justice Department theft from the INSLAW company of sophisticated, law-enforcement computer software which "now point to a widespread conspiracy implicating lesser Government officials in the theft of INSLAW's technology", says former U.S. Attorney General Elliot Richardson (*28). Or Watergate. Or the "largest bank fraud in world financial history" (*29), where the White House knew of the criminal activities at "the Bank of Crooks and Criminals International" (BCCI) (*30), where U.S. intelligence agencies did their secret banking (*31), and where bribery of prominent American public officials "was a way of doing business" (*32). Or the 1949 conviction of "GM [General Motors], Standard Oil of California, Firestone, and E. Roy Fitzgerald, among others, for criminally conspiring to replace electric transportation with gas- and dieselpowered buses and to monopolize the sale of buses and related products to transportation companies throughout the country" [in, among others, the cities of New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, St. Louis, Oakland, Salt Lake City, and Los Angeles] (*33). Or the collusion in 1973 between Senator Abraham Ribicoff (D-CT). and the U.S. Department of Transportation to overlook safety defects in the 1.2 million Corvair automobiles manufactured by General Motors in the early 60's (*34). Or the A. H. Robins Company, which manufactured the Dalkon Shield intrauterine contraceptive, and which ignored repeated warnings of the Shield's hazards and which "stonewalled, deceived, covered up, and covered up the coverups...[thus inflicting] on women a worldwide epidemic of pelvic infections." (*35). Or that cooperation between McDonnell Douglas Aircraft Company and the FAA resulted in failure to enforce regulations regarding the unsafe DC-10 cargo door which failed in flight killing all 364 passengers on Turkish Airlines Flight 981 on March 3, 1974 (*36). Or the now-banned, cancer-producing pregnancy drug Diethylstilbestrol (DES). that was sold by manufacturers who ignored tests which showed DES to be carcinogenic; and who acted "in concert with each other in the testing and marketing of DES for miscarriage purposes" (*37). Or the conspiracies among bankers and speculators, with the cooperation of a corrupted Congress, to relieve depositors of their savings. This "arrogant disregard from the White House, Congress and corporate world for the interests and rights of the American people" will cost U.S. tapayers many hundreds of billions of dollars (*38). Or the Westinghouse, Allis Chalmers,Federal Pacific, and General Electric executives who met surreptitiously in hotel rooms to fix prices and eliminate competition on heavy industrial equipment (*39). Or the convictions of Industrial Biotest Laboratories (IBT). officers for fabricating safety tests on prescription drugs (*40). Or the conspiracy by the asbestos industry to suppress knowledge of medical problemsrelating to asbestos (*41). http://www.whale.to/b/mock.html

4/19

6/2/2016

CIA Disinformation in Action: Operation Mockingbird and the Washington Post

Or the 1928 Achnacarry Agreement through which oil companies "agreed not to engage in any effective price competition" (*42). Or the conspiracy among U.S. Government agencies and the Congress to cover up the nature of our decades-old war against the people of Nicaragua a covert war that continues in 1992 with the U.S. Government applying pressure for the Nicaraguan police to reorganize into a more repressive force (*43). Or the conspiracy by the CIA and the U.S. Government to interfere in the Chilean election process with military aid, covert actions, and an economic boycott which culminated in the overthrow of the legitimately elected government and the assassination of President Salvador Allende in 1973 (*44). Or the conspiracy among U.S. officials including Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and CIA Director William Colby to finance terrorism in Angola for the purpose of disrupting Angola's plans for peaceful elections in October 1975, and to lie about these actions to the Congress and the news media (*45). And CIA Director George Bush's subsequent cover up of this U.S.-sponsored terrorism (*46). Or President George Bush's consorting with the Pentagon to invade Panama in 1989 and thereby violate the Constitution of the United States, the U.N. Charter, the O.A.S. Charter, and the Panama Canal Treaties (*47). Or the "gross antitrust violations" (*48) and the conspiracy of American oil companies and the British and U.S. governments to strangle Iran economically after Iran nationalized the British-owned AngloIranian Oil Company in 1951. And the subsequent overthrow by the CIA in 1953 of Iranian Prime Minister Muhammed Mossadegh (*49). Or the CIA-planned assassination of Congo head-of-state Patrice Lumumba (*50). Or the deliberate and wilful efforts of President George Bush, Senator Robert Dole, Senator George Mitchell, various U.S. Government agencies, and members of both Houses of the Congress to buy the 1990 Nicaraguan national elections for the presidential candidate supported by President Bush (*51). Or the collective approval by 64 U.S. Senators of Robert Gates to head the CIA, in the face of "unmistakable evidence that Gates lied about his role in the Iran-Contra scandal" (*52). Or "How Reagan and the Pope Conspired to Assist Poland's Solidarity Movement and Hasten the Demise of Communism" (*53). Or how the Reagan Administration connived with the Vatican to ban the use of USAID funds by any country "for the promotion of birth control or abortion" (*54). Or "the way the Vatican and Washington colluded to achieve common purpose in Central America" (*55). Or the collaboration of Guatemalan strong-man and mass murderer Hector Gramajo with the U.S. Army to design "programs to build civilian-military cooperation" at the U.S. Army School of the Americas (SOA) at Fort Benning, Georgia; five of the nine soldiers accused in the 1989 Jesuit massacre in El Salvador are graduates of SOA which trains Latin/American military personnel (*56). Or the conspiracy of the Comanche Peak Nuclear Plant administration to harass and cause bodily harm to whistleblower Linda Porter who uncovered dangerous working conditions at the facility (*57). http://www.whale.to/b/mock.html

5/19

6/2/2016

CIA Disinformation in Action: Operation Mockingbird and the Washington Post

Or the conspiracy of President Richard Nxion and the Government of South Vietnam to delay the Paris Peace Talks until after the 1968 U.S. presidential election (*58). Or the pandemic coverups of police violence (*59). Or the always safe-to-cite worldwide communist conspiracy (*60). Or maybe the socially responsible, secret consortium to publish The Satanic Verses in paperback (*61). Conspiracies are obviously a way to get things done, and the Washington Post offers little comment unless conspiracy theorizing threatens to expose a really important conspiracy that, let's say, benefits big business or big government. Such a conspiracy would be like our benevolent CIA's 1953 overthrow of the Iranian government to help out U.S. oil companies; or like our illegal war against Panama to tighten U.S. control over Panama and the Canal; or like monopoly control of broadcasting that facilitates corporate censorship on issues of public importance (*62). When the camouflage of such conspiracies is stripped away, public confidence in the conspiring officials can erode depending on how seriously the citizenry perceives the conspiracy to have violated the public trust. Erosion of public trust in the status quo is what the Post seems to see as a real threat to its corporate security. Currently, the Post has mounted vituperative, frenzied attacks on Oliver Stone's movie "JFK", which reexamines the U.S. Government's official (Warren Commission. finding that a single gunman, acting alone, killed President John F. Kennedy. The movie also is the story of New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison's unsuccessful prosecution of Clay Shaw, the only person ever tried in connection with the assassination. And the movie proposes that the Kennedy assassination was the work of conspirators whose interests would not be served by a president who, had he lived, might have disengaged us from our war against Vietnam. The Post ridicules a reexamination of the Kennedy assassination along lines suggested by "JFK". Senior Post journalists like Charles Krauthammer, Ken Ringle, George Will, Phil McCombs, and Michael Isikoff, have been called up to man the bulwarks against public sentiment which has never supported the government's non-conspiratorial assassination thesis. In spite of the facts that the Senate Intelligence Committee of 1975 and 1976 found that "both the FBI and CIA had repeatedly lied to the Warren Commission" (*63) and that the 1979 Report of the House Select Committee on Assassinations found that President Kennedy was probably killed "as a result of a conspiracy" (*64), a truly astounding number of Post stories have been used as vehicles to discredit "JFK" as just another conspiracy (*65). Some of the more vicious attacks on the movie are by editor Stephen Rosenfeld, and journalists Richard Cohen, George Will, and George Lardner Jr (*66). They ridicule the idea that Kennedy could have had second thoughts about escalating the Vietnam War and declaim that there is no historical justification for this idea. Seasoned journalist Peter Dale Scott, former Pentagon/CIA liaison chief L. Fletcher Prouty, and investigators David Scheim and John Newman have each authored defense of the "JFK" thesis that Kennedy was not enthusiastic about staying in Vietnam (*67). But the Post team just continues ranting against the possibility of a high-level assassination conspiracy while offering little justification for its arguments. An example of particularly shabby scholarship and unacceptable behavior is George Lardner Jr's contribution to the Post's campaign against the movie. Lardner wrote three articles, two before the movie was completed, and the third upon its release. In May, six months before the movie came out, Lardner obtained a copy of the first draft of the script and, contrary to accepted standards, revealed in the Post the contents of this copyrighted movie (*68). Also in this article, (*69). Lardner discredits Jim Garrison with http://www.whale.to/b/mock.html

6/19

6/2/2016

CIA Disinformation in Action: Operation Mockingbird and the Washington Post

hostile statements from a former Garrison associate Pershing Gervais. Lardner does not tell the reader that subsequent to the Clay Shaw trial, in a U.S. Government criminal action brought against Garrison, Government witness Gervais, who helped set up Garrison for prosecution, admitted under oath that in a May 1972 interview with a New Orleans television reporter, he, Gervais, had said that the U.S. Government's case against Garrison was a fraud (*70). The Post's 1973 account of the Garrison acquittal mentions this controversy, but when I recently asked Lardner about this, he was not clear as to whether he remembered it (*71). Two weeks after his first "JFK" article, Lardner blustered his way through a justification for his unauthorized possession of the early draft ofthe movie (*72). He also defended his reference to Pershing Gervais by lashing out at Garrison as a writer "of gothic fiction". When the movie was released in December, Lardner "reviewed" it (*73). He again ridiculed the film's thesis that following the Kennedy assassination, President Johnson reversed Kennedy's plans to deescalate the Vietnam War. Lardner cited a memorandum issued by Johnson four days after Kennedy died. Lardner says this memorandum was written before the assassination, and that it "was a continuation of Kennedy's policy". In fact, the memorandum was drafted the day before the assassination by McGeorge Bundy (Kennedy's Assistant for National Security Affairs) Kennedy was in Texas, and may never have seen it. Following the assassination, it was rewritten; and the final version provided for escalating the war against Vietnam (*74) facts that Lardner avoided. The Post's crusade against exposing conspiracies is blatantly dishonest: The Warren Commission inquiry into the Kennedy Assassination was for the most part conducted in secret. This fact is buried in the Post (*75). Nor do current readers of this newspaper find meaningful discussion of the Warren Commission's secret doubts about both the FBI and the CIA (*76). Or of a dispatch from CIA headquarters instructing co-conspirators at field stations to counteract the "new wave of books and articles criticizing the [Warren] Commission's findings...[and] conspiracy theories ...[that] have frequently thrown suspicion on our organization" and to "discuss the publicity problem with liaison and friendly elite contacts, especially politicians and editors "and to "employ propaganda assets to answer and refute the attacks of the critics. ...Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose. ...The aim of this dispatch is to provide material for countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists..." (*77). In 1979, Washington journalist Deborah Davis published Katharine The Great, the story of Post publisher Katharine Graham and her newspaper's close ties with Washington's powerful elite, a number of whom were with the CIA. Particularly irksome to Post editor Benjamin Bradlee was a Davis claim that Bradlee had "produced CIA material" (*78). Understandably sensitive about this kind of publicity, Bradlee told Davis' publisher Harcourt Brace Jovanovich ,"Miss Davis is lying ...I never produced CIA material ...what I can do is to brand Miss Davis as a fool and to put your company in that special little group of publishers who don't give a shit for the truth". The Post bullied HBJ into recalling the book; HBJ shredded 20,000 copies; Davis sued HBJ for breach of contract and damage to reputation; HBJ settled out of court; and Davis published her book elsewhere with an appendix that demonstrated Bradlee to have been deeply involved with producing cold-war/CIA propaganda (*79). Bradlee still says the allegations about his association with people in the CIA are false, but he has apparently taken no action to contest the xetensive documentation presented by Deborah Davis in the second and third editions of her book (*80). And it's not as if the Post were new to conspiracy work. * Former Washington Post publisher Philip Graham "believing that the function of the press was more http://www.whale.to/b/mock.html

7/19

6/2/2016

CIA Disinformation in Action: Operation Mockingbird and the Washington Post

often than not to mobilize consent for the policies of the government, was one of the architects of what became a widespread practice:the use and manipulation of journalists by the CIA" (*81). This scandal was known by its code name Operation MOCKINGBIRD. Former Washington Post reporter Carl Bernstein cites a former CIA deputy director as saying, "It was widely known that Phil Graham was someone you could get help from" (*82). More recently the Post provided cover for CIA personality Joseph Fernandez by "refusing to print his name for over a year up until the day his indictmen twas announced ...for crimes committed in his official capacity as CIA station chief in Costa Rica" (*83). Of the meetings between Graham and his CIA acquaintances at which the availability and prices of journalists were discussed, a former CIA man recalls, "You could get a journalist cheaper than a good call girl, for a couple hundred dollars a month" (*84). One may wish to consider Philip Graham's philosophy along with a more recent statement from his wife Katharine Graham, current Chairman of the Board of the Washington Post. In a lecture on terrorism and the news media, Mrs. Graham said: "A second challenge facing the media is how to prevent terrorists from using the media as a platform fortheir views. ... The point is that we generally know when we are being manipulated, and we've learned better how and where to draw the line, though the decisions are often difficult" (*85). Today, the Post and its world of big business are apparently terrified that our elite and our high-level public officials may be exposed as conspirators behind Contra drug-smuggling, October Surprise, or the assassination of President Kennedy. This fear is truly remarkable in that, like most of us and like most institutions, the Post runs its business as a conspiracy of like-minded entrepreneurs a conspiracy "to act or work together toward the same result or goal" (*86). But where the Post really parts company from just plain people is when it pretends that conspiracies associated with big business or government are "coincidence". Post reporter Lardner vents the frustration inherent in having to maintain this dichotomy. He lashes out at Oliver Stone and suggests that Stone may actually believe that the Post's opposition to Stone's movie is a "conspiracy". Lardner assures us that Stone's complaints are "groundless and paranoid and smack of McCarthyism" (*87). So how does the Post justify devoting so much energy to ridiculing those who investigate conspiracies? The Post has answers: people revert to conspiracy theories because they need something "neat and tidy" (*88) that "plugs a gap no other generally accepted theory fills', (*89. and "coincidence ...is always the safest and most likely explanation for any conjunction of curious circumstances ..." (*90). And what does this response mean? It means that "coincidence theory" is what the Post espouses when it would prefer not to admit to a conspiracy. In other words, some things just "happen". And, besides, conspiracy to do certain things would be a crime; "coincidence" is a safer bet. Post Ombudsman Richard Harwood, who, it is rumored, serves as Executive Director of the Benevolent Protective Order of Coincidence Theorists, (*91) recently issued a warning about presidential candidates "who have begun to mutter about a press conspiracy". Ordinarily, Harwood would simply dismiss these charges as "symptoms of the media paranoia that quadrennially engulfs members of the American political class" (*92). But a fatal mistake was made by the mutterers; they used the "C" word against the PRESS! And Harwood exploded his off-the-cuff comment into an entire column ending it with:"We are the new journalists, immersed too long, perhaps, in the cleansing waters of political conformity. But conspirators we ain't". Distinguished investigative journalist Morton Mintz, a 29-year veteran of the Washington Post, now chairs the Fund for Investigative Journalism. In the December issue of The Progressive, Mintz wrote "A Reporter Looks Back in Anger Why the Media Cover Up Corporate Crime". Therein he discussed the difficulties in convincing editors to accept important news stories. He illustrated the article with his own http://www.whale.to/b/mock.html

8/19

6/2/2016

CIA Disinformation in Action: Operation Mockingbird and the Washington Post

experiences at the Post, where he says he was known as "the biggest pain in the ass in the office" (*93). Would Harwood argue that grief endured by journalists at the hands of editors is a matter of random coincidence? And that such policy as Mintz described is made independently by editors without influence from fellow editors or from management? Would Harwood have us believe that at the countless office "meetings" in which news people are ever in attendance, there is no discussion of which stories will run and which ones will find inadequate space? That there is no advanced planning for stories or that there are no cooperative efforts among the staff? Or that in the face of our news-media "grayout" of presidential candidate Larry Agran, (*94) a Post journalist would be free to give news space to candidate Agran equal to that the Post lavishes on candidate Clinton? Let's face it: these possibilities are about as likely as Barbara Bush entertaining guests at a soup kitchen. Would Harwood have us believe that media critic and former Post Ombudsman Ben Bagdikian is telling less than the truth in his account of wire-service control over news: "The largely anonymous men who control the syndicate and wire service copy desks and the central wire photo machines determine at a single decision what millions will see and hear. ...there seems to be little doubt that these gatekeepers preside over an operation in which an appalling amount of press agentry sneaks in the back door of American journalism and marches untouched out the front door as 'news'" (*95). When he sat on the U.S. District Court of Appeals in Washington, Judge Clarence Thomas violated U.S. law when he failed to remove himself from a case in which he then proceeded to reverse a $10 million judgment against the Ralston Purina Company (*96). Ralston Purina, the animal feed empire, is the family fortune of Thomas' mentor, Senator John Danforth. The Post limited its coverage of the Thomas malfeasance to 56 words buried in the middle of a 1200-word article (*97). Would Harwood have us believe that the almost complete blackout on this matter by the major news media and the U.S. Senate was a matter of coincidence? Could a Post reporter have written a story about Ralston Purina if she had wanted to? Can a brick swim? Or take the fine report produced last September by Ralph Nader's Public Citizen. Titled All the Vice President's Men, it documents "How the Quayle Council on Competitiveness Secretly Undermines Health, Safety, and Environmental Programs". Three months later, Post journalists David Broder and Bob Woodward published "The President's Understudy", a seven-part series on Vice President Quayle. Although this series does address Quayle's role with the Competitiveness Council, its handling of the Council's disastrous impact on America is inadequate. It is 40,000 words of mostly aimless chatter about Quayle memorabilia: youth, family, college record, Christianity, political aspirations, intellectual aspirations, wealthy friends, government associates, golf, travels, wife Marilyn, and net worth revealing little about Quayle's abilities, his understanding of society's problems, or his thoughts about justice and freedom, and never mentioning the comprehensive Nader study of Quayle's record in the Bush Administration (*98). Now, did Broder or did Woodward forget about the Nader study? Or did both of them forget? Or did one, or the other, or both decide not to mention it? Did these two celebrated, seasoned Post reporters ever discuss together their jointly authored stories? Did they decide to publish such a barren set of articles because it would enhance their reputations? How did management feel about the use of precious news space for such frivolity? Is it possible that so many pages were dedicated to this twaddle without people "acting or working together toward the same result or goal"? (*99) Do crocodiles fly? On March 20, front-page headlines in the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, USA Today, and the Washington Post read respectively: http://www.whale.to/b/mock.html

9/19

6/2/2016

CIA Disinformation in Action: Operation Mockingbird and the Washington Post

TSONGAS DROPPED OUT OF THE PRESIDENTIAL RACE CLEARING CLINTON'S PATH TSONGAS ABANDONS CAMPAIGN LEAVING CLINTON CLEAR PATH TOWARD SHOWDOWN WITH BUSH TSONGAS CLEARS WAY FOR CLINTON TSONGAS EXIT CLEARS WAY FOR CLINTON This display of editorial independence should at least raise questions of whether the news media collective mindset is really different from that of any other cartel like oil, diamond, energy, (*100) or manufacturing cartels, a cartel being "a combination of independent commercial enterprises designed to limit competition" (*101). The Washington Post editorial page carries the heading: AN INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPER Is it? Of course not. There probably is no such thing. Does the Post "conspire" to keep its staff and its newspaper from wandering too far from the safety of mediocrity? The Post would respond that the question is absurd. In that I am not privy to the Post's telephone conversations, I can only speculate on how closely the media elite must monitor the staff. But we all know how few micro-seconds it takes a new reporter to learn what subjects are taboo and what are "safe", and that experienced reporters don't have to ask. What is more important, however, than speculating about how the Post communicates within its own corporate structure and with other members of the cartel, is to document and publicize what the Post does in public, namely, how it shapes and censors the news. Sincerely, Julian C. Holmes Copies to: Public-spirited citizens, both inside and outside the news media, And - maybe a few others. _ Notes to Letter of April 25, 1992: 1. Mark Hosenball, "The Ultimate Conspiracy", Washington Post, September 11, 1988, p.C1 2a. Julian Holmes, Letter to Washington Post Ombudsman Richard Harwood, June 4,1991. Notes that the Post censored, from the Anderson/Van Atta column, references to the Christic Institute and to Robert Gates. 2b. Jack Anderson and Dale Van Atta, "Iran-Contra Figure Dodges Extradition", Washington Merry-GoRound, United Feature Syndicate, May 26, 1991. This is the column submitted to the Post (see note 2a).. 2c. Jack Anderson and Dale Van Atta, "The Man Washington Doesn't Want to Extradite", Washington Post, May 26, 1991. The column (see note 2b). as it appeared in the Post (see note 2a).. 3a. Case No. 86-1146-CIV-KING, Amended Complaint for RICO Conspiracy, etc., United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, Tony Avirgan and Martha Honey v. John Hull et al., October 3, 1986. 3b. Vince Bielski and Dennis Bernstein, "Reports: Contras Send Drugs to U.S.", Cleveland Plain Dealer, http://www.whale.to/b/mock.html

10/19

6/2/2016

CIA Disinformation in Action: Operation Mockingbird and the Washington Post

November 16, 1986. 3c. Neal Matthews, "I Ran Drugs for Uncle Sam" (based on interviews with Robert Plumlee, contra resupply pilot)., San Diego Reader, April 5, 1990. 4. Leslie Cockburn, Out of Control. New York: Atlantic Monthly Press, 1987. 5a. Peter Dale Scott and Jonathan Marshall, Cocaine Politics, University ofCalifornia Press, 1991, p.179181. 5b. David S. Hilzenrath, "Hill Panel Finds No Evidence Linking Contras to Drug Smuggling", Washington Post, July 22, 1987, p.A07. 5c. Partial correction to the Washington Post of July 22, Washington Post, July 24,1987, p.A3. 5d. The Washington Post declined to publish SubCommittee Chairman Rangel's Letter- to-the-Editor of July 22, 1987. It was printed in the Congressional Record on August 6, 1987, p.E3296-7. 6a. Michael Kranish, "Kerry Says US Turned Blind Eye to Contra-Drug Trail", Boston Globe, April 10, 1988. 6b. Mary McGrory, "The Contra-Drug Stink", Washington Post, April 10, 1988, p.B1. 6c. Robert Parry with Rod Nordland, "Guns for Drugs? Senate Probers Trace an Old Contra Connection to George Bush's Office", Newsweek, May 23, 1988, p.22. 6d. Dennis Bernstein, "Iran-Contra The Coverup Continues", The Progressive, November 1988, p.24. 6e. "Drugs, Law Enforcement and Foreign Policy", A Report Prepared by the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Narcotics, and International Operations of the Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate, December 1988. 7a. Mark Hosenball, "If It's October ... Then It's Time for an Iranian Conspiracy Theory", Washington Post, October 9, 1988, p.D1. 7b. Mark Hosenball, "October Surprise! Redux! The Latest Version of the 1980 'Hostage- Deal' Story Is Still Full of Holes", Washington Post, April 21, 1991,p.B2. 8a. Barbara Honegger, October Surprise, New York: Tudor, 1989. 8b. Gary Sick, October Surprise, New York: Times Books, Random House, 1991. 9a. Abbie Hoffman and Jonathan Silvers, "An Election Held Hostage", Playboy, October 1988, p.73. 9b. Robert Parry and Robert Ross, "The Election Held Hostage", FRONTLINE, WGBH-TV,April 16, 1991. 10a. Reuter, "Ex-Hostages Seek Probe By Congress", Washington Post, June 14,1991,p.A4. 10b. "An Election Held Hostage?", Conference, Dirksen Senate Office Building Auditorium, Washington DC, June 13, 1991; Sponsored by The Fund For New Priorities in America, 171 Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016. 11a. David Brown and Guy Gugliotta, "House Approves Inquiry Into 'OctoberSurprise'", Washington http://www.whale.to/b/mock.html

11/19

6/2/2016

CIA Disinformation in Action: Operation Mockingbird and the Washington Post

Post, February 6, 1992, p.A11. 11b. Jack Colhoun, "Lawmakers Lose Nerve on October Surprise", The Guardian, December 11, 1991, p.7. 11c. Jack Colhoun, "October Surprise Probe Taps BCCI Lawyer", The Guardian, February 26, 1992, p.3. 12. See note 5a, p.180-1. 13a. See note 4, p.229, 240-1. 13b. Report of the Congressional Committees Investigating the Iran-Contra Affair, Senate Report No. 100-216, House Report No. 100-433, November 1987, p.139-141. 14a. Letter to His Excellency Oscar Arias Sanchez, President of the Republic of Costa Rica; from Members of the U.S. Congress David Dreier, Lee Hamilton, Dave McCurdy, Dan Burton, Mary Rose Oakar, Jim Bunning, Frank McCloskey, Cass Ballenger, Peter Kostmayer, Jim Bates, Douglas Bosco, James Inhofe, Thomas Foglietta, Rod Chandler, Ike Skelton, Howard Wolpe, Gary Ackerman, Robert Lagomarsino, and Bob McEwen; January 26, 1989. 14b. Peter Brennan, "Costa Rica Considers Seeking Contra Backer in U.S. Indiana Native Wanted on Murder Charge in 1984 Bomb Attack in Nicaragua", WashingtonPost, February 1, 1990. 14c. "Costa Rica Seeks Extradition of Indiana Farmer", Scripps-Howard News Service,April 25, 1991. 15. Press Release from the Costa Rican Embassy, Washington DC, On the Case of the Imprisonment of Costa Rican Citizen John Hull", February 6, 1989. 16. Brian Glick, War at Home, Boston: South End Press, 1989. 17. John Stockwell, The Praetorian Guard The U.S. Role in the New World Order, Boston: South End Press, 1991, p.121. 18. Hearings Before the Committee on Patents, United States Senate, 77th Cong., 2nd Session (1942)., part I, as cited in Joseph Borkin, The Crime and Punishment of I.G. Farben, New York: The Free Press, Macmillan, 1978, p.93. 19. R. Jeffrey Smith, "Study of A-Plant Neighbors' Health Urged", Washington Post, July 13, 1990, p.A6. 20. Tom Horton, "A Cost Higher Than the Peace Dividend Price Tag Mounts to Clean Up Nuclear Weapons Sites", Baltimore Sun, February 23, 1992, p.1K. 21. "The Nuclear Industry's Secret PR Strategy", EXTRA!, March 1992, p.15. 22a. Samuel S. Epstein, MD et al, Losing the War Against Cancer: Need for PublicPolicy Reform", Congressional Record, April 2, 1992, p.E947-9. 22b. Samuel S. Epstein, "The Cancer Establishment", Washington Post, March 10, 1992. 23a. Hon. Henry B. Gonzalez, "Efforts to Thwart Investigation of the BNL Scandal", Congressional Record, March 30, 1992, p.H2005-2014. 23b. Hon. David E. Skaggs (CO)., White House Spin Control on Pre-War Iraq Policy", Congressional http://www.whale.to/b/mock.html

12/19

6/2/2016

CIA Disinformation in Action: Operation Mockingbird and the Washington Post

Record, April 2, 1992, p.H2285. 23c. Nicholas Rostow, Special Assistant to the President and Legal Adviser, Memorandum to Jeanne S. Archibald et al, "Meeting on congressional requests for information and documents", April 8, 1991; Congressional Record, April 2, 1992,p.H2285. 24a. Michio Kaku, "Operation Desert Lie: Pentagon Confesses", The Guardian, March11, 1992, p.4. 24b. J. Max Robins, "NBC's Unaired Iraq Tapes Not a Black and White Case", Variety Magazine, March 4, 1991, p.25. 25. Emory R. Searcy Jr., Clergy and Laity Concerned, Spring 1991 Letter to"Friends", p.1. 26. Jean Dimeo, "Selling Hispanics on Columbus Luis Vasquez-Ajmac Is Hired to Promote Smithsonian Project", Washington Post, November 18, 1991, p.Bus.8. 27. Hans Koning, "Teach the Truth About Columbus", Washington Post, September 3,1991, p.A19. 28a. James Kilpatrick, "Software-Piracy Case Emitting Big Stench", St. Louis Post/Dispatch, March 18, 1991, p.3B. Elliot L. Richardson, "A High-Tech Watergate", New York Times, October 21,1991. 29. "BCCI NBC Sunday Today", February 23, 1992, p.12; transcript prepared by Burrelle's Information Services. The quote is from New York District Attorney Robert Morgenthau who is running his own independent investigation of BCCI. 30. Norman Bailey, former Reagan White House intelligence analyst; from an interview with Mark Rosenthal of NBC News. See note 29, p.5. 31. Jack Colhoun, "BCCI Skeletons Haunting Bush's Closet", The Guardian, September 18, 1991, p.9. 32. Robert Morgenthau. See note 29, p.10. 33. Russell Mokhiber, Corporate Crime and Violence, San Francisco: Sierra ClubBooks, 1989 paperback edition, p.227. 34. See note 33, p.136-7. 35. Morton Mintz, At Any Cost: Corporate Greed, Women, and the Dalkon Shield, NewYork: Pantheon, 1985. As cited in Mokhiber, see note 33, p.157. 36. See note 33, p.164-171. 37. See note 33, p.172-180. 38. Michael Waldman, Who Robbed America?, New York: Random House, 1990. The quote is from Ralph Nader's Introduction, p.iii. 39. See note 33, p.217. 40. See note 33, p.235. http://www.whale.to/b/mock.html

13/19

6/2/2016

CIA Disinformation in Action: Operation Mockingbird and the Washington Post

41. See note 33, p.277-288. 42. See note 33, p.323. 43. Katherine Hoyt Gonzalez, Nicaragua Network Education Fund Newsletter, March1992, p.1. 44. William Blum, The CIA A Forgotten History, London: Zed Books Ltd., 1986,p.232-243. 45a. John Stockwell, In Search of Enemies, New York: Norton, 1978. 45b. See note 44, p.284-291. 46. See note 17, p.18. 47a. Letter to President George Bush from The Ad Hoc Committee for Panama (James Abourezk et al)., January 10, 1990; published in The Nation, February 5, 1990, p.163. 47b. Philip E. Wheaton, Panama, Trenton NJ: Red Sea Press, 1992, p.145-7. 48a. Morton Mintz and Jerry S. Cohen, Power, Inc., New York: Bantam Books, 1977,p.521. 48b. "The International Oil Cartel", Federal Trade Commission, December 2, 1949. Cited in 48a, p.521. 49a. See note 44, p.67-76. 49b. See note 48a, p.530-1. 50. Ralph W. McGehee, Deadly Deceits, New York: Sheridan Square Publications, 1983,p.60. 51. HR-3385, "An Act to Provide Assistance for Free and Fair Elections in Nicaragua". Passed the U.S. House of Representatives on October 4, 1989 by avote of 263 to 136, and the Senate on October 17 by a vote of 64 to 35. 52. Jack Colhoun, "Gates Oozing Trail of Lies, Gets Top CIA Post", The Guardian,November 20, 1991, p.6. 53. Carl Bernstein, Time, February 24, 1992, Cover Story p.28-35. 54. "The U.S. and the Vatican on Birth Control", Time, February 24, 1992, p.35. 55. "Time's Missing Link: Poland to Latin America", National Catholic Reporter,February 28, 1992, p.24. 56a. Jim Lynn, "School of Americas Commander Hopes to Expand Mission", Benning Patriot, February 21, 1992, p.12. 56b. Vicky Imerman, "U.S. Army School of the Americas Plans Expansion", News Release from S.O.A. Watch, P.O. Bo 3330, Columbus, Georgia 31903. 57. 60 MINUTES, CBS, March 8, 1992. 58. Jack Colhoun, "Tricky Dick's Quick Election Fix", The Guardian, January 29,1992, p.18. 59a. Sean P. Murphy, "Several Probes May Have Ignored Evidence Against Police", Boston Globe, July http://www.whale.to/b/mock.html

14/19

6/2/2016

CIA Disinformation in Action: Operation Mockingbird and the Washington Post

28, 1991, p.1. 59b. Christopher B. Daly, "Pattern of Police Abuses Reported in Boston Case", Washington Post, July 12, 1991, p.A3. 59c. Associated Press, "Dayton Police Probing Erasure of Arrest Video", WashingtonPost, May 26, 1991, p.A20. 59d. Gabriel Escobar, "Deaf Man's Death In Police Scuffle Called Homicide", Washington Post, May 18, 1991, p.B1. 59e. Jay Mathews, "L.A. Police Laughed at Beating", Washington Post, March 19, 1991, p.A1. 59f. David Maraniss, "One Cop's View of Police Violence", Washington Post, April 12,1991, p.A1. 59g. From News Services, "Police Abuse Detailed", Washington Post, February 8, 1992,p.A8. 60. Michael Dobbs, "Panhandling the Kremlin: How Gus Hall Got Millions", Washington Post, March 1, 1992, p.A1. 61. David Streitfeld, "Secret Consortium To Publish Rushdie In Paperback", Washington Post, March 14, 1992, p.D1. 62a. See notes 48 and 49. 62b. See note 47b, p.63-76. 62c. "Fairness In Broadcasting Act of 1987", U.S. Senate Bill S742. 62d. "Now Let That 'Fairness' Bill Die", Editorial, Washington Post, June 24, 1987. The Post opposed the Fairness in Broadcasting Act. 63. David E. Scheim, Contract on America The Mafia Murder of President John F.Kennedy, New York: Shapolsky Publishers, 1988, p.viii. 64. See note 63, p.28. 65a. Chuck Conconi, "Out and About", Washington Post, February 26, 1991, p.B3. 65b. George Lardner Jr., "On the Set: Dallas in Wonderland", Washington Post, May19, 1991, p.D1. 65c. George Lardner, "...Or Just a Sloppy Mess", Washington Post, June 2, 1991,p.D3. 65d. Charles Krauthammer, "A Rash of Conspiracy Theories When Do We Dig Up BillCasey?", Washington Post, July 5, 1991, p.A19. 65e. Eric Brace, "Personalities", Washington Post, October 31, 1991, p.C3. 65f. Associated Press, "'JFK' Director Condemned Warren Commission Attorney Calls Stone Film 'A Big Lie'", Washington Post, December 16, 1991, p.D14. 65g. Gerald R. Ford and David W. Belin, "Kennedy Assassination: How About the Truth?", Washington http://www.whale.to/b/mock.html

15/19

6/2/2016

CIA Disinformation in Action: Operation Mockingbird and the Washington Post

Post, December 17, 1991, p.A21. 65h. Rita Kemply, "'JFK': History Through A Prism", Washington Post, December 20,1991, p.D1. 65i. George Lardner Jr., "The Way it Wasn't In 'JFK', Stone Assassinates the Truth", Washington Post, December 20, 1991, p.D2. 65j. Desson Howe, "Dallas Mystery: Who Shot JFK?", Washington Post, December 20,1991, p.55. 65k. Phil McCombs, "Oliver Stone, Returning the Fire In Defending His 'JFK' Conspiracy Film, the Director Reveals His Rage and Reasoning", Washington Post, December 21, 1991, p.F1. 65l. George F. Will, "'JFK': Paranoid History", Washington Post, December 26, 1991,p.A23. 65m. "On Screen", 'JFK' movie review, Washington Post, Weekend, December 27, 1991. 65n. Stephen S. Rosenfeld, "Shadow Play", Washington Post, December 27, 1991, p.A21. 65o. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, "The Paranoid Style", Washington Post, December 29,1991, p.C7. 65p. Michael Isikoff, "H-e-e-e-e-r-e's Conspiracy! Why Did Oliver Stone Omit (Or Suppress!). the Role of Johnny Carson?", Washington Post, December 29, 1991,p.C2. 65q. Robert O'Harrow Jr., "Conspiracy Theory Wins Converts Moviegoers Say 'JFK' Nourishes Doubts That Oswald Acted Alone", Washington Post, January 2, 1992, p.B1. 65r. Michael R. Beschloss, "Assassination and Obsession", Washington Post, January 5, 1992, p.C1. 65s. Charles Krauthammer, "'JFK': A Lie, But Harmless", Washington Post, January 10,1992, p.A19. 65t. Art Buchwald, "Bugged: The Flu Conspiracy", Washington Post, January 14, 1992,p.E1. 65u. Ken Ringle, "The Fallacy of Conspiracy Theories Good on Film, But the Motivation Is All Wrong", Washington Post, January 19, 1992, p.G1. 65v. Charles Paul Freund, "If History Is a Lie America's Resort to Conspiracy Thinking", Washington Post, January 19, 1992, p.C1. 65w. Richard Cohen, "Oliver's Twist", Washington Post Magazine, January 19, 1992, p.5. 65. Michael Isikoff, "Seeking JFK's Missing Brain", Washington Post, January 21,1992, p.A17. 65y. Don Oldenburg, "The Plots Thicken Conspiracy Theorists Are Everywhere", Washington Post, January 28, 1992, p.E5. 65z. Joel Achenbach, "JFK Conspiracy: Myth vs. the Facts", Washington Post, February 28, 1992, p.C5. 65A. List of books on the best-seller list: On the Trail of the Assassins is characterized as "conspiracy plot theories", Washington Post, March 8, 1992,Bookworld, p.12 66. See notes 65n, 65w, 65l, 65b, 65c, and 65i. 67a. Peter Dale Scott, "Vietnamization and the Drama of the Pentagon Papers". Published in The Senator http://www.whale.to/b/mock.html

16/19

6/2/2016

CIA Disinformation in Action: Operation Mockingbird and the Washington Post

Gravel Edition of The Pentagon Papers, Volume V,p.211-247. 67b. Peter Dale Scott, The War Conspiracy The Secret Road to the Second Indochina War, Indianapolis/New York: Bobbs-Merrill, 1972, p. 215-224. 67c. L. Fletcher Prouty, The Secret Team, Copyright 1973. New printing, Costa Mesa CA: Institute for Historical Review, 1990, p.402-416. 67d. See note 63, p.58, 183, 187, 194, 273-4. 67e. John M. Newman, JFK and Vietnam, New York: Warner Books, 1992. 67f. Peter Dale Scott, Letter to the Editor, The Nation, March 9, 1992, p.290. 68a. See note 65b. 68b. Oliver Stone, "The Post, George Lardner, and My Version of the JFK Assassination", Washington Post, June 2, 1991, p.D3. 69. See note 65b. 70. Jim Garrison, On the Trail of The Assassins, New York: Warner Books, 1988, 315/318. 71. Associated Press, "Garrison, 2 Others, Found Not Guilty Of Bribery Charge", Washington Post, September 28, 1973, p.A3. 72. See note 65c. 73. See note 65i. 74. See note 67e, p.438-450. 75. John G. Leyden, "Historians, Buffs, and Crackpots", Washington Post, Bookworld, January 26, 1992, p.8. 76a. Tad Szulc, "New Doubts, Fears in JFK Assassination Probe", Washington Star,September 19, 1975, p.A1. 76b. Tad Szulc, "Warren Commission's Self-Doubts Grew Day by Day 'This Bullet Business Leaves Me Confused'", Washington Star, September 20, 1975, p.A1. 76c. Tad Szulc, "Urgent and Secret Meeting of the Warren Commission Dulles Proposed that the Minutes be Destroyed", Washington Star, September 21, 1975,p.A1. 77. "Cable Sought to Discredit Critics of Warren Report", New York Times, December 26, 1977, p.A37. 78. Deborah Davis, Katharine The Great, New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1979,p.141-2. 79a. Eve Pell, "Private Censorship Killing 'Katharine The Great'", The Nation, November 12, 1983. 79b. Deborah Davis, Katharine The Great, Bethesda MD: National Press, 1987. Davis says, "...corporate http://www.whale.to/b/mock.html

17/19

6/2/2016

CIA Disinformation in Action: Operation Mockingbird and the Washington Post

documents that became available during my subsequent lawsuit against him [Harcourt Brace Jovanovich chairman, William Jovanovich] showed that 20,000 copies [of Katharine the Great] had been "processed and converted into waste paper"". 79c. Daniel Brandt, "All the Publisher's Men A Suppressed Book About Washington Post Publisher Katharine Graham Is On Sale Again" National Reporter, Fall 1987, p.60. 79d. Deborah Davis, Katharine The Great, New York: Sheridan Square Press, 1991. "...publishers who don't give a shit", p.iv-v; bullying HBJ into recalling the book, p.iv-vi; lawsuit and settlement, p.. 80. Benjamin C. Bradlee, Letter to Deborah Davis, April 1, 1987. See note 79d, p.304. 81. See note 79d, p.119-132. 82. Carl Bernstein, "The CIA and the Media How America's Most Powerful News Media Worked Hand in Glove with the Central Intelligence Agency and Why the Church Committee Covered It Up", Rolling Stone, October 20, 1977, p.63. 83a. Daniel Brandt, Letter to Richard L. Harwood of The Washington Post, September 15, 1988. The letter asks for the Post's rationale for its policy of protecting government covert actions, and whether this policy is still in effect. 83b. Daniel Brandt, "Little Magazines May Come and Go", The National Reporter, Fall 1988, p.4. Notes the Post's protection of the identity of CIA agent Joseph F.Fernandez. Brandt says, "America needs to confront its own recent history as well as protect the interests of its citizens, and both can be accomplished by outlawing peacetime covert activity. This would contribute more to thesecurity of Americans than all the counterterrorist proposals and elite strike forces that ever found their way onto Pentagon wish-lists." 83c. Richard L. Harwood, Letter to Daniel Brandt, September 28, 1988. Harwood's two- sentence letter reads, "We have a long-standing policy of not naming covert agents of the C.I.A., except in unusual circumstances. We applied that policy to Fernandez." 84. See note 79d, p.131. 85. Katharine Graham, "Safeguarding Our Freedoms As We Cover Terrorist Acts", Washington Post, April 20, 1986, p.C1. 86. "conspire", ß4ßRandom House Dictionary of the English Language, Second Edition Unabridged, 1987. 87. Howard Kurtz, "Media Notes", Washington Post, June 18, 1991, p.D1. 88. See note 65y. 89. See note 65n. 90. See note 65d. 91. William Casey, Private Communications with JCH, March 1992. Richard Harwood, "What Conspiracy?", Washington Post, March 1, 1992, p.C6. http://www.whale.to/b/mock.html

18/19

6/2/2016

CIA Disinformation in Action: Operation Mockingbird and the Washington Post

93. p. 29-32. 94a. Washington Post Electronic Data Base, Dialog Information Services Inc., April 25, 1992. In 1991 and 1992, the name Bill Clinton appeared in 878 Washington Post stories, columns, letters, or editorials; "Jerry" Brown in 485, Pat Buchanan in 303, and Larry Agran in 28. In those 28, Agran's name appeared 76 times, Clinton's 151, and Brown 105. In only 1 of those 28 did Agran's name appear in a headline. 94b. Colman McCarthy, "What's 'Minor' About This Candidate?", Washington Post, February 1, 1992. Washington Post columnist McCarthy tells how television and party officials have kept presidential candidate Larry Agran out of sight. The Post's own daily news-blackout of Agran is not discussed. 94c. Scot Lehigh, "Larry Agran: 'Winner' in Debate With Little Chance For the Big Prize", Boston Globe, February 25, 1992. 94d. Joshua Meyrowitz, "The Press Rejects a Candidate", Columbia Journalism Review,March/April, 1992. 95. Ben H. Bagdikian, The Effete Conspiracy And Other Crimes By The Press, NewYork: Harper and Row, 1972, p.36-7. 96a. 28 USC Section 455. "Any justice, judge, or magistrate of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned." [emphasis added] 96b. Alpo Petfoods, Inc. v. Ralston Purina Co., 913 F2d 958 (CA DC 1990).. 96c. Monroe Freedman, "Thomas' Ethics and the Court Nominee 'Unfit to Sit' For Failing to Recuse In Ralston Purina Case", Legal Times, August 26, 1991. 96d. Paul D. Wilcher, "Opposition to the Confirmation of Judge Clarence Thomas to become a Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court on the grounds of his JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT", Letter to U.S. Senator Joseph R. Biden, October 15, 1991. 97. Al Kamen and Michael Isikoff, "'A Distressing Turn', Activists Decry What Process Has Become", Washington Post, October 12, 1991, p.A1. 98. January 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 1992, p.A1 each day. 99. See note 86. 100. Thomas W. Lippman, "Energy Lobby Fights Unseen 'Killers'", Washington Post,April 1, 1992, p.A21. This article explains that "representatives of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers and the coal, oil, natural gas, offshore drilling and nuclear power industries, whose interests often conflict, pledged to work together to oppose amendments limiting offshore oil drilling, nuclear power and carbon dioxide emissions soon to be offered by key House members". 101. "cartel", Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, 1977.  

http://www.whale.to/b/mock.html

19/19

http://integratingdarkandlight.com/cia-propaganda-and-disinformation/

CIA Propaganda and Disinformation

integratingdarkandlight.com Known Sources of Disinformation

CIA Operation Mockingbird - American Media Disinfo

Agent Smith Offers 2 Blue Pills

These are tricky, because they give a lot of information that is true and accurate, and the underground news sites even publish stories that line up with what you’re finding on other trusted underground news sites, and lead you to believe you’ve found a good source of information, but then the disinformation is inserted, and it takes some determined digging to figure out which parts are truth and which are red herrings. Wikipedia Replaces Paper Encyclopedias:  A Generation Loses Access to Less-Filtered History

No Law Against TV News Lying to 15 Million People

NY Times - It Only Takes 20 Mins to Shift the Blame

Page 1 of 6

Wikipedia is a Cabal-controlled website peppered with censorship, Bernays - Propaganda - True Ruling Power of misinformation and Our Country disinformation.  You can verify this for yourself by searching for information on any Cabal pet projects for which they try to discredit critics and actively publish disinformation.  Here are a few examples: Their page on the hazards of Aspartame is labelled “ Aspartame Controversy” and minimizes the hazards, reports a sanitized version of the FDA approval process, court challenges and investigations, and arrives at the conclusion that Aspartame is safe.  Aspartame is probably the most hazardous toxin allowed into our food supply.  See here, here, and here for accurate information. Wikipedia refers to the life-saving benefits of the excellent drug Low-Dose Naltrexone as “ pseudo-scientific claims” and refuses all efforts by leading researchers to update that page with accurate information.  Here is accurate information on Low-Dose Naltrexone.  This particular drug replacesApr outrageously 27, 2015 12:52:06PM MDT

http://integratingdarkandlight.com/cia-propaganda-and-disinformation/

The CIA Owns Everyone of Any Significance in the Major Media

accurate information on Low-Dose Naltrexone.  This particular drug replaces outrageously expensive and ineffective drugs for cancer, MS, and many other diseases, and would cost Big Pharma a lot of money and save a lot of lives if it were more widely publicized and mainstream medical doctors learned about it in medical school. Their List of Journalists Killed in the United States doesn’t include Gary Webb or others who were actively speaking and writing against the Cabal.  

Quackbusters, Quackwatch, National Council Against Health Fraud, Campaign Against Health Fraud, CSICOP These are the AMA’s propaganda department.  Whale on Medical and Pharma Shills.    Gordon Duff and Veterans Today This is a disinformation news outlet associated with PressTV but controlled by U.S. Military Intelligence, so this is one of the sites you seriously have to take with a grain of salt.  Gordon Duff and Veterans Today publishes a lot of good and accurate news not seen elsewhere, and then there is total bullshit mixed in, and it’s up to you to figure out which parts are which.  There was one Gordon Duff story I posted on Facebbook, and several people challenged me, so I wrote to Gordon Duff asking him for some sort of validation or backup for the story, twice, and he never wrote back to me.  Here is American Kabuki also confirming that Veteran’s Today is operated by U.S. Military Intelligence.   Sorcha Faal on WhatDoesItMean.com and EUTimes.com Some comments about Sorcha Faal (possibly David Booth?) are here, here, and here.     Attempts to Silence Dissent and Deter Whistleblowers The brutal police response to the Occupy Wall Street protests violated our rights to free speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom to petition our government for a redress of grievances.  In addition to the torture and abuse of arrested protesters, the FBI likely targeted leaders of the Occupy movement for assassination. Bradley Manning is not a traitor, he is a whistleblower who revealed US war crimes. Page 2 of 6

Apr 27, 2015 12:52:06PM MDT

http://integratingdarkandlight.com/cia-propaganda-and-disinformation/ US war crimes.

Julian Assange is a publisher of information many governments would rather keep hidden, so his website is actually online journalism covered under “freedom of the press.” NSA Whistleblower Thomas Drake tried to report through proper channels, and was prosecuted for his efforts.

MSM Brainwashing Better Than the Nazis

CIA Whistleblower Susan Lindauer also tried to testify to congress through proper channels, and was arrested under the Patriot Act, incarcerated without trial, and even held in a mental hospital, at risk of forced medication.  Lindauer is brilliant here in explaining the Nuremberg principles, morality, war crimes, and the criminalization of dissent and whistleblowing.

    Assassination of Journalists There are many more who should be listed here…. Gary Webb Andrew Breitbart (story on murder of his coroner technician) Michael Hastings Bill Cooper predicted 9-11 Assassinatd 11-2001

 

    Engineering of Public Opinion Through False Flag Events Your False Flags Don’t Work Any More ~ We Are Awake!    

Michael Hastings - Journalist killed just before exposing CIA Director Our Government Wouldn't Do That To Us They Would Tell Us on TV

Page 3 of 6

 

Mind-Con Projects of the

Military-I Apr 27, 2015 12:52:06PM MDT

http://integratingdarkandlight.com/cia-propaganda-and-disinformation/

Military-I Complex CIA Project MK Ultra

Top 5 Signs of a False Flag Terror Attack

Hoover - Human Mind Cannot Believe Conspiracies So Monstrous Exist

There were 140 sub-proje listed under

Project MK Ultra.  Project Monarch is the most well-known. Colin A Ross, M.D., Mark Phillips and Cathy O’Brien on MK Ultra and other CIA Mind Control Projects Trance-Formation of America ~ official website Cathy O’Brien and Mark Phillips ~ TRANCE:  Formation of America TRANCE Formation of America was originally written, in graphic detail, for the U.S. House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Oversight in 1995, seven years after Mark Phillips rescued my daughter Kelly and I from our White House/Pentagon level MK-Ultra mind control victimization. We had previously been stopped from presenting our compiled eyewitness testimonies, supporting medical documents and hard evidence to all local, state, and federal legal bodies for so-called “reasons of National Security”. Once it became clear that we would not be able to address the Congressional Committee, TRANCE was released en masse in the form of a self-published book. It is now in its 14th printing, and is rapidly spanning the globe. Ted Gundersom, Chip Tatum, Brice Taylor and Barbara Hartwell The Kay Griggs Interviews ~ Part 1     Part 2     Part 3     Part 4   MK Ultra Project Monarch Monarch Slaves ~ Tiger Woods, Michael Jackson and Nicki Minaj Michael Jackson, Monarch Child ~ Part 2 ~ Part 3 Michael Jackson Speaks Out Against Illuminati, Media Manipulation, and Suppression of Black Contributions to Music and Dance Monarch Mind Control and the Music Industry ~ Britney Spears Tila Tequila Speaks Out Against Her Monarch Mind Controllers Dave Chappelle Breaks His Illuminati Spell ~ Part 1 ~ Part 2 Page 4 of 6

Apr 27, 2015 12:52:06PM MDT

http://integratingdarkandlight.com/cia-propaganda-and-disinformation/

    The Montauk Project What is the Montauk Project? Al Bielek ~ The Montauk Project Al Bielek ~ Montauk Mind Control ~ Archive Footage Preston Nichols ~ The Montauk Project Mastermind Behind MK-Ultra Was Nazi Scientist

Preston Nichols and Duncan Cameron ~ The Philadelphia Experiment and the Montauk Project

Al Bielek, Duncan Cameron and Preston Nichols ~ The Montauk Survivors, the Phoenix Project, and the  Philadelphia Experiment Al Bielek ~ The Philadelphia Teleportation and Time Travel Experiments Al Bielek ~ The Alternative Future Time Lines and Time Travel Al Bielek/Ed Cameron ~ Complete Video Autobiography     More Mind Control Projects A wide range of Mind Control Projects run by the CIA, NSA, Air Force, and other agencies, most as black ops projects. Colin A. Ross ~ The CIA Doctors:  Human Rights Violations by American Psychiatrists The C.I.A. Doctors, (Manitou Communications, 2006), uncovers the truth about violations of human rights by The More We Do To You - The Less You Seem To Believe American Psychiatrists in the twentieth century. We Are Doing It -- J Mengele Documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act and cross-referenced research published in leading medical journals expose the existence of mind altering experiments on unwitting human subjects, paid for by the U.S. government, the U.S. Military and the C.I.A. These experiments which inlcude LSD experiments, sensory deprivation, electroconvulsive treatment, brain electrode implants, radiation experiments and prostitution rings were perpetrated not by a few renegage doctors but by leading psychiatrists, psychologists, neurosurgeons, universities, medical schools and maximum security prisons on American soil. Dr. Ross takes you on a mind-blowing fact finding adventure into the secret world of espionage and Manchurian Candidates. Given our situations in

Guantanamo Page 5 of 6

and Abu Graib the only question left unanswered is what are the U.S. Government, Apr 27, 2015 12:52:06PM MDT

http://integratingdarkandlight.com/cia-propaganda-and-disinformation/

Guantanamo and Abu Graib the only question left unanswered is what are the U.S. Government, psychiatrists and medical schools doing today? The C.I.A. Doctors was originally published as BLUEBIRD: Deliberate Creation of Multiple Personality by Psychiatrists in 2000. Colin A. Ross ~ Military Mind Control:  A Story of Trauma and Recovery Military Mind Control provides a single case history written by Dr. Ross. Terese, a woman treated in Dr. Ross’ private practice, is a survivor of childhood trauma that included paternal incest, ritual abuse and military mind control. The case history describes the therapeutic goals, tasks, strategies and principles that have contributed to her recovery, including the principle of therapeutic neutrality. It is a documented fact that victims of CIA and military mind control experimentation have been hypnotized, given hallucinogens, held in sensory deprivation chambers, given massive amounts of electroshock and subjected to unethical, inhumane treatment by psychiatrists. Therefore, although Terese’s participation in a military mind control program is unproven, it could very well be real.     Resources for Survivors of Trauma and Mind Control Cathy O’Brien and Mark Phillips ~ Access Denied:  For Reasons of National Security ACCESS DENIED provides pertinent facts on mind control in a comprehensive manner that inspires positive action through conscious awareness.  This book was written for all people who have endured trauma; from childhood abuse to the horrors of war.  It offers the detailed healing methods and coping skills Mark taught Cathy in order for her to heal from MK Ultra mind control and PTSD.  This book is a monument to the power of love and truth, and inspires positive action through conscious I am not what happened to me. I am what I choose to become. ~ Carl Jung awareness.  ACCESS DENIED is a book of logical answers, solutions, and positive hope for all of u.s. and our allies around the world.  

Healing Doesn't Mean the Damage Never Existed. It Means the Damage No Longer Controls Our Lives.

Page 6 of 6

Apr 27, 2015 12:52:06PM MDT

The Central Intelligence Agency’s “Family Jewels”: Legal Then? Legal Now? DANIEL L. PINES∗ Congress and the media recently have claimed that various activities of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)—from rendition operations, to the destruction of videotapes, to the maintenance of secret detention facilities overseas—are illegal. Critics levied similar charges against the CIA thirty-five years ago, with regard to activities contained in the “Family Jewels”—the 1973 compilation of the CIA’s darkest secrets. The recent release of the Family Jewels provides the opportunity to try to put today’s concerns in perspective. This Article evaluates the key activities conducted by the CIA as described in the Family Jewels—experimentation on unconsenting individuals, attempted targeted killings of foreign leaders, electronic surveillance of Americans, examination of U.S. mail, and collection of information on American dissident movements. Contrary to widely held beliefs both then and now, all but one of these activities (experimentation on unconsenting individuals) were legal when they were committed, suggesting that other allegedly “illegal” activities, engaged in by the CIA now, may similarly prove to be lawful. INTRODUCTION Congress and the media often accuse the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA or “the Agency”) of engaging in “illegal” activities. Current allegations have focused on the use of secret terrorist detention facilities overseas, the treatment of those detained in such facilities, and the destruction of videotapes of a few of those detainees.1 Yet rigorous and definitive analysis of the legality of such CIA activities is often precluded—or at least seriously undermined—by the politics and hype of the immediate period, and the secret and classified status of the operations at issue. The recent allegations are hardly the first time the Agency has been accused of engaging in illegal activities. The 1970s brought one of the first deluges of accusations levied against the CIA. This Article will evaluate the CIA’s activities during that era, now that such operations have been generally declassified and enough time has passed to be able to consider them in context. In concluding that those activities were generally legal then, the Article suggests that allegations of other “illegal” CIA

∗ Assistant General Counsel, Office of General Counsel, Central Intelligence Agency. All statements of fact, opinion, or analysis expressed are those of the author and do not reflect the official positions or views of the Central Intelligence Agency or any other U.S. Government agency. Nothing in the contents should be construed as asserting or implying U.S. Government authentication of information or CIA endorsement of the author’s views. This material has been reviewed by the CIA to prevent the disclosure of classified information. The author wishes to thank Robert M. Chesney for his assistance with this Article. 1. See, e.g., Editorial, Looking at America, N.Y. TIMES, Dec. 31, 2007, at A16 (describing the “lawless behavior” of the CIA in “plott[ing] to cover up the torture of prisoners by Central Intelligence Agency interrogators by destroying videotapes of their sickening behavior”); Editorial, The Torture Mystery, L.A. TIMES, July 26, 2007, at A20 (noting that the Senate has raised questions about the legality of the techniques used in the CIA’s detention program).

638

INDIANA LAW JOURNAL

[Vol. 84:637

operations may also prove erroneous when the hype dissipates, the secrecy surrounding the activity lifts, and the benefit of perspective emerges. In May 1973, James R. Schlesinger, then director of the CIA, ordered all CIA employees to inform him personally of any current or past activities that could be construed as having violated the CIA’s Charter.2 The responses, totaling 702 pages and highly classified, were considered so sensitive that they were known as the CIA’s “Family Jewels.”3 In June 2007, almost thirty-five years later, the Agency declassified the Family Jewels with some redactions.4 The Family Jewels describe acts ranging from the attempted killings of Fidel Castro and Patrice Lumumba to providing LSD to unconsenting Americans.5 The documents also reveal operations to electronically monitor U.S. reporters, gather intelligence on protest movements in the United States, and open U.S. mail going to and from communist countries.6 All of these activities were highly controversial in 1973, and remain so now.7 Indeed, when the Family Jewels were declassified in June 2007, the media described the documents as depicting the Agency’s “dirtiest secrets,”8 “rogue operations,”9 and “unsavory activities.”10 More importantly, however, these media outlets portrayed the Family Jewels as documenting the many “illegal activities” engaged in by the CIA in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s.11 This Article seeks to challenge that last assertion. It will evaluate each of the main types of activities discussed in the 702 pages of the Family Jewels to determine if those activities were indeed illegal when the Family Jewels were compiled in 1973. Thus, what follows is an assessment of whether each given activity violated the United States Constitution, any U.S. statute, or any judicially created law as existed in 1973, and if so, whether such violation would have been actionable in a U.S. court. My conclusion is that the vast majority of the activities described in the Family Jewels were indeed

2. CIA, FAMILY JEWELS 00418 (1973), available at http://www.foia.cia.gov/ [hereinafter FAMILY JEWELS] (type “Family Jewels” in the Search Declassified Docs browser; then click on “Family Jewels” in the results). 3. Mark Mazzetti & Tim Weiner, Files on Illegal Spying Show C.I.A. Skeletons from Cold War, N.Y. TIMES, June 27, 2007, at A1. 4. Mary Louise Kelly, Some Fear CIA ‘Family Jewels’ Could Hurt Agency, NAT’L PUB. RADIO, June 27, 2007, http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyld=11417938. 5. See FAMILY JEWELS, supra note 2, at 00418–18a, 00425. 6. Id. at 00021, 00182, 00331. 7. See Kelly, supra note 4. 8. Id. 9. Richard Willing, CIA Discloses Past Abuses, USA TODAY, June 27, 2007, at A1. 10. Karen DeYoung & Walter Pincus, CIA Releases Files on Past Misdeeds, WASH. POST, June 27, 2007, at A1. 11. DeYoung & Pincus, supra note 10 (noting the depiction of “illegal wiretaps” in the Family Jewels); Mazzetti & Weiner, supra note 3 (asserting the Family Jewels describe “illegal activities of the past” including “illegal spying operations in the 1960s and 1970s”); Willing, supra note 9 (describing the Family Jewels as CIA’s acknowledgement of its “past illegal activities” and how “the agency repeatedly violated its own charter”); CIA Releases 700 Pages PUB. RADIO, June 26, 2007, of ‘Family Jewels’, NAT’L http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11433256 (“The CIA on Tuesday released hundreds of pages of classified reports describing illegal activities by the agency in the 1950s, ‘60s and ‘70s.”).

2009]

THE CIA’S “FAMILY JEWELS”: LEGAL THEN? LEGAL NOW?

639

legal when undertaken. While some specific operations might not have complied with the letter of the law, every type of activity—with the exception of unconsenting human experimentation—was legally permissible. I will also evaluate the status of the law related to these activities as it currently exists. The CIA is precluding me from offering an assessment as to whether these activities would be legal today, as such an assessment could interfere with the authorized functions of the Agency. Therefore, I will provide a description of the current law in these areas, and permit the reader to draw his or her own conclusion as to the present-day legality of these activities. Part I of this Article will provide background on the Family Jewels. This Part will first provide a history of the CIA, in order to place the documents in context. It will then discuss the events that led to the compilation of the Family Jewels, as well as their recent declassification and release. Parts II through VI will describe and analyze the five main activities depicted in the Family Jewels: unconsenting human experimentation, attempted targeted killings of foreign leaders, electronic surveillance of Americans, examination of U.S. mail, and the collection of information on American dissident movements. These Parts will evaluate the legality of each of those activities in 1973—when the Family Jewels were compiled—and describe the law governing such activities today. I will conclude that while many critics and commentators might automatically assume that the activities in the Family Jewels were illegal when committed, such a presumption is in fact erroneous. I. BACKGROUND ON THE CIA AND ITS FAMILY JEWELS Until 1945, intelligence collection in this country had been an uncoordinated, disparate affair.12 Numerous, mostly military, units acquired information for their own purposes, without coordinating and collaborating amongst themselves.13 The advent of World War II required a change to that formula; the attack on Pearl Harbor exposed the need for a better intelligence-gathering mechanism, while the rising power of the Soviet Union demanded a coordinated intelligence effort to counter the growing threat of communism.14 What emerged was the Central Intelligence Agency, created by the National Security Act of 1947 (“National Security Act” or “Act”).15 The Act, which is considered the CIA’s Charter, originally allocated five main functions to the CIA: (1) provide advice on matters concerning intelligence activities related to national security; (2) make recommendations for coordinating such intelligence activities amongst U.S. government agencies; (3) correlate, evaluate, and disseminate that intelligence, as well as protect intelligence sources and methods from unauthorized

12. SENATE SELECT COMM. TO STUDY GOVERNMENTAL OPERATIONS WITH RESPECT TO INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES, FOREIGN AND MILITARY INTELLIGENCE: BOOK I: FINAL REPORT, S. REP. NO. 94-755, at 20 (1976), available at http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/contents/church/contents_church_reports_book1.htm [hereinafter CHURCH REPORT: BOOK I]. 13. See id. 14. See id. 15. Id. at 21.

640

INDIANA LAW JOURNAL

[Vol. 84:637

disclosure; (4) perform services of common concern to the intelligence community; and (5) maintain the broad authority to “perform such other functions and duties related to intelligence affecting the national security” as the President may direct (known as the “Fifth Function”).16 While the list of functions did not explicitly include the “collection” of intelligence, Congress fully expected that the Agency would engage in such activities.17 Though amended several times, the core functions of the CIA— collection, evaluation, and dissemination of intelligence, as well as the “Fifth Function”—remain in effect today.18 The Act has always precluded the CIA from maintaining any “police, subpoena, or law enforcement powers or internal security functions.”19 Congress did not wish to have the Agency interfere with the authorities of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), nor become a secret police unit akin to the Gestapo in Nazi Germany.20 The Act also limits the expanse of CIA activities to foreign intelligence and counterintelligence, as opposed to domestic intelligence.21 However, neither these provisions, nor any other portion of the Act, restrict the Agency’s intelligence collection activities solely to overseas endeavors. Indeed, the Act’s legislative history indicates that Congress expected the CIA to collect intelligence inside the United States.22

16. National Security Act of 1947, Pub. L. No. 80-253, § 102(d), 61 Stat. 495, 498 (codified as amended at 50 U.S.C. § 403-4a(d) (Supp. V 2005)). The Act explicitly gave the National Security Council (NSC) the authority to direct the Agency under this Fifth Function; however, it is clear that this authority really vested in the President, given that the NSC performs such functions “as the President may direct.” Id. at 496–97. 17. REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT BY THE COMMISSION ON CIA ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE UNITED STATES 48 (1975) [hereinafter ROCKEFELLER REPORT] (noting that, in enacting the National Security Act of 1947, “Congress contemplated that the CIA would be involved in all aspects of foreign intelligence, including collection”); id. at 51 (discussing the CIA’s authority to collect intelligence since its inception). 18. See 50 U.S.C. § 403-4a(d) (Supp. V 2005). The current version of the Act retained these key roles with some modifications. Specifically, it now explicitly authorizes the CIA to “collect intelligence” (amending the first function); eliminates the CIA’s role to protect sources and methods (part of the second function); no longer includes the CIA’s authority to perform services of common concern to the intelligence community (the fourth function); and changes the Fifth Function to authorize the CIA to engage in such other functions and duties as directed by the President and the Director of National Intelligence (as opposed to the NSC). See id. 19. Id. § 403-4a(d)(1). 20. See Weissman v. Cent. Intelligence Agency, 565 F.2d 692, 695 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (discussing the creation of the National Security Act and noting “[w]hile the 80th Congress obviously, and for good reason, wished to protect America’s security, it had no intention of making the mistake of creating an American ‘Gestapo’”); ROCKEFELLER REPORT, supra note 17, at 54. 21. 50 U.S.C. §§ 401a(1), 403-4a(d). The original Act merely limited the CIA to activities involving “intelligence,” without defining the term. See 61 Stat. 495, 495–99 (1947). However, it was always understood that this meant foreign intelligence and counterintelligence. See ROCKEFELLER REPORT, supra note 17, at 51–53. The congressional amendment of the Act in 1992 made this meaning explicit. Intelligence Organization Act of 1992, Pub. L. No. 102-496, 106 Stat. 3188, 3188 (1992). 22. ROCKEFELLER REPORT, supra note 17, at 52–53; see also infra text accompanying notes 430–42.

2009]

THE CIA’S “FAMILY JEWELS”: LEGAL THEN? LEGAL NOW?

641

During the first twenty-five years of its existence, the CIA maintained great autonomy as Congress generally sought and received few details of the Agency’s activities.23 As one Senator stated in an attitude considered typical: It is not a question of reluctance on the part of CIA officials to speak to us. Instead it is a question of our reluctance, if you will, to seek information and knowledge on subjects which I personally, as a Member of Congress and as a citizen, would rather not have.24

Such deference evaporated in the 1970s. The notable lack of success in the Vietnam War raised questions about the CIA’s operations and its intelligence gathering capabilities.25 The Watergate scandal, meanwhile, reduced trust in the executive branch, and increased the need and desire for aggressive investigative reporting about U.S. government activities.26 All of this led to greater scrutiny of the CIA and its activities, which increased exponentially with public revelations of some of the aggressive activities the CIA had engaged in during the decades since its creation.27 The CIA’s Family Jewels emerged from this period of change. In 1973, then-CIA Director28 James R. Schlesinger became appalled by press reports of Agency involvement in Watergate.29 Though it turned out that the Agency had virtually no role in the scandal,30 Schlesinger sought to ensure that all Agency activities going forward fell “within a strict interpretation” of the Agency’s “legislative charter,” or the National Security Act.31 Therefore, on May 9, 1973, Schlesinger issued a memorandum to the entire Agency populace, ordering every Agency employee (and inviting any former

23. See United States v. Lopez-Lima, 738 F. Supp. 1404, 1410 (S.D. Fla. 1990) (noting that prior to 1974 “[c]ongressional oversight of intelligence activities . . . was extremely limited”); William C. Banks & Peter Raven-Hansen, Targeted Killing and Assassination: The U.S. Legal Framework, 37 U. RICH. L. REV. 667, 709 (2003). 24. JOHN PRADOS, PRESIDENTS’ SECRET WARS: CIA AND PENTAGON COVERT OPERATIONS FROM WORLD WAR II THROUGH IRANSCAM 329 (1986) (quoting Senator Leverett Saltonstall); see also Ray S. Cline, Covert Action as Presidential Prerogative, 12 HARV. J.L. & PUB. POL’Y 357, 366 (1989) (“Throughout the 1950s and 1960s, a small number of senior congressional leaders monitored intelligence activities in minimal fashion.”). 25. See CHURCH REPORT: BOOK I, supra note 12, at 27. 26. Lori Fisler Damrosch, Covert Operations, 83 AM. J. INT’L L. 795, 795 (1989) (“The era of congressional noninvolvement [in CIA covert operations] came to an end with the Watergate disclosures of intelligence activities that many Americans found reprehensible [and] the ensuing investigations into assassination attempts and other controversial covert actions . . . .”). 27. See id. 28. The Act originally referred to the head of the CIA as the “Director of Central Intelligence” (DCI). National Security Act of 1947, Pub. L. No. 80-253, § 102(a), 61 Stat. 495, 497 (codified as amended at 50 U.S.C. § 403(a) (2000)). Currently, the head of the CIA is known as the “Director of the Central Intelligence Agency” (DCIA). 50 U.S.C. § 403(a) (2000). Throughout this Article, I will be using the term “CIA Director” to refer to the head of the CIA whether technically a DCI or a DCIA. 29. Mazzetti & Weiner, supra note 3. 30. See ROCKEFELLER REPORT, supra note 17, at 32–33 (noting that the CIA’s role was nominal and that there was “no evidence that the CIA participated in the Watergate break-in or in the Post-Watergate cover-up by the White House”). 31. FAMILY JEWELS, supra note 2, at 00418–18a.

642

INDIANA LAW JOURNAL

[Vol. 84:637

employee) to report to him directly “on any activities now going on, or that have gone on in the past, which might be construed to be outside the legislative charter of this Agency.”32 He further demanded to be informed if any employee received an instruction or order that appeared “in any way inconsistent with the CIA legislative charter . . . .”33 The compendium of documents responsive to Schlesinger’s edict were originally called the “skeletons,”34 but quickly became referred to as the “Family Jewels.”35 The CIA kept the Family Jewels classified because it feared that exposing the various acts contained therein would cause extraordinary damage to the Agency’s reputation, and possibly lead to its demise.36 As later CIA Director Colby stated: “The shock effect of an exposure of the ‘family jewels,’ I urged, could, in the climate of 1973, inflict mortal wounds on the C.I.A. and deprive the nation of all the good the agency could do in the future.”37 Congress and the White House, concerned about the Agency’s activities, established three separate commissions to investigate.38 Vice President Nelson Rockefeller headed the White House commission (“Rockefeller Commission”), while Senator Frank Church and Congressman Otis Pike led the Senate and House of Representatives inquiries, respectively (“Church Commission” and “Pike Commission”).39 The CIA eventually provided copies of the Family Jewels to each commission.40 Based on those documents, as well as information gained through hearings and other mechanisms, each commission assessed the CIA’s activities and released reports (“Rockefeller Report,” “Church Report,” and “Pike Report”).41 The Church Commission also issued a separate

32. Id. at 00418. 33. Id. at 00418a; see JOHN PRADOS, LOST CRUSADER: THE SECRET WARS OF CIA DIRECTOR WILLIAM COLBY 260 (2003) (noting that, after hearing about CIA connections to Watergate, CIA Director Schlesinger “wanted information on any action in the CIA’s past, especially domestic activities, that might have flap potential” (emphasis in original)). 34. See Memorandum from James A. Wilderotter on CIA Matters to the File 1 (Jan. 3, 1975), available at http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB222/family_jewels_wilderotter.pdf. 35. See Mazzetti & Weiner, supra note 3. 36. Id. 37. Id. 38. See PRADOS, supra note 33, at 300. 39. Id. at 300, 308, 315. 40. See PRADOS, supra note 33, at 300, 308, 315; DeYoung & Pincus, supra note 10 (noting that CIA Director Colby “later turned the entire ‘family jewels’ file over to Congress, an act some agency veterans still consider a betrayal”); Press Release, Central Intelligence Agency, CIA Releases Two Collections of Historical Documents (June 26, 2007), available at https://www.cia.gov/news-information/press-releases-statements/press-release-archive-2007/ciareleases-two-collections-of-historical-documents.html [hereinafter CIA Press Release]. 41. See SENATE SELECT COMM. TO STUDY GOVERNMENTAL OPERATIONS WITH RESPECT TO INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES, FINAL REPORT, S. REP. NO. 94-755 (1976), available at http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/contents/church/contents_church_reports.htm [hereinafter CHURCH REPORT]; ROCKEFELLER REPORT, supra note 17. As noted below, all facets of the Pike Report remain classified. See infra note 45. None of these reports, of course, themselves created law, and their “views would not be controlling on a court . . . .” Marks v. Cent. Intelligence Agency, 590 F.2d 997, 1002 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (referring explicitly to the Church Report).

2009]

THE CIA’S “FAMILY JEWELS”: LEGAL THEN? LEGAL NOW?

643

report regarding CIA’s assassination plots of foreign leaders (“Assassinations Report”).42 Of the reports, the Rockefeller Report, conducted by the executive branch, understandably was the least scathing.43 The Rockefeller, Church, and Assassinations Reports were all released to the public.44 The Pike Report was not officially released, but was reportedly leaked to the press and published in its entirety just days after its completion.45 Almost thirty-five years later, current CIA Director Michael Hayden ordered the release of the Family Jewels, though with some redactions.46 As Director Hayden stated: The CIA fully understands that it has an obligation to protect the nation’s secrets, but it also has a responsibility to be as open as possible. I’ve often spoke about our social contract with the American people, and the declassification of historical documents is an important part of that effort.47

The 702 pages of the Family Jewels depict numerous activities conducted by the Agency in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s. All of these activities could not possibly be addressed within the space limitations of this Article. I have therefore declined to assess the considerable number of activities in the Family Jewels that appear clearly legal on their face, including the CIA’s counterintelligence activities in the United States,48 as well as its use of physical surveillance, undercover agents, alias documents, and overhead imagery.49 I have also declined to evaluate operations that the Family Jewels mention only in passing, without sufficient detail to permit proper consideration of their legality.50 Instead, I have focused on the five types of activities that were of significant concern to the Rockefeller and Church Commissions,51 and more

42. SENATE SELECT COMM. TO STUDY GOVERNMENTAL OPERATIONS WITH RESPECT TO INTELLIGENCE OPERATIONS, INTERIM REPORT: ALLEGED ASSASSINATION PLOTS INVOLVING FOREIGN LEADERS, S. REP. NO. 94-465 (1975) [hereinafter ASSASSINATIONS REPORT]. 43. See PRADOS, supra note 33, at 303–04. 44. See ASSASSINATIONS REPORT, supra note 42; CHURCH REPORT, supra note 41; ROCKEFELLER REPORT, supra note 17; see also PRADOS, supra note 33, at 303–04, 327. 45. See PRADOS, supra note 33, at 329. Because the Pike Report was never officially released and remains classified, even though allegedly published in the media, I am precluded from referring to its contents in this Article. 46. CIA Press Release, supra note 40. 47. Id. 48. Such activities, such as surveillance in the United States of a former CIA employee who had become “professionally and emotionally involved” with a Cuban national, FAMILY JEWELS, supra note 2, at 00026, 00059–61, are permitted by statute. See 50 U.S.C. § 403-4a(d) (Supp. V 2005) (authorizing the Agency to engage in counterintelligence activities). 49. See ROCKEFELLER REPORT, supra note 17, at 63–64, 229–31 (discussing the legality of such activities). 50. Examples include the testing of various equipment in the United States, see FAMILY JEWELS, supra note 2, at 00238–40, 00331, 00544, and the confinement of a defector in a safehouse in Maryland. See id. at 00023–24, 00522. Both of these are mentioned in the Family Jewels, but not in extensive detail. 51. See CHURCH REPORT, supra note 41; ROCKEFELLER REPORT, supra note 17. The Church Report focused extensively on covert action, an area I will not address because it is only

644

INDIANA LAW JOURNAL

[Vol. 84:637

importantly, which appear to be the most controversial and the most critical both in 1973 and in today’s world.52 II. UNCONSENTING HUMAN EXPERIMENTATION Beginning in the early 1950s, the CIA operated a program known as MKULTRA, which mostly involved the administering of LSD and other drugs to unconsenting adults, including Americans.53 The program stemmed from an Agency fear that the Soviet Union and other communist countries were developing chemical and biological agents for the purposes of interrogating, brainwashing, and possibly even attacking Westerners.54 As the Church Report described: The CIA had received reports that the Soviet Union was engaged in intensive efforts to produce LSD; and that the Soviet Union had attempted to purchase the world’s supply of the chemical. As one CIA officer who was deeply involved in the work with this drug described the climate of the times: “[It] is awfully hard in this day and age to reproduce how frightening all of this was to us at the time, particularly after the drug scene has become as widespread and as knowledgeable in this country as it did. But we were literally terrified, because this was the one material that we had ever been able to locate that really had potential fantastic possibilities if used wrongly.”55

The MKULTRA program sought to administer LSD and other drugs to individuals in order to determine the threat of such drugs, and to design means to thwart that threat.56 In most cases, the subjects were unwitting nonvolunteers, who were slipped the drugs in their drinks at parties or at bars.57 The MKULTRA program eventually became quite extensive such that, by the time the CIA terminated the project in 1963, it contained 149 subprojects that the CIA contracted out to more than eighty universities,

nominally mentioned in the Family Jewels. 52. In the end, I am confined by space to focus on what appear to me to be the most significant activities contained in the Family Jewels. As with any top ten (or in this case top five) list, there will undoubtedly be other facets of the Family Jewels that the reader might have preferred had been given consideration. 53. See FAMILY JEWELS, supra note 2, at 00402–04, 00433; CHURCH REPORT: BOOK I, supra note 12, at 389–92. Throughout this Part, I will use the term “unconsenting human experimentation,” rather than the often-used phrase “unwitting human experimentation,” because the key query, as discussed below, is whether the alleged subject consented to the experimentation, not whether the subject knew that some form of experimentation was occurring. It is not a crime if the individual consents to experimentation, but is not told whether such experimentation actually occurred, such as when individuals who consent to being part of a drug experiment are provided a placebo rather than the experimental drug. Illegal activity occurs only when the subject has not consented to being part of the experiment in the first place. See infra notes 62–68 and accompanying text. 54. CHURCH REPORT: BOOK I, supra note 12, at 392. 55. Id. at 392–93 (alteration in original). 56. See id. at 389–93. The CIA also tested drugs on monkeys and mice as part of a separate program. FAMILY JEWELS, supra note 2, at 00413. 57. Kronisch v. United States, 150 F.3d 112, 118 (2d Cir. 1998); CHURCH REPORT: BOOK I, supra note 12, at 391–92.

2009]

THE CIA’S “FAMILY JEWELS”: LEGAL THEN? LEGAL NOW?

645

hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, and other institutions.58 However, the full range and extent of the program, as well the number of individuals affected by it, is impossible to determine because the chief of the program ordered all MKULTRA records destroyed in January 1973.59 There is no doubt that the MKULTRA project was illegal from its inception. This may be why the CIA’s Office of General Counsel was not informed of the project until years after it had been terminated.60 Upon learning of the project, the CIA’s General Counsel immediately condemned it,61 and with good reason. Government experimentation on unconsenting individuals, such as occurred in the MKULTRA program, was a clear violation of the Constitution. The courts have long held that the Fifth Amendment’s protection of liberty interests includes protection from nonconsensual experiments on a person’s body. Usually described as the right to bodily integrity, this is “a right which has been recognized throughout this nation’s history.”62 Unconsenting human experimentation also constituted a tort for which the United States could be held liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA).63 Indeed, courts have upheld FTCA claims specifically made by alleged victims of MKULTRA.64 A federal statute also prohibits unconsenting human experimentation,65 as does a policy regulation issued by the Department of Health and Human Services,

58. CHURCH REPORT: BOOK I, supra note 12, at 389–91, 403–04. 59. Id. at 389, 391, 404. 60. See id. at 408. 61. Joseph L. Rauh, Jr. & James C. Turner, Anatomy of a Public Interest Case Against the CIA, 11 HAMLINE J. PUB. L. & POL’Y 307, 314–15 (1990). 62. Stadt v. Univ. of Rochester, 921 F. Supp. 1023, 1027 (W.D.N.Y. 1996); see also Ammend v. Bioport, Inc., 322 F. Supp. 2d 848, 870 (W.D. Mich. 2004) (“The right to bodily integrity is a fundamental right protected by the Constitution.”); Heinrich v. Sweet, 62 F. Supp. 2d 282, 290, 312–15 (D. Mass. 1999) (recognizing that unconsenting experimentation constitutes a “violation of the constitutionally protected liberty interest in bodily integrity”), aff’d, 308 F.3d 48 (1st Cir. 2002); Stadt, 921 F. Supp. at 1027−28 (“The Constitution, and more specifically, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment clearly established a right to be free from non-consensual, governmental experimentation on one’s body—a right which had been in existence well before 1946.”). 63. See 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b) (2000); see also Stadt, 921 F. Supp. at 1023 (refusing to dismiss an FTCA claim by a woman claiming that the federal government had injected her with plutonium without her knowledge or consent). 64. See, e.g., Ritchie v. United States, 210 F. Supp. 2d 1120 (N.D. Cal. 2002) (same); Orlikow v. United States, 682 F. Supp. 77 (D.D.C. 1988) (upholding the ability of plaintiff to bring an FTCA claim based on alleged MKULTRA activities). The court eventually dismissed the Ritchie case for lack of evidence. Ritchie v. United States, 451 F.3d 1019 (9th Cir. 2006) (upholding dismissal of plaintiff’s claim that the CIA administered him LSD at a Christmas party, which plaintiff believed led him to commit a bank robbery). Failure to comply with the applicable statute of limitations has also led to the dismissal of FTCA claims based upon the MKULTRA program. See, e.g., Kronisch v. United States, 150 F.3d 112, 123−31 (2d Cir. 1998) (dismissing all of plaintiff’s FTCA claims as untimely). 65. See 42 U.S.C. § 3515b (2000) (prohibiting funds appropriated to the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, or related agencies from being used on research programs involving unconsenting human experimentation).

646

INDIANA LAW JOURNAL

[Vol. 84:637

applicable to all U.S. government agencies.66 Finally, a presidential directive specifically prohibits the practice by U.S. intelligence agencies.67 It is therefore unequivocal that unconsenting human experimentation, such as that conducted by the CIA in its MKULTRA program, was illegal in the 1950s and 1960s.68 The law has not changed in any significant manner since that time. As will be seen below, however, this is the only type of activity contained in the Family Jewels that was actually illegal. III. TARGETED KILLINGS OF FOREIGN LEADERS Media reports consistently portray the Family Jewels as containing multiple illegal attempts by the CIA to kill several foreign leaders.69 Yet, despite the general belief that the Agency was rampantly trying to terminate numerous heads of state, the Church Commission in its Assassinations Report concluded that the CIA, since its inception forty years earlier, had only initiated plans to kill two foreign leaders: Fidel Castro of Cuba in 1960−65 and Patrice Lumumba of the Congo in 1960−61.70 Further, the CIA

66. See 45 C.F.R. §§ 46.101−.119 (2007) (requiring informed consent before conducting experiments on human subjects except in very limited circumstances not applicable here). Some commentators assert that unconsenting human experimentation also violates the Nuremberg Code, which is an international code of ethical standards for medical experiments that requires, among other things, informed consent. See Rauh & Turner, supra note 61, at 312. See generally Samuel B. Casey & Nathan A. Adams, IV, Specially Respecting the Living Human Embryo by Adhering to Standard Human Subject Experimentation Rules, 2 YALE J. HEALTH POL’Y L. & ETHICS 111, 114 (2001) (describing the genesis of the Nuremberg Code). However, the United States has never recognized the Nuremburg Code as binding U.S. law. See Ammend, 322 F. Supp. at 872. 67. Exec. Order No. 12,333 § 2.10, 3 C.F.R. 200, 213 (1982) (requiring written informed consent for any human experimentation by an agency within the Intelligence Community). Similar prohibitions have existed since the mid-1970s. See Exec. Order No. 12,036 § 2-302, 3 C.F.R. 112, 129 (1979); Exec. Order No. 11,905 § 5(d), 3 C.F.R. 90, 101 (1977). Executive Orders are discussed in more detail infra text accompanying notes 131−55. 68. Both the Church Commission Report and the Rockefeller Report found that the project violated U.S. law. See CHURCH REPORT: BOOK I, supra note 12, at 403; ROCKEFELLER REPORT, supra note 17, at 37. 69. See Kelly, supra note 4 (describing illegal “assassination plots” in the Family Jewels); Mazzetti & Weiner, supra note 3 (discussing illegal “failed assassination plots” in the Family Jewels); Willing, supra note 9 (listing three assassination attempts as part of the illegal activities depicted in the Family Jewels). 70. ASSASSINATIONS REPORT, supra note 42, at 4–5; see also FAMILY JEWELS, supra note 2, at 00012−16, 00038−50, 00425 (describing attempts against Castro); id. at 00425 (describing attempts against Lumumba); Robert F. Turner, It’s Not Really “Assassination”: Legal and Moral Implications of Intentionally Targeting Terrorists and Aggressor-State Regime Elites, 37 U. RICH. L. REV. 787, 791 (2003) (noting that the Assassinations Report connected the CIA to attempts to kill only two foreign leaders). The CIA sought to kill Castro through numerous devices that “ran the gamut from high-powered rifles or poison pills, poison pens, deadly bacterial powders, and other devices which strain the imagination.” ASSASSINATIONS REPORT, supra note 42, at 71. The CIA’s plot to kill Lumumba involved attempting to induce a member of his inner circle to place poison in Lumumba’s food or toothpaste. Id. at 28. The Church Commission also investigated the role of the CIA in the deaths of three other foreign leaders—

2009]

THE CIA’S “FAMILY JEWELS”: LEGAL THEN? LEGAL NOW?

647

plots against both Castro and Lumumba proved unsuccessful. Castro evaded the CIA’s attempts, while Lumumba ended up being killed in 1961 by individuals not supported by or affiliated with the United States, before the CIA could carry out its plan.71 Finally, and most critically, as intimated by the Assassinations Report,72 the attempted targeted killing of such foreign leaders was entirely legal in 1973. Attempted killings of foreign leaders are not new. Nations have attempted targeted killings of political leaders for millennia. The Greeks and the Romans engaged in such activities, and “it was common practice during the Middle Ages.”73 The practice is even described in the Bible.74 Such killings, however, are usually referred to as “assassinations,” which creates much of the difficulty in assessing their legality. The main problem with the term “assassination” is that it has no consensus definition.75 No statute, presidential edict, or international document defines the term.76 Some scholars consider “assassinations” to be a form of murder and therefore illegal by definition.77 Others take a more neutral stance.78 Some focus on the victim’s status, others on whether the act has a political purpose, and still others on whether the act is “treacherous.”79 This lack of consensus makes evaluating the legality of “assassinations” virtually impossible. Therefore, rather than get immersed in a semantic debate, I will instead focus on the act itself, that is, the attempted targeted

Rafael Trujillo (Dominican Republic), Ngo Dinh Diem (South Vietnam), and General Rene Schneider (Chile)—but determined that there was no valid evidence that the CIA planned, supported, or effectuated their deaths. Id. at 5. 71. ASSASSINATIONS REPORT, supra note 42, at 4, 256. 72. Id. at 281. 73. Michael N. Schmitt, State-Sponsored Assassination in International and Domestic Law, 17 YALE J. INT’L L. 609, 613 (1992). 74. See, e.g., Esther 2:21 (mentioning a conspiracy by royal officers to kill King Xerxes); Jeremiah 41:3–5 (discussing the “assassination” of Gedaliah); 1 Kings 16:16 (describing Zimri’s murder of the king); 2 Kings 15:10–14 (depicting the targeted killing of Zechariah, king of Israel, by Shallum, who in turn was killed a month later). 75. Banks & Raven-Hansen, supra note 23, at 669; see also W. Hays Parks, Memorandum of Law: Executive Order 12333 and Assassination, ARMY LAW., Dec. 1989, at 4, 8 (providing ten different definitions of the term “assassination,” none of which is “entirely satisfactory”); Schmitt, supra note 73, at 611 (“[S]cholars and practitioners have struggled to craft a working definition to serve as a guide to states . . . .”). 76. Schmitt, supra note 73, at 611. 77. See, e.g., Jeffrey F. Addicott, Proposal for a New Executive Order on Assassination, 37 U. RICH. L. REV. 751, 762 (2003) (“Assassination, then, is clearly identified and properly classified as a type of killing that is unlawful, i.e. a form of murder . . . .”); Major Tyler J. Harder, Time to Repeal the Assassination Ban of Executive Order 12,333: A Small Step in Clarifying Current Law, 172 MIL. L. REV. 1, 5 (2002) (defining “assassination” during peacetime as “(1) a murder, (2) of a specifically targeted figure, (3) for a political purpose”); Elizabeth R. Parker & Timothy E. Naccarato, Targeting Saddam and Sons: U.S. Policy Against Assassination, 1 IDF L. REV. 39, 53 (2003) (“Thus, it is clear that murder is a key element of assassination . . . .”); Parks, supra note 75, at 8 (“Assassination constitutes an act of murder that is prohibited . . . .”); Turner, supra note 70, at 790 (“By definition, assassination is a form of murder.”); id. at 807 (“True assassination is murder, and murder is wrong.”). 78. See Banks & Raven-Hansen, supra note 23, at 670 (discussing scholars who believe “assassination” is not necessarily murder). 79. Schmitt, supra note 73, at 611–12.

648

INDIANA LAW JOURNAL

[Vol. 84:637

killing of foreign leaders.80 This use of a more “neutral” term in no way makes the subject matter less serious, but at least allows us to consider the legality of these attempted targeted killings without the red herring of definitional uncertainty. Perhaps surprisingly, there is no statute prohibiting the CIA, or any other U.S. government agency for that matter, from conducting targeted killings of foreign leaders, at least within that leader’s own country.81 The only legislative restriction of any sort on the killing of foreign leaders is contained in 18 U.S.C. § 1116, which Congress enacted in 1972.82 Section 1116 imposes criminal sanctions on anyone who “kills or attempts to kill a foreign official, official guest, or internationally protected person.”83 However, the statute defines “foreign official” as a current or former Chief of State or other enumerated senior government official or their family “while in the United States.”84 An “official guest” refers to anyone “present in the United States” as an official guest of the U.S. government.85 An “internationally protected person” is defined as a Chief of State or Foreign Minister and his or her family “whenever such person is in a country other than his own.”86 Therefore, the statute precludes the targeted killing of a foreign leader who is in the United States or outside the leader’s own country. It does not preclude the targeted killing of a leader inside his or her own country.87 The CIA sought to kill both Castro and Lumumba in their home countries.88

80. See Banks & Raven-Hansen, supra note 23, at 671; Daniel B. Pickard, Legalizing Assassination?: Terrorism, the Central Intelligence Agency, and International Law, 30 GA. J. INT’L & COMP. L. 1, 9 (2001) (defining “assassination” as the “targeted killing of an individual, by an official agent of a nation, regardless of whether a state of war exists” (footnotes omitted)). 81. Addicott, supra note 77, at 757 (“Congress never enacted legislation to legally ban the use of assassination as an instrument of foreign policy . . . .”); Parker & Naccarato, supra note 77, at 48 (“[A]s of the present time, Congress has not enacted any legislation [prohibiting assassinations].”). 82. See 18 U.S.C. (2006). The federal murder statute does not apply extraterritorially except in limited circumstances not applicable here. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 7, 1111; United States v. Bin Laden, 92 F. Supp. 2d 189, 204 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (noting that Congress limited “the reach of Section 1111 to murders committed ‘[w]ithin the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States’” (alteration in original)). 83. 18 U.S.C. § 1116. 84. Id. § 1116(b)(3) (emphasis added). 85. Id. § 1116(b)(6) (emphasis added). 86. Id. § 1116(b)(4)(A) (emphasis added). This subsection also defines an “internationally protected person” as an official “of the United States Government, a foreign government, or international organization who at the time and place concerned is entitled pursuant to international law to special protection against attack.” Id. § 1116(b)(4)(B). This provision protects “‘resident diplomats, consular and other foreign government personnel and their families.’” United States v. Marcano Garcia, 456 F. Supp. 1358, 1360 (D.P.R. 1978) (quoting S. REP. NO. 92-1105 (1972)). It therefore does not apply to foreign leaders, who are described in the first part of the definition of “internationally protected person” (discussed in the text accompanying this note), and in any case would only protect such persons “resident” in the United States. 87. Banks & Raven-Hansen, supra note 23, at 730–31; Patrick Cole, The Relevance of Human Rights Provisions to American Intelligence Activities, 6 LOY. L.A. INT’L & COMP. L.J. 37, 57 (1983) (noting that while § 1116 prohibits killing a foreign official in the United States, “there was no law making it a crime to assassinate or conspire to assassinate a foreign official while the individual was outside the United States”). One set of commentators argues that even

2009]

THE CIA’S “FAMILY JEWELS”: LEGAL THEN? LEGAL NOW?

649

Thus, even had § 1116 existed at the time of such attempts, it would not have prohibited them. Congress has attempted to prohibit targeted killings of foreign leaders in their home countries on several occasions, but each attempt has failed.89 Some scholars have interpreted this lack of success as implicit acknowledgement that Congress wishes to have the United States retain such activities as a policy option, at least under certain restricted circumstances.90 The so-called Fifth Function of the National Security Act of 1947 bolsters this argument. As noted above, the Fifth Function authorizes the CIA to “perform such other functions and duties related to intelligence affecting the national security” as the President may direct.91 Such unfettered language would appear to constitute implicit congressional approval for the Agency to engage in any presidentially authorized activity not explicitly prohibited by law, including targeted killings.92 Indeed, one court has gone so far as to assert that the Fifth Function granted the Agency such wide authority that, pursuant to it, the CIA could engage in any presidentially authorized activity it wished, even if the activity did violate U.S. law!93 No other court, however, has championed this position. Moving beyond statutory authority, the United States Constitution also does not forbid targeted killings of foreign leaders.94 The Supreme Court has held that the Constitution protects persons in the United States and Americans abroad, but does not protect non-Americans overseas.95 The only exception to this rule that has been carved out by the Court relates to detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba,96 due to the these restrictions of § 1116 have been superseded at least to some degree by subsequent acts of Congress that appear to permit targeted killings of terrorists and Saddam Hussein. Banks & Raven-Hansen, supra note 23, at 731–37. 88. Schmitt, supra note 73, at 619 n.45; see also ASSASSINATIONS REPORT, supra note 42, at 255. 89. Parker & Naccarato, supra note 77, at 48; Schmitt, supra note 73, at 662 (describing the various unsuccessful legislative attempts to ban targeted killings); see also Pickard, supra note 80, at 23. 90. Banks & Raven-Hansen, supra note 23, at 723; Pickard, supra note 80, at 26. 91. National Security Act of 1947, Pub. L.No. 80-253, § 102(a), 61 Stat. 495, 497 (codified as amended at 50 U.S.C. §403-4a(d) (Supp. V 2005)). 92. See Banks & Raven-Hansen, supra note 23, at 698, 729. 93. United States v. Lopez-Lima, 738 F. Supp. 1404, 1409 (S.D. Fla. 1990) (stating that, pursuant to the Fifth Function, “the CIA was under no limitation that its activities could not violate U.S. law”). Though the Lopez-Lima decision involved the Agency’s theoretical ability to authorize the hijacking of a plane, the argument would also apply to targeted killings. Banks & Raven-Hansen, supra note 23, at 714. 94. See Banks & Raven-Hansen, supra note 23, at 675–79. 95. United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 269 (1990) (noting that the Supreme Court has consistently “rejected the claim that aliens are entitled to Fifth Amendment rights outside the sovereign territory of the United States”); id. at 271 (stating that the Fourth Amendment does not protect aliens outside the United States who lack “substantial connections with this country”); see also Banks & Raven-Hansen, supra note 23, at 675–77 (discussing the inapplicability of the Constitution to aliens overseas). 96. Boumediene v. Bush, 128 S. Ct. 2229, 2270 (2008) (granting habeas rights under Article 1 of the Constitution to detainees held at the U.S. military base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, given the “complete and total control” the U.S. government exercises over that facility); Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466, 478 (2004) (suggesting constitutional habeas protections could possibly extend to detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba). However, the Supreme Court in

650

INDIANA LAW JOURNAL

[Vol. 84:637

“complete and total control” the U.S. government exercises over that facility. As the United States does not maintain such “complete and total control” over foreign countries, our constitutional protections—to include the Fifth Amendment prohibition against deprivation of “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”97—would not extend to foreign leaders outside the United States, such as Fidel Castro and Patrice Lumumba, and thus would not protect foreign leaders from targeted killings. Some scholars have argued that targeted killings of foreign leaders are illegal under international law.98 Only two international treaties specifically address the topic of targeted killings/assassinations.99 The Charter of the Organization of African Unity urges its members to adhere to “unreserved condemnation, in all its forms, of political assassination.”100 While forceful, such a statement is hardly international law. It applies only to a limited region of the world, and there is no indication that it is followed or enforced even in that region.101 The second treaty, the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Internationally Protected Persons, Including Diplomatic Agents (“New York Convention”), only prohibits targeted killings when the targets are outside of their home country (akin to 18 U.S.C. § 1116).102 With a lack of explicit international law prohibiting targeted killings of foreign leaders, some scholars have pointed to international treaties that have broader scopes in an attempt to argue the illegality of such killings.103 One scholar has pointed to statements in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the Charter of the Organization of American States that a country’s leaders are to be made by the will of the people.104 The scholar asserts that the targeted killing of a nation’s leader undercuts the will of that nation’s people and, therefore, violates those treaties.105 Yet such an argument contains numerous flaws. If adopted, it would preclude nations from removing leaders through legitimate war, such as what happened to Adolph Hitler and Saddam Hussein, since that would be perceived as violating the will of the people of those nations. Furthermore, many leaders came to power through nondemocratic means and therefore have not been chosen by the people. Would they, but only they, then be legitimate targets under this theory?

Boumediene acknowledged that “[i]t is true before today the Court has never held that noncitizens detained by our Government in territory over which another country maintains de jure sovereignty have any rights under our Constitution.” Boumediene, 128 S. Ct. at 2270. 97. U.S. CONST. amend. V. 98. See Addicott, supra note 77, at 769–70; Cole, supra note 87, at 49, 53; Harder, supra note 77, at 6−11. Please note that the discussion below focuses solely on the ability of the CIA to engage in targeted killings during peacetime, since that was the scenario for the targets in the Family Jewels. There are different rules and limitations for targeted killings of foreign leaders during armed conflict. See Parks, supra note 75; Schmitt, supra note 73, at 628−45. 99. Pickard, supra note 80, at 19 n.56; Schmitt, supra note 73, at 618. 100. Charter of the Organization of African Unity art. III, May 25, 1963, 2 I.L.M. 766. 101. Schmitt, supra note 73, at 618. 102. Id. at 619. 103. For an extensive discussion of purported international restrictions on targeted killings of foreign leaders, and why such international conventions do not actually prohibit such killings, see id. at 618−28. 104. See Cole, supra note 87, at 49, 53. 105. Id. at 49.

2009]

THE CIA’S “FAMILY JEWELS”: LEGAL THEN? LEGAL NOW?

651

A vastly more persuasive argument is made by scholars who point to Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter.106 That article states: “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other matter inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”107 The first “Purpose” listed in the U.N. Charter is “[t]o maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace.”108 A clear argument can be made that killing or attempting to kill a foreign leader is a threat or use of force, as well as a breach of the peace.109 However, Article 51 of the United Nations Charter provides an exception to this general prohibition.110 That article states: “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations.”111 This reflects the long-standing, customary international law principle of the right to self-defense.112 Scholars are divided as to whether an armed attack must actually have occurred before a nation can deploy this right to self-defense.113 Those arguing that an armed attack must have actually occurred generally point to the above-mentioned specific language of article 51 of the Charter that allows self-defense “if an armed attack occurs.” They note that this accords with the overall purpose of the United Nations Charter—to create mechanisms for keeping the peace and reducing the overall use of force. Allowing a broad interpretation of self-defense, especially one that permitted anticipatory action, would undermine this base premise of the Charter.114 However, the more widely accepted, and I believe better, view is that an attack need not have occurred before a state may use force (to include a targeted killing of a foreign leader) in self-defense.115 Known as anticipatory or preemptive self-defense, this view is justified on a number of premises. First, the United Nations Charter “does not preclude unilateral action against an immediate [perceived] threat,” and therefore such action is considered permitted.116 Second, anticipatory self-defense often serves to prevent and reduce more extensive acts of violence.117 Killing a foreign leader before he or she can launch an attack may prevent that attack from ever occurring, and even

106. Harder, supra note 77, at 10; Pickard, supra note 80, at 11–13; Schmitt, supra note 73, at 619−20. 107. U.N. Charter art. 2, para. 4. 108. Id. art. 1, para. 1. 109. See Harder, supra note 77, at 10; Pickard, supra note 80, at 11–13; Schmitt, supra note 73, at 619–621. 110. Schmitt, supra note 73, at 620. 111. U.N. Charter art. 51. 112. Pickard, supra note 80, at 18. 113. See Harder, supra note 77, at 20; Schmitt, supra note 73, at 646. 114. See Schmitt, supra note 73, at 646 (describing the argument for restricting the interpretation of self-defense in Article 51 of the U.N. Charter). 115. See Addicott, supra note 77, at 773−79; Banks & Raven-Hansen, supra note 23, at 746; Schmitt, supra note 73, at 646; Turner, supra note 70, at 799−804. 116. Parks, supra note 75, at 7. 117. See Pickard, supra note 80, at 20−21.

652

INDIANA LAW JOURNAL

[Vol. 84:637

preclude all-out war, thus saving a considerable number of lives that would have been lost through a conventional war and upholding the core principle of the U.N. Charter— the preservation of peace among nations.118 Third, anticipatory self-defense deters leaders from even threatening aggressive action.119 Finally, there is the concept of selfpreservation. As one scholar has described it, “international law cannot compel a state to wait until it absorbs a devastating, or even lethal, first strike before it acts to protect itself.”120 The United States has long recognized this principle of anticipatory self-defense.121 Pursuant to it, the United States is permitted, under international law, to attempt the targeted killing of foreign leaders if those leaders constitute “legitimate threats to the national security of the United States or individual U.S. citizens.”122 As with all applications of self-defense, the nation’s action would need to be necessary (i.e., alternative means to resolve the threat are ineffective) and proportional (i.e., the level of coercion is the minimum necessary to end the aggression).123 This last requirement, proportionality, actually bolsters the argument for targeted killings over other military options since targeted killings seek to resolve a legitimate threat through the death of a single individual.124 It is also worth noting that even if international law could be construed as precluding targeted killings, such policies are likely unenforceable in a U.S. court of law. In Schneider v. Kissinger, the sons of killed Chilean army commander René Schneider alleged that the CIA was culpable for Schneider’s death as part of a botched kidnapping attempt.125 The Schneider incident had been one of the five main cases examined by the Church Commission in the Assassinations Report.126 The Commission found the CIA had no plans to have Schneider killed and played no role in the kidnapping attempt.127 Schneider’s sons, clearly not accepting that conclusion, brought suit in U.S. federal court in the District of Columbia, alleging the United States violated the “law of nations,” as well as numerous U.S. laws and treaties, including the United Nations Charter, with regard to their father’s death.128 The district court dismissed the case for several reasons, the primary one being the political question

118. See Turner, supra note 70, at 800. 119. See Schmitt, supra note 73, at 646. 120. Louis Rene Beres, On Assassination as Anticipatory Self-Defense: The Case of Israel, 20 HOFSTRA L. REV. 321, 336 (1991). 121. See Parks, supra note 75, at 7 (listing American uses of anticipatory self-defense in the attempted killing of foreign leaders dating back to 1804). 122. Id. at 8; see also Schmitt, supra note 73, at 646−50 (arguing that preemptive selfdefense is permitted if a threat to a country is imminent or likely). 123. See Turner, supra note 70, at 800 (stating that necessity and proportionality are prerequisites to any form of self-defense); see also Robert J. Beck & Anthony C. Arend, “Don’t Tread on US”: International Law and Forcible State Responses to Terrorism, 12 WIS. INT’L L.J. 153, 213 (1994) (summarizing scholarly opinion on use of self-defense as requiring proportionality, timeliness, and discrimination). 124. See Turner, supra note 70, at 800. 125. Schneider v. Kissinger, 310 F. Supp. 2d 251, 253−56 (D.D.C. 2004), aff’d, 412 F.3d 190 (D.C. Cir. 2005). 126. See ASSASSINATIONS REPORT, supra note 42, at 4−5. 127. Id. at 5. 128. Schneider, 310 F. Supp. 2d at 257.

2009]

THE CIA’S “FAMILY JEWELS”: LEGAL THEN? LEGAL NOW?

653

doctrine; that is, that the case was non-justiciable because executive branch decisions on whether to attempt to change the leadership of foreign governments “implicate policy decisions in the murky realm of foreign affairs and national security best left to the political branches.”129 The D.C. Circuit agreed.130 It is reasonable to believe that other courts would come to the same conclusion with regard to other claims of attempted targeted killings of foreign leaders. Overall then, there is no statutory, constitutional, or international law prohibiting the CIA from attempting the targeted killing of foreign leaders, at least under certain circumstances. There is, however, an explicit presidential directive that prohibits such actions. Section 2.11 of Executive Order 12,333 (“EO 12,333”), issued by President Reagan in 1981 and in effect today,131 states: “No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in or conspire to engage in assassination.”132 This section reflects a prohibition on “assassinations” first promulgated by President Ford in 1976133 and later adopted by President Carter in 1978.134 The term “assassination,” though, is not defined in the executive order,135 rendering the prohibition “replete with uncertainty.”136 In addition, executive orders are not law. Rather, they are published presidential directives to personnel of the executive branch, intended to effect action by those personnel.137 “The executive branch . . . simply has no power to make the law; that

129. Id. at 258. 130. Schneider v. Kissinger, 412 F.3d 190, 198 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (“[T]his case raises political questions committed to the political branches and therefore is beyond the jurisdiction of the courts.”). 131. Parker & Naccarato, supra note 77, at 42; Schmitt, supra note 73, at 652. 132. Exec. Order No. 12,333 § 2.11, 3 C.F.R. 200, 213 (1982). EO 12,333 also precludes the Agency from hiring someone else to engage in a targeted killing, even if that person is unaware of the Agency’s involvement. See id. § 2.12 (“No element of the Intelligence Community shall participate in or request any person to undertake activities forbidden by this Order.”). 133. Exec. Order 11,905 § 5(g), 3 C.F.R. 90, 101 (1977) (“No employee of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassination.”). President Ford issued such a prohibition in reaction to the Church Report’s statement that assassinations conflicted with American morals and principles. Addicott, supra note 77, at 756. It is the first time that a President had ever enacted such a prohibition. Id.; Parks, supra note 75, at 4. However, CIA directors had issued memoranda to Agency personnel in 1972 and 1973 stating that Agency personnel were not to engage in assassinations. Schmitt, supra note 73, at 661. 134. Exec. Order 12,036 § 2-305, 3 C.F.R. 112, 129 (1979) (“No person employed by or acting on behalf of the Untied [sic] States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination.”). 135. See Exec. Order No. 12,333, 3 C.F.R. 200 (1982); Harder, supra note 77, at 38 (noting that EO 12,333 fails to define the term “assassination”); Parks, supra note 75, at 4 (“Neither Executive Order 12333 nor its predecessors defines the term ‘assassination.’”). 136. Schmitt, supra note 73, at 652; see also Harder, supra note 77, at 38 (noting that the failure of EO 12,333 to define the term assassination “prevented the United States from following legal policy [of killing Saddam Hussein] that could have saved American lives” during the Gulf War); Schmitt, supra note 73, at 679 (describing EO 12,333 and stating that “[s]etting forth a prohibition without clearly delineating what it means is arguably more damaging than having no order at all” since it opens up the possibility of abuse or “has the potential to inhibit valid operations out of fear that the ban might be violated”). 137. KENNETH R. MAYER, WITH THE STROKE OF A PEN: EXECUTIVE ORDERS AND

654

INDIANA LAW JOURNAL

[Vol. 84:637

power rests exclusively with Congress.”138 Based on this, courts generally find executive orders to be unenforceable.139 Courts will enforce executive orders only if two criteria are met. First, the executive order must have been issued “pursuant to a statutory mandate or delegation of authority from Congress.”140 Second, the order must indicate a clear intention by the President to create a private right of action.141 Based on these requirements, section 2.11 of EO 12,333, which prohibits “assassinations,” is clearly unenforceable in a court of law. Section 2.11’s prohibition on “assassinations” does not stem from a congressional mandate or delegation of authority since Congress has never passed a law precluding such targeted killings.142 Rather, section 2.11 reflects a congressional abdication on the subject, which Presidents Ford, Carter, and Reagan took upon themselves to address pursuant to their own presidential authority.143 Further, EO 12,333 does not contemplate a private right of action. Indeed, the executive order expressly states that it “is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity, by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.”144 EO 12,333 therefore clearly did PRESIDENTIAL POWER 4, 34 (2001); see also Exec. Order No. 13,470 § 3.7(c), 73 Fed. Reg. 45,325, 45,341 (stating that “[t]his order is intended only to improve the internal management of the executive branch”). Executive orders have been issued by every President since the founding of this country. MAYER, supra, at 4, 34; Parker & Naccarato, supra note 77, at 55. By statute, all executive orders are published in the Federal Register “except those not having general applicability and legal effect or effective only against Federal agencies or persons in their capacity as officers, agents, or employees thereof.” 44 U.S.C. § 1505(a)(1) (2000). 138. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs. v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth., 844 F.2d 1087, 1095 (4th Cir. 1988); see also Addicott, supra note 77, at 757 (noting that “executive orders are policy and not law”). 139. Facchiano Constr. Co. v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 987 F.2d 206, 210 (3d Cir. 1993) (“Generally, there is no private right of action to enforce obligations imposed on executive branch officials by executive orders.”). 140. Indep. Meat Packers Ass’n v. Butz, 526 F.2d 228, 234 (8th Cir. 1975); see also U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 844 F.2d at 1096 (stating that an executive order has the effect of a statute when the order is issued “pursuant to statutory mandate or a delegation from Congress of lawmaking authority”); In re Surface Mining Regulation Litig., 627 F.2d 1346, 1357 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (noting that executive orders are enforceable only when they have a “specific foundation in Congressional action”). 141. MAYER, supra note 137, at 59; Chen Zhou Chai v. Carroll, 48 F.3d 1331, 1339 (4th Cir. 1995) (“An executive order issued as part of a statutory delegation of power, or as part of the process of carrying out a statute, may create enforceable private rights, but only if the statute or the order clearly intended to create such a right.”), superseded by statute as recognized in Yong Hao Chen v. INS, 195 F.3d 198 (4th Cir. 1999); Acevedo v. Nassau County, 500 F.2d 1078, 1084 n.7 (2d Cir. 1974) (declining to find a private right of action to enforce an executive order when such a right is not explicit in the order). 142. See supra note 88 and accompanying text. 143. See supra notes 131−34 and accompanying text. 144. Exec. Order No. 13,470 § 3.7(c), 73 Fed. Reg. 45,325, 45,341. This reflects amended language issued by President Bush in 2008. Id. However, the original language of EO 12,333 contained similar limitations. See Exec. Order No. 12,333 § 3.5, 3 C.F.R. 200, 216 (1982) (providing that nothing contained in the Order “or in any procedures promulgated hereunder is intended to confer any substantive or procedural right or privilege on any person or organization”).

2009]

THE CIA’S “FAMILY JEWELS”: LEGAL THEN? LEGAL NOW?

655

not intend to create a private right of action.145 Having failed both requirements for enforceability in a court of law, EO 12,333 is not judicially enforceable.146 Most importantly, however, to paraphrase the Bible: what the President giveth, the President can taketh away; or more accurately, what the President taketh away, the President can giveth back. It is a presidential directive (EO 12,333) which precludes the CIA from engaging in targeted killings. Therefore, a subsequent presidential directive can amend that restriction and authorize targeted killings, either entirely or in limited circumstances.147 This would not only permit such actions, but as a practical matter would immunize the killer from criminal or civil liability (assuming the targeted killing did not violate any other U.S. law, such as section 1116).148 Further, even though EO 12,333’s prohibition on targeted killings was publicly announced, any change or rescission of that prohibition could be done in secret.149 It is likely, though,

145. See Michigan v. Thomas, 805 F.2d 176, 187 (6th Cir. 1986) (holding that no private right of action exists for an executive order that expressly states that the order “is not intended to create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by a party against the United States, its agencies, its officers or any person”). 146. See Zhang v. Slattery, 55 F.3d 732, 748 (2d Cir. 1995) (holding that Executive Order 12,711 did not create a private right of action as it stemmed from no specific Congressional authority and contained no indication of an intention to create a private right of action), superseded by statute as recognized in Yong Hao Chen, 195 F.3d at 201; Haitian Refugee Ctr., Inc. v. Baker, 953 F.2d 1498, 1510–11 (11th Cir. 1992) (finding no private right of action for Executive Order 12,324, when the language of that order indicated that no private civil action was contemplated); Farkas v. Texas Instruments Inc., 375 F.2d 629, 632−33 (5th Cir. 1967) (finding no private right of action where the history and language of the executive order indicated that private civil action was not contemplated). The D.C. Circuit case of United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. v. Reagan, 738 F.2d 1375 (D.C. Cir. 1984) is inapposite. Though the D.C. Circuit did consider whether plaintiffs there had sufficient injury in fact to raise a claim based on EO 12,333, deciding in the end that they did not, the court never considered the question of whether EO 12,333 permits a private right of action. See id. 147. Banks & Raven-Hansen, supra note 23, at 719−20 (“[An executive order] can be changed or revoked by the President, unlike a statute. Thus, if the President could prohibit political assassination, he could also allow it—by lifting that ban—unless other legal authorities or political considerations forbid him from doing so.” (footnotes omitted)); Pickard, supra note 80, at 27 (noting that EO 12,333 “is not law and can be unilaterally revoked by the President”); see also Addicott, supra note 77, at 784 (“Those who think that the United States is somehow restricted by Executive Order 12,333 from targeting terrorists or rogue nations that threaten to conduct terrorist acts are mistaken.”); Turner, supra note 70, at 809. This concept is further enforced by the Fifth Function of the National Security Act, which permits the CIA to engage in any activity authorized by the President so long as it does not violate the Constitution or any statute. See discussion supra note 16. 148. Turner, supra note 70, at 809. An executive order cannot authorize an action that violates a statute or the Constitution. Marks v. Cent. Intelligence Agency, 590 F.2d 997, 1003 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (“Of course, an executive order cannot supersede a statute.”); MAYER, supra note 137, at 35−36. 149. Banks & Raven-Hansen, supra note 23, at 720 n.377, 725−26. Given the sensitivity of the topic, it is unlikely that any President would publicly announce a revocation of, or exception to, the ban. This is especially true if the exception to the ban was limited to particular individuals or categories of people, since any public announcement would alert those potential targets, and would preclude the United States from any future plausible deniability.

656

INDIANA LAW JOURNAL

[Vol. 84:637

that the President would notify the congressional intelligence oversight committees of such activities, at least in a classified setting.150 Indeed, any attempted targeted killing by the CIA would almost certainly be considered a “covert action,” and therefore trigger congressional notification as a matter of law.151 Applying all of the above analysis to the CIA’s attempted targeted killings of Fidel Castro and Patrice Lumumba in the early 1960s, a compelling argument can be made that the plots against both leaders were entirely legal. Constitutional protections did not and do not extend to such foreigners overseas.152 Section 1116 did not exist in the early 1960s, but would have been inapplicable anyway, as the targeted killings were to take place within each leader’s home country.153 EO 12,333 and its predecessor executive orders also did not exist in the 1960s,154 and, in any case, could have been revoked by presidential directive and congressional notice.155 The only legal limit, then, to the attempted killings of Fidel Castro and Patrice Lumumba could possibly stem from the international law concepts of the use of force and anticipatory self-defense, which were well in place in the 1960s.156 As the Schneider case indicates, courts would probably preclude such claims under the political question doctrine.157 However, if a court chose to consider such a claim, the CIA’s plots would pass this international law hurdle if, as noted above, a showing could be made that each leader posed a legitimate threat to U.S. national security or U.S. citizens, and if the targeted killing of the leader was necessary and proportional.158 Fidel Castro fulfilled these requirements in the early 1960s. Soon after seizing power in Cuba in January 1959,159 Castro began advocating armed struggle in Latin America, seeking to export revolution throughout the continent and the Caribbean.160 The United States believed that Cuba was encouraging and assisting violent revolution in virtually every country in Latin America, including assisting revolutionaries in Argentina, smuggling guerillas into Bolivia, plotting targeted killings in Colombia, shipping weapons to Venezuela, and initiating student riots in Puerto Rico.161 Castro’s

150. See Banks & Raven-Hansen, supra note 23, at 726−29; Pickard, supra note 80, at 34. 151. See 50 U.S.C. § 413b (Supp. V 2005). A “covert action” is defined as “an activity or activities of the United States Government to influence political, economic, or military conditions abroad, where it is intended that the role of the United States Government will not be apparent or acknowledged publicly. . . .” Id. § 413b(e). A targeted killing would almost certainly fall in this category. The executive branch is required to keep the Congressional intelligence oversight committees “fully and currently informed” of covert action operations. Id. § 413b(b). 152. See supra notes 94−96 and accompanying text. Again, the only exception is with regard to detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where the United States maintains “complete and total control.” See supra note 96. 153. See supra notes 81−88 and accompanying text. 154. See supra note 132. 155. See supra note 147 and accompanying text. As an aside, the Assassinations Report did not find that any President authorized any of the attempted killings. ASSASSINATIONS REPORT, supra note 42, at 7. 156. See supra notes 105−11 and accompanying text. 157. See supra notes 125−30 and accompanying text. 158. See supra notes 122−23 and accompanying text. 159. Turner, supra note 70, at 796 n.55. 160. See CARLA ANNE ROBBINS, THE CUBAN THREAT 27, 57, 90, 131 (1983). 161. Id. at 3, 57.

2009]

THE CIA’S “FAMILY JEWELS”: LEGAL THEN? LEGAL NOW?

657

Cuba was also viewed as a launching point for Soviet intervention in the Western Hemisphere.162 By the early 1960s, thousands of Soviet specialists and advisors had entered Cuba, Soviet ships carrying military weapons were arriving almost daily at Cuban ports, and Cuban military sites were undergoing extensive construction.163 As President John F. Kennedy stated: “The American people are not complacent about Iron Curtain tanks and planes less than ninety miles from their shore.”164 Castro’s willingness to allow the Soviet Union to place nuclear missiles on the Cuban island represented the apex of this threat to the United States.165 Castro was seen as such a threat that the United States sent 23,000 troops to the Dominican Republic to stop that country from being taken over by what the United States government called “Castro Communists;”166 trained, supported, and equipped an invasion of Cuba in April 1961 via the Bay of Pigs;167 and risked nuclear war with the Soviet Union during the Cuban Missile Crisis.168 The Assassinations Report stated that Castro only posed physical danger to the United States during the Cuban Missile Crisis.169 However, it seems abundantly clear that he constituted a considerable threat to the national security of the United States throughout the early 1960s, and that his death was viewed as necessary and proportional to the threat. Thus, Castro’s activities warranted acts of self-defense by the United States, including an attempted targeted killing.170 The CIA’s attempt to end the life of Patrice Lumumba is admittedly more difficult to justify legally. Nonetheless, an argument can still be made that he too posed a legitimate threat to the national security of the United States, even though the Assassinations Report found that he never posed any physical danger to the United States.171 Lumumba rose to power in the summer of 1960, when Congo was declaring its independence from Belgium.172 He briefly served as Premier of the new country before being ousted and joining the opposition party, where he continuously posed a threat to return to power.173 He was killed in early 1961 by forces not affiliated with the United States.174

162. See id. at 103−04; Adlai Stevenson, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Speech to the United Nations Security Council (Oct. 23, 1962), in 8 THE PAPERS OF ADLAI E. STEVENSON 309, 319 (Walter Johnson ed., 1979) [hereinafter Stevenson Speech] (“The crucial fact is that Cuba has given the Soviet Union a bridgehead and staging area in this hemisphere—that it has invited an extra-continental, anti-democratic and expansionist power into the bosom of the American family—that it has made itself an accomplice in the communist enterprise of world domination.”). 163. ROBBINS, supra note 160, at 105. 164. Id. at 103. 165. Stevenson Speech, supra note 162, at 309 (noting that the placing of nuclear missiles on Cuba “constitutes a threat to the peace of this hemisphere” and “to the peace of the world”). 166. ROBBINS, supra note 160, at 1. 167. Id. at 101−02. 168. Id. at 105−10; Stevenson Speech, supra note 162 (urging the United Nations Security Council to take action against Cuba during the Cuban Missile crisis). 169. ASSASSINATIONS REPORT, supra note 42, at 258. 170. See Turner, supra note 70, at 797. 171. ASSASSINATIONS REPORT, supra note 42, at 258. 172. Id. at 13. 173. Id. at 13−14, 16, 18. 174. Id. at 4.

658

INDIANA LAW JOURNAL

[Vol. 84:637

The CIA initiated plans to kill Lumumba soon after he became Premier.175 The concern arose from Lumumba’s perceived strong affiliation with the Soviet Union, which provided him advisors as well as considerable military aid and equipment.176 At the time, “American officials believed the basic premise of Cold War ideology: the threat of aggressive, monolithic international communism . . . . They knew the Congo would be a valuable prize for the communists due to its size, central location in Africa, and vast mineral wealth.”177 There was fear that “a Communist victory in this large, centrally located state could create a base for the subversion of Central Africa.”178 Based on this, Acting Secretary of State C. Douglas Dillon considered Lumumba “dangerous to the peace and safety of the world,”179 while CIA Director Allen Dulles regarded Lumumba as “a grave danger.”180 Numerous members of Congress agreed.181 So concerned was the United States about Lumumba that it positioned an attack carrier off the coast of Congo, and drew up contingency plans for a limited war.182 While the United States’ perception of Lumumba may have been excessive and even misguided,183 the fact remained that he threatened to lead the largest country in Africa into the Soviet fold. Such fears might seem overly alarmist now with the collapse of the Soviet Union, and may have seemed exaggerated to the Church Committee examining the CIA’s attempted killing of Lumumba more than a decade after the fact. The truth, however, is that the communist threat in Africa in the early 1960s was both real and considerable. The United States fervently believed that its way of life was under attack and that the only way to prevent a communist takeover of the world was to control Soviet influence anywhere it appeared. The Congo was not any African country–due to its size and location, it represented a critical area to prevent the communist infiltration of Africa that could spread beyond that continent and threaten

175. See id. at 4, 13−14. 176. See id. at 14, 62; CENT. INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, CURRENT INTELLIGENCE STAFF STUDY: SOVIET POLICY TOWARD THE UNDERDEVELOPED COUNTRIES 102 (1961), available at http://www.foia.cia.gov (type “Soviet Policy Toward the Undeveloped Countries” in the Search Declassified Docs browser; then click on “SOVIET POLICY TOWARD THE UNDERDEVELOPED COUNTRIES (XIII–61*) in the results) (noting that the Soviet Union provided Lumumba with “relief supplies, technicians, and advisers” and promised “almost unlimited economic aid”); STEPHEN R. WEISSMAN, AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY IN THE CONGO 1960–1964, at 81, 262 (1974). 177. WEISSMAN, supra note 176, at 52; see also ASSASSINATIONS REPORT, supra note 42, at 256 (discussing how the CIA’s assassination plots were planned in the depths of the Cold War, when “our country faced a monolithic enemy in Communism”). 178. WEISSMAN, supra note 176, at 53; see also ASSASSINATIONS REPORT, supra note 42, at 18 n.4 (noting the fear expressed by the Chief of CIA’s Africa division that Soviet control of the Congo would create a domino effect in Africa). 179. ASSASSINATIONS REPORT, supra note 42, at 58. 180. Id. at 62. Even after being ousted from power, Lumumba was considered extremely dangerous due to his ability to influence the Congolese people. As Secretary Dillon noted, were Lumumba given the chance to talk to the Congolese Army, “he probably would have had them in the palm of his hand in five minutes.” Id. at 63. 181. WEISSMAN, supra note 176, at 140. 182. Id. at 279. 183. See generally id. at 257−90 (discussing how the United States misunderstood Lumumba and his politics).

2009]

THE CIA’S “FAMILY JEWELS”: LEGAL THEN? LEGAL NOW?

659

the national security of the United States. And Lumumba was not any African leader— his affiliation with the Soviet Union, as well as his magnetic personality,184 led the United States to believe that his leadership of the Congo threatened the United States’ security concerns for the entire African continent. Just as many scholars have argued that a targeted killing of Saddam Hussein before the invasion of Iraq was justified due to his threat to the Middle East,185 so too could the United States have deemed an attempted killing of Lumumba as necessary and proportional in order to prevent a perceived Soviet take-over of Africa. Thus, in 1973, the CIA could engage in targeted killings of foreign leaders so long as the target posed a threat to U.S. citizens or U.S. national security, the action was proportional and necessary (per international law), and the attempt took place within the leader’s own country (section 1116). The only change since 1973 has been the proscription contained in EO 12,333, which could be amended or reversed if the President issued a specific directive and provided notice to the congressional intelligence oversight committees.186 IV. ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE OF AMERICANS The Family Jewels describe two CIA operations involving the electronic surveillance of Americans in the United States. In neither operation did the CIA seek or acquire a warrant. In one operation, the CIA listened to radio telephone calls between alleged drug traffickers in the United States and South America.187 The surveillance ended after four months, when the CIA’s General Counsel rendered an opinion that the activity was illegal.188 A more notorious CIA electronic surveillance operation was Project Mockingbird, which involved tapping the Washington, D.C. telephones of two U.S. newspaper reporters in 1963.189 The operation was done with the support of the telephone company,190 and with the apparent knowledge and consent of the Attorney General.191 The reporters had published extensive news articles that contained highly classified CIA information.192 The CIA tapped the reporters’ phones to identify the sources of that classified information, in order to prevent such leaks from continuing.193 The operation culminated in the identification of dozens and dozens of the reporters’ sources, including a White House staffer, an Assistant

184. ASSASSINATIONS REPORT, supra note 42, at 63. 185. See, e.g., Turner, supra note 70, at 789 n.12, 807 (noting Professor Turner’s own views as well as that of “Pentagon ‘super-lawyer’” W. Hays Parks that killing Saddam Hussein would have been justified). 186. For additional discussion on the legality of targeted killings today, see Banks & RavenHansen, supra note 23, at 749; Parks, supra note 75; Pickard, supra note 80, at 34–35; Schmitt, supra note 73, at 675; Turner, supra note 70, at 807–08. 187. See FAMILY JEWELS, supra note 2, at 00537. 188. See id. at 00331, 00534–35, 00537–39. 189. See id. at 00021, 00457. 190. See id. at 00021. 191. See id. at 00021; ROCKEFELLER REPORT, supra note 17, at 164. 192. FAMILY JEWELS, supra note 2, at 00021. 193. See id.

660

INDIANA LAW JOURNAL

[Vol. 84:637

Attorney General, twenty-one congressional staffers, six Members of Congress, and twelve Senators.194 The question of whether the United States government is permitted to conduct this type of warrantless electronic surveillance of Americans has been an on-going debate for forty years, and remains unresolved.195 The tension stems from two competing facets of the United States Constitution. The Fourth Amendment prohibits the United States government from searching the property of an American absent a warrant.196 In juxtaposition is what is referred to as the inherent constitutional authority of the President to engage in foreign affairs.197 This tension is aided by the fact that the Framers of the Constitution did not, and could not, foresee the concept of electronic surveillance (as there were no telephones in 1776, much less a means to tap them), and therefore could not even contemplate the problems such surveillance would place on the Fourth Amendment in the area of national security.198 The Supreme Court first addressed the constitutionality of electronic surveillance in 1967 when it held that warrantless searches in a domestic criminal context generally were “per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment . . . .”199 However, the Court explicitly demurred as to whether a warrant would be required for electronic surveillance “in a situation involving the national security. . . .”200 The Court addressed that latter issue in 1972, in analyzing a warrantless wiretap of three individuals accused of conspiring to destroy a CIA office in Michigan.201 Though the Court found that the actions of the government there violated the Fourth Amendment’s requirement of a warrant, it was cautious to indicate that its opinion “involves only the domestic aspects of national security. We have not addressed, and express no opinion as to, the issues which may be involved with respect to activities of foreign powers or their agents.”202

194. Id. 195. See Warrantless Surveillance and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance: The Role of Checks and Balances in Protecting Americans’ Privacy Rights (Part I): Hearing Before the H. Comm. of the Judiciary, 110th Cong. 25 (2007) [hereinafter Warrantless Surveillance] (prepared statement of Robert F. Turner) (describing the decades-long debate over warrantless electronic surveillance). 196. U.S. CONST. amend. IV. 197. See Constitutional Limitations on Domestic Surveillance: Hearing on Warrantless Surveillance and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Before the H. Comm. of the Judiciary, 110th Cong. 76 (2007) [hereinafter Constitutional Limitations] (prepared statement of Louis Fisher) (explaining the “inherent authority” concept); Warrantless Surveillance, supra note 195, at 37–43 (noting that this inherent authority stems from the powers provided the president by Article II of the Constitution). 198. William C. Banks, The Death of FISA, 91 MINN. L. REV. 1209, 1221 (2007). 199. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357 (1967) (footnotes omitted); see also Warrantless Surveillance, supra note 195, at 40 (noting that Katz was the first Supreme Court case to consider the issue of electronic surveillance). 200. Katz, 389 U.S. at 358 n.23. 201. See United States v. U.S. Dist. Court for the E. Dist. of Mich. (Keith), 407 U.S. 297 (1972). 202. Id. at 321–22 (footnote omitted); see also id. at 308–09 (emphasizing that the opinion applied only to domestic matters and “requires no judgment on the scope of the President’s surveillance power with respect to the activities of foreign powers, within or without this country”).

2009]

THE CIA’S “FAMILY JEWELS”: LEGAL THEN? LEGAL NOW?

661

The Supreme Court has yet to address this last issue regarding foreign national security concerns. The Fourth Circuit, however, considered this issue in the wellknown case of United States v. Truong Dinh Hung, an espionage case in which Truong and others stood accused of transmitting classified information to representatives of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.203 In investigating the case, and seeking to discover the scope and sources of the espionage, the United States government placed a tap on Truong’s phone, and bugged his apartment, with Attorney General approval but without seeking a warrant from a court.204 The Fourth Circuit upheld the warrantless tap and bug under the Fourth Amendment, noting that thwarting overseas threats requires speed and secrecy; requiring a warrant “would add a procedural hurdle” that would reduce the President’s ability to act quickly and would risk exposure.205 The court also recognized that the executive branch possesses “unparalleled expertise” in the arena of foreign affairs, which the courts do not have and should not second-guess.206 Finally, and most importantly, the court recognized that the executive branch is “constitutionally designated as the pre-eminent authority in foreign affairs” and therefore separation of powers requires the courts “to acknowledge the principal responsibility of the President for foreign affairs and concomitantly for foreign intelligence surveillance.”207 The Truong court, however, placed some limits on warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance. The target of the surveillance must be a foreign power, or an agent or collaborator of a foreign power; the surveillance must be primarily for foreign intelligence purposes; and the surveillance must be reasonable.208 Every other lower court that considered the matter has come to the same conclusion and has upheld the executive branch’s ability to conduct warrantless electronic searches in the United States so long as there is Attorney General approval and the purpose of the surveillance is to acquire foreign intelligence information.209 The

203. 629 F.2d 908 (4th Cir. 1980). 204. Id. at 912. 205. Id. at 913. 206. Id. at 913–14. 207. Id. at 914. 208. Id. at 915–16. 209. See United States v. Buck, 548 F.2d 871, 875 (9th Cir. 1977) (“Foreign security wiretaps are a recognized exception to the general warrant requirement . . . .”); United States v. Butenko, 494 F.2d 593, 605 (3d Cir. 1974) (upholding a warrantless tap as reasonable under the Fourth Amendment since the tap was “‘solely for the purpose of gathering foreign intelligence information’”); United States v. Brown, 484 F.2d 418, 426 (5th Cir. 1973) (permitting the use of evidence obtained from a warrantless wiretap, where the wiretap was for the purpose of gathering foreign intelligence, due to “the President’s constitutional duty to act for the United States in the field of foreign relations, and his inherent power to protect national security in the context of foreign affairs”); United States v. Clay, 430 F.2d 165, 171–72 (5th Cir. 1970) , rev’d on other grounds, 403 U.S. 698 (1971) (allowing information from a warrantless tap of a former boxing champion since the purpose of the tap was for “foreign intelligence surveillance”); see also In re Sealed Case, 310 F.3d 717, 742 (FISA Ct. Rev. 2002) (“The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information.”); Warrantless Surveillance, supra note 195, at 24 (“Since Keith, every single Federal court of appeals to decide the issue has agreed the President has independent constitutional power to [collect

662

INDIANA LAW JOURNAL

[Vol. 84:637

conduct of such warrantless electronic surveillance for this purpose not only precludes any allegation of constitutional violation, but, being based on the constitutional power of the President, also would appear to vitiate any claim that such activities violate federal statutes that prohibit warrantless electronic surveillance.210 The law in this area changed in 1978 with passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA),211 which was meant to place the constitutional debate on hold.212 FISA represented a contentious and difficult compromise regarding the collection of foreign intelligence.213 The Supreme Court had left the door open regarding warrantless wiretaps for foreign intelligence purposes, and the lower courts had uniformly permitted the government to go through that door. However, the executive branch worried that the Supreme Court might decide to take up the matter and issue a less favorable ruling.214 Furthermore, numerous lawsuits had been filed challenging warrantless electronic surveillance, and most telephone companies and government agencies were becoming reluctant to engage in such surveillance without a court order.215 FISA thus sought to balance the public’s concern about an unfettered government with the executive branch’s need to collect foreign intelligence quickly and in secret.216 One of FISA’s main tenets was the creation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), which is a special tribunal comprised of eleven district court judges.217 FISA authorizes judges on the FISC to issue foreign intelligence warrants if certain foreign intelligence information without a warrant].”). 210. See Butenko, 494 F.2d at 598–602 (stating that the President’s authority to gather foreign intelligence trumps section 605 of the Communications Act of 1934, which prohibits the warrantless interception of communications); Clay, 430 F.2d at 171–72 (same). The basis for this stems from the President’s constitutional power, not any “exemption” language in section 605 of the Communications Act of 1934. Admittedly, in the 1970s, section 605 did contain a provision that nothing contained in that act “shall limit the constitutional power of the President to take such measures as he deems necessary . . . to obtain foreign intelligence information deemed essential to the security of the United States.” 18 U.S.C. § 2511(3) (1974). However, the Supreme Court expressly refused to interpret this language as exempting any presidential action, but rather considered it a “clear[] expression of congressional neutrality. . . . [N]othing in § 2511(3) was intended to expand or to contract or to define whatever presidential surveillance powers existed in matters affecting the national security.” United States v. U.S. Dist. Court for the E. Dist. of Mich. (Keith), 407 U.S. 297, 308 (1972) (emphasis in original). As the Court held, “the statute is not the measure of the executive authority asserted in this case. Rather, we must look to the constitutional powers of the President.” Id. As noted in the text, the President’s constitutional powers permit warrantless electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes. 211. 50 U.S.C. §§ 1801–62 (2000). 212. Ellsberg v. Mitchell, 709 F.2d 51, 66 n.66 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (noting that the enactment of FISA “seems likely to result in indefinite postponement of definitive resolution of the constitutional minima” in the area of foreign intelligence surveillance). 213. Banks, supra note 198, at 1225; Diane Carraway Piette & Jesselyn Radack, Piercing the “Historical Mists”: The People and Events Behind the Passage of FISA and the Creation of the “Wall”, 17 STAN. L. & POL’Y REV. 437, 441 (2006). 214. Piette & Radack, supra note 213, at 442–43. 215. See id. at 441–42, 448; Banks, supra note 198, at 1225. 216. ACLU v. Barr, 952 F.2d 457, 461 (D.C. Cir. 1991); Banks, supra note 198, at 1228; Piette & Radack, supra note 213, at 486. 217. See 50 U.S.C. § 1803(a) (2000).

2009]

THE CIA’S “FAMILY JEWELS”: LEGAL THEN? LEGAL NOW?

663

criteria are met.218 Requests to the FISC must be in writing and under oath, and must be approved by the Attorney General after personal review.219 For a warrant to issue, the FISC judge must find probable cause to believe that the target is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power, and that foreign intelligence information is being sought.220 FISC judges hold hearings in secret and ex parte, and their decisions are usually not published.221 The Attorney General may still authorize warrantless electronic surveillance, but only in very limited circumstances.222 Criminal and civil liabilities attach to violations of FISA, and a private right of action exists.223 Per its terms, FISA is considered the “exclusive means” of engaging in electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes.224 Nonetheless, a recent argument has been made that the restrictions of FISA can be superseded in certain circumstances. Supporters of this position note that portions of FISA contain the provision “unless authorized by statute.”225 Therefore, it has been argued that a statute authorizing the President to engage in wide-ranging activities designed to protect the nation in time of emergency, such as the Authorization for Use of Military Force Resolution (AUMF) enacted in the wake of 9/11,226 can serve to overcome the restrictions of FISA, including the preclusion of electronic surveillance absent a FISC-ordered warrant.227 Indeed, this was the legal argument employed by the Bush Administration to validate the National Security Agency’s “Terrorist Surveillance Program.”228 Critics of this

218. See id. § 1804. 219. Id. § 1804(a), (e). 220. Id. §§ 1804(a)(4), 1805. 221. Banks, supra note 198, at 1231; see § 1803(c). 222. This includes when there is an emergency during the fifteen days following a congressional declaration of war, or if the surveillance is directed solely at communications between or amongst foreign powers and “there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communications to which a United States person is a party.” §§ 1802(a)(1), 1805(f), 1811. Recent amendments to FISA also authorize the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance of persons “reasonably believed to be located outside the United States,” under certain criteria. Foreign Intelligence Act of 1978 Amendments Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-261, § 101, 122 Stat. 2436(to be codified at 50 U.S.C. § 1881). 223. §§ 1809–10. 224. 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(f) (2006); Constitutional Limitations, supra note 197, at 74; Banks, supra note 198, at 1232 (quoting § 2511(2)(f)). 225. See, e.g., 50 U.S.C. § 1809 (providing for criminal sanctions for engaging “in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute”). 226. S.J. Res. 23, 115 Stat. 224 (2001). 227. See An Examination of the Call to Censure the President: Hearing Before the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 109th Cong. 122 (2006) (statement of Robert Turner) (noting that the AUMF trumps FISA and “clearly empowers [the President] to exercise the intelligence-gathering component of his Commander in Chief power”). 228. See Constitutional Limitations, supra note 197, at 74–75; see also Press Briefing, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales (Dec. 19, 2005). The program authorized the NSA to monitor—without prior FISC or other court approval—phone calls and other communications where the NSA believed one party to the communication was affiliated with Al Qaeda and outside the United States, even if it was possible that the other party resided in the United States. Id.

664

INDIANA LAW JOURNAL

[Vol. 84:637

argument, who are numerous, assert that the specific restrictions contained in FISA cannot be overcome by a much broader and less specific statute such as the AUMF.229 An additional, and more fundamental, argument in favor of Presidential primacy in this area asserts that FISA cannot usurp the aforementioned inherent presidential authority over foreign affairs. As Professor Robert Turner, one of the most forceful advocates of this position describes: At the core of exclusive presidential constitutional powers are the conduct of diplomacy, the collection of foreign intelligence, and the supreme command of military forces and conduct of military operations. Into these areas, Congress was not intended by the Founding Fathers to interfere. This was the consistent view of the Federalist Papers and the courts have repeatedly affirmed these principles.230

Per Professor Turner and others, including the Bush Administration, this authority provides the President with power to engage in warrantless searches, a power that cannot be taken away by Congress through FISA or any other mechanism, as a matter of constitutional law.231 The FISC Court of Review, in the only opinion it has ever issued, appears to confirm this position. The court, in discussing whether the President has the inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information, stated: “We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power.”232 However, this assertion is hotly contested. Critics have asserted that the Constitution is not as clear cut as Professor Turner suggests; that the executive branch has acceded to the exclusivity of FISA when President Carter signed FISA into law in 1978; that such accession is further evidenced by the executive branch’s continued use of the FISC; and that the proper mechanism for concerns about FISA is to seek a legislative amendment.233 Congress apparently sought to resolve this issue when it amended FISA in 2008 to, inter alia, expressly provide that FISA “shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance and the interception of domestic wire, oral, or electronic communications may be conducted.”234 However, such legislation does not resolve the underlying constitutional argument.

229. See, e.g., Constitutional Limitations, supra note 197, at 75 (statement of Louis Fisher) (asserting that the broad language in the AUMF does not allow the President to have unfettered power: “If Congress after 9/11 wanted to modify [the FISA] procedures and permit the President to engage in national security surveillance without a judicial check, it knows how to amend a statute”); Piette & Radack, supra note 213, at 443 n.26 (citing numerous critics of the Administration’s argument). 230. Warrantless Surveillance, supra note 195, at 29. 231. Id. at 36 (“[T]he foundation of FISA from the start was not a lawful and binding Act of Congress at all but rather a usurpation of presidential constitutional power that as a matter of U.S. constitutional law was void . . . .”); Press Briefing, supra note 228. 232. In re Sealed Case, 310 F.2d 717, 742 (FISA Ct. Rev. 2002). 233. Constitutional Limitations, supra note 197, at 76–79; see also Warrantless Surveillance, supra note 195, at 58–59 (summarizing the critics’ argument); Piette & Radack, supra note 213, at 443 n.26 (citing numerous critics of the program). 234. Foreign Intelligence Act of 1978 Amendments Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-261, § 102(a), 122 Stat. 2436(to be codified at 50 U.S.C. § 1812 (2000)).

2009]

THE CIA’S “FAMILY JEWELS”: LEGAL THEN? LEGAL NOW?

665

Finally, it should be noted that EO 12,333 also precludes the CIA from “engag[ing] in electronic surveillance within the United States except for the purpose of training, testing, or conducting countermeasures to hostile electronic surveillance.”235 However, as noted previously, the limitations of EO 12,333 can be countermanded by presidential directive.236 Overall then, it seems clear that at the time of the Family Jewels in 1973 the CIA could engage in electronic surveillance in the United States without a warrant but with Attorney General approval, so long as the purpose was to collect foreign intelligence.237 It is also possible that the target of the surveillance needed to be a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power, as mandated by some courts.238 These requirements continue today, with the additional requirement that the Agency likely would need to acquire a warrant from the FISC or at least a presidential directive.239 Applying the above requirements to the circumstances described in the Family Jewels is not simple, especially given the lack of factual information surrounding those electronic surveillance activities and the current legal uncertainty in this area. However, Project Mockingbird—the CIA’s warrantless telephone tap of the phones of U.S. reporters to determine their sources of information—does not appear to have been legal in 1973. Though the Agency had Attorney General approval to conduct the taps,240 the surveillance does not appear to have been done to collect foreign intelligence, but rather to assess the source of leaks,241 and therefore would not comply with the basic requirements of the foreign intelligence exception. It is possible that the project could have complied with that exception, and been legal, if the CIA originally believed that the leaks were being made by or to agents of a foreign power, or that the reporters were acting as agents of a foreign power. However, there is no indication that the CIA ever held such a belief or acted for such a purpose, and therefore the project would appear to have been illegal.242 The CIA’s practice of tapping telephone conversations between alleged narcotics traffickers in the United States and in South America would seem on its face to be a more legal endeavor because such information has clear foreign intelligence value.243 The CIA’s General Counsel, however, determined the telephone taps were not done for foreign intelligence purposes. Instead, the General Counsel determined that since the “ultimate destination” of the information from the taps was to the then predecessor of

235. Exec. Order No. 12,333 § 2.4, 3 C.F.R. 200, 212 (1982). 236. See supra note 147 and accompanying text. 237. See supra note 209 and accompanying text. 238. See supra text accompanying note 208. 239. See supra text accompanying notes 211–35. 240. See supra text accompanying note 191. 241. See supra text accompanying note 193. 242. The Rockefeller Commission agreed, noting that the Agency has authority to conduct investigations of present or former employees, but “has no authority to investigate newsmen simply because they have published leaked classified information.” ROCKEFELLER REPORT, supra note 17, at 165–66. 243. See, e.g., 21 U.S.C. § 801 (2006) (reciting Congressional concerns regarding international narcotics trafficking, including a finding that the “illegal importation . . . of controlled substances [has] a substantial and detrimental effect on the health and general welfare of the American people”).

666

INDIANA LAW JOURNAL

[Vol. 84:637

the Drug Enforcement Administration, “it appears to be collection for law-enforcement purposes, which . . . is barred to this Agency by statute.”244 It should be noted, however, that the mere fact that the information was provided to a law enforcement agency does not in itself preclude collection from being done for foreign intelligence purposes. Indeed, Truong involved a joint collection operation by the FBI and the CIA, where information acquired from warrantless electronic surveillance was eventually used in a criminal prosecution.245 Nonetheless, there are insufficient facts in the Family Jewels to assess the true purpose of the telephone taps of the narcotics traffickers. It is also unclear whether the CIA acquired Attorney General approval to engage in this electronic surveillance, and whether the traffickers were acting as agents of a foreign power. The CIA did end the operation because of the General Counsel’s opinion.246 V. EXAMINATION OF U.S. MAIL From the early 1950s until 1973, the CIA, with the general knowledge and consent of the United States Postal Service, engaged in a systematic operation to examine extensive amounts of mail sent between Americans and individuals in communist countries, most particularly the Soviet Union.247 The purpose of the operation was to “give United States intelligence agencies insight into Soviet intelligence activities and interests.”248 The operation took place mostly in the main post office in New York, though short-lived mail examination programs also occurred in post offices in San Francisco, Hawaii, and New Orleans.249 The mail program, known by the cryptonym SRPOINTER-HTLINGUAL,250 began with CIA engaging purely in a “mail cover” operation, in which CIA officers examined just the outside or “cover” of mail mostly received from, but also sent to, communist countries.251 The program soon progressed to opening certain select envelopes and reviewing their contents.252 If the contents were of interest, the cover of the envelope and its contents were photographed, with the copies sent to CIA headquarters and often to the FBI for review.253 The original letters would then be resealed and reinserted into the mail system for delivery.254 Generally, the evaluation of the covers and letters, to include the opening and resealing of envelopes, took place at the actual postal facilities located at the intercept points, for example New York and San Francisco, with the

244. FAMILY JEWELS, supra note 2, at 00539. 245. See United States v. Truong Dinh Hung, 629 F.2d 908, 912 (4th Cir. 1980). 246. See supra text accompanying note 188. 247. ROCKEFELLER REPORT, supra note 17, at 101; see also FAMILY JEWELS, supra note 2, at 00331 (discussing the CIA’s reading of Russian and other mail). 248. ROCKEFELLER REPORT, supra note 17, at 101 (quoting a report from the CIA Chief of Counterintelligence to DCIA Schlesinger). 249. Id. (noting that the San Francisco program operated during four separate periods of time of a month or less between 1969 and 1971; the Hawaii program ran from late 1954 to early 1955; the New Orleans program existed only during a three-week stretch in 1957). 250. See FAMILY JEWELS, supra note 2, at 00644. 251. ROCKEFELLER REPORT, supra note 17, at 103. 252. Id. 253. Id. at 105. 254. See id.

2009]

THE CIA’S “FAMILY JEWELS”: LEGAL THEN? LEGAL NOW?

667

analysis occurring at CIA headquarters, in Langley, Virginia.255 Much of the determination as to which envelopes were to be opened stemmed from watch lists, created by the CIA or FBI, of individuals or organizations of particular interest.256 During its inception in the early 1950s, the operation involved examination of only a few letters.257 By 1959, the number had grown to 13,000 letters per year.258 The project ballooned from there. In 1972, the last full year of operation, the New York intercept facility, which was the only program in operation at the time, examined the covers of over 2.3 million items of mail coming into and going out of the United States, photographed the exterior of approximately 33,000 items, opened and analyzed 8700 items of mail, and sent 1400 items of information from the mail intercept program to the FBI.259 The CIA notified, and acquired permission from, the Chief Postal Inspector of the Postal Service, as well as other Postal Inspectors, regarding the “mail cover” portion of the project (though not the “mail opening” portion) both in writing and verbally before the operation commenced.260 Moreover, the Chief Postal Inspector who served from 1969 through the end of the Agency’s program in 1973, having been a former Agency officer, was aware of both the mail cover and mail opening portions of the Agency’s program.261 The CIA also briefed, and received approval from, many of the other Postmasters General, and at least one other Chief Postal Inspector, throughout the duration of the program, though it is unclear whether such briefings included discussion of the mail opening portion of the program.262 The CIA also briefed Attorney General John Mitchell on the program in 1971; Attorney General Mitchell fully concurred with continuing the operation.263 There is no indication that the CIA ever briefed any other high-level official in the executive branch (to include any President) on the program during its operation.264 Nor is there any indication that Congress or the courts were aware of the program, much less had a chance to evaluate

255. FAMILY JEWELS, supra note 2, at 00644; ROCKEFELLER REPORT, supra note 17, at 105, 112–15. The Church Report indicates that at least some of the mail opening operations took place at a CIA “laboratory” located at Kennedy Airport. SENATE SELECT COMM. TO STUDY GOVERNMENTAL OPERATIONS WITH RESPECT TO INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES, SUPPLEMENTARY DETAILED STAFF REPORTS ON INTELLIGENCE AND THE RIGHTS OF AMERICANS: BOOK III: FINAL REPORT, S. REP. NO. 94-755, at 572 (1976), available at, http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/contents/church/contents_church_reports_book3.htm [hereinafter CHURCH REPORT: BOOK III]. It is unclear whether that laboratory was affixed to, or part of, the U.S. Postal facility at that airport. 256. ROCKEFELLER REPORT, supra note 17, at 105; see also FAMILY JEWELS, supra note 2, at 00644–45 (discussing the CIA’s maintenance of the watch list). 257. ROCKEFELLER REPORT, supra note 17, at 105. 258. Id. 259. Id. at 111–12. 260. Id. at 103. 261. Id. at 108–09. 262. See id. at 104–10 (discussing several Postmasters General who were briefed during the program). But see CHURCH REPORT: BOOK III, supra note 255, at 585 (stating that the CIA provided no information on the program to several of the Postmasters General who served while the program was in place). 263. ROCKEFELLER REPORT, supra note 17, at 110. 264. Id. at 111.

668

INDIANA LAW JOURNAL

[Vol. 84:637

its legality, until after the program had been terminated.265 The CIA never acquired a warrant for the program.266 The CIA ended the program in 1973 when the postal service refused to allow the program to continue without high-level approval, presumably from the President.267 By then, much of the take from the operation involved matters of greater interest to the FBI than to the CIA.268 With the risk of exposure high, the CIA determined the operation should be completely turned over to the FBI.269 Nonetheless, both the CIA and FBI believed that the project had provided valuable strategic and technical intelligence, as well as numerous counterintelligence leads.270 The Rockefeller Commission, without much analysis, concluded that the Agency’s mail intercept program was “unlawful,” as it had violated unspecified “United States statutes” and the National Security Act of 1947, and “raise[d] Constitutional questions.”271 A more extensive analysis of the program, however, indicates that the mail cover portion of the program was legal throughout its duration, while the mail opening portion was legal during its peak years, and may have been since its inception. A. Mail Cover Portion Three statutes impose criminal sanctions for interference with U.S. mail—18 U.S.C. §§ 1701, 1702, and 1703. Section 1701, in relevant part, imposes criminal penalties on anyone who “knowingly and willfully obstructs or retards the passage of the mail.”272 Section 1702 prohibits the opening of mail, or the taking of letters out of a post facility or out of the custody of a mail carrier “with design to obstruct the correspondence, or to pry into the business or secrets of another.”273 Section 1703 prohibits postal employees from “unlawfully” opening or delaying any correspondence, and prohibits anyone (postal employees or otherwise) from opening or destroying any mail “without authority.”274 These statutes apply to all mail in the United States, even if originating overseas.275 All of these statutory provisions have remained the same in relevant part since they were enacted in 1948.276

265. See Avery v. United States, 434 F. Supp. 937, 940 (D. Conn. 1977) (noting that the CIA never sought or obtained judicial approval for its mail operation). See generally ROCKEFELLER REPORT, supra note 17, at 101–15 (discussing interaction of CIA officials with other government officials but notably never mentioning Congress or the courts). 266. Avery, 434 F. Supp. at 940. 267. ROCKEFELLER REPORT, supra note 17, at 20, 111. 268. FAMILY JEWELS, supra note 2, at 00028 (noting that by the end of the operation it appeared that the “bulk of the take involved matters of internal security interest which was [sic] disseminated to the Federal Bureau of Investigation”). 269. ROCKEFELLER REPORT, supra note 17, at 111. 270. Id. at 112. 271. Id. at 115. 272. 18 U.S.C. § 1701 (2006). 273. Id. § 1702. 274. Id. § 1703. 275. Id. § 1692. 276. See 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 1701–1703 notes (West 2000) (indicating only nominal changes since each provision’s inception).

2009]

THE CIA’S “FAMILY JEWELS”: LEGAL THEN? LEGAL NOW?

669

Courts have consistently held that mail cover operations do not violate §§ 1701, 1702, or 1703 as long as there is a legitimate government purpose to the operation and there is “only an insubstantial delay of the mail as the result of an authorized ‘mail cover’ or ‘mail watch.’”277 In United States v. Costello, postal authorities, at the request of law enforcement officers and without seeking a warrant from a judge, recorded the names and return addresses that appeared on mail addressed to the defendant, who was believed to be engaged in tax evasion.278 The Second Circuit held that this mail cover operation in Costello did not violate §§ 1701, 1702, or 1703, as any delay in delivery of the defendant’s mail was minimal (§ 1701), the defendant’s letters were never removed from the post office (§ 1702), and any delay had a lawful purpose (§ 1703).279 The same should be true for the CIA’s mail cover program. There is no indication that the CIA’s review of the cover of mail coming in from, and going out to, the Soviet Union and other communist countries resulted in anything more than minimal delay of that mail.280 When only the covers of letters were analyzed, the letters never left the post office, as the CIA ran this operation in the postal facilities.281 It is also clear that there was a lawful government purpose to the review of the mail covers. The National Security Act authorizes the CIA to collect foreign intelligence information,282 which would clearly include information on suspected communist intelligence operations.283 Thus, there is no basis to find any criminal violation from the CIA’s mail cover program.284 There is also no basis for civil liability. There is no civil statute precluding mail cover operations, and courts are uniform in holding that §§ 1701–1703 do not contain a private right of action, and therefore are unenforceable in a civil context.285 Courts

277. United States v. Upshaw, 895 F.2d 109, 110–111 (3d Cir. 1990) (summarizing the case law of mail cover). 278. 255 F.2d 876, 881 (2d Cir. 1958). 279. Id. at 881–82. 280. See ROCKEFELLER REPORT, supra note 17, at 101–15 (discussing the mail cover program without suggesting that anything more than a minimal delay was caused). The Church Commission noted that even the mail opening portion of the operation resulted in an average delay of only one day. CHURCH REPORT: BOOK III, supra note 255, at 572. 281. See ROCKEFELLER REPORT, supra note 17, at 105. 282. See supra note 21. 283. See infra text accompanying notes 329–30 for additional discussion of the lawful government purpose of the Agency’s mail operation. 284. See Lustiger v. United States, 386 F.2d 132, 139 (9th Cir. 1968) (stating that the government does not violate § 1703 when it places a “mail watch” on incoming mail to an individual believed to be involved in an illegal scheme to sell land in Arizona through misleading brochures sent through the mail); Cohen v. United States, 378 F.2d 751, 759 (9th Cir. 1967) (finding no violation of §§ 1701–1703 where the government placed a mail cover on the incoming mail of an individual suspected of conducting an illegal gambling business); United States v. Costello, 255 F.2d 876, 881 (2d Cir. 1958) (finding no violation of §§ 1701– 1703 for a mail cover operation). 285. See Woods v. McGuire, 954 F.2d 388, 391 (6th Cir. 1992) (“[F]ederal courts uniformly have held that there is no private right of action under [§ 1703].”); Contemporary Mission, Inc. v. U.S. Postal Serv., 648 F.2d 97, 103 n.7 (2d Cir. 1981) (holding that there is no private cause of action for §§ 1701–1703); United States ex rel. Pope v. Bruckno, 330 F. Supp. 793, 795

670

INDIANA LAW JOURNAL

[Vol. 84:637

have also consistently found that mail cover operations do not violate the Constitution.286 Anyone who uses the United States postal service is clearly aware that the outside of their mail will be seen by others, and in particular by government officials. At the very least, “persons who sent or received mail knew or ought to have known that postal employees must examine the outside of the mail in order to deliver it.”287 Furthermore, there is knowledge that at least incoming international mail is subject to inspection by United States law enforcement. As Justice Friendly has stated: “it is difficult to see how there can be any [reasonable expectation of privacy] with respect to the outsides of incoming international mails which are subject to inspection and even in some cases to opening in aid of the enforcement of the customs laws.”288 Indeed, the courts have analogized the issue to telephone calls: Just as courts have held that a person’s expectations of privacy concerning telephone communication attach only to the Contents of the conversation and not to the fact the communication was made, so also the courts have held that a person may reasonably expect privacy only with respect to the contents of an envelope and Not with respect to information knowingly exposed to third parties on the envelope’s exterior.289

Nonetheless, the Rockefeller Commission found the CIA’s cover operation to be illegal, stating that mail cover operations “are legal when carried out in compliance with postal regulations on a limited and selective basis involving matters of national security. The [CIA’s mail cover program] did not meet these criteria.”290 However, there is no statutory requirement that mail cover operations be “limited and selective” or that they involve “national security.” Sections 1701, 1702, and 1703 do not contain such requirements, no court has placed such restrictions on mail cover operations, and courts have certainly upheld mail cover operations that do not contain such limitations (especially the requirement of a national security facet).291

(E.D. Pa. 1971) (finding no private right of action under § 1702). 286. See United States v. Mayer, 490 F.3d 1129, 1137 (9th Cir. 2007) (finding “no constitutional violation” in a mail cover operation “[b]ecause a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in the outside of his mail . . .”); United States v. Huie, 593 F.2d 14, 14– 15 (5th Cir. 1979) (“[T]he courts uniformly have upheld the constitutionality of mail covers.”); United States v. Choate, 576 F.2d 165, 173–83 (9th Cir. 1978) (determining that a mail operation undertaken for legitimate government purposes does not violate the First, Fourth, or Ninth Amendments to the Constitution); United States v. Bianco, 534 F.2d 501, 508 (2d Cir. 1976) (“[T]he reading of the outside of an envelope does not violate any constitutional principles.”). 287. Vreeken v. Davis, 718 F.2d 343, 348 (10th Cir. 1983), overruled on other grounds by Grantham v. Ohio Cas. Co., 97 F.3d 434, 435 (10th Cir. 1996). 288. United States v. Leonard, 524 F.2d 1076, 1087 (2d Cir. 1975). 289. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 593 F.2d 1030, 1056–57 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (capitalization in original). 290. ROCKEFELLER REPORT, supra note 17, at 115; see also id. at 64 (stating that courts had held that examination of envelopes is legal if conducted within the regulations of the postal office and the mail is not unreasonably delayed). 291. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1701–1703 (2006); supra notes 284–87 (citing cases containing no such restrictions).

2009]

THE CIA’S “FAMILY JEWELS”: LEGAL THEN? LEGAL NOW?

671

The Rockefeller Report did not provide any specifics regarding how the Agency’s mail cover operation purportedly violated postal regulations. However, other than perhaps a minor technical violation, the operation appears to have complied with the regulations then in place. In 1973, a Chief Postal Inspector could order a mail cover if he or she received a written request from a “law enforcement agency” articulating reasonable grounds as to why a mail cover “is necessary to . . . protect the national security . . . .”292 The regulations define a “law enforcement agency” as a federal, state, or local government authority “one of whose functions is to investigate the commission or attempted commission of acts constituting a crime.”293 The Chief Postal Inspector must approve any mail cover in effect for more than 120 days,294 but there is no restriction on the breadth of the operation.295 There is also no requirement that the mail cover be conducted by postal employees.296 The CIA’s mail cover operation generally complied with all of these postal regulations. As noted above, the CIA sent a written request to the Chief Postal Inspector for the mail cover operation before its initiation.297 Though that request does not appear available for public view, given the concerns about the Soviet and communist threat at the time, it is easy to believe that the CIA request demonstrated reasonable grounds to believe that the mail cover operation was needed to protect national security. The CIA request was approved.298 The CIA then continued to brief subsequent Chief Postal Inspectors, as well as Postmasters General, who outrank Chief Postal Inspectors, on at least the mail cover operation throughout the duration of the program.299 All of these individuals consistently approved the program.300 The main problem, of course, is that the CIA is not now, and was not then, a “law enforcement agency” as that term was defined by the postal regulations; that is, an entity “one of whose functions is to investigate the commission or attempted commission of acts constituting a crime.”301 Indeed, as discussed above, the CIA’s

292. 39 C.F.R. § 233.2(d)(2)(ii) (1975). On March 11, 1975, the Postal Service outlined new regulations for mail covers. See Inspection Service Authority, 39 Fed. Reg. 11,579 (Mar. 11, 1975). These new regulations effectively combined portions of the Postal Service Manual and the Postal Manual that had dealt with mail covers. Id. at 11,579. However, the new regulations made “no substantial changes” to the prior regulations, which had been in place since 1965. Id.; see also United States v. Choate, 422 F. Supp. 261, 263 (C.D. Cal. 1976), rev’d on other grounds, 576 F.2d 165 (9th Cir. 1978) (en banc) (noting that the postal regulations outlining mail covers “were first promulgated on June 17, 1965; they were republished without substantial change in March 1975” as 39 C.F.R. § 233.2 (footnote omitted)). The regulations note that they constitute the “sole authority and procedure for initiating, processing, placing and using mail covers.” 39 C.F.R. § 233.2(b). 293. 39 C.F.R. § 233.2(c)(4). 294. Id. § 233.2(f)(5). 295. See generally 39 C.F.R. § 233.2 (outlining restrictions and requirements for mail cover operations, but providing no limit on the number of individuals who could fall within a mail cover). 296. See generally id. 297. ROCKEFELLER REPORT, supra note 17, at 103. 298. See id. 299. See supra text accompanying notes 257–62. 300. See supra text accompanying notes 257–62. 301. 39 C.F.R. § 233.2(c)(4) (1975).

672

INDIANA LAW JOURNAL

[Vol. 84:637

charter expressly precludes it from operating as a law enforcement entity.302 Nonetheless, it is possible that the Postmasters General and the Chief Postal Inspectors deemed the CIA to fall within the definition of the term. The regulations expressly state that “[t]he Chief Postal Inspector’s determination in all matters concerning mail covers shall be final and conclusive . . . .”303 Further, the Postal Service’s interpretation of its own regulations “becomes of controlling weight unless it is plainly erroneous or inconsistent . . . .”304 Given the initial and then continuous approval of the CIA’s cover program by Chief Postal Inspectors and Postmasters General,305 it would appear that they made a “final and conclusive” determination that the CIA’s cover program filled the requirements of the postal regulations. In addition, the Postmaster General appears to have the authority to waive any substantive provision of the postal regulations.306 Thus, to the extent that the CIA’s mail cover program could be interpreted as marginally inconsistent with the postal service’s regulations, the Postmasters General waived such regulations by consistently and continuously approving the Agency’s program.307 Current postal regulations have resolved any uncertainty in this area by explicitly expanding the definition of “law enforcement agency” to include any federal, state or local government authority, “one of whose functions is to . . . [p]rotect the national security.”308 The phrase “protection of the national security” is then defined as protecting the United States from “actual or potential threats to its security by a foreign power or its agents” via an attack, sabotage, international terrorism, or clandestine intelligence activities.309 It seems clear that the CIA would fall within this definition.

302. See supra text accompanying notes 19–20. 303. 39 C.F.R. § 233.2(h)(2). 304. Bowles v. Seminole Rock Co., 325 U.S. 410, 413–14 (1945); see also 1 RICHARD J. PIERCE, JR., ADMINISTRATIVE LAW TREATISE § 6.11 (4th ed. 2002) (noting that, in non-penalty situations such as the instant case, courts give “substantial deference” to an agency’s interpretation of its own regulations). 305. See supra text accompanying notes 257–62. 306. 39 U.S.C. § 402 (2000); 39 C.F.R. §§ 1.2, 2.6, 3.3 (2007). While these regulations do not explicitly authorize the Postmaster General to waive substantive provisions of postal regulations, such power is implied from the broad powers provided to the Postmaster General to “issue regulations.” See Pent-R-Books, Inc. v. U.S. Postal Serv., 328 F. Supp. 297, 312–13 (E.D.N.Y. 1971) (describing the extensive powers given to the Postmaster General); Ex Parte Willman, 277 F. 819, 821 (S.D. Ohio 1921) (“[The Postmaster General] has power to promulgate regulations generally as to the conduct of the department, and such regulations are controlling, have the force of law, and are judicially noticed.”). Since the Postmaster General has the ability to issue regulations, logic would dictate that the Postmaster General also has the power to waive substantive regulations, which is effectively “issuing” an exception regulation. Of course, the Postmaster General does not have the ability to waive Postal Service regulations applying to procedural rights, especially when such rights are required by statute or the Constitution. See Myers & Myers, Inc. v. U.S. Postal Serv., 527 F.2d 1252, 1259–62 (2d Cir. 1975) (noting that the Postmaster General may not ignore procedural requirements for a hearing). 307. See supra text accompanying notes 257–62. 308. 39 C.F.R. § 233.3(c)(8)(ii) (2007). 309. Id. § 233.3(c)(9).

2009]

THE CIA’S “FAMILY JEWELS”: LEGAL THEN? LEGAL NOW?

673

Finally, it should be noted that the Agency’s mail cover program complied with the National Security Act. As noted above, the purpose of the program was to gather information about Soviet intelligence interests and activities. It therefore clearly falls within the Agency’s function of collecting and coordinating foreign intelligence.310 The Rockefeller Report, however, assessed that the “nature and assistance given by the CIA to the FBI in the New York mail project indicate that the primary purpose eventually became participation with the FBI in internal security functions,”311 which is expressly precluded by the National Security Act.312 It is difficult to understand how the Rockefeller Commission came to that determination, however. The vast majority of the mail that the CIA reviewed (approximately seventy percent) was mail coming into the United States from communist countries.313 This suggests a focus on foreign intelligence as opposed to internal domestic interests. Further, while the CIA did send copies of some of the opened letters to the FBI, the vast majority went to CIA headquarters for evaluation,314 again indicating the program focused on foreign affairs of interest to the CIA as opposed to issues of interest to the FBI. Thus, it would appear that the CIA’s mail cover program was legal during its operation. It did not violate any criminal or civil statute, constitutional provision, or the National Security Act. In addition, contrary to the unspecified claims made by the Rockefeller Commission, the CIA’s mail cover operation did not violate postal service regulations. The law regarding mail cover operations has not changed since 1973, except for the increased breadth of the Postal Regulations in this area. Indeed, EO 12,333 expressly permits the CIA to engage in “mail surveillance” operations so long as they comply with procedures established by the CIA Director and approved by the Attorney General.315 B. Mail Opening Portion From the beginning, the CIA had suspicions that the mail opening portion of the operation was illegal.316 The Rockefeller Report was more definitive: “While in operation, the CIA’s domestic mail opening programs were unlawful. United States statutes specifically forbid opening the mail.” 317 This was undoubtedly a reference to

310. See supra notes 16–17 and accompanying text. 311. ROCKEFELLER REPORT, supra note 17, at 115. 312. See supra note 19. 313. ROCKEFELLER REPORT, supra note 17, at 112. 314. See id. (stating that, in the last year of operation, 3800 disseminations of intelligence from the mail program were sent to CIA headquarters and 1400 were sent to the FBI). 315. Exec. Order No. 12,333 § 2.4, 3 C.F.R. 200, 212 (1982). 316. CHURCH REPORT: BOOK III, supra note 255, at 566; ROCKEFELLER REPORT, supra note 17, at 107–08, 114. It should be noted that nobody ever requested an opinion on the legality of the mail opening operation from the CIA’s General Counsel. CHURCH REPORT III, supra note 255, at 607. Indeed, the evidence suggests that the CIA’s General Counsel was never even made aware of the operation until after its conclusion. Id. 317. ROCKEFELLER REPORT, supra note 17, at 115. The Department of Justice eventually decided not to prosecute any individuals for their roles in the CIA’s mail program. Avery v. United States, 434 F. Supp. 937, 940 n.4 (D. Conn. 1977).

674

INDIANA LAW JOURNAL

[Vol. 84:637

the express language of §§ 1702 and 1703.318 The relevant parts of those provisions prohibit the opening of mail “to pry into the business or secrets of another”319 and the opening of mail “without authority,”320 respectively. The Rockefeller Commission concluded that the Agency had violated such provisions as “[t]he statutes set forth no exception for national security matters.”321 The Rockefeller Commission’s overarching conclusion, however, was incorrect. It is true that neither § 1702 nor §1703 contains an express provision exempting CIA activities from their reach. However, neither section expressly exempts customs and prison officials from opening mail pursuant to their authorities, or U.S. law enforcement officials from doing so pursuant to a valid warrant. Yet these are clearly legal activities that do not violate §§ 1702 or 1703.322 The same applies for the CIA’s opening of mail for national security matters, or more specifically, for foreign intelligence purposes. As noted in Part IV above, prior to the enactment of FISA, the courts recognized a foreign intelligence exception to the warrant requirement for electronic surveillance.323 The courts have recognized a similar exception for physical searches, including the opening of mail, based upon the constitutional power of the President.324 Just as the federal government did not violate

318. Section 1701 would not bar the CIA’s mail opening operation. Section 1701 prohibits the obstruction or retardation of United States mail. 18 U.S.C. § 1701 (2006). Courts have acknowledged that minimal delay, with “proper considerations,” does not violate § 1701. United States v. Austin, 492 F. Supp. 502, 504 (N.D. Ill. 1980); see also United States v. Wooden, 61 F.3d 3, 5 (2d Cir. 1995) (finding no violation of § 1701 unless the defendant has an “illegitimate or improper intent”). The minimal delay incurred as part of the CIA’s mail opening operation would likely be deemed a “proper consideration” as it was for governmental purposes. See United States v. Beckley, 335 F.2d 86, 89–90 (6th Cir. 1964) (providing that delay from customs officials opening a package pursuant to their government authority does not violate § 1701); United States v. Costello, 255 F.2d 876, 881 (2d Cir. 1958) (stating that minimal delay from valid mail cover operation does not violate § 1701). 319. 18 U.S.C. § 1702. 320. Id. § 1703. 321. ROCKEFELLER REPORT, supra note 17, at 64. The Church Commission came to a similar conclusion. CHURCH REPORT: BOOK III, supra note 255, at 564 (citing to §§ 1701–1703 and concluding “[t]he only persons who can lawfully open first class mail without a warrant, in short, are employees of the Postal Service for a very limited purpose [e.g., to determine the address for delivery]—not agents of the CIA or FBI”). 322. See United States v. Beckley, 335 F.2d 86, 88–90 (6th Cir. 1964) (holding that customs agents who open packages coming into the United States “violated no statute or regulation,” including §§ 1701–1703, nor the Fourth Amendment); Adams v. Ellis, 197 F.2d 483, 485 (5th Cir. 1952) (holding that prison officials who open prisoner mail do not violate § 1702 or any other criminal statute). 323. See supra notes 203–10 and accompanying text. 324. See United States v. Truong Dinh Hung, 629 F.2d 908, 917 & n.8 (4th Cir. 1980) (holding that, without a warrant but with executive authorization, searches of a letter and a package sent via U.S. mail did not violate the Fourth Amendment); United States v. Marzook, 435 F. Supp. 2d 778, 793 (N.D. Ill. 2006) (“[B]efore Congress expanded FISA to include physical searches the Executive Branch maintained the authority to conduct warrantless foreign intelligence investigation, which would include physical searches.” (footnote omitted)); see also United States v. Bin Laden, 126 F. Supp. 2d 264, 285 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (“[T]he Court finds that the foreign intelligence exception to the warrant requirement applies with equal force to

2009]

THE CIA’S “FAMILY JEWELS”: LEGAL THEN? LEGAL NOW?

675

federal criminal statutes when it conducted warrantless electronic surveillance pursuant to the foreign intelligence exception,325 the CIA did not violate §§ 1702–1703 when it conducted warrantless mail opening operations pursuant to the same exception.326 The requirements of the foreign intelligence exception for warrantless physical searches are similar to those for electronic surveillance. Courts have allowed such searches if the activity was conducted primarily for foreign intelligence reasons, the target was a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power, and the Attorney General approved such activity.327 The Agency’s mail opening program appears to have fulfilled the first requirement, since, as noted above, the purpose of the program was to “give United States intelligence agencies insight into Soviet intelligence activities and interests.”328 As stated above, while the program may have collected information of interest to the FBI, the primary purpose of the program remained foreign intelligence collection until its termination.329 The program also appears to have fulfilled the second requirement, as the target of the operation was a foreign power (the Soviet Union and other communist countries) or its purported agents. Though we lack facts regarding every letter that the CIA opened, the CIA seemed to believe that the letters it was opening belonged to or were in transit to or from a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power, given the purpose and focus of the program.330 The last requirement—approval by the Attorney General—proves the most problematic. The CIA did brief Attorney General Mitchell in June 1971 about the program, and that briefing appears to have included both the mail opening and mail cover portions of the program.331 The Attorney General approved the program and had no “hang ups” about it.332 However, his approval came near the end of the program (though at its high point). There is no indication that the CIA previously briefed the program to either Attorney General Mitchell or his predecessor Attorneys General. Courts have not accepted after-the-fact Attorney General approval for the foreign intelligence exception, at least for purposes of use of the information in criminal prosecutions.333 Thus, while it is unclear whether the initial portions of the program received Attorney General approval and thus are valid, at the very least any mail openings between June 1971 (when the Attorney General gave his approval) and residential searches.”). 325. See supra text accompanying notes 213–14. 326. One district court has posited the more radical assertion that, prior to the issuance of EO 12,333, “the CIA was under no limitation that its activities could not violate U.S. law” due to the Fifth Function. United States v. Lopez-Lima, 738 F. Supp. 1404, 1410 (S.D. Fla. 1990) (emphasis added). 327. Truong, 629 F.2d at 917 & n.8. 328. See supra text accompanying note 248. 329. See supra text accompanying notes 313–14. As noted above, the CIA terminated the program in 1973 due in part to the fact that the program began generating more internal security information than foreign intelligence. See supra text accompanying notes 268–69. 330. ROCKEFELLER REPORT, supra note 17, at 101–03. 331. Id. at 110 (noting that the mail cover portion of the operation was certainly briefed at the meeting, but expressing some uncertainty amongst the parties as to whether the mail opening portion was also discussed). 332. Id. 333. See United States v. Bin Laden, 126 F. Supp. 2d 264, 279 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (holding that approval by Attorney General for warrantless surveillance pursuant to the foreign intelligence exception in April 1997 does not apply to surveillance conducted prior to that date).

676

INDIANA LAW JOURNAL

[Vol. 84:637

February 1973 (when the program was terminated) appear to have complied with the requirements of the foreign intelligence exception for physical searches. An argument, however, can be made that Attorney General approval was not in fact required for the CIA’s mail opening operation, because there was no reasonable expectation of privacy in mail going to or from communist countries. In Truong, discussed above,334 one portion of the opinion discussed the fact that the named defendant had sent a poorly wrapped package from the United States to Paris.335 The FBI and CIA searched the package without obtaining either Attorney General approval or a search warrant.336 The Fourth Circuit nonetheless upheld the warrantless search of the package: “[B]ecause the package was poorly wrapped and because it was destined for foreign delivery, Truong could not have harbored a reasonable expectation that the contents of the package would remain undisclosed; and consequently neither a search warrant nor executive authorization was necessary for this search.”337 While there is no suggestion that the letters opened as part of the CIA’s mail operation were poorly wrapped, such letters likely enjoyed an even lesser expectation of privacy than in Truong. While Truong’s package was sent to France, which may or may not routinely open such packages, the letters opened as part of the CIA’s program were all going to or coming from the Soviet Union or other communist countries.338 As the Rockefeller Report notes: “Presumably all mail to and from the USSR is censored by the Soviets.”339 Based on this statement, an argument could be raised that such letters enjoyed no expectation of privacy, were therefore not protected by the Fourth Amendment at all,340 and thus, as in Truong, could be searched without either a warrant or Attorney General approval. Beyond constitutional and criminal considerations, a civil provision existed in 1973 that also precluded the opening of U.S. mail. Specifically, 39 U.S.C. § 3623(d) precluded the opening of any mail of domestic origin, except in cases where either a search warrant had been authorized, the addressee authorized the letter opening, or a postal employee needed to open the letter to determine the address for delivery.341 However, the foreign intelligence exception that applied to §§ 1701–1703 would also apply to this civil provision. Indeed, when the postal service statutes were revised in 2006, and 39 U.S.C. § 3623(d) was reconstituted as 39 U.S.C. § 404(c) with the same general restrictions,342 President Bush explicitly stated that the executive branch would

334. See supra notes 203–08 and accompanying text. 335. United States v. Truong Dinh Hung, 629 F.2d 908, 917 (4th Cir. 1980). 336. Id. 337. Id. 338. See supra text accompanying notes 247–49. 339. ROCKEFELLER REPORT, supra note 17, at 101 n.2. 340. See Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365, 374 (1986) (holding that to prevail on a Fourth Amendment claim, the complainant must not only prove that the search or seizure was illegal, but also “that it violated his reasonable expectation of privacy in the item or place at issue”); Couch v. United States, 409 U.S. 322, 336 n.19 (1973) (noting that there is a “necessary expectation of privacy to launch a valid Fourth Amendment claim”). 341. 39 U.S.C. § 3623(d) (1970), repealed by Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act, Pub. L. No. 109-435, § 201(b), 120 Stat. 3198, 3205 (2006) (codified at 39 U.S.C.A. § 404(c) (West 2007)). 342. See 39 U.S.C.A. § 404(c) (West 2007).

2009]

THE CIA’S “FAMILY JEWELS”: LEGAL THEN? LEGAL NOW?

677

construe § 404(c) “in a manner consistent [with] . . . the need for physical searches specifically authorized by law for foreign intelligence collection.”343 Subsequent to 1973, of course, Congress passed FISA to contend with foreign intelligence collection. FISA, when originally enacted in 1978, did not provide guidelines for physical searches to obtain foreign intelligence.344 Congress amended FISA in 1994 to include such guidelines.345 The amended provisions, which remain in effect today, mirror the main requirements for electronic surveillance.346 Thus, requests must be submitted to the FISC after personal approval by the Attorney General, who certifies that the target of the search is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power, that the property to be searched contains foreign intelligence, and that the property to be searched is owned, used by or in transit to or from a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power.347 As noted in the above section on electronic surveillance, the exclusivity of FISA remains an open question, and therefore these FISA procedures may not always be necessary to conduct physical searches for foreign intelligence.348 Finally, postal regulations in effect both in 1973 and now do prohibit postal employees from opening, or permitting the opening, of any first class mail without a search warrant, except in limited circumstances not relevant here.349 However, as noted above, the Postal Service Regulations in effect both then and now appear to grant the Postmaster General the authority to waive any substantive provision of the regulations, such as the preclusion of a mail opening operation absent a search warrant.350 As discussed, the CIA briefed Postmasters General on the CIA’s program.351 To the extent that such briefings included the mail opening portion of the operation, which is

343. Statement by President George W. Bush upon Signing H.R. 6407 (Dec. 20, 2006), reprinted in 2006 U.S.C.C.A.N. S76, S77. 344. United States v. Marzook, 435 F. Supp. 2d 778, 785 (N.D. Ill. 2006); see also Global Relief Found., Inc. v. O’Neill, 207 F. Supp. 2d 779, 789 (N.D. Ill. 2002) (explaining that FISA was amended in 1994 to address physical searches), aff’d, 315 F.3d 748 (7th Cir. 2002). 345. Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995, Pub. L. No. 103-359, § 807, 108 Stat. 3243, 3443–53 (codified as amended at 50 U.S.C. §§ 1820–1829 (2000 & Supp. V 2005) (amending Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, §§ 301–309); Global Relief Found., Inc., 207 F. Supp. 2d at 789 (explaining that FISA was amended in 1994 to address physical searches), aff’d 315 F.3d 748 (7th Cir. 2002). As with electronic surveillance, there are limited exceptions not relevant to the instant discussion. See, e.g., 50 U.S.C. § 1824(e) (allowing the Attorney General to authorize a warrantless physical search in an emergency). 346. Marzook, 435 F. Supp. 2d at 785. Compare 50 U.S.C. §§ 1801–1811 (outlining procedures regarding electronic surveillance), with id. §§ 1821–1829 (outlining procedures regarding physical searches). 347. 50 U.S.C. § 1823(a). 348. See supra text accompanying notes 224–36. 349. The exceptions are for situations where postal employees need to open mail to determine payment of proper postage or to assess mailability. See 39 C.F.R. § 233.3(g)(1)–(2) (2007); 39 C.F.R. § 233.2(f)(1) (1975). As noted in note 292, supra, the postal regulations regarding postal covers and openings, implemented in 1975, merely reflected a formal culmination of standard postal practice in effect since the mid 1960s without any “substantive changes.” 40 Fed. Reg. 11,579 (Mar. 12, 1975) (noting that implementation of the 1975 regulations was merely a “republication” of existing rules). 350. See supra text accompanying notes 301–07. 351. See supra text accompanying notes 260–65.

678

INDIANA LAW JOURNAL

[Vol. 84:637

uncertain, the continuous approval of the program by those senior postal officers would constitute a waiver of the postal regulations requiring a warrant to conduct a mail opening.352 Even if the Postmasters General did not waive these postal regulations, the Supreme Court, in analyzing the authority of customs agents, has held that postal regulations, which preclude the opening of mail absent a search warrant, are trumped if the Constitution or a statute authorizes a warrantless search.353 As noted above, that is precisely the situation here.354 The above analysis should preclude most lawsuits based on the CIA’s mail opening program in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s. The Supreme Court case of Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Federal Narcotics Agents authorizes claims against federal employees for constitutional and statutory violations. 355 However, federal employees are immune from such Bivens claims if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”356 This so-called “qualified immunity” should attach here. Certainly by June 1971, having believed they had secured Attorney General approval for the mail opening portion of the operation,357 CIA employees would have had reasonable basis to believe that they were in full compliance with the foreign intelligence exception and thus not in violation of the Constitution or any civil statute.358 For the period prior to June 1971, a reasonable person could believe that, pursuant to Truong, individuals sending mail to the Soviet Union had no reasonable expectation of privacy and thus no Fourth Amendment protection.359 In today’s world, the enactment of FISA obviously changes the situation, especially as FISA authorizes a civil penalty for violations and contains a private right of action.360 However, as noted above, it is unclear whether the President’s constitutional powers trump the FISA statute. A successful Bivens claim would need to show that, in such a legal climate, the employee’s conduct violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person should have known. Though no plaintiff has brought a Bivens claim based on the CIA’s mail opening program, at least one plaintiff has filed a claim pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) and the Tucker Act.361 The claim proved unsuccessful on both

352. See supra text accompanying notes 260–66. Indeed, the Church Commission noted that two of the Postmasters General briefed on the program appeared to believe that the mail opening program was legal, or at least that the program’s illegality was less than clear. CHURCH REPORT: BOOK III, supra note 12, at 606. As one of those Postmasters General stated: “If the CIA lawyers concluded that the CIA could not open mail to and from Communist countries in the early 1960’s without violating the law, I think the CIA needs better lawyers.” Id. at 606 n.208 353. United States v. Ramsey, 431 U.S. 606, 623–25 (1977) (upholding warrantless searches by customs agents despite the explicit postal regulation precluding the opening of mail absent a search warrant). 354. See supra notes 323–27 and accompanying text. 355. 403 U.S. 388 (1971). 356. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1981). 357. See supra note 263 and accompanying text. 358. See Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818. 359. See supra notes 332–37 and accompanying text. 360. 50 U.S.C.A. § 1828 (West 2003). 361. Kipperman v. McCone, 422 F. Supp. 860 (N.D. Cal. 1976) (dismissing plaintiff’s claims that the CIA’s mail opening program violated the Tucker Act and the APA).

2009]

THE CIA’S “FAMILY JEWELS”: LEGAL THEN? LEGAL NOW?

679

counts.362 The APA permits “relief other than money damages” when an agency action is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law,” or violates a statute or the United States Constitution.363 As noted above, certainly by June 1971, and possibly throughout its operation, the CIA’s mail opening program complied with statutory and constitutional law.364 This may well bar any APA claim for the same reasons as with a Bivens claim. Further, the bases for relief under the APA (and Bivens) are discretionary.365 Courts have declined to employ that discretion for matters concerning sensitive areas within the executive branch’s particular expertise, such as foreign affairs.366 Such discretion might well be used with regard to a foreign intelligence matter such as the CIA’s mail opening operation.367 The relevant portion of the Tucker Act grants district courts jurisdiction over claims against the United States, not in excess of $10,000, which are based upon the Constitution, an act of Congress, or any regulation of an executive department.368 However, the Tucker Act is “merely jurisdictional.”369 It does not create a “substantive right enforceable against the Government.”370 Rather, it permits suit based on violation of an underlying constitutional provision, statute, or regulation and only if that provision “‘can fairly be interpreted as mandating compensation by the Federal Government for the damage sustained.’”371 Thus, for a provision to create a right of action under the Tucker Act, it must be “reasonably amenable to the reading that it mandates a right of recovery in damages.”372 The one court to consider a Tucker Act claim in the context of the CIA’s mail opening program properly found no such provision existed at the time of the CIA’s mail opening operation.373 Today, of course, such a penalty does exist under FISA.374 The only basis under which plaintiffs have successfully challenged the Agency’s mail opening operation has come pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA).375 The FTCA authorizes a civil claim against the federal government for the negligent or wrongful activities by a government employee acting within the scope of his or her

362. Id. at 867. 363. 5 U.S.C.A. §§ 702, 706(2)(A)–(C) (West 2007). 364. See supra notes 357–59 and accompanying text. 365. See Sanchez-Espinoza v. Reagan, 770 F.2d 202, 207–08 (D.C. Cir. 1985). 366. Id. at 208 (dismissing a claim where the plaintiffs sought injunctive relief to preclude the United States from supporting the Contras in Nicaragua). The D.C. Circuit applied this same discretion in refusing to grant relief under Bivens. Id. at 208–09. 367. See, e.g., Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592, 600–01 (1988) (determining that the CIA Director’s discretion to discharge individual Agency employees precluded an APA claim). 368. 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a) (2000). The relevant portions of the Tucker Act were the same in 1973 as they are now. Compare Kipperman v. McCone, 422 F. Supp. 860, 868 (N.D. Cal. 1976) (quoting relevant portions of the Tucker Act as existed in 1973), with 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a). 369. United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 400 (1976). 370. United States v. White Mountain Apache Tribe, 537 U.S. 465, 472 (2003). 371. Id. (quoting Testan, 424 U.S. at 400). 372. Id. at 473. 373. Kipperman, 422 F. Supp. at 868. 374. See supra note 360 and accompanying text. 375. See generally Avery v. United States, 434 F. Supp. 937, 940 n.5 (D. Conn. 1977) (noting that at least eight cases challenging the CIA’s mail opening operation have been made pursuant to the FTCA).

680

INDIANA LAW JOURNAL

[Vol. 84:637

employment if a private person would have been held liable for such activities under the law of the state where the activity took place.376 The CIA has raised numerous defenses to these claims, which have been uniformly rejected by the courts.377 However, these courts appear to have wrongly determined that one of those defenses—the discretionary function exception to the FTCA—fails to shield the CIA’s operation. The discretionary function exception provides that the government is not liable for actions or omissions “in the execution of a statute or regulation . . . or based upon the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty . . . whether or not the discretion involved be abused.”378 As the Supreme Court has consistently stated, the act must “involv[e] an element of judgment or choice, and it is the nature of the conduct, rather than the status of the actor, that governs whether the exception applies.”379 Based on this, the Supreme Court has held: “Where Congress has delegated the authority to an independent agency or to the Executive Branch to implement the general provisions of a regulatory statute and to issue regulations to that end, there is no doubt that planning-level decisions establishing programs are protected by the discretionary function exception . . . .”380 The CIA’s mail opening operation falls squarely within this description. Congress, in enacting the National Security Act of 1947, clearly delegated foreign intelligence collection to the executive branch, and specifically the CIA. The very functions of the CIA, as set out in the Act and later amended, definitively authorize the CIA to acquire, protect, and disseminate such intelligence.381 The only limit on such functions is that the CIA must comply with the law and the United States Constitution, as well as not engage in police, subpoena, law enforcement, or internal security matters.382 This area already falls within the President’s inherent authority, as discussed above.383 The Supreme Court has long recognized the executive branch’s primacy in such matters.384 Applied here, the Agency’s mail opening operation fell completely within the CIA’s foreign intelligence function, and represented a “planning-level decision[] establishing programs” to fulfill that function.385 Indeed, the CIA’s program is akin to other programs established by other federal agencies which the Supreme Court has found fall within the discretionary function exception, such as the regulation and oversight of

376. 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1) (2000). 377. See, e.g., Avery, 434 F. Supp. at 941–45 (declining to dismiss the case pursuant to the scope of employment, discretionary function, postal matter, or intentional tort exceptions to the FTCA); Cruikshank v. United States, 431 F. Supp. 1355, 1356–60 (D. Haw. 1977) (same). 378. 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a). 379. United States v. Gaubert, 499 U.S. 315, 322 (1991) (internal citations and quotations omitted). 380. Id. at 323. 381. National Security Act of 1947, Pub. L. No. 80-253, § 103(d), 61 Stat. 495, 499 (codified as amended at 50 U.S.C. § 403–4a(d) (Supp. V 2005)). 382. 50 U.S.C. § 403–4a(d). 383. See supra note 197. 384. See Regan v. Wald, 468 U.S. 222, 242 (1984) (“Matters relating ‘to the conduct of foreign relations . . . are so exclusively entrusted to the political branches of government as to be largely immune from judicial inquiry or interference.’” (quoting Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 342 U.S. 580, 589 (1952))). 385. Gaubert, 499 U.S. at 323.

2009]

THE CIA’S “FAMILY JEWELS”: LEGAL THEN? LEGAL NOW?

681

savings and loans by the Federal Home Loan Bank Board,386 the release of vaccine lots by the Food and Drug Administration,387 and the implementation of airline safety standards by the Federal Aviation Administration.388 Courts have found that there is no discretionary act, however, if a “federal statute, regulation, or policy specifically prescribes a course of action for an employee to follow [because] the employee has no rightful option but to adhere to the directive.”389 The two district courts that have reviewed the discretionary function exception with regard to the CIA’s mail opening operation have focused on this in holding the exception did not apply, asserting that the program “trespasses in violation of constitutional guarantees”390 or involves “illegal acts committed by government officials.”391 Yet, this interpretation would appear erroneous. As noted above, certainly by June 1971, and possibly from its inception, the CIA’s mail opening program did not violate the United States Constitution or statutory law.392 Thus, the discretionary function exception should apply to the CIA’s mail opening operation, and preclude any FTCA claim made pursuant to that operation. Yet, even if a plaintiff could overcome the discretionary function exception and pursue an FTCA claim, the claimant would need to show that the CIA’s mail opening program constituted an actual tort, that is, that “the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred.”393 This requires the plaintiff to establish that, under the law of the state where the alleged act took place, “a private actor could be found liable in tort for the unauthorized opening of another’s mail,” that is, an invasion of the right to privacy.394 However, not all states recognize an invasion of the right to privacy as a tort.395 Most critically for the CIA’s mail program, the state of New York, where most of the mail opening operations occurred, does not recognize such a tort.396 Indeed, in 1989, the Second Circuit dismissed an FTCA claim based upon the CIA’s mail opening program because the law of New York confers no cause of action “to right the wrongs complained of in this case.”397 The Commonwealth of Virginia also does not recognize such a tort.398 This is most critical because the Commonwealth of Virginia is the home to the CIA’s headquarters in Langley, where opened mail was usually analyzed.399

386. Id. at 332–34. 387. Berkovitz v. United States, 486 U.S. 531, 545–48 (1988). 388. United States v. S.A. Empresa de Viacao Aerea Rio Grandense (Varig Airlines), 467 U.S. 797, 814–20 (1984); see also Stables v. United States, 366 F. Supp. 2d 559, 567 (S.D. Ohio 2004) (summarizing the three decisions discussed in the text). 389. Berkovitz, 486 U.S. at 536. 390. Avery v. United States, 434 F. Supp. 937, 944 (D. Conn. 1977). 391. Cruikshank v. United States, 431 F. Supp. 1355, 1359 (D. Haw. 1977). 392. See supra notes 357–59 and accompanying text. 393. 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1) (2000). 394. Hurwitz v. United States, 884 F.2d 684, 686 (2d Cir. 1989). 395. See DAVID A. ELDER, PRIVACY TORTS, § 2:19, at 2-205 n.10 (2002). 396. Hurwitz, 884 F.2d at 685. 397. Id. at 686. 398. ELDER, supra note 395, § 2:3, at 2-36–2-39 & 2-39 n.37. Other states that do not recognize this tort are Illinois and North Dakota. Id. at 2-36–2-39. 399. See supra note 255.

682

INDIANA LAW JOURNAL

[Vol. 84:637

Whether this precludes all FTCA claims against the CIA for its mail opening program depends on determining where the alleged act took place, that is, the venue. The Supreme Court has ruled, in a case involving the CIA’s mail program, that in actions for money damages, such as FTCA claims, the only proper venue would be in the district where all federal employee defendants reside; where a substantial part of the event or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred; or where any defendant may be found, but only if the action cannot be brought in any other district.400 The Supreme Court then noted in dicta that, for cases seeking money damages stemming from the CIA’s New York mail operation, venue “would have been the Eastern District of New York where the alleged claim rose, or perhaps the Eastern District of Virginia, where some acts may have occurred at the headquarters of the CIA.”401 If all the defendants “resided” in the same state, that too could be a possible venue;402 however, that venue would likely be either New York or Virginia where the employees’ official duties took place—“[i]n determining the residence of a public official sued in his official capacity, the test of residence is where official duties are performed.”403 As noted above, given the lack of a right to privacy cause of action in New York and Virginia, it would appear likely that plaintiffs would be unable to bring FTCA claims against the CIA for its mail operations.404 Finally, EO 12,333 also prohibits the CIA from engaging in mail opening operations.405 However, as noted previously, the President has the authority to amend or retract this restriction with a presidential directive.406 Thus, in the end, it would appear that the CIA’s mail cover program was legal throughout its operation. The CIA’s mail opening operation certainly appears to have been legal after June 1971 and may have been before then. Further, plaintiffs face considerable barriers to bringing a claim based upon the mail opening operation. Since 1973, Congress has enacted FISA, which may or may not be the exclusive method for engaging in physical searches, and the president has issued EO 12,333, which can be revoked through presidential directive.

400. Stafford v. Briggs, 444 U.S. 527, 544 (1980); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) (2000). 401. Stafford, 444 U.S. at 544 n.11; see also Kipperman v. McCone, 422 F. Supp. 860, 879 (N.D. Cal. 1976) (concluding, though published prior to Stafford, that the Northern District of California was the improper venue for a claim based on the CIA’s mail opening operation, and that the court “believes venue would lie in the Southern District of New York where the East Coast Mail Intercept operated during its twenty-year life”). 402. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). 403. Doe v. Casey, 601 F. Supp. 581, 585 (D.D.C. 1985), remanded on other grounds, 796 F.2d 1508 (D.C. Cir. 1986). The Doe court noted, however, that proper venue for at least the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency could be either Virginia or the District of Columbia. Id. 404. However, this might not preclude claims based on the small portion of the CIA’s mail opening operations that took place in San Francisco, Hawaii, and New Orleans. See supra note 249 and accompanying text. 405. Exec. Order No. 12,333 § 2.4(b), 3 C.F.R. 200, 212 (1982) (stating that only the FBI can engage in “unconsented physical searches in the United States” except under circumstances not relevant here). 406. See supra note 147 and accompanying text.

2009]

THE CIA’S “FAMILY JEWELS”: LEGAL THEN? LEGAL NOW?

683

VI. COLLECTING ON AMERICAN DISSIDENT MOVEMENTS From 1967 to 1974, the Agency operated a program known as Operation CHAOS to collect information and produce studies regarding various dissident movements in the United States.407 Initiated pursuant to a presidential request, the purpose of the program was to assess whether these groups had been penetrated by, or were being used by, foreign intelligence services.408 At first, the Agency merely culled through information already in its possession.409 The operation quickly evolved to where the CIA maintained agents in the field for the sole purpose of gathering information on various dissident groups.410 These agents generally were not directed to collect information about United States domestic affairs.411 However, the Rockefeller Report found that several of these agents ended up acquiring such information while they were in the United States bolstering their dissident credentials, and on three occasions agents were specifically directed to collect information on domestic U.S. matters.412 The operation also resulted in the accumulation of large amounts of information on U.S. citizens.413 There is no indication, however, that anyone connected to Operation CHAOS utilized clandestine means, such as electronic surveillance, wiretaps, or break-ins, to acquire any of this information.414 The CIA terminated the program in 1974,415 after the New York Times published a front-page story about the operation.416 The Family Jewels describe the three foci of Operation CHAOS—student groups, the anti-Vietnam War protestors, and the “black power” movement. The CIA initiated collection on worldwide student dissidence in 1968 at the request of Walt Rostow, then Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs.417 According to an Agency document, the purpose of the study was to assess whether the various international student dissident groups were interconnected, whether they bred from the same causes worldwide, and whether they were “financed and hence manipulated by forces or influences hostile to the interests of the US and its allies; or likely to come under inimical sway to the detriment of US interests.”418 The resulting paper was given the whimsical title “Restless Youth.”419 The CIA created two versions of the document—the highly sensitive version, which included a chapter on radical students in the United States, was distributed to only nine individuals, including the President

407. See FAMILY JEWELS, supra note 2, at 00180–82; ROCKEFELLER REPORT, supra note 17, at 130, 132, 148–49. 408. See FAMILY JEWELS, supra note 2, at 00184, 00591–93; CHURCH REPORT: BOOK III, supra note 255, at 688; ROCKEFELLER REPORT, supra note 17, at 130. 409. See ROCKEFELLER REPORT, supra note 17, at 133–36. 410. See id. at 137–42. 411. See id. at 131. 412. Id. 413. Id. at 130. 414. Id. at 24. 415. Id. at 148 (“On March 15, 1974, the Agency terminated operation CHAOS.”). 416. See Seymour M. Hersh, Huge C.I.A. Operation Reported in U.S. Against Antiwar Forces, Other Dissidents in Nixon Years, N.Y. TIMES, Dec. 22, 1974, at A1. 417. FAMILY JEWELS, supra note 2, at 00190. 418. Id. 419. Id. at 00171.

684

INDIANA LAW JOURNAL

[Vol. 84:637

and Mr. Rostow;420 the other version, which excluded that chapter, was provided to approximately twenty people outside the CIA.421 The CIA’s collection on the anti-Vietnam War movement emerged from a 1967 order from President Lyndon B. Johnson for the CIA to gather evidence supporting the President’s conviction that communist governments led and financed the movement.422 When then CIA Director Richard Helms informed President Johnson that the Agency could not spy on Americans, President Johnson stated: “I’m quite aware of that. What I want for you is to pursue this matter, and to do what is necessary to track down the foreign communists who are behind this intolerable interference in our domestic affairs.”423 It appears that the Agency did just that—focusing not on the domestic facets of the movement, but rather on the connection of foreign entities to it.424 The result was several short memoranda prepared in 1967 and 1968 that analyzed foreign connections to the movement in the United States.425 In the end, the CIA assessed that while some informal connections existed, there was “no evidence of direction or formal coordination” by any foreign entity.426 The CIA also conducted limited analysis of the “black power” movement.427 Two papers on the topic were produced, one in 1969 and the other in 1970.428 In each paper, one paragraph considered the ties between the black power movement and various Caribbean movements, focusing mostly on contacts and visits between U.S. activists, including Stokely Carmichael, and the Caribbean activists.429 The CIA produced other memoranda regarding the connections between the two entities.430 CIA Director Helms stated that, through these programs, “we’re not trying to do espionage on American citizens in the United States.”431 However, many both inside and outside the Agency believed that the CIA was doing just that, and that such activities violated the Agency’s Charter, the National Security Act.432 Indeed, on the cover memo of the more restricted report on student dissident movements, Director Helms stated that the section on American students “is an area not within the charter of this Agency, so I need not emphasize how extremely sensitive this makes the paper.

420. Id. at 00171, 00191. 421. Id. at 00171. 422. See Mazzetti & Weiner, supra note 3. 423. Id. (quoting from President Johnson’s memoirs). 424. FAMILY JEWELS, supra note 2, at 00193 (providing that the purpose of gathering information about the antiwar movement was to “determine whether any links existed between international Communist elements or foreign governments and the American peace movement”). 425. See id. at 00193–94. 426. Id. at 00193. 427. See id. at 00188. 428. Id. 429. Id. 430. See id. at 00188–89, 00330. 431. Id. at 00442. 432. See id. at 00173, 00443; see also ROCKEFELLER REPORT, supra note 17, at 131, 134; DeYoung & Pincus, supra note 10 (noting that Agency officials became nervous about collecting on certain domestic dissidents because “[u]nder its charter, the CIA is not allowed to conduct domestic intelligence-gathering”); Mazzetti & Weiner, supra note 3 (discussing how the CIA “illegally spied on Americans decades ago”). This may be why many CIA officers disliked working on Operation CHAOS matters. FAMILY JEWELS, supra note 2, at 00326.

2009]

THE CIA’S “FAMILY JEWELS”: LEGAL THEN? LEGAL NOW?

685

Should anyone learn of its existence it would prove most embarrassing for all concerned.”433 Whether the Agency violated the National Security Act in collecting information on these dissident groups hinges on whether the Act permitted the Agency to collect intelligence on Americans within the United States, and, if so, under what conditions.434 As of 1973, the Act vaguely permitted the Agency to collect “intelligence,” but did not define the term, and did not indicate the limits to such collection.435 The Church Commission, after evaluating the legislative history of the Act, concluded that “in establishing the CIA Congress contemplated an agency which not only would be limited to foreign intelligence operations but one which would conduct very few of its operations within the United States.”436 Those U.S. operations were restricted to training in the United States, protecting the Agency’s physical headquarters, and gathering information from willing Americans who had traveled abroad and had information of interest to the Agency.437 The Rockefeller Commission took a more expansive view. It noted that though the Act does not expressly limit the CIA’s intelligence activities to “foreign intelligence,” that was nonetheless the intention of Congress.438 The Commission then stated that the term “foreign intelligence” had no settled meaning, but that the legislative history of the National Security Act indicated that the CIA was expected to collect foreign intelligence from inside the United States,439 and that in 1948 the National Security Council, pursuant to the Fifth Function, had expressly given the CIA responsibility for collecting foreign intelligence in the United States by overt means.440 As the only restriction in the Act on the CIA’s collection capability precluded the use of police powers or internal security functions,441 the Commission concluded that the Agency could collect on Americans in the United States, so long as the purpose was to gather information on foreign countries, individuals, or organizations, and not on domestic matters.442 As the Report stated: “[T]he subject matter of the information and not the location of its source is the principal factor that determines whether it is within the purview of the CIA.”443 The Rockefeller Report has the better argument. If Congress wished to preclude the Agency from engaging in intelligence collection in the United States, Congress clearly

433. ROCKEFELLER REPORT, supra note 17, at 134; see also FAMILY JEWELS, supra note 2, at 00040 (noting the “risk and impact of revelation” should these domestic collection operations become public knowledge). 434. See ROCKEFELLER REPORT, supra note 17, at 59. 435. See id. 436. CHURCH REPORT: BOOK I, supra note 12, at 136. 437. See id. at 136–38. 438. ROCKEFELLER REPORT, supra note 17, at 59. 439. Id. at 52–53. 440. See id. at 55. 441. See id. at 59. 442. Id. 443. Id. The report, however, remained uncertain whether the Act permitted the CIA to acquire foreign intelligence in this country by covert means, id., though this does not appear to have been an issue in Operation CHAOS, which did not collect via covert methods, see supra text accompanying note 414.

686

INDIANA LAW JOURNAL

[Vol. 84:637

had the ability to so state in 1947, when it passed the Act, or in any of the decades subsequent. As Congress never took such action, the Agency had to follow the actual authorities and restrictions contained in the Act. That Act permitted the Agency to collect intelligence so long as the CIA did not engage in “police, subpoena, or law enforcement powers or internal security functions.”444 Collection of foreign intelligence information in the United States does not, in and of itself, fall within that latter restriction. Therefore, the collection of foreign intelligence information was permissible under the Agency’s charter, as it existed in 1973 when the Agency compiled the Family Jewels.445 Applying this to Operation CHAOS under the Act as it existed in 1973, most of the activities undertaken by the Agency were entirely legal. The stated purpose of the Agency’s activities in tracking dissident movements was to determine the foreign influences, if any, on those movements.446 Thus, the purpose was not to collect domestic information, nor to collect information for the purpose of prosecution (i.e., law enforcement), but rather for foreign intelligence purposes. The collection therefore fell within the confines of the Act and was entirely permissible. The Rockefeller Commission came to the same conclusion, though it did note that some of the collected information contained no foreign or counterintelligence and should be purged from the Agency’s files.447 The Commission also properly found that the sporadic use of Agency recruits to collect purely domestic information within the United States “was beyond the CIA’s authority” and that the dissemination of the portion of the Restless Youth report that concerned only domestic affairs was “improper.”448 It is worth noting, however, that there may be limited mechanisms for enforcing even these minimal violations of the Act. The Act does not provide for a criminal sanction.449 Courts have also concluded that the Act does not permit a private right of action and therefore is “singularly inappropriate for the implication of private damage actions.”450 A plaintiff may still be able to bring a claim under the APA, but could have difficulty showing standing, and courts still possess discretion to dismiss such claims when they concern sensitive areas within the executive branch’s particular expertise.451

444. National Security Act of 1947, Pub. L. No. 80-253, § 103(d)(1), 61 Stat. 495, 498 (current version at 50 U.S.C. § 403-4a(d)(1) (Supp. V 2005)). 445. Weissman v. Cent. Intelligence Agency, 565 F.2d 692 (D.C. Cir. 1977), is not to the contrary. The D.C. Circuit, based on the “sketchy” legislative history of the National Security Act, did make the overarching assertion that the CIA did not have the authority “to place United States citizens living at home under surveillance and scrutiny.” Id. at 695. However, the case concerned the collection of purely domestic information about an American for possible recruitment, not the instant situation of collection for foreign intelligence purposes. See id. at 693–94. 446. See supra note 418 and accompanying text. 447. See ROCKEFELLER REPORT, supra note 17, at 24–25, 42, 149. The Rockefeller Report acknowledged that the Agency probably needed to evaluate the information when it was first collected to determine if there was a foreign connection (since the FBI refused to do so), but once done, the purely domestic information needed to be purged. See id. at 25. 448. Id. at 25. 449. See generally National Security Act of 1947, Pub. L. No. 80-253, § 103(d)(1), 61 Stat. 495, 498 (current version at 50 U.S.C. §§ 401–422 (2000 & Supp. V 2005)). 450. Sanchez-Espinoza v. Reagan, 770 F.2d 202, 209 (D.C. Cir. 1985). 451. See supra notes 365–66 and accompanying text.

2009]

THE CIA’S “FAMILY JEWELS”: LEGAL THEN? LEGAL NOW?

687

Subsequent to 1973 and the compilation of the Family Jewels, Congress amended the Act to define “intelligence” as including “foreign intelligence,” which is then denoted as “information relating to the capabilities, intentions, or activities of foreign governments or elements thereof, foreign organizations, or foreign persons, or international terrorist activities.”452 This clearly does not restrict the Agency’s intelligence collection activities solely to overseas endeavors, though Congress certainly had the ability to impose such a restriction had it so desired. However, section 2.3 of EO 12,333, issued in 1981, does create such a limitation. That section explicitly authorizes the CIA to engage in the collection, retention, and dissemination of information concerning Americans, including foreign intelligence and counterintelligence information.453 However, the section provides that the FBI, not the CIA, is to engage in such collection in the United States.454 The CIA may engage in such collection in the United States only if it concerns “significant foreign intelligence” (not defined) that does not involve “the domestic activities of United States persons.”455 Further, collection techniques in the United States cannot include electronic surveillance, unconsenting physical searches, mail surveillance, physical surveillance, or monitoring devices absent a FISA warrant, or Attorney General approval.456 As stated previously, however, executive orders can be amended or negated by presidential directive.457 Thus, the Act permits the Agency to collect intelligence within the United States so long as it is for foreign intelligence purposes, and not for domestic purposes or law enforcement actions. EO 12,333 would allow the CIA to engage in this collection so long as it consists of “significant foreign intelligence,” though the CIA could engage in any foreign intelligence collection in the United States with a presidential directive. CONCLUSION The Family Jewels contain what are purportedly the “worst of the worst” of the first thirty-plus years of the CIA’s existence—a complete compilation of the Agency’s supposedly illegal activities. Admittedly, several of the operations mounted during that period failed to comply fully with the laws then in place. Yet, the vast majority of those operations did. Further, except for unconsenting human experimentation, each of the main types of activities depicted in the Family Jewels—targeted killings of foreign leaders, electronic surveillance of Americans, examination of U.S. mail, and collecting information on American dissident movements—was legal in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s. Beyond the issue of the legality of these activities, of course, lies the question of whether the CIA should have engaged in such activities as a practical matter. In

452. Intelligence Organization Act of 1992, Pub. L. No. 102-496, § 702, 106 Stat. 3188, 3188 (current version at 50 U.S.C. § 401a (2000)). 453. Exec. Order No. 12,333 § 2.3(b), 3 C.F.R. 200, 211 (1982). 454. Id. 455. Id. 456. Id. § 2.4. All of these require Attorney General approval. Id. All but physical surveillance may also require a FISA warrant. See supra notes 225–36, 340–48 and accompanying text. 457. See supra note 147 and accompanying text.

688

INDIANA LAW JOURNAL

[Vol. 84:637

hindsight, many of these activities appear to have had little utility. None of the Agency’s targeted killings actually materialized. The CIA’s mail cover and mail opening operations yielded only modest foreign intelligence information. The collection on American dissident groups failed to reveal the expected connection between such groups and the nation’s external enemies. Further, the eventual revelation of the activities in the Family Jewels led to critical review of the Agency’s actions by three separate commissions and diminished the CIA’s overall image. Yet hindsight is, as always, 20/20. At the time, the CIA was battling a perceived life-threatening enemy in the Soviet Union, akin to the current threat to the United States posed by terrorist organizations. The Agency’s actions—from engaging in electronic surveillance aimed at determining the sources of leaks of sensitive information to attempting to kill leaders connected to the Soviet threat—as flawed and misguided as some might believe, were directed solely towards combating that Soviet threat. Given the primary task of collecting, evaluating, and disseminating foreign intelligence, an argument can be made that the CIA needed a multiplicity of methods to locate, track, and defuse those threats, especially where a perception existed that Soviet spies were infiltrating the United States. Under this viewpoint, it would have been inimical to our country’s interests to have had the Agency’s attempts to acquire critical foreign intelligence information turn off at the precise moment that the potential enemy became the greatest threat, that it when that enemy actually crossed into, or resided in, the United States. A further argument could be made that the CIA needed to have the ability to take even drastic action to protect this country, including the targeted killing of threatening foreign leaders. As horrific as such an act might have been, it would have paled in comparison to the bloodshed that could have occurred to this country if, for example, Castro had launched a nuclear attack against the United States. In addition, had the attempted targeted killing of Castro been successful, the United States might have been less inclined to engage in more drastic measures with regard to Cuba, such as the illfated Bay of Pigs invasion. Merely having the option available, even if never utilized, might have served as a deterrent to the nation’s enemies, who become aware of the extent of our capabilities and uncertain as to their limits. Obviously, the benefit of the activities undertaken by the CIA in the Family Jewels is a matter of debate, and certainly additional oversight and approvals would have benefited the Agency’s operations. Nonetheless, those types of activities (with the exception of unconsenting human experimentation) were in fact legal when undertaken, despite widespread beliefs, both then and now, to the contrary. The actual legality of these supposedly “illegal” types of activities raises the question of the lawfulness of many of the purportedly ultra vires operations allegedly conducted by the CIA today. Only time, perspective, and eventually declassification will reveal whether today’s activities are indeed unlawful. However, it is dangerous to leap to the conclusion that these various activities violate U.S. law. It may some day come to be revealed that, like the vast majority of the activities in the Family Jewels, many of the suspected “illegal” activities engaged in by the CIA are, in the end, entirely lawful.

10/10/2016

The Depraved Spies and Moguls of the CIA's Operation MOCKINGBIRD by Alex Constantine

[back] Mockingbird

The Depraved Spies and Moguls of the CIA's Operation MOCKINGBIRD by Alex Constantine

Who Controls the Media? Soulless corporations do, of course. Corporations with grinning, double-breasted executives, interlocking directorates, labor squabbles and flying capital. Dow. General Electric. Coca-Cola. Disney. Newspapers should have mastheads that mirror the world: The Westinghouse Evening Scimitar, The Atlantic-Richfield Intelligentser . It is beginning to dawn on a growing number of armchair ombudsmen that the public print reports news from a parallel universe - one that has never heard of politically-motivated assassinations, CIA-Mafia banking thefts, mind control, death squads or even federal agencies with secret budgets fattened by cocaine sales - a place overrun by lone gunmen, where the CIA and Mafia are usually on their best behavior. In this idyllic land, the most serious infraction an official can commit is the employment of a domestic servant with (shudder) no residency status. This unlikely land of enchantment is the creation of MOCKINGBIRD. It was conceived in the late 1940s, the most frigid period of the cold war, when the CIA began a systematic infiltration of the corporate media, a process that often included direct takeover of major news outlets. In this period, the American intelligence services competed with communist activists abroad to influence European labor unions. With or without the cooperation of local governments, Frank Wisner, an undercover State Department official assigned to the Foreign Service, rounded up students abroad to enter the cold war underground of covert operations on behalf of his Office of Policy Coordination. Philip Graham, a graduate of the Army Intelligence School in Harrisburg, PA, then publisher of the Washington Post., was taken under Wisner's wing to direct the program code-named Operation MOCKINGBIRD. "By the early 1950s," writes former Village Voice reporter Deborah Davis in Katharine the Great, "Wisner 'owned' respected members of the New York Times, Newsweek, CBS and other communications vehicles, plus stringers, four to six hundred in all, according to a former CIA analyst." The network was overseen by Allen Dulles, a templar for German and American corporations who wanted their points of view represented in the public print. Early MOCKINGBIRD influenced 25 newspapers and wire agencies consenting to act as organs of CIA propaganda. Many of these were already run by men with reactionary views, among them William Paley (CBS), C.D. Jackson (Fortune), Henry Luce (Time) and Arthur Hays Sulzberger (N.Y. Times). Activists curious about the workings of MOCKINGBIRD have since been appalled to find in FOIA documents that agents boasting in CIA office memos of their pride in having placed "important assets" inside every major news publication in the country. It was not until 1982 that the Agency openly admitted that reporters on the CIA payroll have acted as case officers to agents in the field. "World War III has begun," Henry's Luce's Life declared in March, 1947. "It is in the opening skirmish stage already." The issue featured an excerpt of a book by James Burnham, who called for the creation of an "American Empire," "world-dominating in political power, set up at least in part through coercion (probably including war, but certainly the threat of war) and in which one group of people ... would hold more than its equal share of power." George Seldes, the famed anti-fascist media critic, drew down on Luce in 1947, explaining that "although avoiding typical Hitlerian phrases, the same doctrine of a superior people taking over the world and ruling it,

http://whale.to/b/depraved_spies.html

1/4

10/10/2016

The Depraved Spies and Moguls of the CIA's Operation MOCKINGBIRD by Alex Constantine

began to appear in the press, whereas the organs of Wall Street were much more honest in favoring a doctrine inevitably leading to war if it brought greater commercial markets under the American flag." On the domestic front, an abiding relationship was struck between the CIA and William Paley, a wartime colonel and the founder of CBS. A firm believer in "all forms of propaganda" to foster loyalty to the Pentagon, Paley hired CIA agents to work undercover at the behest of his close friend, the busy grey eminence of the nation's media, Allen Dulles. Paley's designated go-between in his dealings with the CIA was Sig Mickelson, president of CBS News from 1954 to 1961. The CIA's assimilation of old guard fascists was overseen by the Operations Coordination Board, directed by C.D. Jackson, formerly an executive of Time magazine and Eisenhower's Special Assistant for Cold War Strategy. In 1954 he was succeeded by Nelson Rockefeller, who quit a year later, disgusted at the administration's political infighting. Vice President Nixon succeeded Rockefeller as the key cold war strategist. "Nixon," writes John Loftus, a former attorney for the Justice Department's Office of Special Investigations, took "a small boy's delight in the arcane tools of the intelligence craft - the hidden microphones, the 'black' propaganda." Nixon especially enjoyed his visit to a Virginia training camp to observe Nazis in the "special forces" drilling at covert operations. One of the fugitives recruited by the American intelligence underground was heroin smuggler Hubert von Blücher, the son of a German ambassador. Hubert often bragged that that he was trained by the Abwehr, the German military intelligence division, while still a civilian in his twenties. He served in a recon unit of the German Army until forced out for medical reasons in 1944, according to his wartime records. He worked briefly as an assistant director for Berlin-Film on a movie entitled One Day ..., and finished out the war flying with the Luftwaffe, but not to engage the enemy - his mission was the smuggling of Nazi loot out of the country. His exploits were, in part, the subject of Sayer and Botting's Nazi Gold, an account of the knockover of the Reichsbank at the end of the war. In 1948 he flew the coop to Argentina. Posing as a photographer named Huberto von Bleucher Corell, he immediately paid court to Eva Peron, presenting her with an invaluable Gobelin tapestry (a selection from the wealth of artifacts confiscated by the SS from Europe's Jews?). Hubert then met with Martin Bormann at the Hotel Plaza to deliver German marks worth $80 million. The loot financed the birth of the National Socialist Party in Argentina, among other forms of Nazi revival. In 1951, Hubert migrated northward and took a job at the Color Corporation of America in Hollywood. He eked out a living writing scripts for the booming movie industry. His voice can be heard on a film set in the Amazon, produced by Walt Disney. Nine years later he returned to Buenos Aires, then Düsseldorf, West Germany, and established a firm that developed not movie scripts, but anti-chemical warfare agents for the government. At the Industrie Club in Düsseldorf in 1982, von Blücher boasted to journalists, "I am chief shareholder of Pan American Airways. I am the best friend of Howard Hughes. The Beach Hotel in Las Vegas is 45 percent financed by me. I am thus the biggest financier ever to appear in the Arabian Nights tales dreamed up by these people over their second bottle of brandy." Not really. Two the biggest financiers to stumble from the drunken dreams of world-moving affluence were, in their time, Moses Annenberg, publisher of The Philadelphia Inquirer, and his son Walter , the CIA/mob-anchored publisher of the TV Guide. Like most American high-rollers, Annenberg lived a double life. Moses, his father, was a scion of the Capone mob. Both Moses and Walter were indicted in 1939 for tax evasions totalling many millions of dollars - the biggest case in the history of the Justice Department. Moses pled guilty and agreed to pay the government $8 million and settle $9 million in assorted tax claims, penalties and interest debts. Moses received a three-year sentence. He died in Lewisburg Penitentiary. Walter Annenbeg, the TV Guide magnate, was a lofty Republican. On the campaign trail in April, 1988, George Bush flew into Los Angeles to woo Reagan's kitchen cabinet. "This is the topping on the cake," Bush's regional campaign director told the Los Angeles Times. The Bush team met at Annenberg's plush Rancho Mirage estate at Sunnylands, California. It was at the Annenberg mansion that Nixon's cabinet was chosen, and the state's http://whale.to/b/depraved_spies.html

2/4

10/10/2016

The Depraved Spies and Moguls of the CIA's Operation MOCKINGBIRD by Alex Constantine

social and contributor registers built over a quarter-century of state political dominance by Ronald Reagan, whose acting career was launched by Operation MOCKINGBIRD. The commercialization of television, coinciding with Reagan's recruitment by the Crusade for Freedom, a CIA front, presented the intelligence world with unprecedented potential for sowing propaganda and even prying in the age of Big Brother. George Orwell glimpsed the possibilities when he installed omniscient video surveillance technology in 1948, a novel rechristened 1984 for the first edition published in the U.S. by Harcourt, Brace. Operation Octopus, according to federal files, was in full swing by 1948, a surveillance program that turned any television set with tubes into a broadcast transmitter. Agents of Octopus could pick up audio and visual images with the equipment as far as 25 miles away. Hale Boggs was investigating Operation Octopus at the time of his disappearance in the midst of the Watergate probe. In 1952, at MCA, Actors' Guild president Ronald Reagan - a screen idol recruited by MOCKINGBIRD's Crusade for Freedom to raise funds for the resettlement of Nazis in the U.S., according to Loftus - signed a secret waiver of the conflict-of-interest rule with the mob-controlled studio, in effect granting it a labor monopoly on early television programming. In exchange, MCA made Reagan a part owner. Furthermore, historian C. Vann Woodward, writing in the New York Times, in 1987, reported that Reagan had "fed the names of suspect people in his organization to the FBI secretly and regularly enough to be assigned 'an informer's code number, T-10.' His FBI file indicates intense collaboration with producers to 'purge' the industry of subversives." No one ever turned a suspicious eye on Walter Cronkite, a former intelligence officer and in the immediate postwar period UPI's Moscow correspondent. Cronkite was lured to CBS by Operation MOCKINGBIRD's Phil Graham, according to Deborah Davis. Another television conglomerate, Cap Cities, rose like a horror-film simian from CIA and Mafia heroin operations. Among other organized-crime Republicans, Thomas Dewey and his neighbor Lowell Thomas threw in to launch the infamous Resorts International, the corporate front for Lansky's branch of the federallysponsored mob family and the corporate precursor to Cap Cities. Another of the investors was James Crosby, a Cap Cities executive who donated $100,000 to Nixon's 1968 presidential campaign. This was the year that Resorts bought into Atlantic City casino interests. Police in New jersey attempted, with no success, to spike the issuance of a gambling license to the company, citing Mafia ties. In 1954, this same circle of investors, all Catholics, founded the broadcasting company notorious for overt propagandizing and general spookiness. The company's chief counsel was OSS veteran William Casey, who clung to his shares by concealing them in a blind trust even after he was appointed CIA director by Ronald Reagan in 1981. "Black radio" was the phrase CIA critic David Wise coined in The Invisible Government to describe the agency's intertwining interests in the emergence of the transistor radio with the entrepreneurs who took to the airwaves. "Daily, East and West beam hundreds of propaganda broadcasts at each other in an unrelenting babble of competition for the minds of their listeners. The low-price transistor has given the hidden war a new importance," enthused one foreign correspondent. A Hydra of private foundations sprang up to finance the propaganda push. One of them, Operations and Policy Research, Inc. (OPR), received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the CIA through private foundations and trusts. OPR research was the basis of a television series that aired in New York and Washington, D.C. in 1964, Of People and Politics, a "study" of the American political system in 21 weekly installments. In Hollywood, the visual cortex of The Beast, the same CIA/Mafia combination that formed Cap Cities sank its claws into the film studios and labor unions. Johnny Rosselli was pulled out of the Army during the war by a criminal investigation of Chicago mobsters in the film industry. Rosselli, a CIA asset probably assassinated by the CIA, played sidekick to Harry Cohn, the Columbia Pictures mogul who visited Italy's Benito Mussolini in 1933, and upon his return to Hollywood remodeled his office after the dictator's. The only honest job Rosselli http://whale.to/b/depraved_spies.html

3/4

10/10/2016

The Depraved Spies and Moguls of the CIA's Operation MOCKINGBIRD by Alex Constantine

ever had was assistant purchasing agent (and a secret investor) at Eagle Lion Productions, run by Bryan Foy, a former producer for 20th Century Fox. Rosselli, Capone's representative on the West Coast, passed a small fortune in mafia investments to Cohn. Bugsy Seigel pooled gambling investments with Billy Wilkerson, publisher of the Hollywood Reporter. In the 1950s, outlays for global propaganda climbed to a full third of the CIA's covert operations budget. Some 3, 000 salaried and contract CIA employees were eventually engaged in propaganda efforts. The cost of disinforming the world cost American taxpayers an estimated $265 million a year by 1978, a budget larger than the combined expenditures of Reuters, UPI and the AP news syndicates. In 1977, the Copely News Service admitted that it worked closely with the intelligence services - in fact, 23 employees were full-time employees of the Agency. Most consumers of the corporate media were - and are - unaware of the effect that the salting of public opinion has on their own beliefs. A network anchorman in time of national crisis is an instrument of psychological warfare in the MOCKINGBIRD media. He is a creature from the national security sector's chamber of horrors. For this reason consumers of the corporate press have reason to examine their basic beliefs about government and life in the parallel universe of these United States.

http://whale.to/b/depraved_spies.html

4/4

http://sianews.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2553

Friends of Liberty - Pipeline News disagrees w/ Fahey on Bob Novak/Operation MOCKINGBIRD

sianews.com

Pipeline News disagrees w/ Fahey on Bob Novak/Operation MOCKINGBIRD

William (ed/pub, PipelineNews.org), Buckley has not 'fessed up to being--past his OSS days at a very tender age--a longtime CIA conduit in Operation MOCKINGBIRD. The first time you heard of this might have been last night, when I told you that I had worked with his CIA station-partner Theodore L. Humes/Huminski (Buckley and Humes being both stationed in Japan, 1951-54). Ted had a loose tongue, was going senile (not a jab at the dear man: he died of Alzheimer's) when I knew him, and he told me quite a lot of things; was still 85% "there" when I knew him, but people could tell he was experiencing the symptoms of onset-Alzheimer's. He was very clear, though, about his and Buckley's days together, and spoke often of Buckley and MOCKINGBIRD. He and Buckley had remained friends throughout Ted's life, and I waited long past the man's passing to state this, out of respect. I ain't no fan of Karl Rove (I'm a Ron Paul--Republican, w/ fondness for Tom Tancredo on immigration issues). But if Novak burned Valerie Plame/Wilson, we're likely not going to know about it, as CIA covers up for its own. I'd like to see a few squirm, though. Such was my interest in raising the MOCKINGBIRD issue, as Novak is very likely a CIA agent himself. Regards, TBF ... [to Fahey] Well I was referring only to Buckley and the OSS, the mockingbird stuff is where the conspiracy buff skeptic kicks in. I admire Rove for his ability and I am very disappointed in the missteps that the Bush admin has made since November, Tancredo is one of the few members of the House who is worth his salary, Ron Paul and the libertarians have it wrong on many important issues including the war on terror imho. Regardless, Bill Buckley is the father of modern conservatism and I couldnt hold him in higher regard if he actually lived on Mt. Olympus. What Rich Lowrey, Jonah Goldberg and the rest have done to NR is a crime. W ... Page 1 of 3

Oct 10, 2016 04:45:16AM MDT

http://sianews.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2553

... http://"pipelinenews.org" wrote: [to Fahey] With all due respect Todd, the entire premise is tinfoil hat. Buckley was in the OSS 60 years ago...that is not a secret, its on the inside flap of half of his fiction books. :-) I really don't have inclination right now to engage in a debate over a conspiracy theory because I have found in the past that adherents to such implausible explanations seldom if ever see past that type of reasoning. I hope you understand that this is not a personal criticism, before you sent this I was unaware of your writing. btw as you might be aware spy vs spy was a former staple in MAD magazine, I thought from the title of your piece that it was a takeoff on that but as applicable to the Rove "affair." Again I suggest you familiarize yourself with the facts of the case, irrespective of the conspiracy angles so you can understand the viewpoint of many, that Rove is guilty of nothing even assuming that he did mention something regarding Liar Joe Wilson's idiot wifey. You may want to consult the most recent entry in the following which is something I penned for a new blog on my local newspaper. http://cctimeswatch.blogspot.com/ One last thingie, I always suggest Umberto Eco's Foucault's Pendulum to conspiracy buffs, just to give them an inside out view of where that type of "secret society" type thing can lead, if you aren't familiar with it I suggest you pick up a copy, I guarantee you will love it. regards & good luck, W ... ----- Original Message ----From: Todd Fahey To: http://pipelinenews.org Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2005 5:56 PM Subject: Re: Spy versus Spy: Robert Novak, the CIA's MOCKINGBIRD program, and the Plame/Wilson Scandal William, What, of my article, in your opinion, begets the "tinfoil"-label? Do you know of Operation MOCKINGBIRD? &, if so--and knowing that Phil Graham, the of the Washington Post who committed suicide (?)--was, in fact, theOct lead agent MDT Page 2then-publisher of 3 10, media 2016 04:45:16AM

http://sianews.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2553 Do you know of Operation MOCKINGBIRD? &,

if so--and knowing that Phil Graham, the then-publisher of the Washington Post who committed suicide (?)--was, in fact, the lead media agent withing MOCKINGBIRD. ...Bob Woodward is also a CIA MOCKINGBIRD operative. This ain't tinfoil. Is it such a stretch to think that Robert Novak may have been recruited by CIA through the same project? That's what I'm positing. I know from William F. Buckley's CIA partner Ted Humes (my former boss in Arizona, 1986-87) during their stationing in Japan, that Buckley is CIA and was part of MOCKINGBIRD. Having worked with and around such types for 20 years, I can smell it. So, again, is it simply that my stating that I believe Bob Novak to be CIA/MOCKINGBIRD strikes you as "tinfoil"; or are you questioning other aspects of the piece to which you commented? I'm interested in your specific questions. All best wishes, TBF ... http://"pipelinenews.org" wrote: Mr Fahey The most plausible explanation is that Mr. Rove indeed told the truth to the grand jury, that he merely made reference to Liar Joe Wilson's wife getting him sent to Niger, and that Matt Cooper, whose wife afterall is Mandy Grunwald the Dems most powerful political consultant, shouldn't hang it out there too far with Liar Joe's lying report on Niger. Have you actually read the operative section of the 1982 law which sets the backdrop for this controversy? I suggest you do, to me your theory is pure tinfoil hat stuff. Assuming the worst about Rove, what he did doesn't even come close to violating the law, I don't think you know much about how this admin works, we on the right wish it played as tough as the left is claiming, but it ain't true. Thanks anyway for the input & regards, William E&P http://www.pipelinenews.org The article in question.

Copyright (c) 2002 by Friends of Liberty

Page 3 of 3

Oct 10, 2016 04:45:16AM MDT

10/10/2016

How the Washington Post Censors the News. A Letter to the Washington Post by Julian C. Holmes

[back] Operation Mockingbird [back] Conspiracy

How the Washington Post Censors the News. A Letter to the Washington Post by Julian C. Holmes      _________________________________________________________________       April 25, 1992    Richard Harwood, Ombudsman    The Washington Post    1150 15th Street NW    Washington, DC 20071       Dear Mr. Harwood,       Though the Washington Post does not over-extend itself in the pursuit    of hard news, just let drop the faintest rumor of a government   "conspiracy", and a klaxon horn goes off in the news room. Aroused    from apathy in the daily routine of reporting assignations and various    other political and social sports events, editors and reporters    scramble to the phones. The klaxon screams its warning: the greatest    single threat to herd-journalism, corporate profits, and government    stability -- the dreaded "CONSPIRACY THEORY"!!       It is not known whether anyone has actually been hassled or accosted    by any of these frightful spectres, but their presence is announced to    Post readers with a salvo of warnings to avoid the tricky, sticky webs    spun by the wacko "CONSPIRACY THEORISTS".      Recall how the Post saved us from the truth about Iran-Contra.      Professional conspiracy exorcist Mark Hosenball was hired to ridicule    the idea that Oliver North and his CIA-associated gangsters had    conspired to do wrong (*1). And when, in their syndicated column, Jack    Anderson and Dale Van Atta discussed some of the conspirators, the    Post sprang to protect its readers, and the conspirators, by censoring    the Anderson column before printing it (*2).       But for some time the lid had been coming off the Iran-Contra    conspiracy. In 1986, the Christic Institute, an interfaith center for    law and public policy, had filed a lawsuit alleging a U.S.    arms-for-drugs trade that helped keep weapons flowing to the    CIA-Contra army in Nicaragua, and cocaine flowing to U.S. markets    (*3). In 1988 Leslie Cockburn published Out of Control, a seminal work    on our bizarre, illegal war against Nicaragua (*4). The Post    contributed to this discovery process by disparaging the charges of    conspiracy and by publishing false information about the    drug-smuggling evidence presented to the House Subcommittee on    Narcotics Abuse and Control. When accused by Committee Chairman    Charles Rangel (D-NY). of misleading reporting, the Post printed only    a partial correction and declined to print a letter of complaint from    Rangel (*5).       Sworn testimony before Senator John Kerry's Subcommittee on Terrorism, http://whale.to/b/holmes.html

1/23

10/10/2016

How the Washington Post Censors the News. A Letter to the Washington Post by Julian C. Holmes

   Narcotics, and International Operations confirmed U.S. Government    complicity in the drug trade (*6). With its coverup of the arms/drug    conspiracy evaporating, the ever-accommodating Post shifted gears and    retained Hosenball to exorcise from our minds a newly emerging threat    to domestic tranquility, the "October Surprise" conspiracy (*7). But    close on the heels of Hosenball and the Post came Barbara Honegger and    then Gary Sick who authored independently, two years apart, books with    the same title, "October Surprise" (*8). Honegger was a member of the    Reagan/Bush campaign and transition teams in 1980. Gary Sick,    professor of Middle East Politics at Columbia University, was on the    staff of the National Security Council under Presidents Ford, Carter,    and Reagan. In 1989 and 1991 respectively, Honegger and Sick published    their evidence of how the Republicans made a deal to supply arms to    Iran if Iran would delay release of the 52 United States hostages    until after the November 1980 election. The purpose of this deal was    to quash the possibility of a pre-election release(an October    surprise). which would have bolstered the reelection prospects for    President Carter.       Others published details of this alleged Reagan-Bush conspiracy. In    October 1988, Playboy Magazine ran an expose "An Election Held    Hostage"; FRONTLINE did another in April 1991 (*9). In June, 1991 a    conference of distinguished journalists, joined by 8 of the former    hostages, challenged the Congress to "make a full, impartial    investigation" of the election/hostage allegations. The Post reported    the statement of the hostages, but not a word of the conference itself    which was held in the Dirksen Senate Office Building Auditorium (*10).    On February 5, 1992 a gun-shy, uninspired House of Representatives    begrudgingly authorized an "October Surprise" investigation by a task    force of 13 congressmen headed by Lee Hamilton (D-IN). who had chaired    the House of Representatives Iran-Contra Committee. Hamilton has named    as chief team counsel Larry Barcella, a lawyer who represented BCCI    when the Bank was indicted in 1988 (*11).       Like the Washington Post, Hamilton had not shown interest in pursuing    the U.S. arms-for-drugs operation (*12). He had accepted Oliver    North's lies,and as Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee he    derailed House Resolution 485 which had asked President Reagan to    answer questions about Contra support activities of government    officials and others (*13). After CIA operative John       Hull (from Hamilton's home state). was charged in Costa Rica with    "international drug trafficking and hostile acts against the nation's    security", Hamilton and 18 fellow members of Congress tried to    intimidate Costa Rican President Oscar Arias Sanchez into handling    Hull's case "in a manner that will not complicate U.S.-Costa Rican    relations" (*14). The Post did not report the Hamilton letter or the    Costa Rican response that declared Hull's case to be "in as good hands    as our 100 year old uninterrupted democracy can provide to all    citizens" (*15).      Though the Post does its best to guide our thinking away from conspiracy   theories, it is difficult to avoid the fact that so much wrongdoing involves   government or corporate conspiracies: http://whale.to/b/holmes.html

2/23

10/10/2016

How the Washington Post Censors the News. A Letter to the Washington Post by Julian C. Holmes

       In its COINTELPRO operation, the FBI used disinformation, forgery,           surveillance, false arrests, and violence to illegally harass           U.S.citizens in the 60's (*16).                The CIA's Operation MONGOOSE illegally sabotaged Cuba by "destroying           crops, brutalizing citizens, destabilizing the society, and           conspiring with the Mafia to assassinate Fidel Castro and other           leaders" (*17).                "Standard Oil of New Jersey was found by the Antitrust Division of           the Department of Justice to be conspiring with I.G.Farben...of           Germany. ...By its cartel agreements with Standard Oil, the           United States was effectively prevented from developing or           producing [fo rWorld War-II] any substantial amount of           synthetic rubber," said Senator Robert LaFollette of Wisconsin           (*18).                U.S. Government agencies knowingly withheld information about           dosages of radiation "almost certain to produce thyroid           abnormalities or cancer" that contaminated people residing near           the nuclear weapons factory at Hanford, Washington (*19).                Various branches of Government deliberately drag their feet in           getting around to cleaning up the Nation's dangerous nuclear           weapons sites (*20). State and local governments back the           nuclear industry's secret public relations strategy (*21).                "The National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society and some           twenty comprehensive cancer centers, have misled and confused           the public and Congress by repeated claims that we are winning           the war against cancer. In fact, the cancer establishment has           continually minimized the evidence for increasing cancer rates           which it has largely attributed to smoking and dietary fat,           while discounting or ignoring the causal role of avoidable           eposures to industrial carcinogens in the air, food, water, and           the workplace." (*22).                The Bush Administration coverup of its pre-Gulf-War support of Iraq           "is yet another example of the President's people conspiring to           keep both Congress and the American people in the dark" (*23).                     If you think about it, conspiracy is a fundamental aspect of           doing business in this country.                Take the systematic and cooperative censorship of the Persian Gulf           War by the Pentagon and much of the news media (*24).                Or the widespread plans of business and government groups to spend           $100 million in taxes to promote a distorted and truncated           history of Columbus in America (*25). along the lines of the           Smithsonian Institution's "fusion of the two worlds", (*26).           rather than examining more realistic aspects of the Spanish           invasion, like "anger, cruelty, gold, terror, and death" (*27). http://whale.to/b/holmes.html

3/23

10/10/2016

How the Washington Post Censors the News. A Letter to the Washington Post by Julian C. Holmes

               Or circumstances surrounding the U.S. Justice Department theft from           the INSLAW company of sophisticated, law-enforcement computer           software which "now point to a widespread conspiracy           implicating lesser Government officials in the theft of           INSLAW's technology", says former U.S. Attorney General Elliot           Richardson (*28).                Or Watergate.                Or the "largest bank fraud in world financial history" (*29), where           the White House knew of the criminal activities at "the Bank of           Crooks and Criminals International" (BCCI) (*30), where U.S.           intelligence agencies did their secret banking (*31), and where           bribery of prominent American public officials "was a way of           doing business" (*32).                Or the 1949 conviction of "GM [General Motors], Standard Oil of           California, Firestone, and E. Roy Fitzgerald, among others, for           criminally conspiring to replace electric transportation with           gas- and diesel-powered buses and to monopolize the sale of           buses and related products to transportation companies           throughout the country" [in, among others, the cities of New           York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, St. Louis, Oakland, Salt Lake           City, and Los Angeles] (*33).                Or the collusion in 1973 between Senator Abraham Ribicoff (D-CT).           and the U.S. Department of Transportation to overlook safety           defects in the 1.2 million Corvair automobiles manufactured by           General Motors in the early 60's (*34).                Or the A. H. Robins Company, which manufactured the Dalkon Shield           intrauterine contraceptive, and which ignored repeated warnings           of the Shield's hazards and which "stonewalled, deceived,           covered up, and                     covered up the coverups...[thus inflicting] on women a           worldwide epidemic of pelvic infections." (*35).                Or that cooperation between McDonnell Douglas Aircraft Company and           the FAA resulted in failure to enforce regulations regarding           the unsafe DC-10 cargo door which failed in flight killing all           364 passengers on Turkish Airlines Flight 981 on March 3, 1974           (*36).                Or the now-banned, cancer-producing pregnancy drug           Diethylstilbestrol (DES). that was sold by manufacturers who           ignored tests which showed DES to be carcinogenic; and who           acted "in concert with each other in the testing and marketing           of DES for miscarriage purposes" (*37).                Or the conspiracies among bankers and speculators, with the           cooperation of a corrupted Congress, to relieve depositors of           their savings. This "arrogant disregard from the White House, http://whale.to/b/holmes.html

4/23

10/10/2016

How the Washington Post Censors the News. A Letter to the Washington Post by Julian C. Holmes

          Congress and corporate world for the interests and rights of           the American people" will cost U.S. tapayers many hundreds of           billions of dollars (*38).                Or the Westinghouse, Allis Chalmers,Federal Pacific, and General           Electric executives who met surreptitiously in hotel rooms to           fix prices and eliminate competition on heavy industrial           equipment (*39).                Or the convictions of Industrial Biotest Laboratories (IBT).           officers for fabricating safety tests on prescription drugs           (*40).                Or the conspiracy by the asbestos industry to suppress knowledge of           medical problemsrelating to asbestos (*41).                Or the 1928 Achnacarry Agreement through which oil companies "agreed           not to engage in any effective price competition" (*42).                Or the conspiracy among U.S. Government agencies and the Congress to           cover up the nature of our decades-old war against the people           of Nicaragua                a covert war that continues in 1992 with the U.S. Government           applying pressure for the Nicaraguan police to reorganize into           a more repressive force (*43).                Or the conspiracy by the CIA and the U.S. Government to interfere in           the Chilean election process with military aid, covert actions,           and an economic boycott which culminated in the overthrow of           the legitimately elected government and the assassination of           President Salvador Allende in 1973 (*44).                Or the conspiracy among U.S. officials including Secretary of State           Henry Kissinger and CIA Director William Colby to finance           terrorism in Angola for the purpose of disrupting Angola's           plans for peaceful elections in October 1975, and to lie about           these actions to the Congress and the news media (*45). And CIA           Director George Bush's subsequent cover up of this           U.S.-sponsored terrorism (*46).                Or President George Bush's consorting with the Pentagon to invade           Panama in 1989 and thereby violate the Constitution of the           United States, the U.N. Charter, the O.A.S. Charter, and the           Panama Canal Treaties (*47).                Or the "gross antitrust violations" (*48) and the conspiracy of           American oil companies and the British and U.S. governments to           strangle Iran economically after Iran nationalized the           British-owned Anglo-Iranian Oil Company in 1951. And the           subsequent overthrow by the CIA in 1953 of Iranian Prime           Minister Muhammed Mossadegh (*49).                Or the CIA-planned assassination of Congo head-of-state Patrice http://whale.to/b/holmes.html

5/23

10/10/2016

How the Washington Post Censors the News. A Letter to the Washington Post by Julian C. Holmes

          Lumumba (*50).                Or the deliberate and wilful efforts of President George Bush,           Senator Robert Dole, Senator George Mitchell, various U.S.           Government agencies, and members of both Houses of the Congress           to buy the 1990 Nicaraguan national elections for the           presidential candidate supported by President Bush (*51).                Or the collective approval by 64 U.S. Senators of Robert Gates to           head the CIA, in the face of "unmistakable evidence that Gates           lied about his role in the Iran-Contra scandal" (*52).                Or "How Reagan and the Pope Conspired to Assist Poland's Solidarity           Movement and Hasten the Demise of Communism" (*53).                Or how the Reagan Administration connived with the Vatican to ban           the use of USAID funds by any country "for the promotion of           birth control or abortion" (*54).                Or "the way the Vatican and Washington colluded to achieve common           purpose in Central America" (*55).                Or the collaboration of Guatemalan strong-man and mass murderer           Hector Gramajo with the U.S. Army to design "programs to build           civilian-military cooperation" at the U.S. Army School of the           Americas (SOA) at Fort Benning, Georgia; five of the nine           soldiers accused in the 1989 Jesuit massacre in El Salvador are           graduates of SOA which trains Latin/American military personnel           (*56).                Or the conspiracy of the Comanche Peak Nuclear Plant administration           to harass and cause bodily harm to whistleblower Linda Porter           who uncovered dangerous working conditions at the facility           (*57).                Or the conspiracy of President Richard Nxion and the Government of           South Vietnam to delay the Paris Peace Talks until after the           1968 U.S. presidential election (*58).                Or the pandemic coverups of police violence (*59).                Or the always safe-to-cite worldwide communist conspiracy (*60).                Or maybe the socially responsible, secret consortium to publish The           Satanic Verses in paperback (*61).             Conspiracies are obviously a way to get things done, and the Washington Post   offers little comment unless conspiracy theorizing threatens to expose a   really important conspiracy that, let's say, benefits big business or big   government.      Such a conspiracy would be like our benevolent CIA's 1953 overthrow of    the Iranian government to help out U.S. oil companies; or like our    illegal war against Panama to tighten U.S. control over Panama and the http://whale.to/b/holmes.html

6/23

10/10/2016

How the Washington Post Censors the News. A Letter to the Washington Post by Julian C. Holmes

   Canal; or like monopoly control of broadcasting that facilitates    corporate censorship on issues of public importance (*62). When the    camouflage of such conspiracies is stripped away, public confidence in    the conspiring officials can erode -- depending on how seriously the    citizenry perceives the conspiracy to have violated the public trust.    Erosion of public trust in the status quo is what the Post seems to    see as a real threat to its corporate security.       Currently, the Post has mounted vituperative, frenzied attacks on    Oliver Stone's movie "JFK", which reexamines the U.S. Government's    official (Warren Commission. finding that a single gunman, acting    alone, killed President John F. Kennedy. The movie also is the story    of New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison's unsuccessful    prosecution of Clay Shaw, the only person ever tried in connection    with the assassination. And the movie proposes that the Kennedy    assassination was the work of conspirators whose interests would not    be served by a president who, had he lived, might have disengaged us    from our war against Vietnam.       The Post ridicules a reexamination of the Kennedy assassination along    lines suggested by "JFK". Senior Post journalists like Charles    Krauthammer, Ken Ringle, George Will, Phil McCombs, and Michael    Isikoff, have been called up to man the bulwarks against public    sentiment which has never supported the government's    non-conspiratorial assassination thesis. In spite of the facts that    the Senate Intelligence Committee of 1975 and 1976 found that "both    the FBI and CIA had repeatedly lied to the Warren Commission" (*63)    and that the 1979 Report of the House Select Committee on    Assassinations found that President Kennedy was probably killed "as a    result of a conspiracy" (*64), a truly astounding number of Post    stories have been used as vehicles to discredit "JFK" as just another    conspiracy (*65).       Some of the more vicious attacks on the movie are by editor Stephen    Rosenfeld, and journalists Richard Cohen, George Will, and George    Lardner Jr (*66). They ridicule the idea that Kennedy could have had    second thoughts about escalating the Vietnam War and declaim that    there is no historical justification for this idea. Seasoned    journalist Peter Dale Scott, former Pentagon/CIA liaison chief L.    Fletcher Prouty, and investigators David Scheim and John Newman have    each authored defense of the "JFK" thesis that Kennedy was not    enthusiastic about staying in Vietnam (*67). But the Post team just    continues ranting against the possibility of a high-level    assassination conspiracy while offering little justification for its    arguments.       An example of particularly shabby scholarship and unacceptable    behavior is George Lardner Jr's contribution to the Post's campaign    against the movie. Lardner wrote three articles, two before the movie    was completed, and the third upon its release. In May, six months    before the movie came out, Lardner obtained a copy of the first draft    of the script and, contrary to accepted standards, revealed in the    Post the contents of this copyrighted movie (*68). Also in this    article, (*69). Lardner discredits Jim Garrison with hostile http://whale.to/b/holmes.html

7/23

10/10/2016

How the Washington Post Censors the News. A Letter to the Washington Post by Julian C. Holmes

   statements from a former Garrison associate Pershing Gervais. Lardner    does not tell the reader that subsequent to the Clay Shaw trial, in a    U.S. Government criminal action brought against Garrison, Government    witness Gervais, who helped set up Garrison for prosecution, admitted    under oath that in a May 1972 interview with a New Orleans television    reporter, he, Gervais, had said that the U.S. Government's case    against Garrison was a fraud (*70). The Post's 1973 account of the    Garrison acquittal mentions this controversy, but when I recently    asked Lardner about this, he was not clear as to whether he remembered    it (*71).       Two weeks after his first "JFK" article, Lardner blustered his way    through a justification for his unauthorized possession of the early    draft ofthe movie (*72). He also defended his reference to Pershing    Gervais by lashing out at Garrison as a writer "of gothic fiction".       When the movie was released in December, Lardner "reviewed" it (*73).    He again ridiculed the film's thesis that following the Kennedy    assassination, President Johnson reversed Kennedy's plans to    de-escalate the Vietnam War. Lardner cited a memorandum issued by    Johnson four days after Kennedy died. Lardner says this memorandum was    written before the assassination, and that it "was a continuation of    Kennedy's policy". In fact, the memorandum was drafted the day before    the assassination by McGeorge Bundy (Kennedy's Assistant for National    Security Affairs) Kennedy was in Texas, and may never have seen it.    Following the assassination, it was rewritten; and the final version    provided for escalating the war against Vietnam (*74) -- facts that    Lardner avoided.      The Post's crusade against exposing conspiracies is blatantly dishonest:      The Warren Commission inquiry into the Kennedy Assassination was for    the most part conducted in secret. This fact is buried in the Post    (*75). Nor do current readers of this newspaper find meaningful    discussion of the Warren Commission's secret doubts about both the FBI    and the CIA (*76). Or of a dispatch from CIA headquarters instructing    co-conspirators at field stations to counteract the "new wave of books    and articles criticizing the [Warren] Commission's findings...[and]    conspiracy theories ...[that] have frequently thrown suspicion on our    organization" and to "discuss the publicity problem with liaison and    friendly elite contacts, especially politicians and editors "and to    "employ propaganda assets to answer and refute the attacks of the    critics. ...Book reviews and feature articles are particularly    appropriate for this purpose. ...The aim of this dispatch is to    provide material for countering and discrediting the claims of the    conspiracy theorists..." (*77).      In 1979, Washington journalist Deborah Davis published Katharine The Great,   the story of Post publisher Katharine Graham and her newspaper's close ties   with Washington's powerful elite, a number of whom were with the CIA.      Particularly irksome to Post editor Benjamin Bradlee was a Davis claim    that Bradlee had "produced CIA material" (*78). Understandably    sensitive about this kind of publicity, Bradlee told Davis' publisher http://whale.to/b/holmes.html

8/23

10/10/2016

How the Washington Post Censors the News. A Letter to the Washington Post by Julian C. Holmes

   Harcourt Brace Jovanovich ,"Miss Davis is lying ...I never produced    CIA material ...what I can do is to brand Miss Davis as a fool and to    put your company in that special little group of publishers who don't    give a shit for the truth". The Post bullied HBJ into recalling the    book; HBJ shredded 20,000 copies; Davis sued HBJ for breach of    contract and damage to reputation; HBJ settled out of court; and Davis    published her book elsewhere with an appendix that demonstrated    Bradlee to have been deeply involved with producing cold-war/CIA    propaganda (*79). Bradlee still says the allegations about his    association with people in the CIA are false, but he has apparently    taken no action to contest the xetensive documentation presented by    Deborah Davis in the second and third editions of her book (*80).      And it's not as if the Post were new to conspiracy work.      Former Washington Post publisher Philip Graham "believing that the    function of the press was more often than not to mobilize consent for    the policies of the government, was one of the architects of what    became a widespread practice:the use and manipulation of journalists    by the CIA" (*81). This scandal was known by its code name Operation    MOCKINGBIRD. Former Washington Post reporter Carl Bernstein cites a    former CIA deputy director as saying, "It was widely known that Phil    Graham was someone you could get help from" (*82). More recently the    Post provided cover for CIA personality Joseph Fernandez by "refusing    to print his name for over a year up until the day his indictmen twas    announced ...for crimes committed in his official capacity as CIA    station chief in Costa Rica" (*83).    Of the meetings between Graham and his CIA acquaintances at which the    availability and prices of journalists were discussed, a former CIA    man recalls, "You could get a journalist cheaper than a good call    girl, for a couple hundred dollars a month" (*84). One may wish to    consider Philip Graham's philosophy along with a more recent statement    from his wife Katharine Graham, current Chairman of the Board of the    Washington Post. In a lecture on terrorism and the news media, Mrs.    Graham said: "A second challenge facing the media is how to prevent    terrorists from using the media as a platform fortheir views. ... The    point is that we generally know when we are being manipulated, and    we've learned better how and where to draw the line, though the    decisions are often difficult" (*85).       Today, the Post and its world of big business are apparently terrified    that our elite and our high-level public officials may be exposed as    conspirators behind Contra drug-smuggling, October Surprise, or the    assassination of President Kennedy. This fear is truly remarkable in    that, like most of us and like most institutions, the Post runs its    business as a conspiracy of like-minded entrepreneurs -- a conspiracy    "to act or work together toward the same result or goal" (*86). But    where the Post really parts company from just plain people is when it    pretends that conspiracies associated with big business or government    are "coincidence". Post reporter Lardner vents the frustration    inherent in having to maintain this dichotomy. He lashes out at Oliver    Stone and suggests that Stone may actually believe that the Post's    opposition to Stone's movie is a "conspiracy". Lardner assures us that http://whale.to/b/holmes.html

9/23

10/10/2016

How the Washington Post Censors the News. A Letter to the Washington Post by Julian C. Holmes

   Stone's complaints are "groundless and paranoid and smack of    McCarthyism" (*87).      So how does the Post justify devoting so much energy to ridiculing those who   investigate conspiracies?      The Post has answers: people revert to conspiracy theories because    they need something "neat and tidy" (*88) that "plugs a gap no other    generally accepted theory fills', (*89. and "coincidence ...is always    the safest and most likely explanation for any conjunction of curious    circumstances ..." (*90).       And what does this response mean? It means that "coincidence theory"    is what the Post espouses when it would prefer not to admit to a    conspiracy. In other words, some things just "happen". And, besides,    conspiracy to do certain things would be a crime; "coincidence" is a    safer bet.       Post Ombudsman Richard Harwood, who, it is rumored, serves as    Executive Director of the Benevolent Protective Order of Coincidence    Theorists, (*91) recently issued a warning about presidential    candidates "who have begun to mutter about a press conspiracy".    Ordinarily, Harwood would simply dismiss these charges as "symptoms of    the media paranoia that quadrennially engulfs members of the American    political class" (*92). But a fatal mistake was made by the mutterers;    they used the "C" word against the PRESS! And Harwood exploded his    off-the-cuff comment into an entire column -- ending it with:"We are    the new journalists, immersed too long, perhaps, in the cleansing    waters of political conformity. But conspirators we ain't".       Distinguished investigative journalist Morton Mintz, a 29-year veteran    of the Washington Post, now chairs the Fund for Investigative    Journalism. In the December issue of The Progressive, Mintz wrote "A    Reporter Looks Back in Anger -- Why the Media Cover Up Corporate    Crime". Therein he discussed the difficulties in convincing editors to    accept important news stories. He illustrated the article with his own    experiences at the Post, where he says he was known as "the biggest    pain in the ass in the office" (*93).      Would Harwood argue that grief endured by journalists at the hands of editors   is a matter of random coincidence?      And that such policy as Mintz described is made independently by    editors without influence from fellow editors or from management?    Would Harwood have us believe that at the countless office "meetings"    in which news people are ever in attendance, there is no discussion of    which stories will run and which ones will find inadequate space? That    there is no advanced planning for stories or that there are no    cooperative efforts among the staff? Or that in the face of our    news-media "grayout" of presidential candidate Larry Agran, (*94) a    Post journalist would be free to give news space to candidate Agran    equal to that the Post lavishes on candidate Clinton? Let's face it:    these possibilities are about as likely as Barbara Bush entertaining    guests at a soup kitchen. http://whale.to/b/holmes.html

10/23

10/10/2016

How the Washington Post Censors the News. A Letter to the Washington Post by Julian C. Holmes

      Would Harwood have us believe that media critic and former Post    Ombudsman Ben Bagdikian is telling less than the truth in his account    of wire-service control over news: "The largely anonymous men who    control the syndicate and wire service copy desks and the central wire    photo machines determine at a single decision what millions will see    and hear. ...there seems to be little doubt that these gatekeepers    preside over an operation in which an appalling amount of press    agentry sneaks in the back door of American journalism and marches    untouched out the front door as 'news'" (*95).       When he sat on the U.S. District Court of Appeals in Washington, Judge    Clarence Thomas violated U.S. law when he failed to remove himself    from a case in which he then proceeded to reverse a $10 million    judgment against the Ralston Purina Company (*96). Ralston Purina, the    animal feed empire, is the family fortune of Thomas' mentor, Senator    John Danforth. The Post limited its coverage of the Thomas malfeasance    to 56 words buried in the middle of a 1200-word article (*97). Would    Harwood have us believe that the almost complete blackout on this    matter by the major news media and the U.S. Senate was a matter of    coincidence? Could a Post reporter have written a story about Ralston    Purina if she had wanted to? Can a brick swim?       Or take the fine report produced last September by Ralph Nader's    Public Citizen. Titled All the Vice President's Men, it documents "How    the Quayle Council on Competitiveness Secretly Undermines Health,    Safety, and Environmental Programs". Three months later, Post    journalists David Broder and Bob Woodward published "The President's    Understudy", a seven-part series on Vice President Quayle. Although    this series does address Quayle's role with the Competitiveness    Council, its handling of the Council's disastrous impact on America is    inadequate. It is 40,000 words of mostly aimless chatter about Quayle    memorabilia: youth, family, college record, Christianity, political    aspirations, intellectual aspirations, wealthy friends, government    associates, golf, travels, wife Marilyn, and net worth -- revealing    little about Quayle's abilities, his understanding of society's    problems, or his thoughts about justice and freedom, and never    mentioning the comprehensive Nader study of Quayle's record in the    Bush Administration (*98).       Now, did Broder or did Woodward forget about the Nader study? Or did    both of them forget? Or did one, or the other, or both decide not to    mention it? Did these two celebrated, seasoned Post reporters ever    discuss together their jointly authored stories? Did they decide to    publish such a barren set of articles because it would enhance their    reputations? How did management feel about the use of precious news    space for such frivolity? Is it possible that so many pages were    dedicated to this twaddle without people "acting or working together    toward the same result or goal"? (*99) Do crocodiles fly?       On March 20, front-page headlines in the Wall Street Journal, the New    York Times, USA Today, and the Washington Post read respectively:       TSONGAS DROPPED OUT OF THE PRESIDENTIAL RACE CLEARING CLINTON'S PATH http://whale.to/b/holmes.html

11/23

10/10/2016

How the Washington Post Censors the News. A Letter to the Washington Post by Julian C. Holmes

      TSONGAS ABANDONS CAMPAIGN LEAVING CLINTON CLEAR PATH TOWARD SHOWDOWN    WITH BUSH       TSONGAS CLEARS WAY FOR CLINTON       TSONGAS EXIT CLEARS WAY FOR CLINTON       This display of editorial independence should at least raise questions    of whether the news media collective mindset is really different from    that of any other cartel -- like oil, diamond, energy, (*100) or    manufacturing cartels, a cartel being "a combination of independent    commercial enterprises designed to limit competition" (*101).       The Washington Post editorial page carries the heading:       AN INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPER       Is it? Of course not. There probably is no such thing. Does the Post    "conspire" to keep its staff and its newspaper from wandering too far    from the safety of mediocrity? The Post would respond that the    question is absurd. In that I am not privy to the Post's telephone    conversations, I can only speculate on how closely the media elite    must monitor the staff. But we all know how few micro-seconds it takes    a new reporter to learn what subjects are taboo and what are "safe",    and that experienced reporters don't have to ask.       What is more important, however, than speculating about how the Post    communicates within its own corporate structure and with other members    of the cartel, is to document and publicize what the Post does in    public, namely, how it shapes and censors the news.                                     Sincerely,                                                                     Julian C. Holmes                                          Copies to: Public-spirited citizens, both inside and outside the news    media, And - maybe a few others.      _________________________________________________________________       Notes to Letter of April 25, 1992:       1. Mark Hosenball, "The Ultimate Conspiracy", Washington Post,    September 11, 1988, p.C1       2a. Julian Holmes, Letter to Washington Post Ombudsman Richard    Harwood, June 4,1991. Notes that the Post censored, from the    Anderson/Van Atta column, references to the Christic Institute and to    Robert Gates.       2b. Jack Anderson and Dale Van Atta, "Iran-Contra Figure Dodges    Extradition", Washington Merry-Go-Round, United Feature Syndicate, May    26, 1991. This is the column submitted to the Post (see note 2a)..    http://whale.to/b/holmes.html

12/23

10/10/2016

How the Washington Post Censors the News. A Letter to the Washington Post by Julian C. Holmes

   2c. Jack Anderson and Dale Van Atta, "The Man Washington Doesn't Want    to Extradite", Washington Post, May 26, 1991. The column (see note    2b). as it appeared in the Post (see note 2a)..       3a. Case No. 86-1146-CIV-KING, Amended Complaint for RICO Conspiracy,    etc., United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, Tony    Avirgan and Martha Honey v. John Hull et al., October 3, 1986.       3b. Vince Bielski and Dennis Bernstein, "Reports: Contras Send Drugs    to U.S.", Cleveland Plain Dealer, November 16, 1986.       3c. Neal Matthews, "I Ran Drugs for Uncle Sam" (based on interviews    with Robert Plumlee, contra resupply pilot)., San Diego Reader, April    5, 1990.       4. Leslie Cockburn, Out of Control. New York: Atlantic Monthly Press,    1987.       5a. Peter Dale Scott and Jonathan Marshall, Cocaine Politics,    University ofCalifornia Press, 1991, p.179-181.       5b. David S. Hilzenrath, "Hill Panel Finds No Evidence Linking Contras    to Drug Smuggling", Washington Post, July 22, 1987, p.A07.       5c. Partial correction to the Washington Post of July 22, Washington    Post, July 24,1987, p.A3.       5d. The Washington Post declined to publish SubCommittee Chairman    Rangel's Letter- to-the-Editor of July 22, 1987. It was printed in the    Congressional Record on August 6, 1987, p.E3296-7.       6a. Michael Kranish, "Kerry Says US Turned Blind Eye to Contra-Drug    Trail", Boston Globe, April 10, 1988.       6b. Mary McGrory, "The Contra-Drug Stink", Washington Post, April 10,    1988, p.B1. 6c. Robert Parry with Rod Nordland, "Guns for Drugs?    Senate Probers Trace an Old Contra Connection to George Bush's    Office", Newsweek, May 23, 1988, p.22.       6d. Dennis Bernstein, "Iran-Contra -- The Coverup Continues", The    Progressive, November 1988, p.24.       6e. "Drugs, Law Enforcement and Foreign Policy", A Report Prepared by    the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Narcotics, and International Operations    of the Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate, December    1988.       7a. Mark Hosenball, "If It's October ... Then It's Time for an Iranian    Conspiracy Theory", Washington Post, October 9, 1988, p.D1.       7b. Mark Hosenball, "October Surprise! Redux! The Latest Version of    the 1980 'Hostage- Deal' Story Is Still Full of Holes", Washington    Post, April 21, 1991,p.B2.    http://whale.to/b/holmes.html

13/23

10/10/2016

How the Washington Post Censors the News. A Letter to the Washington Post by Julian C. Holmes

   8a. Barbara Honegger, October Surprise, New York: Tudor, 1989.       8b. Gary Sick, October Surprise, New York: Times Books, Random House,    1991.       9a. Abbie Hoffman and Jonathan Silvers, "An Election Held Hostage",    Playboy, October 1988, p.73.       9b. Robert Parry and Robert Ross, "The Election Held Hostage",    FRONTLINE, WGBH-TV,April 16, 1991.       10a. Reuter, "Ex-Hostages Seek Probe By Congress", Washington Post,    June 14,1991,p.A4.       10b. "An Election Held Hostage?", Conference, Dirksen Senate Office    Building Auditorium, Washington DC, June 13, 1991; Sponsored by The    Fund For New Priorities in America, 171 Madison Avenue, New York, NY,    10016.       11a. David Brown and Guy Gugliotta, "House Approves Inquiry Into    'OctoberSurprise'", Washington Post, February 6, 1992, p.A11.       11b. Jack Colhoun, "Lawmakers Lose Nerve on October Surprise", The    Guardian, December 11, 1991, p.7.       11c. Jack Colhoun, "October Surprise Probe Taps BCCI Lawyer", The    Guardian, February 26, 1992, p.3.       12. See note 5a, p.180-1.       13a. See note 4, p.229, 240-1.       13b. Report of the Congressional Committees Investigating the    Iran-Contra Affair, Senate Report No. 100-216, House Report No.    100-433, November 1987, p.139-141.       14a. Letter to His Excellency Oscar Arias Sanchez, President of the    Republic of Costa Rica; from Members of the U.S. Congress David    Dreier, Lee Hamilton, Dave McCurdy, Dan Burton, Mary Rose Oakar, Jim    Bunning, Frank McCloskey, Cass Ballenger, Peter Kostmayer, Jim Bates,    Douglas Bosco, James Inhofe, Thomas Foglietta, Rod Chandler, Ike    Skelton, Howard Wolpe, Gary Ackerman, Robert Lagomarsino, and Bob    McEwen; January 26, 1989.       14b. Peter Brennan, "Costa Rica Considers Seeking Contra Backer in    U.S. -- Indiana Native Wanted on Murder Charge in 1984 Bomb Attack in    Nicaragua", WashingtonPost, February 1, 1990.       14c. "Costa Rica Seeks Extradition of Indiana Farmer", Scripps-Howard    News Service,April 25, 1991.       15. Press Release from the Costa Rican Embassy, Washington DC, On the    Case of the Imprisonment of Costa Rican Citizen John Hull", February    6, 1989. http://whale.to/b/holmes.html

14/23

10/10/2016

How the Washington Post Censors the News. A Letter to the Washington Post by Julian C. Holmes

      16. Brian Glick, War at Home, Boston: South End Press, 1989.       17. John Stockwell, The Praetorian Guard-- The U.S. Role in the New    World Order, Boston: South End Press, 1991, p.121.       18. Hearings Before the Committee on Patents, United States Senate,    77th Cong., 2nd Session (1942)., part I, as cited in Joseph Borkin,    The Crime and Punishment of I.G. Farben, New York: The Free Press,    Macmillan, 1978, p.93.       19. R. Jeffrey Smith, "Study of A-Plant Neighbors' Health Urged",    Washington Post, July 13, 1990, p.A6.       20. Tom Horton, "A Cost Higher Than the Peace Dividend -- Price Tag    Mounts to Clean Up Nuclear Weapons Sites", Baltimore Sun, February 23,    1992, p.1K.       21. "The Nuclear Industry's Secret PR Strategy", EXTRA!, March 1992,    p.15.       22a. Samuel S. Epstein, MD et al, Losing the War Against Cancer: Need    for PublicPolicy Reform", Congressional Record, April 2, 1992,    p.E947-9.       22b. Samuel S. Epstein, "The Cancer Establishment", Washington Post,    March 10, 1992.       23a. Hon. Henry B. Gonzalez, "Efforts to Thwart Investigation of the    BNL Scandal", Congressional Record, March 30, 1992, p.H2005-2014.       23b. Hon. David E. Skaggs (CO)., White House Spin Control on Pre-War    Iraq Policy", Congressional Record, April 2, 1992, p.H2285.       23c. Nicholas Rostow, Special Assistant to the President and Legal    Adviser, Memorandum to Jeanne S. Archibald et al, "Meeting on    congressional requests for information and documents", April 8, 1991;    Congressional Record, April 2, 1992,p.H2285.       24a. Michio Kaku, "Operation Desert Lie: Pentagon Confesses", The       Guardian, March11, 1992, p.4.       24b. J. Max Robins, "NBC's Unaired Iraq Tapes Not a Black and White    Case", Variety Magazine, March 4, 1991, p.25.       25. Emory R. Searcy Jr., Clergy and Laity Concerned, Spring 1991    Letter to"Friends", p.1.       26. Jean Dimeo, "Selling Hispanics on Columbus -- Luis Vasquez-Ajmac    Is Hired to Promote Smithsonian Project", Washington Post, November    18, 1991, p.Bus.8.       27. Hans Koning, "Teach the Truth About Columbus", Washington Post, http://whale.to/b/holmes.html

15/23

10/10/2016

How the Washington Post Censors the News. A Letter to the Washington Post by Julian C. Holmes

   September 3,1991, p.A19.       28a. James Kilpatrick, "Software-Piracy Case Emitting Big Stench", St.    Louis Post/Dispatch, March 18, 1991, p.3B. Elliot L. Richardson, "A    High-Tech Watergate", New York Times, October 21,1991.       29. "BCCI -- NBC Sunday Today", February 23, 1992, p.12; transcript    prepared by Burrelle's Information Services. The quote is from New    York District Attorney Robert Morgenthau who is running his own    independent investigation of BCCI.       30. Norman Bailey, former Reagan White House intelligence analyst;    from an interview with Mark Rosenthal of NBC News. See note 29, p.5.       31. Jack Colhoun, "BCCI Skeletons Haunting Bush's Closet", The    Guardian, September 18, 1991, p.9.       32. Robert Morgenthau. See note 29, p.10.       33. Russell Mokhiber, Corporate Crime and Violence, San Francisco:    Sierra ClubBooks, 1989 paperback edition, p.227.       34. See note 33, p.136-7.       35. Morton Mintz, At Any Cost: Corporate Greed, Women, and the Dalkon    Shield, NewYork: Pantheon, 1985. As cited in Mokhiber, see note 33,    p.157.       36. See note 33, p.164-171.       37. See note 33, p.172-180.       38. Michael Waldman, Who Robbed America?, New York: Random House,    1990. The quote is from Ralph Nader's Introduction, p.iii.       39. See note 33, p.217.       40. See note 33, p.235.       41. See note 33, p.277-288.       42. See note 33, p.323.       43. Katherine Hoyt Gonzalez, Nicaragua Network Education Fund    Newsletter, March1992, p.1.       44. William Blum, The CIA -- A Forgotten History, London: Zed Books    Ltd., 1986,p.232-243.       45a. John Stockwell, In Search of Enemies, New York: Norton, 1978.       45b. See note 44, p.284-291.       46. See note 17, p.18. http://whale.to/b/holmes.html

16/23

10/10/2016

How the Washington Post Censors the News. A Letter to the Washington Post by Julian C. Holmes

      47a. Letter to President George Bush from The Ad Hoc Committee for    Panama (James Abourezk et al)., January 10, 1990; published in The    Nation, February 5, 1990, p.163.       47b. Philip E. Wheaton, Panama, Trenton NJ: Red Sea Press, 1992,    p.145-7.       48a. Morton Mintz and Jerry S. Cohen, Power, Inc., New York: Bantam    Books, 1977,p.521.       48b. "The International Oil Cartel", Federal Trade Commission,    December 2, 1949. Cited in 48a, p.521.       49a. See note 44, p.67-76.       49b. See note 48a, p.530-1.       50. Ralph W. McGehee, Deadly Deceits, New York: Sheridan Square    Publications, 1983,p.60.       51. HR-3385, "An Act to Provide Assistance for Free and Fair Elections    in Nicaragua". Passed the U.S. House of Representatives on October 4,    1989 by avote of 263 to 136, and the Senate on October 17 by a vote of    64 to 35.       52. Jack Colhoun, "Gates Oozing Trail of Lies, Gets Top CIA Post", The    Guardian,November 20, 1991, p.6.       53. Carl Bernstein, Time, February 24, 1992, Cover Story p.28-35.       54. "The U.S. and the Vatican on Birth Control", Time, February 24,    1992, p.35.       55. "Time's Missing Link: Poland to Latin America", National Catholic    Reporter,February 28, 1992, p.24.       56a. Jim Lynn, "School of Americas Commander Hopes to Expand Mission",    Benning Patriot, February 21, 1992, p.12.       56b. Vicky Imerman, "U.S. Army School of the Americas Plans    Expansion", News Release from S.O.A. Watch, P.O. Bo 3330, Columbus,    Georgia 31903.       57. 60 MINUTES, CBS, March 8, 1992.       58. Jack Colhoun, "Tricky Dick's Quick Election Fix", The Guardian,    January 29,1992, p.18.       59a. Sean P. Murphy, "Several Probes May Have Ignored Evidence Against    Police", Boston Globe, July 28, 1991, p.1.       59b. Christopher B. Daly, "Pattern of Police Abuses Reported in Boston    Case", Washington Post, July 12, 1991, p.A3. http://whale.to/b/holmes.html

17/23

10/10/2016

How the Washington Post Censors the News. A Letter to the Washington Post by Julian C. Holmes

      59c. Associated Press, "Dayton Police Probing Erasure of Arrest    Video", WashingtonPost, May 26, 1991, p.A20.       59d. Gabriel Escobar, "Deaf Man's Death In Police Scuffle Called    Homicide", Washington Post, May 18, 1991, p.B1.       59e. Jay Mathews, "L.A. Police Laughed at Beating", Washington Post,    March 19, 1991, p.A1.       59f. David Maraniss, "One Cop's View of Police Violence", Washington    Post, April 12,1991, p.A1.       59g. From News Services, "Police Abuse Detailed", Washington Post,    February 8, 1992,p.A8.       60. Michael Dobbs, "Panhandling the Kremlin: How Gus Hall Got    Millions", Washington Post, March 1, 1992, p.A1.       61. David Streitfeld, "Secret Consortium To Publish Rushdie In    Paperback", Washington Post, March 14, 1992, p.D1.       62a. See notes 48 and 49.       62b. See note 47b, p.63-76.       62c. "Fairness In Broadcasting Act of 1987", U.S. Senate Bill S742.       62d. "Now Let That 'Fairness' Bill Die", Editorial, Washington Post,       June 24, 1987. The Post opposed the Fairness in Broadcasting Act.       63. David E. Scheim, Contract on America -- The Mafia Murder of    President John F.Kennedy, New York: Shapolsky Publishers, 1988,    p.viii.       64. See note 63, p.28.       65a. Chuck Conconi, "Out and About", Washington Post, February 26,    1991, p.B3.       65b. George Lardner Jr., "On the Set: Dallas in Wonderland",    Washington Post, May19, 1991, p.D1.       65c. George Lardner, "...Or Just a Sloppy Mess", Washington Post, June    2, 1991,p.D3.       65d. Charles Krauthammer, "A Rash of Conspiracy Theories -- When Do We    Dig Up BillCasey?", Washington Post, July 5, 1991, p.A19.       65e. Eric Brace, "Personalities", Washington Post, October 31, 1991,    p.C3.       65f. Associated Press, "'JFK' Director Condemned -- Warren Commission http://whale.to/b/holmes.html

18/23

10/10/2016

How the Washington Post Censors the News. A Letter to the Washington Post by Julian C. Holmes

   Attorney Calls Stone Film 'A Big Lie'", Washington Post, December 16,    1991, p.D14.       65g. Gerald R. Ford and David W. Belin, "Kennedy Assassination: How    About the Truth?", Washington Post, December 17, 1991, p.A21.       65h. Rita Kemply, "'JFK': History Through A Prism", Washington Post,    December 20,1991, p.D1.       65i. George Lardner Jr., "The Way it Wasn't -- In 'JFK', Stone    Assassinates the Truth", Washington Post, December 20, 1991, p.D2.       65j. Desson Howe, "Dallas Mystery: Who Shot JFK?", Washington Post,    December 20,1991, p.55.       65k. Phil McCombs, "Oliver Stone, Returning the Fire -- In Defending    His 'JFK' Conspiracy Film, the Director Reveals His Rage and    Reasoning", Washington Post, December 21, 1991, p.F1.       65l. George F. Will, "'JFK': Paranoid History", Washington Post,    December 26, 1991,p.A23.       65m. "On Screen", 'JFK' movie review, Washington Post, Weekend,    December 27, 1991.       65n. Stephen S. Rosenfeld, "Shadow Play", Washington Post, December    27, 1991, p.A21.       65o. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, "The Paranoid Style", Washington Post,    December 29,1991, p.C7.       65p. Michael Isikoff, "H-e-e-e-e-r-e's Conspiracy! -- Why Did Oliver    Stone Omit (Or Suppress!). the Role of Johnny Carson?", Washington    Post, December 29, 1991,p.C2.       65q. Robert O'Harrow Jr., "Conspiracy Theory Wins Converts -   Moviegoers Say 'JFK' Nourishes Doubts That Oswald Acted Alone",    Washington Post, January 2, 1992, p.B1.       65r. Michael R. Beschloss, "Assassination and Obsession", Washington    Post, January 5, 1992, p.C1.       65s. Charles Krauthammer, "'JFK': A Lie, But Harmless", Washington    Post, January 10,1992, p.A19.       65t. Art Buchwald, "Bugged: The Flu Conspiracy", Washington Post,    January 14, 1992,p.E1.       65u. Ken Ringle, "The Fallacy of Conspiracy Theories -- Good on Film,    But the Motivation Is All Wrong", Washington Post, January 19, 1992,    p.G1.       65v. Charles Paul Freund, "If History Is a Lie -- America's Resort to    Conspiracy Thinking", Washington Post, January 19, 1992, p.C1. http://whale.to/b/holmes.html

19/23

10/10/2016

How the Washington Post Censors the News. A Letter to the Washington Post by Julian C. Holmes

      65w. Richard Cohen, "Oliver's Twist", Washington Post Magazine,    January 19, 1992, p.5.       65. Michael Isikoff, "Seeking JFK's Missing Brain", Washington Post,    January 21,1992, p.A17.       65y. Don Oldenburg, "The Plots Thicken -- Conspiracy Theorists Are    Everywhere", Washington Post, January 28, 1992, p.E5.       65z. Joel Achenbach, "JFK Conspiracy: Myth vs. the Facts", Washington    Post, February 28, 1992, p.C5.       65A. List of books on the best-seller list: On the Trail of the    Assassins is characterized as "conspiracy plot theories", Washington    Post, March 8, 1992,Bookworld, p.12       66. See notes 65n, 65w, 65l, 65b, 65c, and 65i.       67a. Peter Dale Scott, "Vietnamization and the Drama of the Pentagon    Papers". Published in The Senator Gravel Edition of The Pentagon    Papers, Volume V,p.211-247.       67b. Peter Dale Scott, The War Conspiracy -- The Secret Road to the    Second Indochina War, Indianapolis/New York: Bobbs-Merrill, 1972, p.    215-224.       67c. L. Fletcher Prouty, The Secret Team, Copyright 1973. New    printing, Costa Mesa CA: Institute for Historical Review, 1990,    p.402-416.       67d. See note 63, p.58, 183, 187, 194, 273-4.       67e. John M. Newman, JFK and Vietnam, New York: Warner Books, 1992.       67f. Peter Dale Scott, Letter to the Editor, The Nation, March 9,    1992, p.290.       68a. See note 65b.       68b. Oliver Stone, "The Post, George Lardner, and My Version of the    JFK Assassination", Washington Post, June 2, 1991, p.D3.       69. See note 65b.       70. Jim Garrison, On the Trail of The Assassins, New York: Warner    Books, 1988, 315/318.       71. Associated Press, "Garrison, 2 Others, Found Not Guilty Of Bribery    Charge", Washington Post, September 28, 1973, p.A3.       72. See note 65c.       73. See note 65i. http://whale.to/b/holmes.html

20/23

10/10/2016

How the Washington Post Censors the News. A Letter to the Washington Post by Julian C. Holmes

      74. See note 67e, p.438-450.       75. John G. Leyden, "Historians, Buffs, and Crackpots", Washington    Post, Bookworld, January 26, 1992, p.8.       76a. Tad Szulc, "New Doubts, Fears in JFK Assassination Probe",    Washington Star,September 19, 1975, p.A1.       76b. Tad Szulc, "Warren Commission's Self-Doubts Grew Day by Day -   'This Bullet Business Leaves Me Confused'", Washington Star, September       20, 1975, p.A1.       76c. Tad Szulc, "Urgent and Secret Meeting of the Warren Commission -   Dulles Proposed that the Minutes be Destroyed", Washington Star,    September 21, 1975,p.A1.       77. "Cable Sought to Discredit Critics of Warren Report", New York    Times, December 26, 1977, p.A37.       78. Deborah Davis, Katharine The Great, New York: Harcourt Brace    Jovanovich, 1979,p.141-2.       79a. Eve Pell, "Private Censorship -- Killing 'Katharine The Great'",    The Nation, November 12, 1983.       79b. Deborah Davis, Katharine The Great, Bethesda MD: National Press,    1987. Davis says, "...corporate documents that became available during    my subsequent lawsuit against him [Harcourt Brace Jovanovich chairman,    William Jovanovich] showed that 20,000 copies [of Katharine the Great]    had been "processed and converted into waste paper"".       79c. Daniel Brandt, "All the Publisher's Men -- A Suppressed Book    About Washington Post Publisher Katharine Graham Is On Sale Again"    National Reporter, Fall 1987, p.60.       79d. Deborah Davis, Katharine The Great, New York: Sheridan Square    Press, 1991. "...publishers who don't give a shit", p.iv-v; bullying    HBJ into recalling the book, p.iv-vi; lawsuit and settlement, p..       80. Benjamin C. Bradlee, Letter to Deborah Davis, April 1, 1987. See    note 79d, p.304.       81. See note 79d, p.119-132.       82. Carl Bernstein, "The CIA and the Media -- How America's Most    Powerful News Media Worked Hand in Glove with the Central Intelligence    Agency and Why the Church Committee Covered It Up", Rolling Stone,    October 20, 1977, p.63.       83a. Daniel Brandt, Letter to Richard L. Harwood of The Washington    Post, September 15, 1988. The letter asks for the Post's rationale for    its policy of protecting government covert actions, and whether this http://whale.to/b/holmes.html

21/23

10/10/2016

How the Washington Post Censors the News. A Letter to the Washington Post by Julian C. Holmes

   policy is still in effect.       83b. Daniel Brandt, "Little Magazines May Come and Go", The National    Reporter, Fall 1988, p.4. Notes the Post's protection of the identity    of CIA agent Joseph F.Fernandez. Brandt says, "America needs to    confront its own recent history as well as protect the interests of    its citizens, and both can be accomplished by outlawing peacetime    covert activity. This would contribute more to thesecurity of    Americans than all the counterterrorist proposals and elite strike    forces that ever found their way onto Pentagon wish-lists."       83c. Richard L. Harwood, Letter to Daniel Brandt, September 28, 1988.    Harwood's two- sentence letter reads, "We have a long-standing policy    of not naming covert agents of the C.I.A., except in unusual    circumstances. We applied that policy to Fernandez."       84. See note 79d, p.131.       85. Katharine Graham, "Safeguarding Our Freedoms As We Cover Terrorist    Acts", Washington Post, April 20, 1986, p.C1.       86. "conspire", ß4ßRandom House Dictionary of the English Language,    Second Edition Unabridged, 1987.       87. Howard Kurtz, "Media Notes", Washington Post, June 18, 1991, p.D1.       88. See note 65y.       89. See note 65n.       90. See note 65d.       91. William Casey, Private Communications with JCH, March 1992.       Richard Harwood, "What Conspiracy?", Washington Post, March 1, 1992,    p.C6.       93. p. 29-32.       94a. Washington Post Electronic Data Base, Dialog Information Services    Inc., April 25, 1992. In 1991 and 1992, the name Bill Clinton appeared    in 878 Washington Post stories, columns, letters, or editorials;    "Jerry" Brown in 485, Pat Buchanan in 303, and Larry Agran in 28. In    those 28, Agran's name appeared 76 times, Clinton's 151, and Brown    105. In only 1 of those 28 did Agran's name appear in a headline.       94b. Colman McCarthy, "What's 'Minor' About This Candidate?",    Washington Post, February 1, 1992. Washington Post columnist McCarthy    tells how television and party officials have kept presidential    candidate Larry Agran out of sight. The Post's own daily news-blackout    of Agran is not discussed.       94c. Scot Lehigh, "Larry Agran: 'Winner' in Debate With Little Chance    For the Big Prize", Boston Globe, February 25, 1992. http://whale.to/b/holmes.html

22/23

10/10/2016

How the Washington Post Censors the News. A Letter to the Washington Post by Julian C. Holmes

      94d. Joshua Meyrowitz, "The Press Rejects a Candidate", Columbia    Journalism Review,March/April, 1992.       95. Ben H. Bagdikian, The Effete Conspiracy And Other Crimes By The    Press, NewYork: Harper and Row, 1972, p.36-7.       96a. 28 USC Section 455. "Any justice, judge, or magistrate of the    United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his    impartiality might reasonably be questioned." [emphasis added]       96b. Alpo Petfoods, Inc. v. Ralston Purina Co., 913 F2d 958 (CA DC    1990)..       96c. Monroe Freedman, "Thomas' Ethics and the Court -- Nominee 'Unfit    to Sit' For Failing to Recuse In Ralston Purina Case", Legal Times,    August 26, 1991.       96d. Paul D. Wilcher, "Opposition to the Confirmation of Judge    Clarence Thomas to become a Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court on the    grounds of his JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT", Letter to U.S. Senator Joseph R.    Biden, October 15, 1991.       97. Al Kamen and Michael Isikoff, "'A Distressing Turn', Activists       Decry What Process Has Become", Washington Post, October 12, 1991,    p.A1.       98. January 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 1992, p.A1 each day.       99. See note 86.       100. Thomas W. Lippman, "Energy Lobby Fights Unseen 'Killers'",    Washington Post,April 1, 1992, p.A21. This article explains that    "representatives of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National    Association of Manufacturers and the coal, oil, natural gas, offshore    drilling and nuclear power industries, whose interests often conflict,    pledged to work together to oppose amendments limiting offshore oil    drilling, nuclear power and carbon dioxide emissions soon to be    offered by key House members".       101. "cartel", Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, 1977.     

http://whale.to/b/holmes.html

23/23

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/subversion_of_the_free_press.htm

MOCKINGBIRD The Subversion Of The Free Press By The CIA

theforbiddenknowledge.com

The Subversion Of The Free Press By The CIA http://www.whatreallyhappened.com "You could get a journalist cheaper than a good call girl, for a couple hundred dollars a month." CIA operative discussing with Philip Graham, editor Washington Post, on the availability and prices of journalists willing to peddle CIA propaganda and cover stories. "Katherine The Great," by Deborah Davis (New York: Sheridan Square Press, 1991) As terrible as it is to live in a nation where the press in known to be controlled by the government, at least one has the advantage of knowing the bias is present, and to adjust for it. In the United States of America, we are taught from birth that our press is free from such government meddling. This is an insideous lie about the very nature of the news institution in this country. One that allows the government to lie to us while denying the very fact of the lie itself. The Alex Constantine Article

Tales from the Crypt The Depraved Spies and Moguls of the CIA's Operation MOCKINGBIRD by Alex Constantine Who Controls the Media? Soulless corporations do, of course. Corporations with grinning, double-breasted executives, interlocking directorates, labor squabbles and flying capital. Dow. General Electric. Coca-Cola. Disney. Newspapers should have mastheads that mirror the world: The Westinghouse Evening Scimitar, The Atlantic-Richfield Intelligentser . It is beginning to dawn on a growing number of armchair ombudsmen that the public print reports news from a parallel universe - one that has never heard of politically-motivated assassinations, CIA-Mafia banking thefts, mind control, death squads or even federal agencies with secret budgets fattened by cocaine sales - a place overrun by lone gunmen, where the CIA and Mafia are usually on their best behavior. In this idyllic land, the most serious infraction an official can commit __is a the employment of a domestic servant with (shudder) no residency status. This unlikely land of enchantment is the creation of MOCKINGBIRD. It was conceived in the late 1940s, the most frigid period of the cold Page 1 of 31

Sep 12, 2016 05:16:40AM MDT

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/subversion_of_the_free_press.htm

war, when the CIA began a systematic infiltration of the corporate media, a process that often included direct takeover of major news outlets. In this period, the American intelligence services competed with communist activists abroad to influence European labor unions. With or without the cooperation of local governments, Frank Wisner, an undercover State Department official assigned to the Foreign Service, rounded up students abroad to enter the cold war underground of covert operations on behalf of his Office of Policy Coordination. Philip Graham, __a graduate of the Army Intelligence School in Harrisburg, PA, then publisher of the Washington Post., was taken under Wisner's wing to direct the program code-named Operation MOCKINGBIRD. "By the early 1950s," writes formerVillage Voice reporter Deborah Davis in Katharine the Great, "Wisner 'owned' respected members of the New York Times, Newsweek, CBS and other communications vehicles, plus stringers, four to six hundred in all, according to a former CIA analyst." The network was overseen by Allen Dulles, a templar for German and American corporations who wanted their points of view represented in the public print. Early MOCKINGBIRD influenced 25 newspapers and wire agencies consenting to act as organs of CIA propaganda. Many of these were already run by men with reactionary views, among them William Paley (CBS), C.D. Jackson (Fortune), Henry Luce (Time) and Arthur Hays Sulzberger (N.Y. Times). Activists curious about the workings of MOCKINGBIRD have since been appalled to f__ind in FOIA documents that agents boasting in CIA office memos of their pride in having placed "important assets" inside every major news publication in the country. It was not until 1982 that the Agency openly admitted that reporters on the CIA payroll have acted as case officers to agents in the field. "World War III has begun," Henry's Luce's Life declared in March, 1947. "It is in the opening skirmish stage already." The issue featured an excerpt of a book by James Burnham, who called for the creation of an "American Empire," "world-dominating in political power, set up at least in part through coercion (probably including war, but certainly the threat of war) and in which one group of people ... would hold more than its equal share of power." George Seldes, the famed anti-fascist media critic, drew down on Luce in 1947, explaining tha__t "although avoiding typical Hitlerian phrases, the same doctrine of a superior people taking over the world and ruling it, began to appear in the press, whereas the organs of Wall Street were much more honest in favoring a doctrine inevitably leading to war if it brought greater commercial markets under the American flag." On the domestic front, an abiding relationship was struck between the Page 2 of 31

Sep 12, 2016 05:16:40AM MDT

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/subversion_of_the_free_press.htm

CIA and William Paley, a wartime colonel and the founder of CBS. A firm believer in "all forms of propaganda" to foster loyalty to the Pentagon, Paley hired CIA agents to work undercover at the behest of his close friend, the busy grey eminence of the nation's media, Allen Dulles. Paley's designated go-between in his dealings with the CIA was Sig Mickelson, president of CBS News from 1954 to 1961. The CIA's assimilation of old guard fascists was overseen by the Operations Coordination Board, directed by C.D. Jackson, formerly an executive of Time magazine and Eisenhower's Special Assistant for Cold War Strategy. In 1954 he was succeeded by Nelson Rockefeller, who quit a year later, disgusted at the administration's political infighting. Vice President Nixon succeeded Rockefeller as the key cold war strategist. "Nixon," writes John Loftus, a former attorney for the Justice Department's Office of Special Investigations, took "a small boy's delight in the arcane tools of the intelligence craft - the hidden microphones, the 'black' propaganda." Nixon especially enjoyed his visit to a Virginia training camp to observe Nazis in the "special forces" drilling at covert operations. One of the fugitives recruited by the American intelligence underground was heroin smuggler Hubert von Blücher, the son of A German ambassador. Hubert often bragged that that he was trained by the Abwehr, the German military intelligence division, while still a civilian in his twenties. He served in a recon unit of the German Army until forced out for medical reasons in 1944, according to his wartime records. He worked briefly as an assistant director for Berlin-Film on a movie entitled One Day ..., and finished out the war flying with the Luftwaffe, but not to engage the enemy - his mission was the smuggling of Nazi loot out of the country. His exploits were, in part, the subject of Sayer and Botting's Nazi Gold, an account of the knockover of the Reichsbank at the end of the war. In 1948 he flew the coop to Argentina. Posing as a photographer named Huberto von Bleucher Corell, he immediately paid court to Eva Peron, presenting her with an invaluable Gobelin tapestry (a selection from the wealth of artifacts confiscated by the SS from Europe's Jews?). Hubert then met with Martin Bormann at the Hotel Plaza to deliver German marks worth $80 million. The loot financed the birth of the National Socialist Party in Argentina, among other forms of Nazi revival. In 1951, Hubert migrated northward and took a job at the Color Corporation of America in Hollywood. He eked out a living writing scripts for the booming movie industry. His voice can be heard on a film set in the Amazon, produced by Walt Disney. Nine years later he returned to Buenos Aires, then Düsseldorf, West Germany, and established a firm that developed not movie scripts, but anti-chemical Page 3 of 31

Sep 12, 2016 05:16:40AM MDT

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/subversion_of_the_free_press.htm

warfare agents for the government. At the Industrie Club in Düsseldorf in 1982, von Blücher boasted to journalists, "I am chief shareholder of Pan American Airways. I am the best friend of Howard Hughes. The Beach Hotel in Las Vegas is 45 percent financed by me. I am thus the biggest financier ever to appear in the Arabian Nights tales dreamed up by these people over their second bottle of brandy." Not really. Two the biggest financiers to stumble from the drunken dreams of world-moving affluence were, in their time, Moses Annenberg, publisher of The Philadelphia Inquirer, and his son Walter , the CIA/mob-anchored publisher of the TV Guide. Like most American high-rollers, Annenberg lived a double life. Moses, his father, was a scion of the Capone mob. Both Moses and Walter were indicted in 1939 for tax evasions totalling many millions of dollars - the biggest case in the history of the Justice Department. Moses pled guilty and agreed to pay the government $8 million and settle $9 million in assorted tax claims, penalties and interest debts. Moses received a three-year sentence. He died in Lewisburg Penitentiary. Walter Annenbeg, the TV Guide magnate, was a lofty Republican. On the campaign trail in April, 1988, George Bush flew into Los Angeles to woo Reagan's kitchen cabinet. "This is the topping on the cake," Bush's regional campaign director told the Los Angeles Times. The Bush team met at Annenberg's plush Rancho Mirage estate at Sunnylands, California. It was at the Annenberg mansion that Nixon's cabinet was chosen, and the state's social and contributor registers built over a quarter-century of state political dominance by Ronald Reagan, whose acting career was launched by Operation MOCKINGBIRD. The commercialization of television, coinciding with Reagan's recruitment by the Crusade for Freedom, a CIA front, presented the intelligence world with unprecedented potential for sowing propaganda and even prying in the age of Big Brother. George Orwell glimpsed the possibilities when he installed omniscient video surveillance technology in 1948, a novel rechristened 1984 for the first edition published in the U.S. by Harcourt, Brace. Operation Octopus, according to federal files, was in full swing by 1948, a surveillance program that turned any television set with tubes into a broadcast transmitter. Agents of Octopus could pick up audio and visual images with the equipment as far as 25 miles away. Hale Boggs was investigating Operation Octopus at the time of his disappearance in the midst of the Watergate probe. In 1952, at MCA, Actors' Guild president Ronald Reagan - a screen idol recruited by MOCKINGBIRD's Crusade for Freedom to raise funds for the resettlement of Nazis in the U.S., according to Loftus - signed a secret waiver of the conflict-of-interest rule with the mob-controlled studio, in effect granting it a labor monopoly on early television programming. In exchange, MCA made Reagan a part owner. Furthermore, Page 4 of 31

Sep 12, 2016 05:16:40AM MDT

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/subversion_of_the_free_press.htm

historian C. Vann Woodward, writing in the New York Times, in 1987, reported that Reagan had "fed the names of suspect people in his organization to the FBI secretly and regularly enough to be assigned 'an informer's code number, T-10.' His FBI file indicates intense collaboration with producers to 'purge' the industry of subversives." No one ever turned a suspicious eye on Walter Cronkite, a former intelligence officer and in the immediate postwar period UPI's Moscow correspondent. Cronkite was lured to CBS by Operation MOCKINGBIRD's Phil Graham, according to Deborah Davis. Another television conglomerate, Cap Cities, rose like a horror-film simian from CIA and Mafia heroin operations. Among other organized-crime Republicans, Thomas Dewey and his neighbor Lowell Thomas threw in to launch the infamous Resorts International, the corporate front for Lansky's branch of the federally-sponsored mob family and the corporate precursor to Cap Cities. Another of the investors was James Crosby, a Cap Cities executive who donated $100,000 to Nixon's 1968 presidential campaign. This was the year that Resorts bought into Atlantic City casino interests. Police in New jersey attempted, with no success, to spike the issuance of a gambling license to the company, citing Mafia ties. In 1954, this same circle of investors, all Catholics, founded the broadcasting company notorious for overt propagandizing and general spookiness. The company's chief counsel was OSS veteran William Casey, who clung to his shares by concealing them in a blind trust even after he was appointed CIA director by Ronald Reagan in 1981. "Black radio" was the phrase CIA critic David Wise coined in The Invisible Government to describe the agency's intertwining interests in the emergence of the transistor radio with the entrepreneurs who took to the airwaves. "Daily, East and West beam hundreds of propaganda broadcasts at each other in an unrelenting babble of competition for the minds of their listeners. The low-price transistor has given the hidden war a new importance," enthused one foreign correspondent. A Hydra of private foundations sprang up to finance the propaganda push. One of them, Operations and Policy Research, Inc. (OPR), received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the CIA through private foundations and trusts. OPR research was the basis of a television series that aired in New York and Washington, D.C. in 1964, Of People and Politics, a "study" of the American political system in 21 weekly installments. In Hollywood, the visual cortex of The Beast, the same CIA/Mafia combination that formed Cap Cities sank its claws into the film studios and labor unions. Johnny Rosselli was pulled out of the Army during the war by a criminal investigation of Chicago mobsters in the Page 5 of 31

Sep 12, 2016 05:16:40AM MDT

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/subversion_of_the_free_press.htm

film industry. Rosselli, a CIA asset probably assassinated by the CIA, played sidekick to Harry Cohn, the Columbia Pictures mogul who visited Italy's Benito Mussolini in 1933, and upon his return to Hollywood remodeled his office after the dictator's. The only honest job Rosselli ever had was assistant purchasing agent (and a secret investor) at Eagle Lion productions, run by Bryan Foy, a former producer for 20th Century Fox. Rosselli, Capone's representative on the West Coast, passed a small fortune in mafia investments to Cohn. Bugsy Seigel pooled gambling investments with Billy Wilkerson, publisher of the Hollywood Reporter. In the 1950s, outlays for global propaganda climbed to a full third of the CIA's covert operations budget. Some 3, 000 salaried and contract CIA employees were eventually engaged in propaganda efforts. The cost of disinforming the world cost American taxpayers an estimated $265 million a year by 1978, a budget larger than the combined expenditures of Reuters, UPI and the AP news syndicates. In 1977, the Copely News Service admitted that it worked closely with the intelligence services - in fact, 23 employees were full-time employees of the Agency. Most consumers of the corporate media were - and are - unaware of the effect that the salting of public opinion has on their own beliefs. A network anchorman in time of national crisis is an instrument of psychological warfare in the MOCKINGBIRD media. He is a creature from the national security sector's chamber of horrors. For this reason consumers of the corporate press have reason to examine their basic beliefs about government and life in the parallel universe of these United States. How the Washington Post Censors the News [Note: Look for the paragraph indicated by asterisks] How the Washington Post Censors the News A Letter to the Washington Post by Julian C. Holmes _________________________________________________________________ April 25, 1992 Richard Harwood, Ombudsman The Washington Post 1150 15th Street NW Washington, DC 20071 Dear Mr. Harwood, Though the Washington Post does not over-extend itself in the pursuit Page 6 of 31

Sep 12, 2016 05:16:40AM MDT

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/subversion_of_the_free_press.htm

of hard news, just let drop the faintest rumor of a government "conspiracy", and a klaxon horn goes off in the news room. Aroused from apathy in the daily routine of reporting assignations and various other political and social sports events, editors and reporters scramble to the phones. The klaxon screams its warning: the greatest single threat to herd-journalism, corporate profits, and government stability -- the dreaded "CONSPIRACY THEORY"!! It is not known whether anyone has actually been hassled or accosted by any of these frightful spectres, but their presence is announced to Post readers with a salvo of warnings to avoid the tricky, sticky webs spun by the wacko "CONSPIRACY THEORISTS". Recall how the Post saved us from the truth about Iran-Contra. Professional conspiracy exorcist Mark Hosenball was hired to ridicule the idea that Oliver North and his CIA-associated gangsters had conspired to do wrong (*1). And when, in their syndicated column, Jack Anderson and Dale Van Atta discussed some of the conspirators, the Post sprang to protect its readers, and the conspirators, by censoring the Anderson column before printing it (*2). But for some time the lid had been coming off the Iran-Contra conspiracy. In 1986, the Christic Institute, an interfaith center for law and public policy, had filed a lawsuit alleging a U.S. arms-for-drugs trade that helped keep weapons flowing to the CIA-Contra army in Nicaragua, and cocaine flowing to U.S. markets (*3). In 1988 Leslie Cockburn published Out of Control, a seminal work on our bizarre, illegal war against Nicaragua (*4). The Post contributed to this discovery process by disparaging the charges of conspiracy and by publishing false information about the drug-smuggling evidence presented to the House Subcommittee on Narcotics Abuse and Control. When accused by Committee Chairman Charles Rangel (D-NY). of misleading reporting, the Post printed only a partial correction and declined to print a letter of complaint from Rangel (*5). Sworn testimony before Senator John Kerry's Subcommittee on Terrorism, Narcotics, and International Operations confirmed U.S. Government complicity in the drug trade (*6). With its coverup of the arms/drug conspiracy evaporating, the ever-accommodating Post shifted gears and retained Hosenball to exorcise from our minds a newly emerging threat to domestic tranquility, the "October Surprise" conspiracy (*7). But close on the heels of Hosenball and the Post came Barbara Honegger and then Gary Sick who authored independently, two years apart, books with the same title, "October Surprise" (*8). Honegger was a member of the Reagan/Bush campaign and transition teams in 1980. Gary Sick, professor of Middle East Politics at Columbia University, was on the staff of the National Security Council under Presidents Ford, Carter, and Reagan. In 1989 and 1991 respectively, Honegger and Sick published Page 7 of 31

Sep 12, 2016 05:16:40AM MDT

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/subversion_of_the_free_press.htm

their evidence of how the Republicans made a deal to supply arms to Iran if Iran would delay release of the 52 United States hostages until after the November 1980 election. The purpose of this deal was to quash the possibility of a pre-election release(an October surprise). which would have bolstered the reelection prospects for President Carter. Others published details of this alleged Reagan-Bush conspiracy. In October 1988, Playboy Magazine ran an expose "An Election Held Hostage"; FRONTLINE did another in April 1991 (*9). In June, 1991 a conference of distinguished journalists, joined by 8 of the former hostages, challenged the Congress to "make a full, impartial investigation" of the election/hostage allegations. The Post reported the statement of the hostages, but not a word of the conference itself which was held in the Dirksen Senate Office Building Auditorium (*10). On February 5, 1992 a gun-shy, uninspired House of Representatives begrudgingly authorized an "October Surprise" investigation by a task force of 13 congressmen headed by Lee Hamilton (D-IN). who had chaired the House of Representatives Iran-Contra Committee. Hamilton has named as chief team counsel Larry Barcella, a lawyer who represented BCCI when the Bank was indicted in 1988 (*11). Like the Washington Post, Hamilton had not shown interest in pursuing the U.S. arms-for-drugs operation (*12). He had accepted Oliver North's lies,and as Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee he derailed House Resolution 485 which had asked President Reagan to answer questions about Contra support activities of government officials and others (*13). After CIA operative John Hull (from Hamilton's home state). was charged in Costa Rica with "international drug trafficking and hostile acts against the nation's security", Hamilton and 18 fellow members of Congress tried to intimidate Costa Rican President Oscar Arias Sanchez into handling Hull's case "in a manner that will not complicate U.S.-Costa Rican relations" (*14). The Post did not report the Hamilton letter or the Costa Rican response that declared Hull's case to be "in as good hands as our 100 year old uninterrupted democracy can provide to all citizens" (*15). Though the Post does its best to guide our thinking away from conspiracy theories, it is difficult to avoid the fact that so much wrongdoing involves government or corporate conspiracies: In its COINTELPRO operation, the FBI used disinformation, forgery, surveillance, false arrests, and violence to illegally harass U.S.citizens in the 60's (*16). The CIA's Operation MONGOOSE illegally sabotaged Cuba by "destroying crops, brutalizing citizens, destabilizing the society, and Page 8 of 31

Sep 12, 2016 05:16:40AM MDT

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/subversion_of_the_free_press.htm

conspiring with the Mafia to assassinate Fidel Castro and other leaders" (*17). "Standard Oil of New Jersey was found by the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice to be conspiring with I.G.Farben...of Germany. ...By its cartel agreements with Standard Oil, the United States was effectively prevented from developing or producing [fo rWorld War-II] any substantial amount of synthetic rubber," said Senator Robert LaFollette of Wisconsin (*18). U.S. Government agencies knowingly withheld information about dosages of radiation "almost certain to produce thyroid abnormalities or cancer" that contaminated people residing near the nuclear weapons factory at Hanford, Washington (*19). Various branches of Government deliberately drag their feet in getting around to cleaning up the Nation's dangerous nuclear weapons sites (*20). State and local governments back the nuclear industry's secret public relations strategy (*21). "The National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society and some twenty comprehensive cancer centers, have misled and confused the public and Congress by repeated claims that we are winning the war against cancer. In fact, the cancer establishment has continually minimized the evidence for increasing cancer rates which it has largely attributed to smoking and dietary fat, while discounting or ignoring the causal role of avoidable eposures to industrial carcinogens in the air, food, water, and the workplace." (*22). The Bush Administration coverup of its pre-Gulf-War support of Iraq "is yet another example of the President's people conspiring to keep both Congress and the American people in the dark" (*23). If you think about it, conspiracy is a fundamental aspect of doing business in this country. Take the systematic and cooperative censorship of the Persian Gulf War by the Pentagon and much of the news media (*24). Or the widespread plans of business and government groups to spend $100 million in taxes to promote a distorted and truncated history of Columbus in America (*25). along the lines of the Smithsonian Institution's "fusion of the two worlds", (*26). rather than examining more realistic aspects of the Spanish invasion, like "anger, cruelty, gold, terror, and death" (*27). Or circumstances surrounding the U.S. Justice Department theft from the INSLAW company of sophisticated, law-enforcement computer Page 9 of 31

Sep 12, 2016 05:16:40AM MDT

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/subversion_of_the_free_press.htm

software which "now point to a widespread conspiracy implicating lesser Government officials in the theft of INSLAW's technology", says former U.S. Attorney General Elliot Richardson (*28). Or Watergate. Or the "largest bank fraud in world financial history" (*29), where the White House knew of the criminal activities at "the Bank of Crooks and Criminals International" (BCCI) (*30), where U.S. intelligence agencies did their secret banking (*31), and where bribery of prominent American public officials "was a way of doing business" (*32). Or the 1949 conviction of "GM [General Motors], Standard Oil of California, Firestone, and E. Roy Fitzgerald, among others, for criminally conspiring to replace electric transportation with gas- and diesel-powered buses and to monopolize the sale of buses and related products to transportation companies throughout the country" [in, among others, the cities of New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, St. Louis, Oakland, Salt Lake City, and Los Angeles] (*33). Or the collusion in 1973 between Senator Abraham Ribicoff (D-CT). and the U.S. Department of Transportation to overlook safety defects in the 1.2 million Corvair automobiles manufactured by General Motors in the early 60's (*34). Or the A. H. Robins Company, which manufactured the Dalkon Shield intrauterine contraceptive, and which ignored repeated warnings of the Shield's hazards and which "stonewalled, deceived, covered up, and covered up the coverups...[thus inflicting] on women a worldwide epidemic of pelvic infections." (*35). Or that cooperation between McDonnell Douglas Aircraft Company and the FAA resulted in failure to enforce regulations regarding the unsafe DC-10 cargo door which failed in flight killing all 364 passengers on Turkish Airlines Flight 981 on March 3, 1974 (*36). Or the now-banned, cancer-producing pregnancy drug Diethylstilbestrol (DES). that was sold by manufacturers who ignored tests which showed DES to be carcinogenic; and who acted "in concert with each other in the testing and marketing of DES for miscarriage purposes" (*37). Or the conspiracies among bankers and speculators, with the cooperation of a corrupted Congress, to relieve depositors of Page 10 of 31

Sep 12, 2016 05:16:40AM MDT

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/subversion_of_the_free_press.htm

their savings. This "arrogant disregard from the White House, Congress and corporate world for the interests and rights of the American people" will cost U.S. tapayers many hundreds of billions of dollars (*38). Or the Westinghouse, Allis Chalmers,Federal Pacific, and General Electric executives who met surreptitiously in hotel rooms to fix prices and eliminate competition on heavy industrial equipment (*39). Or the convictions of Industrial Biotest Laboratories (IBT). officers for fabricating safety tests on prescription drugs (*40). Or the conspiracy by the asbestos industry to suppress knowledge of medical problemsrelating to asbestos (*41). Or the 1928 Achnacarry Agreement through which oil companies "agreed not to engage in any effective price competition" (*42). Or the conspiracy among U.S. Government agencies and the Congress to cover up the nature of our decades-old war against the people of Nicaragua a covert war that continues in 1992 with the U.S. Government applying pressure for the Nicaraguan police to reorganize into a more repressive force (*43). Or the conspiracy by the CIA and the U.S. Government to interfere in the Chilean election process with military aid, covert actions, and an economic boycott which culminated in the overthrow of the legitimately elected government and the assassination of President Salvador Allende in 1973 (*44). Or the conspiracy among U.S. officials including Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and CIA Director William Colby to finance terrorism in Angola for the purpose of disrupting Angola's plans for peaceful elections in October 1975, and to lie about these actions to the Congress and the news media (*45). And CIA Director George Bush's subsequent cover up of this U.S.-sponsored terrorism (*46). Or President George Bush's consorting with the Pentagon to invade Panama in 1989 and thereby violate the Constitution of the United States, the U.N. Charter, the O.A.S. Charter, and the Panama Canal Treaties (*47). Or the "gross antitrust violations" (*48) and the conspiracy of American oil companies and the British and U.S. governments to strangle Iran economically after Iran nationalized the Page 11 of 31

Sep 12, 2016 05:16:40AM MDT

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/subversion_of_the_free_press.htm

British-owned Anglo-Iranian Oil Company in 1951. And the subsequent overthrow by the CIA in 1953 of Iranian Prime Minister Muhammed Mossadegh (*49). Or the CIA-planned assassination of Congo head-of-state Patrice Lumumba (*50). Or the deliberate and wilful efforts of President George Bush, Senator Robert Dole, Senator George Mitchell, various U.S. Government agencies, and members of both Houses of the Congress to buy the 1990 Nicaraguan national elections for the presidential candidate supported by President Bush (*51). Or the collective approval by 64 U.S. Senators of Robert Gates to head the CIA, in the face of "unmistakable evidence that Gates lied about his role in the Iran-Contra scandal" (*52). Or "How Reagan and the Pope Conspired to Assist Poland's Solidarity Movement and Hasten the Demise of Communism" (*53). Or how the Reagan Administration connived with the Vatican to ban the use of USAID funds by any country "for the promotion of birth control or abortion" (*54). Or "the way the Vatican and Washington colluded to achieve common purpose in Central America" (*55). Or the collaboration of Guatemalan strong-man and mass murderer Hector Gramajo with the U.S. Army to design "programs to build civilian-military cooperation" at the U.S. Army School of the Americas (SOA) at Fort Benning, Georgia; five of the nine soldiers accused in the 1989 Jesuit massacre in El Salvador are graduates of SOA which trains Latin/American military personnel (*56). Or the conspiracy of the Comanche Peak Nuclear Plant administration to harass and cause bodily harm to whistleblower Linda Porter who uncovered dangerous working conditions at the facility (*57). Or the conspiracy of President Richard Nxion and the Government of South Vietnam to delay the Paris Peace Talks until after the 1968 U.S. presidential election (*58). Or the pandemic coverups of police violence (*59). Or the always safe-to-cite worldwide communist conspiracy (*60). Or maybe the socially responsible, secret consortium to publish The Satanic Verses in paperback (*61). Page 12 of 31

Sep 12, 2016 05:16:40AM MDT

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/subversion_of_the_free_press.htm

Conspiracies are obviously a way to get things done, and the Washington Post offers little comment unless conspiracy theorizing threatens to expose a really important conspiracy that, let's say, benefits big business or big government. Such a conspiracy would be like our benevolent CIA's 1953 overthrow of the Iranian government to help out U.S. oil companies; or like our illegal war against Panama to tighten U.S. control over Panama and the Canal; or like monopoly control of broadcasting that facilitates corporate censorship on issues of public importance (*62). When the camouflage of such conspiracies is stripped away, public confidence in the conspiring officials can erode -- depending on how seriously the citizenry perceives the conspiracy to have violated the public trust. Erosion of public trust in the status quo is what the Post seems to see as a real threat to its corporate security. Currently, the Post has mounted vituperative, frenzied attacks on Oliver Stone's movie "JFK", which reexamines the U.S. Government's official (Warren Commission. finding that a single gunman, acting alone, killed President John F. Kennedy. The movie also is the story of New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison's unsuccessful prosecution of Clay Shaw, the only person ever tried in connection with the assassination. And the movie proposes that the Kennedy assassination was the work of conspirators whose interests would not be served by a president who, had he lived, might have disengaged us from our war against Vietnam. The Post ridicules a reexamination of the Kennedy assassination along lines suggested by "JFK". Senior Post journalists like Charles Krauthammer, Ken Ringle, George Will, Phil McCombs, and Michael Isikoff, have been called up to man the bulwarks against public sentiment which has never supported the government's non-conspiratorial assassination thesis. In spite of the facts that the Senate Intelligence Committee of 1975 and 1976 found that "both the FBI and CIA had repeatedly lied to the Warren Commission" (*63) and that the 1979 Report of the House Select Committee on Assassinations found that President Kennedy was probably killed "as a result of a conspiracy" (*64), a truly astounding number of Post stories have been used as vehicles to discredit "JFK" as just another conspiracy (*65). Some of the more vicious attacks on the movie are by editor Stephen Rosenfeld, and journalists Richard Cohen, George Will, and George Lardner Jr (*66). They ridicule the idea that Kennedy could have had second thoughts about escalating the Vietnam War and declaim that there is no historical justification for this idea. Seasoned journalist Peter Dale Scott, former Pentagon/CIA liaison chief L. Fletcher Prouty, and investigators David Scheim and John Newman have Page 13 of 31

Sep 12, 2016 05:16:40AM MDT

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/subversion_of_the_free_press.htm

each authored defense of the "JFK" thesis that Kennedy was not enthusiastic about staying in Vietnam (*67). But the Post team just continues ranting against the possibility of a high-level assassination conspiracy while offering little justification for its arguments. An example of particularly shabby scholarship and unacceptable behavior is George Lardner Jr's contribution to the Post's campaign against the movie. Lardner wrote three articles, two before the movie was completed, and the third upon its release. In May, six months before the movie came out, Lardner obtained a copy of the first draft of the script and, contrary to accepted standards, revealed in the Post the contents of this copyrighted movie (*68). Also in this article, (*69). Lardner discredits Jim Garrison with hostile statements from a former Garrison associate Pershing Gervais. Lardner does not tell the reader that subsequent to the Clay Shaw trial, in a U.S. Government criminal action brought against Garrison, Government witness Gervais, who helped set up Garrison for prosecution, admitted under oath that in a May 1972 interview with a New Orleans television reporter, he, Gervais, had said that the U.S. Government's case against Garrison was a fraud (*70). The Post's 1973 account of the Garrison acquittal mentions this controversy, but when I recently asked Lardner about this, he was not clear as to whether he remembered it (*71). Two weeks after his first "JFK" article, Lardner blustered his way through a justification for his unauthorized possession of the early draft ofthe movie (*72). He also defended his reference to Pershing Gervais by lashing out at Garrison as a writer "of gothic fiction". When the movie was released in December, Lardner "reviewed" it (*73). He again ridiculed the film's thesis that following the Kennedy assassination, President Johnson reversed Kennedy's plans to de-escalate the Vietnam War. Lardner cited a memorandum issued by Johnson four days after Kennedy died. Lardner says this memorandum was written before the assassination, and that it "was a continuation of Kennedy's policy". In fact, the memorandum was drafted the day before the assassination by McGeorge Bundy (Kennedy's Assistant for National Security Affairs) Kennedy was in Texas, and may never have seen it. Following the assassination, it was rewritten; and the final version provided for escalating the war against Vietnam (*74) -- facts that Lardner avoided. The Post's crusade against exposing conspiracies is blatantly dishonest: The Warren Commission inquiry into the Kennedy Assassination was for the most part conducted in secret. This fact is buried in the Post (*75). Nor do current readers of this newspaper find meaningful discussion of the Warren Commission's secret doubts about both the FBI and the CIA (*76). Or of a dispatch from CIA headquarters instructing Page 14 of 31

Sep 12, 2016 05:16:40AM MDT

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/subversion_of_the_free_press.htm

co-conspirators at field stations to counteract the "new wave of books and articles criticizing the [Warren] Commission's findings...[and] conspiracy theories ...[that] have frequently thrown suspicion on our organization" and to "discuss the publicity problem with liaison and friendly elite contacts, especially politicians and editors "and to "employ propaganda assets to answer and refute the attacks of the critics. ...Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose. ...The aim of this dispatch is to provide material for countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists..." (*77). In 1979, Washington journalist Deborah Davis published Katharine The Great, the story of Post publisher Katharine Graham and her newspaper's close ties with Washington's powerful elite, a number of whom were with the CIA. Particularly irksome to Post editor Benjamin Bradlee was a Davis claim that Bradlee had "produced CIA material" (*78). Understandably sensitive about this kind of publicity, Bradlee told Davis' publisher Harcourt Brace Jovanovich ,"Miss Davis is lying ...I never produced CIA material ...what I can do is to brand Miss Davis as a fool and to put your company in that special little group of publishers who don't give a shit for the truth". The Post bullied HBJ into recalling the book; HBJ shredded 20,000 copies; Davis sued HBJ for breach of contract and damage to reputation; HBJ settled out of court; and Davis published her book elsewhere with an appendix that demonstrated Bradlee to have been deeply involved with producing cold-war/CIA propaganda (*79). Bradlee still says the allegations about his association with people in the CIA are false, but he has apparently taken no action to contest the xetensive documentation presented by Deborah Davis in the second and third editions of her book (*80). And it's not as if the Post were new to conspiracy work. **************************************************************************** Former Washington Post publisher Philip Graham "believing that the function of the press was more often than not to mobilize consent for the policies of the government, was one of the architects of what became a widespread practice:the use and manipulation of journalists by the CIA" (*81). This scandal was known by its code name Operation MOCKINGBIRD. Former Washington Post reporter Carl Bernstein cites a ^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^ former CIA deputy director as saying, "It was widely known that Phil Graham was someone you could get help from" (*82). More recently the Post provided cover for CIA personality Joseph Fernandez by "refusing to print his name for over a year up until the day his indictmen twas Page 15 of 31

Sep 12, 2016 05:16:40AM MDT

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/subversion_of_the_free_press.htm

announced ...for crimes committed in his official capacity as CIA station chief in Costa Rica" (*83). *************************************************************************** Of the meetings between Graham and his CIA acquaintances at which the availability and prices of journalists were discussed, a former CIA man recalls, "You could get a journalist cheaper than a good call girl, for a couple hundred dollars a month" (*84). One may wish to consider Philip Graham's philosophy along with a more recent statement from his wife Katharine Graham, current Chairman of the Board of the Washington Post. In a lecture on terrorism and the news media, Mrs. Graham said: "A second challenge facing the media is how to prevent terrorists from using the media as a platform fortheir views. ... The point is that we generally know when we are being manipulated, and we've learned better how and where to draw the line, though the decisions are often difficult" (*85). Today, the Post and its world of big business are apparently terrified that our elite and our high-level public officials may be exposed as conspirators behind Contra drug-smuggling, October Surprise, or the assassination of President Kennedy. This fear is truly remarkable in that, like most of us and like most institutions, the Post runs its business as a conspiracy of like-minded entrepreneurs -- a conspiracy "to act or work together toward the same result or goal" (*86). But where the Post really parts company from just plain people is when it pretends that conspiracies associated with big business or government are "coincidence". Post reporter Lardner vents the frustration inherent in having to maintain this dichotomy. He lashes out at Oliver Stone and suggests that Stone may actually believe that the Post's opposition to Stone's movie is a "conspiracy". Lardner assures us that Stone's complaints are "groundless and paranoid and smack of McCarthyism" (*87). So how does the Post justify devoting so much energy to ridiculing those who investigate conspiracies? The Post has answers: people revert to conspiracy theories because they need something "neat and tidy" (*88) that "plugs a gap no other generally accepted theory fills', (*89. and "coincidence ...is always the safest and most likely explanation for any conjunction of curious circumstances ..." (*90). And what does this response mean? It means that "coincidence theory" is what the Post espouses when it would prefer not to admit to a conspiracy. In other words, some things just "happen". And, besides, conspiracy to do certain things would be a crime; "coincidence" is a safer bet. Post Ombudsman Richard Harwood, who, it is rumored, serves as Page 16 of 31

Sep 12, 2016 05:16:40AM MDT

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/subversion_of_the_free_press.htm

Executive Director of the Benevolent Protective Order of Coincidence Theorists, (*91) recently issued a warning about presidential candidates "who have begun to mutter about a press conspiracy". Ordinarily, Harwood would simply dismiss these charges as "symptoms of the media paranoia that quadrennially engulfs members of the American political class" (*92). But a fatal mistake was made by the mutterers; they used the "C" word against the PRESS! And Harwood exploded his off-the-cuff comment into an entire column -- ending it with:"We are the new journalists, immersed too long, perhaps, in the cleansing waters of political conformity. But conspirators we ain't". Distinguished investigative journalist Morton Mintz, a 29-year veteran of the Washington Post, now chairs the Fund for Investigative Journalism. In the December issue of The Progressive, Mintz wrote "A Reporter Looks Back in Anger -- Why the Media Cover Up Corporate Crime". Therein he discussed the difficulties in convincing editors to accept important news stories. He illustrated the article with his own experiences at the Post, where he says he was known as "the biggest pain in the ass in the office" (*93). Would Harwood argue that grief endured by journalists at the hands of editors is a matter of random coincidence? And that such policy as Mintz described is made independently by editors without influence from fellow editors or from management? Would Harwood have us believe that at the countless office "meetings" in which news people are ever in attendance, there is no discussion of which stories will run and which ones will find inadequate space? That there is no advanced planning for stories or that there are no cooperative efforts among the staff? Or that in the face of our news-media "grayout" of presidential candidate Larry Agran, (*94) a Post journalist would be free to give news space to candidate Agran equal to that the Post lavishes on candidate Clinton? Let's face it: these possibilities are about as likely as Barbara Bush entertaining guests at a soup kitchen. Would Harwood have us believe that media critic and former Post Ombudsman Ben Bagdikian is telling less than the truth in his account of wire-service control over news: "The largely anonymous men who control the syndicate and wire service copy desks and the central wire photo machines determine at a single decision what millions will see and hear. ...there seems to be little doubt that these gatekeepers preside over an operation in which an appalling amount of press agentry sneaks in the back door of American journalism and marches untouched out the front door as 'news'" (*95). When he sat on the U.S. District Court of Appeals in Washington, Judge Clarence Thomas violated U.S. law when he failed to remove himself from a case in which he then proceeded to reverse a $10 million Page 17 of 31

Sep 12, 2016 05:16:40AM MDT

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/subversion_of_the_free_press.htm

judgment against the Ralston Purina Company (*96). Ralston Purina, the animal feed empire, is the family fortune of Thomas' mentor, Senator John Danforth. The Post limited its coverage of the Thomas malfeasance to 56 words buried in the middle of a 1200-word article (*97). Would Harwood have us believe that the almost complete blackout on this matter by the major news media and the U.S. Senate was a matter of coincidence? Could a Post reporter have written a story about Ralston Purina if she had wanted to? Can a brick swim? Or take the fine report produced last September by Ralph Nader's Public Citizen. Titled All the Vice President's Men, it documents "How the Quayle Council on Competitiveness Secretly Undermines Health, Safety, and Environmental Programs". Three months later, Post journalists David Broder and Bob Woodward published "The President's Understudy", a seven-part series on Vice President Quayle. Although this series does address Quayle's role with the Competitiveness Council, its handling of the Council's disastrous impact on America is inadequate. It is 40,000 words of mostly aimless chatter about Quayle memorabilia: youth, family, college record, Christianity, political aspirations, intellectual aspirations, wealthy friends, government associates, golf, travels, wife Marilyn, and net worth -- revealing little about Quayle's abilities, his understanding of society's problems, or his thoughts about justice and freedom, and never mentioning the comprehensive Nader study of Quayle's record in the Bush Administration (*98). Now, did Broder or did Woodward forget about the Nader study? Or did both of them forget? Or did one, or the other, or both decide not to mention it? Did these two celebrated, seasoned Post reporters ever discuss together their jointly authored stories? Did they decide to publish such a barren set of articles because it would enhance their reputations? How did management feel about the use of precious news space for such frivolity? Is it possible that so many pages were dedicated to this twaddle without people "acting or working together toward the same result or goal"? (*99) Do crocodiles fly? On March 20, front-page headlines in the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, USA Today, and the Washington Post read respectively: TSONGAS DROPPED OUT OF THE PRESIDENTIAL RACE CLEARING CLINTON'S PATH TSONGAS ABANDONS CAMPAIGN LEAVING CLINTON CLEAR PATH TOWARD SHOWDOWN WITH BUSH TSONGAS CLEARS WAY FOR CLINTON TSONGAS EXIT CLEARS WAY FOR CLINTON This display of editorial independence should at least raise questions of whether the news media collective mindset is really different from Page 18 of 31

Sep 12, 2016 05:16:40AM MDT

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/subversion_of_the_free_press.htm

that of any other cartel -- like oil, diamond, energy, (*100) or manufacturing cartels, a cartel being "a combination of independent commercial enterprises designed to limit competition" (*101). The Washington Post editorial page carries the heading: AN INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPER Is it? Of course not. There probably is no such thing. Does the Post "conspire" to keep its staff and its newspaper from wandering too far from the safety of mediocrity? The Post would respond that the question is absurd. In that I am not privy to the Post's telephone conversations, I can only speculate on how closely the media elite must monitor the staff. But we all know how few micro-seconds it takes a new reporter to learn what subjects are taboo and what are "safe", and that experienced reporters don't have to ask. What is more important, however, than speculating about how the Post communicates within its own corporate structure and with other members of the cartel, is to document and publicize what the Post does in public, namely, how it shapes and censors the news. Sincerely, Julian C. Holmes Copies to: Public-spirited citizens, both inside and outside the news media, And - maybe a few others. _________________________________________________________________ Notes to Letter of April 25, 1992: 1. Mark Hosenball, "The Ultimate Conspiracy", Washington Post, September 11, 1988, p.C1 2a. Julian Holmes, Letter to Washington Post Ombudsman Richard Harwood, June 4,1991. Notes that the Post censored, from the Anderson/Van Atta column, references to the Christic Institute and to Robert Gates. 2b. Jack Anderson and Dale Van Atta, "Iran-Contra Figure Dodges Extradition", Washington Merry-Go-Round, United Feature Syndicate, May 26, 1991. This is the column submitted to the Post (see note 2a).. 2c. Jack Anderson and Dale Van Atta, "The Man Washington Doesn't Want to Extradite", Washington Post, May 26, 1991. The column (see note 2b). as it appeared in the Post (see note 2a).. 3a. Case No. 86-1146-CIV-KING, Amended Complaint for RICO Conspiracy, etc., United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, Tony Page 19 of 31

Sep 12, 2016 05:16:40AM MDT

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/subversion_of_the_free_press.htm

Avirgan and Martha Honey v. John Hull et al., October 3, 1986. 3b. Vince Bielski and Dennis Bernstein, "Reports: Contras Send Drugs to U.S.", Cleveland Plain Dealer, November 16, 1986. 3c. Neal Matthews, "I Ran Drugs for Uncle Sam" (based on interviews with Robert Plumlee, contra resupply pilot)., San Diego Reader, April 5, 1990. 4. Leslie Cockburn, Out of Control. New York: Atlantic Monthly Press, 1987. 5a. Peter Dale Scott and Jonathan Marshall, Cocaine Politics, University ofCalifornia Press, 1991, p.179-181. 5b. David S. Hilzenrath, "Hill Panel Finds No Evidence Linking Contras to Drug Smuggling", Washington Post, July 22, 1987, p.A07. 5c. Partial correction to the Washington Post of July 22, Washington Post, July 24,1987, p.A3. 5d. The Washington Post declined to publish SubCommittee Chairman Rangel's Letter- to-the-Editor of July 22, 1987. It was printed in the Congressional Record on August 6, 1987, p.E3296-7. 6a. Michael Kranish, "Kerry Says US Turned Blind Eye to Contra-Drug Trail", Boston Globe, April 10, 1988. 6b. Mary McGrory, "The Contra-Drug Stink", Washington Post, April 10, 1988, p.B1. 6c. Robert Parry with Rod Nordland, "Guns for Drugs? Senate Probers Trace an Old Contra Connection to George Bush's Office", Newsweek, May 23, 1988, p.22. 6d. Dennis Bernstein, "Iran-Contra -- The Coverup Continues", The Progressive, November 1988, p.24. 6e. "Drugs, Law Enforcement and Foreign Policy", A Report Prepared by the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Narcotics, and International Operations of the Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate, December 1988. 7a. Mark Hosenball, "If It's October ... Then It's Time for an Iranian Conspiracy Theory", Washington Post, October 9, 1988, p.D1. 7b. Mark Hosenball, "October Surprise! Redux! The Latest Version of the 1980 'Hostage- Deal' Story Is Still Full of Holes", Washington Post, April 21, 1991,p.B2. 8a. Barbara Honegger, October Surprise, New York: Tudor, 1989. Page 20 of 31

Sep 12, 2016 05:16:40AM MDT

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/subversion_of_the_free_press.htm

8b. Gary Sick, October Surprise, New York: Times Books, Random House, 1991. 9a. Abbie Hoffman and Jonathan Silvers, "An Election Held Hostage", Playboy, October 1988, p.73. 9b. Robert Parry and Robert Ross, "The Election Held Hostage", FRONTLINE, WGBH-TV,April 16, 1991. 10a. Reuter, "Ex-Hostages Seek Probe By Congress", Washington Post, June 14,1991,p.A4. 10b. "An Election Held Hostage?", Conference, Dirksen Senate Office Building Auditorium, Washington DC, June 13, 1991; Sponsored by The Fund For New Priorities in America, 171 Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016. 11a. David Brown and Guy Gugliotta, "House Approves Inquiry Into 'OctoberSurprise'", Washington Post, February 6, 1992, p.A11. 11b. Jack Colhoun, "Lawmakers Lose Nerve on October Surprise", The Guardian, December 11, 1991, p.7. 11c. Jack Colhoun, "October Surprise Probe Taps BCCI Lawyer", The Guardian, February 26, 1992, p.3. 12. See note 5a, p.180-1. 13a. See note 4, p.229, 240-1. 13b. Report of the Congressional Committees Investigating the Iran-Contra Affair, Senate Report No. 100-216, House Report No. 100-433, November 1987, p.139-141. 14a. Letter to His Excellency Oscar Arias Sanchez, President of the Republic of Costa Rica; from Members of the U.S. Congress David Dreier, Lee Hamilton, Dave McCurdy, Dan Burton, Mary Rose Oakar, Jim Bunning, Frank McCloskey, Cass Ballenger, Peter Kostmayer, Jim Bates, Douglas Bosco, James Inhofe, Thomas Foglietta, Rod Chandler, Ike Skelton, Howard Wolpe, Gary Ackerman, Robert Lagomarsino, and Bob McEwen; January 26, 1989. 14b. Peter Brennan, "Costa Rica Considers Seeking Contra Backer in U.S. -- Indiana Native Wanted on Murder Charge in 1984 Bomb Attack in Nicaragua", WashingtonPost, February 1, 1990. 14c. "Costa Rica Seeks Extradition of Indiana Farmer", Scripps-Howard News Service,April 25, 1991. 15. Press Release from the Costa Rican Embassy, Washington DC, On the Page 21 of 31

Sep 12, 2016 05:16:40AM MDT

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/subversion_of_the_free_press.htm

Case of the Imprisonment of Costa Rican Citizen John Hull", February 6, 1989. 16. Brian Glick, War at Home, Boston: South End Press, 1989. 17. John Stockwell, The Praetorian Guard-- The U.S. Role in the New World Order, Boston: South End Press, 1991, p.121. 18. Hearings Before the Committee on Patents, United States Senate, 77th Cong., 2nd Session (1942)., part I, as cited in Joseph Borkin, The Crime and Punishment of I.G. Farben, New York: The Free Press, Macmillan, 1978, p.93. 19. R. Jeffrey Smith, "Study of A-Plant Neighbors' Health Urged", Washington Post, July 13, 1990, p.A6. 20. Tom Horton, "A Cost Higher Than the Peace Dividend -- Price Tag Mounts to Clean Up Nuclear Weapons Sites", Baltimore Sun, February 23, 1992, p.1K. 21. "The Nuclear Industry's Secret PR Strategy", EXTRA!, March 1992, p.15. 22a. Samuel S. Epstein, MD et al, Losing the War Against Cancer: Need for PublicPolicy Reform", Congressional Record, April 2, 1992, p.E947-9. 22b. Samuel S. Epstein, "The Cancer Establishment", Washington Post, March 10, 1992. 23a. Hon. Henry B. Gonzalez, "Efforts to Thwart Investigation of the BNL Scandal", Congressional Record, March 30, 1992, p.H2005-2014. 23b. Hon. David E. Skaggs (CO)., White House Spin Control on Pre-War Iraq Policy", Congressional Record, April 2, 1992, p.H2285. 23c. Nicholas Rostow, Special Assistant to the President and Legal Adviser, Memorandum to Jeanne S. Archibald et al, "Meeting on congressional requests for information and documents", April 8, 1991; Congressional Record, April 2, 1992,p.H2285. 24a. Michio Kaku, "Operation Desert Lie: Pentagon Confesses", The Guardian, March11, 1992, p.4. 24b. J. Max Robins, "NBC's Unaired Iraq Tapes Not a Black and White Case", Variety Magazine, March 4, 1991, p.25. 25. Emory R. Searcy Jr., Clergy and Laity Concerned, Spring 1991 Letter to"Friends", p.1. Page 22 of 31

Sep 12, 2016 05:16:40AM MDT

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/subversion_of_the_free_press.htm

26. Jean Dimeo, "Selling Hispanics on Columbus -- Luis Vasquez-Ajmac Is Hired to Promote Smithsonian Project", Washington Post, November 18, 1991, p.Bus.8. 27. Hans Koning, "Teach the Truth About Columbus", Washington Post, September 3,1991, p.A19. 28a. James Kilpatrick, "Software-Piracy Case Emitting Big Stench", St. Louis Post/Dispatch, March 18, 1991, p.3B. Elliot L. Richardson, "A High-Tech Watergate", New York Times, October 21,1991. 29. "BCCI -- NBC Sunday Today", February 23, 1992, p.12; transcript prepared by Burrelle's Information Services. The quote is from New York District Attorney Robert Morgenthau who is running his own independent investigation of BCCI. 30. Norman Bailey, former Reagan White House intelligence analyst; from an interview with Mark Rosenthal of NBC News. See note 29, p.5. 31. Jack Colhoun, "BCCI Skeletons Haunting Bush's Closet", The Guardian, September 18, 1991, p.9. 32. Robert Morgenthau. See note 29, p.10. 33. Russell Mokhiber, Corporate Crime and Violence, San Francisco: Sierra ClubBooks, 1989 paperback edition, p.227. 34. See note 33, p.136-7. 35. Morton Mintz, At Any Cost: Corporate Greed, Women, and the Dalkon Shield, NewYork: Pantheon, 1985. As cited in Mokhiber, see note 33, p.157. 36. See note 33, p.164-171. 37. See note 33, p.172-180. 38. Michael Waldman, Who Robbed America?, New York: Random House, 1990. The quote is from Ralph Nader's Introduction, p.iii. 39. See note 33, p.217. 40. See note 33, p.235. 41. See note 33, p.277-288. 42. See note 33, p.323. 43. Katherine Hoyt Gonzalez, Nicaragua Network Education Fund Page 23 of 31

Sep 12, 2016 05:16:40AM MDT

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/subversion_of_the_free_press.htm

Newsletter, March1992, p.1. 44. William Blum, The CIA -- A Forgotten History, London: Zed Books Ltd., 1986,p.232-243. 45a. John Stockwell, In Search of Enemies, New York: Norton, 1978. 45b. See note 44, p.284-291. 46. See note 17, p.18. 47a. Letter to President George Bush from The Ad Hoc Committee for Panama (James Abourezk et al)., January 10, 1990; published in The Nation, February 5, 1990, p.163. 47b. Philip E. Wheaton, Panama, Trenton NJ: Red Sea Press, 1992, p.145-7. 48a. Morton Mintz and Jerry S. Cohen, Power, Inc., New York: Bantam Books, 1977,p.521. 48b. "The International Oil Cartel", Federal Trade Commission, December 2, 1949. Cited in 48a, p.521. 49a. See note 44, p.67-76. 49b. See note 48a, p.530-1. 50. Ralph W. McGehee, Deadly Deceits, New York: Sheridan Square Publications, 1983,p.60. 51. HR-3385, "An Act to Provide Assistance for Free and Fair Elections in Nicaragua". Passed the U.S. House of Representatives on October 4, 1989 by avote of 263 to 136, and the Senate on October 17 by a vote of 64 to 35. 52. Jack Colhoun, "Gates Oozing Trail of Lies, Gets Top CIA Post", The Guardian,November 20, 1991, p.6. 53. Carl Bernstein, Time, February 24, 1992, Cover Story p.28-35. 54. "The U.S. and the Vatican on Birth Control", Time, February 24, 1992, p.35. 55. "Time's Missing Link: Poland to Latin America", National Catholic Reporter,February 28, 1992, p.24. 56a. Jim Lynn, "School of Americas Commander Hopes to Expand Mission", Benning Patriot, February 21, 1992, p.12. Page 24 of 31

Sep 12, 2016 05:16:40AM MDT

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/subversion_of_the_free_press.htm

56b. Vicky Imerman, "U.S. Army School of the Americas Plans Expansion", News Release from S.O.A. Watch, P.O. Bo 3330, Columbus, Georgia 31903. 57. 60 MINUTES, CBS, March 8, 1992. 58. Jack Colhoun, "Tricky Dick's Quick Election Fix", The Guardian, January 29,1992, p.18. 59a. Sean P. Murphy, "Several Probes May Have Ignored Evidence Against Police", Boston Globe, July 28, 1991, p.1. 59b. Christopher B. Daly, "Pattern of Police Abuses Reported in Boston Case", Washington Post, July 12, 1991, p.A3. 59c. Associated Press, "Dayton Police Probing Erasure of Arrest Video", WashingtonPost, May 26, 1991, p.A20. 59d. Gabriel Escobar, "Deaf Man's Death In Police Scuffle Called Homicide", Washington Post, May 18, 1991, p.B1. 59e. Jay Mathews, "L.A. Police Laughed at Beating", Washington Post, March 19, 1991, p.A1. 59f. David Maraniss, "One Cop's View of Police Violence", Washington Post, April 12,1991, p.A1. 59g. From News Services, "Police Abuse Detailed", Washington Post, February 8, 1992,p.A8. 60. Michael Dobbs, "Panhandling the Kremlin: How Gus Hall Got Millions", Washington Post, March 1, 1992, p.A1. 61. David Streitfeld, "Secret Consortium To Publish Rushdie In Paperback", Washington Post, March 14, 1992, p.D1. 62a. See notes 48 and 49. 62b. See note 47b, p.63-76. 62c. "Fairness In Broadcasting Act of 1987", U.S. Senate Bill S742. 62d. "Now Let That 'Fairness' Bill Die", Editorial, Washington Post, June 24, 1987. The Post opposed the Fairness in Broadcasting Act. 63. David E. Scheim, Contract on America -- The Mafia Murder of President John F.Kennedy, New York: Shapolsky Publishers, 1988, p.viii. Page 25 of 31

Sep 12, 2016 05:16:40AM MDT

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/subversion_of_the_free_press.htm

64. See note 63, p.28. 65a. Chuck Conconi, "Out and About", Washington Post, February 26, 1991, p.B3. 65b. George Lardner Jr., "On the Set: Dallas in Wonderland", Washington Post, May19, 1991, p.D1. 65c. George Lardner, "...Or Just a Sloppy Mess", Washington Post, June 2, 1991,p.D3. 65d. Charles Krauthammer, "A Rash of Conspiracy Theories -- When Do We Dig Up BillCasey?", Washington Post, July 5, 1991, p.A19. 65e. Eric Brace, "Personalities", Washington Post, October 31, 1991, p.C3. 65f. Associated Press, "'JFK' Director Condemned -- Warren Commission Attorney Calls Stone Film 'A Big Lie'", Washington Post, December 16, 1991, p.D14. 65g. Gerald R. Ford and David W. Belin, "Kennedy Assassination: How About the Truth?", Washington Post, December 17, 1991, p.A21. 65h. Rita Kemply, "'JFK': History Through A Prism", Washington Post, December 20,1991, p.D1. 65i. George Lardner Jr., "The Way it Wasn't -- In 'JFK', Stone Assassinates the Truth", Washington Post, December 20, 1991, p.D2. 65j. Desson Howe, "Dallas Mystery: Who Shot JFK?", Washington Post, December 20,1991, p.55. 65k. Phil McCombs, "Oliver Stone, Returning the Fire -- In Defending His 'JFK' Conspiracy Film, the Director Reveals His Rage and Reasoning", Washington Post, December 21, 1991, p.F1. 65l. George F. Will, "'JFK': Paranoid History", Washington Post, December 26, 1991,p.A23. 65m. "On Screen", 'JFK' movie review, Washington Post, Weekend, December 27, 1991. 65n. Stephen S. Rosenfeld, "Shadow Play", Washington Post, December 27, 1991, p.A21. 65o. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, "The Paranoid Style", Washington Post, December 29,1991, p.C7. 65p. Michael Isikoff, "H-e-e-e-e-r-e's Conspiracy! -- Why Did Oliver Page 26 of 31

Sep 12, 2016 05:16:40AM MDT

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/subversion_of_the_free_press.htm

Stone Omit (Or Suppress!). the Role of Johnny Carson?", Washington Post, December 29, 1991,p.C2. 65q. Robert O'Harrow Jr., "Conspiracy Theory Wins Converts -Moviegoers Say 'JFK' Nourishes Doubts That Oswald Acted Alone", Washington Post, January 2, 1992, p.B1. 65r. Michael R. Beschloss, "Assassination and Obsession", Washington Post, January 5, 1992, p.C1. 65s. Charles Krauthammer, "'JFK': A Lie, But Harmless", Washington Post, January 10,1992, p.A19. 65t. Art Buchwald, "Bugged: The Flu Conspiracy", Washington Post, January 14, 1992,p.E1. 65u. Ken Ringle, "The Fallacy of Conspiracy Theories -- Good on Film, But the Motivation Is All Wrong", Washington Post, January 19, 1992, p.G1. 65v. Charles Paul Freund, "If History Is a Lie -- America's Resort to Conspiracy Thinking", Washington Post, January 19, 1992, p.C1. 65w. Richard Cohen, "Oliver's Twist", Washington Post Magazine, January 19, 1992, p.5. 65. Michael Isikoff, "Seeking JFK's Missing Brain", Washington Post, January 21,1992, p.A17. 65y. Don Oldenburg, "The Plots Thicken -- Conspiracy Theorists Are Everywhere", Washington Post, January 28, 1992, p.E5. 65z. Joel Achenbach, "JFK Conspiracy: Myth vs. the Facts", Washington Post, February 28, 1992, p.C5. 65A. List of books on the best-seller list: On the Trail of the Assassins is characterized as "conspiracy plot theories", Washington Post, March 8, 1992,Bookworld, p.12 66. See notes 65n, 65w, 65l, 65b, 65c, and 65i. 67a. Peter Dale Scott, "Vietnamization and the Drama of the Pentagon Papers". Published in The Senator Gravel Edition of The Pentagon Papers, Volume V,p.211-247. 67b. Peter Dale Scott, The War Conspiracy -- The Secret Road to the Second Indochina War, Indianapolis/New York: Bobbs-Merrill, 1972, p. 215-224. 67c. L. Fletcher Prouty, The Secret Team, Copyright 1973. New Page 27 of 31

Sep 12, 2016 05:16:40AM MDT

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/subversion_of_the_free_press.htm

printing, Costa Mesa CA: Institute for Historical Review, 1990, p.402-416. 67d. See note 63, p.58, 183, 187, 194, 273-4. 67e. John M. Newman, JFK and Vietnam, New York: Warner Books, 1992. 67f. Peter Dale Scott, Letter to the Editor, The Nation, March 9, 1992, p.290. 68a. See note 65b. 68b. Oliver Stone, "The Post, George Lardner, and My Version of the JFK Assassination", Washington Post, June 2, 1991, p.D3. 69. See note 65b. 70. Jim Garrison, On the Trail of The Assassins, New York: Warner Books, 1988, 315/318. 71. Associated Press, "Garrison, 2 Others, Found Not Guilty Of Bribery Charge", Washington Post, September 28, 1973, p.A3. 72. See note 65c. 73. See note 65i. 74. See note 67e, p.438-450. 75. John G. Leyden, "Historians, Buffs, and Crackpots", Washington Post, Bookworld, January 26, 1992, p.8. 76a. Tad Szulc, "New Doubts, Fears in JFK Assassination Probe", Washington Star,September 19, 1975, p.A1. 76b. Tad Szulc, "Warren Commission's Self-Doubts Grew Day by Day -'This Bullet Business Leaves Me Confused'", Washington Star, September 20, 1975, p.A1. 76c. Tad Szulc, "Urgent and Secret Meeting of the Warren Commission -Dulles Proposed that the Minutes be Destroyed", Washington Star, September 21, 1975,p.A1. 77. "Cable Sought to Discredit Critics of Warren Report", New York Times, December 26, 1977, p.A37. 78. Deborah Davis, Katharine The Great, New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1979,p.141-2. Page 28 of 31

Sep 12, 2016 05:16:40AM MDT

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/subversion_of_the_free_press.htm

79a. Eve Pell, "Private Censorship -- Killing 'Katharine The Great'", The Nation, November 12, 1983. 79b. Deborah Davis, Katharine The Great, Bethesda MD: National Press, 1987. Davis says, "...corporate documents that became available during my subsequent lawsuit against him [Harcourt Brace Jovanovich chairman, William Jovanovich] showed that 20,000 copies [of Katharine the Great] had been "processed and converted into waste paper"". 79c. Daniel Brandt, "All the Publisher's Men -- A Suppressed Book About Washington Post Publisher Katharine Graham Is On Sale Again" National Reporter, Fall 1987, p.60. 79d. Deborah Davis, Katharine The Great, New York: Sheridan Square Press, 1991. "...publishers who don't give a shit", p.iv-v; bullying HBJ into recalling the book, p.iv-vi; lawsuit and settlement, p.. 80. Benjamin C. Bradlee, Letter to Deborah Davis, April 1, 1987. See note 79d, p.304. 81. See note 79d, p.119-132. 82. Carl Bernstein, "The CIA and the Media -- How America's Most Powerful News Media Worked Hand in Glove with the Central Intelligence Agency and Why the Church Committee Covered It Up", Rolling Stone, October 20, 1977, p.63. 83a. Daniel Brandt, Letter to Richard L. Harwood of The Washington Post, September 15, 1988. The letter asks for the Post's rationale for its policy of protecting government covert actions, and whether this policy is still in effect. 83b. Daniel Brandt, "Little Magazines May Come and Go", The National Reporter, Fall 1988, p.4. Notes the Post's protection of the identity of CIA agent Joseph F.Fernandez. Brandt says, "America needs to confront its own recent history as well as protect the interests of its citizens, and both can be accomplished by outlawing peacetime covert activity. This would contribute more to thesecurity of Americans than all the counterterrorist proposals and elite strike forces that ever found their way onto Pentagon wish-lists." 83c. Richard L. Harwood, Letter to Daniel Brandt, September 28, 1988. Harwood's two- sentence letter reads, "We have a long-standing policy of not naming covert agents of the C.I.A., except in unusual circumstances. We applied that policy to Fernandez." 84. See note 79d, p.131. 85. Katharine Graham, "Safeguarding Our Freedoms As We Cover Terrorist Acts", Washington Post, April 20, 1986, p.C1. Page 29 of 31

Sep 12, 2016 05:16:40AM MDT

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/subversion_of_the_free_press.htm

86. "conspire", ß4ßRandom House Dictionary of the English Language, Second Edition Unabridged, 1987. 87. Howard Kurtz, "Media Notes", Washington Post, June 18, 1991, p.D1. 88. See note 65y. 89. See note 65n. 90. See note 65d. 91. William Casey, Private Communications with JCH, March 1992. Richard Harwood, "What Conspiracy?", Washington Post, March 1, 1992, p.C6. 93. p. 29-32. 94a. Washington Post Electronic Data Base, Dialog Information Services Inc., April 25, 1992. In 1991 and 1992, the name Bill Clinton appeared in 878 Washington Post stories, columns, letters, or editorials; "Jerry" Brown in 485, Pat Buchanan in 303, and Larry Agran in 28. In those 28, Agran's name appeared 76 times, Clinton's 151, and Brown 105. In only 1 of those 28 did Agran's name appear in a headline. 94b. Colman McCarthy, "What's 'Minor' About This Candidate?", Washington Post, February 1, 1992. Washington Post columnist McCarthy tells how television and party officials have kept presidential candidate Larry Agran out of sight. The Post's own daily news-blackout of Agran is not discussed. 94c. Scot Lehigh, "Larry Agran: 'Winner' in Debate With Little Chance For the Big Prize", Boston Globe, February 25, 1992. 94d. Joshua Meyrowitz, "The Press Rejects a Candidate", Columbia Journalism Review,March/April, 1992. 95. Ben H. Bagdikian, The Effete Conspiracy And Other Crimes By The Press, NewYork: Harper and Row, 1972, p.36-7. 96a. 28 USC Section 455. "Any justice, judge, or magistrate of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned." [emphasis added] 96b. Alpo Petfoods, Inc. v. Ralston Purina Co., 913 F2d 958 (CA DC 1990).. 96c. Monroe Freedman, "Thomas' Ethics and the Court -- Nominee 'Unfit to Sit' For Failing to Recuse In Ralston Purina Case", Legal Times, Page 30 of 31

Sep 12, 2016 05:16:40AM MDT

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/subversion_of_the_free_press.htm

August 26, 1991. 96d. Paul D. Wilcher, "Opposition to the Confirmation of Judge Clarence Thomas to become a Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court on the grounds of his JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT", Letter to U.S. Senator Joseph R. Biden, October 15, 1991. 97. Al Kamen and Michael Isikoff, "'A Distressing Turn', Activists Decry What Process Has Become", Washington Post, October 12, 1991, p.A1. 98. January 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 1992, p.A1 each day. 99. See note 86. 100. Thomas W. Lippman, "Energy Lobby Fights Unseen 'Killers'", Washington Post,April 1, 1992, p.A21. This article explains that "representatives of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers and the coal, oil, natural gas, offshore drilling and nuclear power industries, whose interests often conflict, pledged to work together to oppose amendments limiting offshore oil drilling, nuclear power and carbon dioxide emissions soon to be offered by key House members". 101. "cartel", Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, 1977.

NOTES A good source on the Washington Post and Katharine Graham's attempt to suppress the Davis book,"Katherine The Great,", which was largely successful, is Carol Felsenthal's, "Power and Privilege at the Post, the Katharine Graham Story." For more information on Johnny Rosselli and Moses and Walter Annenberg, an excellent source is "All American Mafioso, the Johnny Rosselli Story," by Ed Becker and Charles Rappelye. An additional good short reference is "The CIA's Greatest Hits" by Mark Zepezauer. There you will find the reference to Carl Bernstein's classic "The CIA and the Media" which appeared in Rolling Stone on Oct. 20, 1977. Still another recent example of the CIA's control of the media is the spiking of Sally Denton's & Roger Morris' story,"THE CRIMES OF MENA" by Washington Post managing editor Bob Kaiser even though the story had been legally vetted and cleared for publication. Indeed the story, which details the CIA's involvement in drug trafficing, was already typeset and ready to go when it was killed withouty explanation. A recent example of media lies can be found in this example of a faked newspaper photograph.

Page 31 of 31

Sep 12, 2016 05:16:40AM MDT

MOCKINGBIRD: The Subversion Of The Free Press By The CIA WhatReallyHappened.com "You could get a journalist cheaper than a good call girl, for a couple hundred dollars a month." - CIA operative discussing with Philip Graham, editor Washington Post, on the availability and prices of journalists willing to peddle CIA propaganda and cover stories. "Katherine The Great," by Deborah Davis (New York: Sheridan Square Press, 1991)

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." -- William Colby, former CIA Director, cited by Dave Mcgowan, Derailing Democracy "There is quite an incredible spread of relationships. You don't need to manipulate Time magazine, for example, because there are [Central Intelligence] Agency people at the management level." -- William B. Bader, former CIA intelligence officer, briefing members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, The CIA and the Media, by Carl Bernstein "The Agency's relationship with [The New York] Times was by far its most valuable among newspapers, according to CIA officials. [It was] general Times policy ... to provide assistance to the CIA whenever possible." -- The CIA and the Media, by Carl Bernstein "Senator William Proxmire has pegged the number of employees of the federal intelligence community at 148,000 ... though Proxmire's number is itself a conservative one. The "intelligence community" is officially defined as including only those organizations that are members of the U.S. Intelligence Board (USIB); a dozen other agencies, charged with both foreign and domestic intelligence chores, are not encompassed by the term.... The number of intelligence workers employed by the federal government is not 148,000, but some undetermined multiple of that number." -- Jim Hougan, Spooks "For some time I have been disturbed by the way the CIA has been diverted from its original assignment. It has become an operational and at times a policy-making arm of the government.... I never had any thought that when I set up the CIA that it would be injected into peacetime cloak and dagger operations." --former President Harry Truman, 22 December 1963, one month after the JFK assassination, op-ed section of the Washington Post, early edition

As terrible as it is to live in a nation where the press in known to be controlled by the government, at least one has the advantage of knowing the bias is present, and to adjust for it. In the United States of America, we are taught from birth that our press is free from such government meddling. This is an insideous lie

about the very nature of the news institution in this country. One that allows the government to lie to us while denying the very fact of the lie itself.

The Alex Constantine Article Tales from the Crypt The Depraved Spies and Moguls of the CIA's Operation MOCKINGBIRD by Alex Constantine Who Controls the Media? Soulless corporations do, of course. Corporations with grinning, double-breasted executives, interlocking directorates, labor squabbles and flying capital. Dow. General Electric. Coca-Cola. Disney. Newspapers should have mastheads that mirror the world: The Westinghouse Evening Scimitar, The Atlantic-Richfield Intelligentser . It is beginning to dawn on a growing number of armchair ombudsmen that the public print reports news from a parallel universe - one that has never heard of politically-motivated assassinations, CIA-Mafia banking thefts, mind control, death squads or even federal agencies with secret budgets fattened by cocaine sales - a place overrun by lone gunmen, where the CIA and Mafia are usually on their best behavior. In this idyllic land, the most serious infraction an official can commit __is a the employment of a domestic servant with (shudder) no residency status. This unlikely land of enchantment is the creation of MOCKINGBIRD. It was conceived in the late 1940s, the most frigid period of the cold war, when the CIA began a systematic infiltration of the corporate media, a process that often included direct takeover of major news outlets. In this period, the American intelligence services competed with communist activists abroad to influence European labor unions. With or without the cooperation of local governments, Frank Wisner, an undercover State Department official assigned to the Foreign Service, rounded up students abroad to enter the cold war underground of covert operations on behalf of his Office of Policy Coordination. Philip Graham, __a graduate of the Army Intelligence School in Harrisburg, PA, then publisher of the Washington Post., was taken under Wisner's wing to direct the program code-named Operation MOCKINGBIRD. "By the early 1950s," writes formerVillage Voice reporter Deborah Davis in Katharine the Great, "Wisner 'owned' respected members of the New York Times, Newsweek, CBS and other communications vehicles, plus stringers, four to six hundred in all, according to a former CIA analyst." The network was overseen by Allen Dulles, a templar for German and American corporations who wanted their points of view represented in the public print. Early MOCKINGBIRD influenced 25 newspapers and wire agencies consenting to act as organs of CIA propaganda. Many of these were already run by men with reactionary views, among them William Paley (CBS), C.D. Jackson (Fortune), Henry Luce (Time) and Arthur Hays Sulzberger (N.Y. Times). Activists curious about the workings of MOCKINGBIRD have since been appalled to f__ind in FOIA documents that agents boasting in CIA office memos of their pride in having placed "important assets"

inside every major news publication in the country. It was not until 1982 that the Agency openly admitted that reporters on the CIA payroll have acted as case officers to agents in the field. "World War III has begun," Henry's Luce's Life declared in March, 1947. "It is in the opening skirmish stage already." The issue featured an excerpt of a book by James Burnham, who called for the creation of an "American Empire," "world-dominating in political power, set up at least in part through coercion (probably including war, but certainly the threat of war) and in which one group of people ... would hold more than its equal share of power." George Seldes, the famed anti-fascist media critic, drew down on Luce in 1947, explaining tha__t "although avoiding typical Hitlerian phrases, the same doctrine of a superior people taking over the world and ruling it, began to appear in the press, whereas the organs of Wall Street were much more honest in favoring a doctrine inevitably leading to war if it brought greater commercial markets under the American flag." On the domestic front, an abiding relationship was struck between the CIA and William Paley, a wartime colonel and the founder of CBS. A firm believer in "all forms of propaganda" to foster loyalty to the Pentagon, Paley hired CIA agents to work undercover at the behest of his close friend, the busy grey eminence of the nation's media, Allen Dulles. Paley's designated go-between in his dealings with the CIA was Sig Mickelson, president of CBS News from 1954 to 1961. The CIA's assimilation of old guard fascists was overseen by the Operations Coordination Board, directed by C.D. Jackson, formerly an executive of Time magazine and Eisenhower's Special Assistant for Cold War Strategy. In 1954 he was succeeded by Nelson Rockefeller, who quit a year later, disgusted at the administration's political infighting. Vice President Nixon succeeded Rockefeller as the key cold war strategist. "Nixon," writes John Loftus, a former attorney for the Justice Department's Office of Special Investigations, took "a small boy's delight in the arcane tools of the intelligence craft - the hidden microphones, the 'black' propaganda." Nixon especially enjoyed his visit to a Virginia training camp to observe Nazis in the "special forces" drilling at covert operations. One of the fugitives recruited by the American intelligence underground was heroin smuggler Hubert von Bl�cher, the son of A German ambassador. Hubert often bragged that that he was trained by the Abwehr, the German military intelligence division, while still a civilian in his twenties. He served in a recon unit of the German Army until forced out for medical reasons in 1944, according to his wartime records. He worked briefly as an assistant director for Berlin-Film on a movie entitled One Day ..., and finished out the war flying with the Luftwaffe, but not to engage the enemy - his mission was the smuggling of Nazi loot out of the country. His exploits were, in part, the subject of Sayer and Botting's Nazi Gold, an account of the knockover of the Reichsbank at the end of the war. In 1948 he flew the coop to Argentina. Posing as a photographer named Huberto von Bleucher Corell, he immediately paid court to Eva Peron, presenting her with an invaluable Gobelin tapestry (a selection from the wealth of artifacts confiscated by the SS from Europe's Jews?). Hubert then met with Martin Bormann at the Hotel Plaza to deliver German marks worth $80 million. The loot financed the birth of the National Socialist Party in Argentina, among other forms of Nazi revival. In 1951, Hubert migrated northward and took a job at the Color Corporation of America in Hollywood. He eked out a living writing scripts for the booming movie industry. His voice can be heard on a film set in the Amazon, produced by Walt Disney. Nine years later he returned to Buenos Aires, then D�sseldorf, West Germany, and established a firm that developed not movie scripts, but anti-chemical warfare agents for the

government. At the Industrie Club in D�sseldorf in 1982, von Bl�cher boasted to journalists, "I am chief shareholder of Pan American Airways. I am the best friend of Howard Hughes. The Beach Hotel in Las Vegas is 45 percent financed by me. I am thus the biggest financier ever to appear in the Arabian Nights tales dreamed up by these people over their second bottle of brandy." Not really. Two the biggest financiers to stumble from the drunken dreams of world-moving affluence were, in their time, Moses Annenberg, publisher of The Philadelphia Inquirer, and his son Walter , the CIA/mob-anchored publisher of the TV Guide. Like most American high-rollers, Annenberg lived a double life. Moses, his father, was a scion of the Capone mob. Both Moses and Walter were indicted in 1939 for tax evasions totalling many millions of dollars - the biggest case in the history of the Justice Department. Moses pled guilty and agreed to pay the government $8 million and settle $9 million in assorted tax claims, penalties and interest debts. Moses received a three-year sentence. He died in Lewisburg Penitentiary. Walter Annenbeg, the TV Guide magnate, was a lofty Republican. On the campaign trail in April, 1988, George Bush flew into Los Angeles to woo Reagan's kitchen cabinet. "This is the topping on the cake," Bush's regional campaign director told the Los Angeles Times. The Bush team met at Annenberg's plush Rancho Mirage estate at Sunnylands, California. It was at the Annenberg mansion that Nixon's cabinet was chosen, and the state's social and contributor registers built over a quarter-century of state political dominance by Ronald Reagan, whose acting career was launched by Operation MOCKINGBIRD. The commercialization of television, coinciding with Reagan's recruitment by the Crusade for Freedom, a CIA front, presented the intelligence world with unprecedented potential for sowing propaganda and even prying in the age of Big Brother. George Orwell glimpsed the possibilities when he installed omniscient video surveillance technology in 1948, a novel rechristened 1984 for the first edition published in the U.S. by Harcourt, Brace. Operation Octopus, according to federal files, was in full swing by 1948, a surveillance program that turned any television set with tubes into a broadcast transmitter. Agents of Octopus could pick up audio and visual images with the equipment as far as 25 miles away. Hale Boggs was investigating Operation Octopus at the time of his disappearance in the midst of the Watergate probe. In 1952, at MCA, Actors' Guild president Ronald Reagan - a screen idol recruited by MOCKINGBIRD's Crusade for Freedom to raise funds for the resettlement of Nazis in the U.S., according to Loftus - signed a secret waiver of the conflict-of-interest rule with the mob-controlled studio, in effect granting it a labor monopoly on early television programming. In exchange, MCA made Reagan a part owner. Furthermore, historian C. Vann Woodward, writing in the New York Times, in 1987, reported that Reagan had "fed the names of suspect people in his organization to the FBI secretly and regularly enough to be assigned 'an informer's code number, T-10.' His FBI file indicates intense collaboration with producers to 'purge' the industry of subversives." No one ever turned a suspicious eye on Walter Cronkite, a former intelligence officer and in the immediate postwar period UPI's Moscow correspondent. Cronkite was lured to CBS by Operation MOCKINGBIRD's Phil Graham, according to Deborah Davis. Another television conglomerate, Cap Cities, rose like a horror-film simian from CIA and Mafia heroin operations. Among other organized-crime Republicans, Thomas Dewey and his neighbor Lowell Thomas threw in to launch the infamous Resorts International, the corporate front for Lansky's branch of the federally-sponsored mob family and the corporate precursor to Cap Cities. Another of the investors was James Crosby, a Cap Cities executive who donated $100,000 to Nixon's 1968 presidential campaign. This

was the year that Resorts bought into Atlantic City casino interests. Police in New jersey attempted, with no success, to spike the issuance of a gambling license to the company, citing Mafia ties. In 1954, this same circle of investors, all Catholics, founded the broadcasting company notorious for overt propagandizing and general spookiness. The company's chief counsel was OSS veteran William Casey, who clung to his shares by concealing them in a blind trust even after he was appointed CIA director by Ronald Reagan in 1981. "Black radio" was the phrase CIA critic David Wise coined in The Invisible Government to describe the agency's intertwining interests in the emergence of the transistor radio with the entrepreneurs who took to the airwaves. "Daily, East and West beam hundreds of propaganda broadcasts at each other in an unrelenting babble of competition for the minds of their listeners. The low-price transistor has given the hidden war a new importance," enthused one foreign correspondent. A Hydra of private foundations sprang up to finance the propaganda push. One of them, Operations and Policy Research, Inc. (OPR), received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the CIA through private foundations and trusts. OPR research was the basis of a television series that aired in New York and Washington, D.C. in 1964, Of People and Politics, a "study" of the American political system in 21 weekly installments. In Hollywood, the visual cortex of The Beast, the same CIA/Mafia combination that formed Cap Cities sank its claws into the film studios and labor unions. Johnny Rosselli was pulled out of the Army during the war by a criminal investigation of Chicago mobsters in the film industry. Rosselli, a CIA asset probably assassinated by the CIA, played sidekick to Harry Cohn, the Columbia Pictures mogul who visited Italy's Benito Mussolini in 1933, and upon his return to Hollywood remodeled his office after the dictator's. The only honest job Rosselli ever had was assistant purchasing agent (and a secret investor) at Eagle Lion productions, run by Bryan Foy, a former producer for 20th Century Fox. Rosselli, Capone's representative on the West Coast, passed a small fortune in mafia investments to Cohn. Bugsy Seigel pooled gambling investments with Billy Wilkerson, publisher of the Hollywood Reporter. In the 1950s, outlays for global propaganda climbed to a full third of the CIA's covert operations budget. Some 3, 000 salaried and contract CIA employees were eventually engaged in propaganda efforts. The cost of disinforming the world cost American taxpayers an estimated $265 million a year by 1978, a budget larger than the combined expenditures of Reuters, UPI and the AP news syndicates. In 1977, the Copely News Service admitted that it worked closely with the intelligence services - in fact, 23 employees were full-time employees of the Agency. Most consumers of the corporate media were - and are - unaware of the effect that the salting of public opinion has on their own beliefs. A network anchorman in time of national crisis is an instrument of psychological warfare in the MOCKINGBIRD media. He is a creature from the national security sector's chamber of horrors. For this reason consumers of the corporate press have reason to examine their basic beliefs about government and life in the parallel universe of these United States.

How the Washington Post Censors the News [Note the highlighted paragraph]

How the Washington Post Censors the News

A Letter to the Washington Post by Julian C. Holmes _____________________________________________________ April 25, 1992 Richard Harwood, Ombudsman The Washington Post 1150 15th Street NW Washington, DC 20071 Dear Mr. Harwood,

Though the Washington Post does not over-extend itself in the pursuit of hard news, just let drop the faintest rumor of a government "conspiracy", and a klaxon horn goes off in the news room. Aroused from apathy in the daily routine of reporting assignations and various other political and social sports events, editors and reporters scramble to the phones. The klaxon screams its warning: the greatest single threat to herd-journalism, corporate profits, and government stability -- the dreaded "CONSPIRACY THEORY"!!

It is not known whether anyone has actually been hassled or accosted by any of these frightful spectres, but their presence is announced to Post readers with a salvo of warnings to avoid the tricky, sticky webs spun by the wacko "CONSPIRACY THEORISTS".

Recall how the Post saved us from the truth about Iran-Contra.

Professional conspiracy exorcist Mark Hosenball was hired to ridicule the idea that Oliver North and his CIA-associated gangsters had conspired to do wrong (*1). And when, in their syndicated column, Jack Anderson and Dale Van Atta discussed some of the conspirators, the Post sprang to protect its readers,

and the conspirators, by censoring the Anderson column before printing it (*2).

But for some time the lid had been coming off the Iran-Contra conspiracy. In 1986, the Christic Institute, an interfaith center for law and public policy, had filed a lawsuit alleging a U.S. arms-for-drugs trade that helped keep weapons flowing to the CIA-Contra army in Nicaragua, and cocaine flowing to U.S. markets (*3). In 1988 Leslie Cockburn published Out of Control, a seminal work on our bizarre, illegal war against Nicaragua (*4). The Post contributed to this discovery process by disparaging the charges of conspiracy and by publishing false information about the drug-smuggling evidence presented to the House Subcommittee on Narcotics Abuse and Control. When accused by Committee Chairman Charles Rangel (D-NY). of misleading reporting, the Post printed only a partial correction and declined to print a letter of complaint from Rangel (*5).

Sworn testimony before Senator John Kerry's Subcommittee on Terrorism, Narcotics, and International Operations confirmed U.S. Government complicity in the drug trade (*6). With its coverup of the arms/drug conspiracy evaporating, the ever-accommodating Post shifted gears and retained Hosenball to exorcise from our minds a newly emerging threat to domestic tranquility, the "October Surprise" conspiracy (*7). But close on the heels of Hosenball and the Post came Barbara Honegger and then Gary Sick who authored independently, two years apart, books with the same title, "October Surprise" (*8). Honegger was a member of the Reagan/Bush campaign and transition teams in 1980. Gary Sick, professor of Middle East Politics at Columbia University, was on the staff of the National Security Council under Presidents Ford, Carter, and Reagan. In 1989 and 1991 respectively, Honegger and Sick published their evidence of how the Republicans made a deal to supply arms to Iran if Iran would delay release of the 52 United States hostages until after the November 1980 election. The purpose of this deal was to quash the possibility of a pre-election release(an October surprise). which would have bolstered the reelection prospects for President Carter.

Others published details of this alleged Reagan-Bush conspiracy. In October 1988, Playboy Magazine ran an expose "An Election Held Hostage"; FRONTLINE did another in April 1991 (*9). In June, 1991 a conference of distinguished journalists, joined by 8 of the former hostages, challenged the Congress to "make a full, impartial investigation" of the election/hostage allegations. The Post reported the statement of the hostages, but not a word of the conference itself

which was held in the Dirksen Senate Office Building Auditorium (*10). On February 5, 1992 a gun-shy, uninspired House of Representatives begrudgingly authorized an "October Surprise" investigation by a task force of 13 congressmen headed by Lee Hamilton (D-IN). who had chaired the House of Representatives Iran-Contra Committee. Hamilton has named as chief team counsel Larry Barcella, a lawyer who represented BCCI when the Bank was indicted in 1988 (*11).

Like the Washington Post, Hamilton had not shown interest in pursuing the U.S. arms-for-drugs operation (*12). He had accepted Oliver North's lies,and as Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee he derailed House Resolution 485 which had asked President Reagan to answer questions about Contra support activities of government officials and others (*13). After CIA operative John

Hull (from Hamilton's home state). was charged in Costa Rica with "international drug trafficking and hostile acts against the nation's security", Hamilton and 18 fellow members of Congress tried to intimidate Costa Rican President Oscar Arias Sanchez into handling Hull's case "in a manner that will not complicate U.S.-Costa Rican relations" (*14). The Post did not report the Hamilton letter or the Costa Rican response that declared Hull's case to be "in as good hands as our 100 year old uninterrupted democracy can provide to all citizens" (*15).

Though the Post does its best to guide our thinking away from conspiracy theories, it is difficult to avoid the fact that so much wrongdoing involves government or corporate conspiracies:

In its COINTELPRO operation, the FBI used disinformation, forgery, surveillance, false arrests, and violence to illegally harass U.S.citizens in the 60's (*16).

The CIA's Operation MONGOOSE illegally sabotaged Cuba by "destroying crops, brutalizing citizens, destabilizing the society, and conspiring with the Mafia to assassinate Fidel Castro and other leaders" (*17).

"Standard Oil of New Jersey was found by the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice to be conspiring with I.G.Farben...of Germany. ...By its cartel agreements with Standard Oil, the United States was effectively prevented from developing or producing [fo rWorld War-II] any substantial amount of synthetic rubber," said Senator Robert LaFollette of Wisconsin (*18).

U.S. Government agencies knowingly withheld information about dosages of radiation "almost certain to produce thyroid abnormalities or cancer" that contaminated people residing near the nuclear weapons factory at Hanford, Washington (*19).

Various branches of Government deliberately drag their feet in getting around to cleaning up the Nation's dangerous nuclear weapons sites (*20). State and local governments back the nuclear industry's secret public relations strategy (*21).

"The National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society and some twenty comprehensive cancer centers, have misled and confused the public and Congress by repeated claims that we are winning the war against cancer. In fact, the cancer establishment has continually minimized the evidence for increasing cancer rates which it has largely attributed to smoking and dietary fat, while discounting or ignoring the causal role of avoidable eposures to industrial carcinogens in the air, food, water, and the workplace." (*22).

The Bush Administration coverup of its pre-Gulf-War support of Iraq "is yet another example of the President's people conspiring to keep both Congress and the American people in the dark" (*23).

If you think about it, conspiracy is a fundamental aspect of doing business in this country.

Take the systematic and cooperative censorship of the Persian Gulf War by the Pentagon and much of the news media (*24).

Or the widespread plans of business and government groups to spend $100 million in taxes to promote a distorted and truncated history of Columbus in America (*25). along the lines of the Smithsonian Institution's "fusion of the two worlds", (*26). rather than examining more realistic aspects of the Spanish invasion, like "anger, cruelty, gold, terror, and death" (*27).

Or circumstances surrounding the U.S. Justice Department theft from the INSLAW company of sophisticated, law-enforcement computer software which "now point to a widespread conspiracy implicating lesser Government officials in the theft of INSLAW's technology", says former U.S. Attorney General Elliot Richardson (*28).

Or Watergate.

Or the "largest bank fraud in world financial history" (*29), where the White House knew of the criminal activities at "the Bank of Crooks and Criminals International" (BCCI) (*30), where U.S. intelligence agencies did their secret banking (*31), and where bribery of prominent American public officials "was a way of doing business" (*32).

Or the 1949 conviction of "GM [General Motors], Standard Oil of California, Firestone, and E. Roy Fitzgerald, among others, for criminally conspiring to replace electric transportation with gas- and diesel-powered buses and to monopolize the sale of buses and related products to transportation companies throughout the country" [in, among others, the cities of New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, St. Louis, Oakland, Salt Lake City, and Los Angeles] (*33).

Or the collusion in 1973 between Senator Abraham Ribicoff (D-CT). and the U.S. Department of Transportation to overlook safety defects in the 1.2 million Corvair automobiles manufactured by General Motors in the early 60's (*34).

Or the A. H. Robins Company, which manufactured the Dalkon Shield intrauterine contraceptive, and which ignored repeated warnings of the Shield's hazards and which "stonewalled, deceived, covered up, and

covered up the coverups...[thus inflicting] on women a worldwide epidemic of pelvic infections." (*35).

Or that cooperation between McDonnell Douglas Aircraft Company and the FAA resulted in failure to enforce regulations regarding the unsafe DC-10 cargo door which failed in flight killing all 364 passengers on Turkish Airlines Flight 981 on March 3, 1974 (*36). Or the now-banned, cancer-producing pregnancy drug Diethylstilbestrol (DES). that was sold by manufacturers who ignored tests which showed DES to be carcinogenic; and who acted "in concert with each other in the testing and marketing of DES for miscarriage purposes" (*37).

Or the conspiracies among bankers and speculators, with the cooperation of a corrupted Congress, to relieve depositors of their savings. This "arrogant disregard from the White House, Congress and corporate world for the interests and rights of the American people" will cost U.S. tapayers many hundreds of billions of dollars (*38).

Or the Westinghouse, Allis Chalmers,Federal Pacific, and General Electric executives who met surreptitiously in hotel rooms to fix prices and eliminate competition on heavy industrial equipment (*39). Or the convictions of Industrial Biotest Laboratories (IBT). officers for fabricating safety tests on prescription drugs (*40).

Or the conspiracy by the asbestos industry to suppress knowledge of medical problemsrelating to asbestos (*41).

Or the 1928 Achnacarry Agreement through which oil companies "agreed not to engage in any effective price competition" (*42).

Or the conspiracy among U.S. Government agencies and the Congress to cover up the nature of our decades-old war against the people of Nicaragua

a covert war that continues in 1992 with the U.S. Government applying pressure for the Nicaraguan police to reorganize into a more repressive force (*43).

Or the conspiracy by the CIA and the U.S. Government to interfere in the Chilean election process with military aid, covert actions, and an economic boycott which culminated in the overthrow of the legitimately elected government and the assassination of President Salvador Allende in 1973 (*44).

Or the conspiracy among U.S. officials including Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and CIA Director William Colby to finance terrorism in Angola for the purpose of disrupting Angola's plans for peaceful elections in October 1975, and to lie about these actions to the Congress and the news media (*45). And CIA Director George Bush's subsequent cover up of this U.S.-sponsored terrorism (*46).

Or President George Bush's consorting with the Pentagon to invade Panama in 1989 and thereby violate the Constitution of the United States, the U.N. Charter, the O.A.S. Charter, and the Panama Canal Treaties (*47).

Or the "gross antitrust violations" (*48) and the conspiracy of American oil companies and the British and U.S. governments to strangle Iran economically after Iran nationalized the British-owned Anglo-Iranian Oil Company in 1951. And the subsequent overthrow by the CIA in 1953 of Iranian Prime Minister Muhammed Mossadegh (*49).

Or the CIA-planned assassination of Congo head-of-state Patrice Lumumba (*50).

Or the deliberate and wilful efforts of President George Bush, Senator Robert Dole, Senator George Mitchell, various U.S. Government agencies, and members of both Houses of the Congress to buy the 1990 Nicaraguan national elections for the presidential candidate supported by President Bush (*51).

Or the collective approval by 64 U.S. Senators of Robert Gates to head the CIA, in the face of "unmistakable evidence that Gates lied about his role in the Iran-Contra scandal" (*52).

Or "How Reagan and the Pope Conspired to Assist Poland's Solidarity Movement and Hasten the Demise of Communism" (*53).

Or how the Reagan Administration connived with the Vatican to ban the use of USAID funds by any country "for the promotion of birth control or abortion" (*54).

Or "the way the Vatican and Washington colluded to achieve common purpose in Central America" (*55).

Or the collaboration of Guatemalan strong-man and mass murderer Hector Gramajo with the U.S. Army to design "programs to build civilian-military cooperation" at the U.S. Army School of the Americas (SOA) at Fort Benning, Georgia; five of the nine soldiers accused in the 1989 Jesuit massacre in El Salvador are graduates of SOA which trains Latin/American military personnel (*56).

Or the conspiracy of the Comanche Peak Nuclear Plant administration to harass and cause bodily harm to whistleblower Linda Porter who uncovered dangerous working conditions at the facility (*57).

Or the conspiracy of President Richard Nxion and the Government of South Vietnam to delay the Paris Peace Talks until after the 1968 U.S. presidential election (*58).

Or the pandemic coverups of police violence (*59).

Or the always safe-to-cite worldwide communist conspiracy (*60).

Or maybe the socially responsible, secret consortium to publish The Satanic Verses in paperback (*61).

Conspiracies are obviously a way to get things done, and the Washington Post offers little comment unless conspiracy theorizing threatens to expose a really important conspiracy that, let's say, benefits big business or big government.

Such a conspiracy would be like our benevolent CIA's 1953 overthrow of the Iranian government to help out U.S. oil companies; or like our illegal war against Panama to tighten U.S. control over Panama and the Canal; or like monopoly control of broadcasting that facilitates corporate censorship on issues of public importance (*62). When the camouflage of such conspiracies is stripped away, public confidence in the conspiring officials can erode -depending on how seriously the citizenry perceives the conspiracy to have violated the public trust. Erosion of public trust in the status quo is what the Post seems to see as a real threat to its corporate security.

Currently, the Post has mounted vituperative, frenzied attacks on Oliver Stone's movie "JFK", which reexamines the U.S. Government's official (Warren Commission. finding that a single gunman, acting alone, killed President John F. Kennedy. The movie also is the story of New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison's unsuccessful prosecution of Clay Shaw, the only person ever tried in connection with the assassination. And the movie proposes that the Kennedy assassination was the work of conspirators whose interests would not be served by a president who, had he lived, might have disengaged us from our war against Vietnam.

The Post ridicules a reexamination of the Kennedy assassination along lines suggested by "JFK". Senior Post journalists like Charles Krauthammer, Ken Ringle, George Will, Phil McCombs, and Michael Isikoff, have been called up to man the bulwarks against public sentiment which has never supported the government's non-conspiratorial assassination thesis. In spite of the facts that the Senate Intelligence Committee of 1975 and 1976 found that "both the FBI and CIA had repeatedly lied to the Warren Commission" (*63) and that the

1979 Report of the House Select Committee on Assassinations found that President Kennedy was probably killed "as a result of a conspiracy" (*64), a truly astounding number of Post stories have been used as vehicles to discredit "JFK" as just another conspiracy (*65).

Some of the more vicious attacks on the movie are by editor Stephen Rosenfeld, and journalists Richard Cohen, George Will, and George Lardner Jr (*66). They ridicule the idea that Kennedy could have had second thoughts about escalating the Vietnam War and declaim that there is no historical justification for this idea. Seasoned journalist Peter Dale Scott, former Pentagon/CIA liaison chief L. Fletcher Prouty, and investigators David Scheim and John Newman have each authored defense of the "JFK" thesis that Kennedy was not enthusiastic about staying in Vietnam (*67). But the Post team just continues ranting against the possibility of a high-level assassination conspiracy while offering little justification for its arguments.

An example of particularly shabby scholarship and unacceptable behavior is George Lardner Jr's contribution to the Post's campaign against the movie. Lardner wrote three articles, two before the movie was completed, and the third upon its release. In May, six months before the movie came out, Lardner obtained a copy of the first draft of the script and, contrary to accepted standards, revealed in the Post the contents of this copyrighted movie (*68). Also in this article, (*69). Lardner discredits Jim Garrison with hostile statements from a former Garrison associate Pershing Gervais. Lardner does not tell the reader that subsequent to the Clay Shaw trial, in a U.S. Government criminal action brought against Garrison, Government witness Gervais, who helped set up Garrison for prosecution, admitted under oath that in a May 1972 interview with a New Orleans television reporter, he, Gervais, had said that the U.S. Government's case against Garrison was a fraud (*70). The Post's 1973 account of thebr> Garrison acquittal mentions this controversy, but when I recently asked Lardner about this, he was not clear as to whether he remembered it (*71).

Two weeks after his first "JFK" article, Lardner blustered his way through a justification for his unauthorized possession of the early draft ofthe movie (*72). He also defended his reference to Pershing Gervais by lashing out at Garrison as a writer "of gothic fiction".

When the movie was released in December, Lardner "reviewed" it (*73). He again ridiculed the film's thesis that following the Kennedy assassination, President Johnson reversed Kennedy's plans to de-escalate the Vietnam War. Lardner cited a memorandum issued by Johnson four days after Kennedy died. Lardner says this memorandum was written before the assassination, and that it "was a continuation of Kennedy's policy". In fact, the memorandum was drafted the day before the assassination by McGeorge Bundy (Kennedy's Assistant for National Security Affairs) Kennedy was in Texas, and may never have seen it. Following the assassination, it was rewritten; and the final version provided for escalating the war against Vietnam (*74) -- facts that Lardner avoided.

The Post's crusade against exposing conspiracies is blatantly dishonest:

The Warren Commission inquiry into the Kennedy Assassination was for the most part conducted in secret. This fact is buried in the Post (*75). Nor do current readers of this newspaper find meaningful discussion of the Warren Commission's secret doubts about both the FBI and the CIA (*76). Or of a dispatch from CIA headquarters instructing co-conspirators at field stations to counteract the "new wave of books and articles criticizing the [Warren] Commission's findings...[and] conspiracy theories ...[that] have frequently thrown suspicion on our organization" and to "discuss the publicity problem with liaison and friendly elite contacts, especially politicians and editors "and to"employ propaganda assets to answer and refute the attacks of the critics. ...Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose. ...The aim of this dispatch is to provide material for countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists..." (*77).

In 1979, Washington journalist Deborah Davis published Katharine The Great, the story of Post publisher Katharine Graham and her newspaper's close ties with Washington's powerful elite, a number of whom were with the CIA.

Particularly irksome to Post editor Benjamin Bradlee was a Davis claim that Bradlee had "produced CIA material" (*78). Understandably sensitive about this

kind of publicity, Bradlee told Davis' publisher Harcourt Brace Jovanovich ,"Miss Davis is lying ...I never produced CIA material ...what I can do is to brand Miss Davis as a fool and to put your company in that special little group of publishers who don't give a shit for the truth". The Post bullied HBJ into recalling the book; HBJ shredded 20,000 copies; Davis sued HBJ for breach of contract and damage to reputation; HBJ settled out of court; and Davis published her book elsewhere with an appendix that demonstrated Bradlee to have been deeply involved with producing cold-war/CIA propaganda (*79). Bradlee still says the allegations about his association with people in the CIA are false, but he has apparently taken no action to contest the xetensive documentation presented by Deborah Davis in the second and third editions of her book (*80).

And it's not as if the Post were new to conspiracy work.

Former Washington Post publisher Philip Graham "believing that the function of the press was more often than not to mobilize consent for the policies of the government, was one of the architects of what became a widespread practice: the use and manipulation of journalists by the CIA" (*81). This scandal was known by its code name Operation MOCKINGBIRD. Former Washington Post reporter Carl Bernstein cites a former CIA deputy director as saying, "It was widely known that Phil Graham was someone you could get help from" (*82). More recently the Post provided cover for CIA personality Joseph Fernandez by "refusing to print his name for over a year up until the day his indictment was announced ...for crimes committed in his official capacity as CIA station chief in Costa Rica" (*83).

Of the meetings between Graham and his CIA acquaintances at which the availability and prices of journalists were discussed, a former CIA man recalls, "You could get a journalist cheaper than a good call girl, for a couple hundred dollars a month" (*84). One may wish to consider Philip Graham's philosophy along with a more recent statement from his wife Katharine Graham, current Chairman of the Board of the Washington

Post. In a lecture on terrorism and the news media, Mrs. Graham said: "A second challenge facing the media is how to prevent terrorists from using the media as a platform fortheir views. ... The point is that we generally know when we are being manipulated, and we've learned better how and where to draw the line, though the decisions are often difficult" (*85).

Today, the Post and its world of big business are apparently terrified that our elite and our high-level public officials may be exposed as conspirators behind Contra drug-smuggling, October Surprise, or the assassination of President Kennedy. This fear is truly remarkable in that, like most of us and like most institutions, the Post runs its business as a conspiracy of like-minded entrepreneurs -- a conspiracy "to act or work together toward the same result or goal" (*86). But where the Post really parts company from just plain people is when it pretends that conspiracies associated with big business or government are "coincidence". Post reporter Lardner vents the frustration inherent in having to maintain this dichotomy. He lashes out at Oliver Stone and suggests that Stone may actually believe that the Post's opposition to Stone's movie is a "conspiracy". Lardner assures us that Stone's complaints are "groundless and paranoid and smack of McCarthyism" (*87).

So how does the Post justify devoting so much energy to ridiculing those who investigate conspiracies?

The Post has answers: people revert to conspiracy theories because they need something "neat and tidy" (*88) that "plugs a gap no other generally accepted theory fills', (*89. and "coincidence ...is always the safest and most likely explanation for any conjunction of curious circumstances ..." (*90).

And what does this response mean? It means that "coincidence theory" is what the Post espouses when it would prefer not to admit to a conspiracy. In other words, some things just "happen". And, besides, conspiracy to do certain things would be a crime; "coincidence" is a

safer bet.

Post Ombudsman Richard Harwood, who, it is rumored, serves as Executive Director of the Benevolent Protective Order of Coincidence Theorists, (*91) recently issued a warning about presidential candidates "who have begun to mutter about a press conspiracy". Ordinarily, Harwood would simply dismiss these charges as "symptoms of the media paranoia that quadrennially engulfs members of the American political class" (*92). But a fatal mistake was made by the mutterers; they used the "C" word against the PRESS! And Harwood exploded his off-the-cuff comment into an entire column -- ending it with:"We are the new journalists, immersed too long, perhaps, in the cleansing waters of political conformity. But conspirators we ain't".

Distinguished investigative journalist Morton Mintz, a 29-year veteran of the Washington Post, now chairs the Fund for Investigative Journalism. In the December issue of The Progressive, Mintz wrote "A Reporter Looks Back in Anger -- Why the Media Cover Up Corporate Crime". Therein he discussed the difficulties in convincing editors to accept important news stories. He illustrated the article with his own experiences at the Post, where he says he was known as "the biggest pain in the ass in the office" (*93).

Would Harwood argue that grief endured by journalists at the hands of editors is a matter of random coincidence?

And that such policy as Mintz described is made independently by editors without influence from fellow editors or from management? Would Harwood have us believe that at the countless office "meetings" in which news people are ever in attendance, there is no discussion of which stories will run and which ones will find inadequate space? That there is no advanced planning for stories or that there are no cooperative efforts among the staff? Or that in the face of our news-media "grayout" of presidential candidate Larry Agran, (*94) a Post journalist would be free to give news space to candidate Agran equal to that the Post lavishes on candidate Clinton? Let's face it: these possibilities are about as likely as Barbara Bush entertaining guests at a soup kitchen.

Would Harwood have us believe that media critic and former Post Ombudsman Ben Bagdikian is telling less than the truth in his account of wire-service control over news: "The largely anonymous men who control the syndicate and wire service copy desks and the central wire photo machines determine at a single decision what millions will see and hear. ...there seems to be little doubt that these gatekeepers preside over an operation in which an appalling amount of press agentry sneaks in the back door of American journalism and marches untouched out the front door as 'news'" (*95).

When he sat on the U.S. District Court of Appeals in Washington, Judge Clarence Thomas violated U.S. law when he failed to remove himself from a case in which he then proceeded to reverse a $10 million judgment against the Ralston Purina Company (*96). Ralston Purina, the animal feed empire, is the family fortune of Thomas' mentor, Senator John Danforth. The Post limited its coverage of the Thomas malfeasance to 56 words buried in the middle of a 1200-word article (*97). Would Harwood have us believe that the almost complete blackout on this matter by the major news media and the U.S. Senate was a matter of coincidence? Could a Post reporter have written a story about Ralston Purina if she had wanted to? Can a brick swim?

Or take the fine report produced last September by Ralph Nader's Public Citizen. Titled All the Vice President's Men, it documents "How the Quayle Council on Competitiveness Secretly Undermines Health, Safety, and Environmental Programs". Three months later, Post journalists David Broder and Bob Woodward published "The President's Understudy", a seven-part series on Vice President Quayle. Although this series does address Quayle's role with the Competitiveness Council, its handling of the Council's disastrous impact on America is inadequate. It is 40,000 words of mostly aimless chatter about Quayle memorabilia: youth, family, college record, Christianity, political aspirations, intellectual aspirations, wealthy friends, government associates, golf, travels, wife Marilyn, and net worth -- revealing little about Quayle's abilities, his understanding of society's problems, or his thoughts about justice and freedom, and never mentioning the comprehensive Nader study of Quayle's record in the Bush Administration (*98).

Now, did Broder or did Woodward forget about the Nader study? Or did both of them forget? Or did one, or the other, or both decide not to mention it? Did these two celebrated, seasoned Post reporters ever discuss together their jointly authored stories? Did they decide to publish such a barren set of articles because it would enhance their reputations? How did management feel about the use of precious news space for such frivolity? Is it possible that so many pages were dedicated to this twaddle without people "acting or working together toward the same result or goal"? (*99) Do crocodiles fly?

On March 20, front-page headlines in the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, USA Today, and the Washington Post read respectively:

TSONGAS DROPPED OUT OF THE PRESIDENTIAL RACE CLEARING CLINTON'S PATH

TSONGAS ABANDONS CAMPAIGN LEAVING CLINTON CLEAR PATH TOWARD SHOWDOWN WITH BUSH

TSONGAS CLEARS WAY FOR CLINTON

TSONGAS EXIT CLEARS WAY FOR CLINTON

This display of editorial independence should at least raise questions of whether the news media collective mindset is really different from that of any other cartel -- like oil, diamond, energy, (*100) or manufacturing cartels, a cartel being "a combination of independent commercial enterprises designed to limit competition" (*101).

The Washington Post editorial page carries the heading:

AN INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPER

Is it? Of course not. There probably is no such thing. Does the Post"conspire" to keep its staff and its newspaper from wandering too far from the safety of mediocrity? The Post would respond that the question is absurd. In that I am not privy to the Post's telephone conversations, I can only speculate on how closely the media elite must monitor the staff. But we all know how few micro-seconds it takes a new reporter to learn what subjects are taboo and what are "safe", and that experienced reporters don't have to ask.

What is more important, however, than speculating about how the Post communicates within its own corporate structure and with other members of the cartel, is to document and publicize what the Post does in public, namely, how it shapes and censors the news.

Sincerely,

Julian C. Holmes

Copies to: Public-spirited citizens, both inside and outside the news media, And - maybe a few others. Notes to Letter of April 25, 1992:

1. Mark Hosenball, "The Ultimate Conspiracy", Washington Post, September 11, 1988, p.C1

2a. Julian Holmes, Letter to Washington Post Ombudsman

Richard Harwood, June 4,1991. Notes that the Post censored, from the Anderson/Van Atta column, references to the Christic Institute and to Robert Gates.

2b. Jack Anderson and Dale Van Atta, "Iran-Contra Figure Dodges Extradition", Washington Merry-Go-Round, United Feature Syndicate, May 26, 1991. This is the column submitted to the Post (see note 2a)..

2c. Jack Anderson and Dale Van Atta, "The Man Washington Doesn't Want to Extradite", Washington Post, May 26, 1991. The column (see note 2b). as it appeared in the Post (see note 2a)..

3a. Case No. 86-1146-CIV-KING, Amended Complaint

for RICO Conspiracy, etc., United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, Tony Avirgan and Martha Honey v. John Hull et al., October 3, 1986.

3b. Vince Bielski and Dennis Bernstein, "Reports: Contras Send Drugs to U.S.", Cleveland Plain Dealer, November 16, 1986.

3c. Neal Matthews, "I Ran Drugs for Uncle Sam" (based on interviews with Robert Plumlee, contra resupply pilot)., San Diego Reader, April 5, 1990.

4. Leslie Cockburn, Out of Control. New York: Atlantic Monthly Press, 1987.

5a. Peter Dale Scott and Jonathan Marshall, Cocaine Politics, University ofCalifornia Press, 1991, p.179-181.

5b. David S. Hilzenrath, "Hill Panel Finds No Evidence Linking Contras to Drug Smuggling", Washington Post, July 22, 1987, p.A07.

5c. Partial correction to the Washington Post of July 22, Washington Post, July 24,1987, p.A3.

5d. The Washington Post declined to publish SubCommittee Chairman Rangel's Letterto-the-Editor of July 22, 1987. It was printed in the Congressional Record on August 6, 1987, p.E3296-7.

6a. Michael Kranish, "Kerry Says US Turned Blind Eye to Contra-Drug Trail", Boston Globe, April 10, 1988.

6b. Mary McGrory, "The Contra-Drug Stink", Washington Post, April 10, 1988, p.B1. 6c. Robert Parry with Rod Nordland, "Guns for Drugs? Senate Probers Trace an Old Contra Connection to George Bush's Office", Newsweek, May 23, 1988, p.22.

6d. Dennis Bernstein, "Iran-Contra -- The Coverup Continues", The Progressive, November 1988, p.24.

6e. "Drugs, Law Enforcement and Foreign Policy", A Report Prepared by the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Narcotics, and

International Operations of the Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate, December 1988.

7a. Mark Hosenball, "If It's October ... Then It's Time for an Iranian Conspiracy Theory", Washington Post, October 9, 1988, p.D1.

7b. Mark Hosenball, "October Surprise! Redux! The Latest Version of the 1980 'Hostage- Deal' Story Is Still Full of Holes", Washington Post, April 21, 1991,p.B2.

8a. Barbara Honegger, October Surprise, New York: Tudor, 1989.

8b. Gary Sick, October Surprise, New York: Times

Books, Random House, 1991.

9a. Abbie Hoffman and Jonathan Silvers, "An Election Held Hostage", Playboy, October 1988, p.73.

9b. Robert Parry and Robert Ross, "The Election Held Hostage", FRONTLINE, WGBH-TV,April 16, 1991.

10a. Reuter, "Ex-Hostages Seek Probe By Congress", Washington Post, June 14,1991,p.A4.

10b. "An Election Held Hostage?", Conference, Dirksen Senate Office Building Auditorium, Washington DC, June 13, 1991; Sponsored by The Fund For New Priorities in America, 171 Madison

Avenue, New York, NY, 10016.

11a. David Brown and Guy Gugliotta, "House Approves Inquiry Into 'OctoberSurprise'", Washington Post, February 6, 1992, p.A11.

11b. Jack Colhoun, "Lawmakers Lose Nerve on October Surprise", The Guardian, December 11, 1991, p.7.

11c. Jack Colhoun, "October Surprise Probe Taps BCCI Lawyer", The Guardian, February 26, 1992, p.3.

12. See note 5a, p.180-1.

13a. See note 4, p.229, 240-1.

13b. Report of the Congressional Committees Investigating the Iran-Contra Affair, Senate Report No. 100-216, House Report No. 100-433, November 1987, p.139-141.

14a. Letter to His Excellency Oscar Arias Sanchez, President of the Republic of Costa Rica; from Members of the U.S. Congress David Dreier, Lee Hamilton, Dave McCurdy, Dan Burton, Mary Rose Oakar, Jim Bunning, Frank McCloskey, Cass Ballenger, Peter Kostmayer, Jim Bates, Douglas Bosco, James Inhofe, Thomas Foglietta, Rod Chandler, Ike Skelton, Howard Wolpe, Gary Ackerman, Robert Lagomarsino, and Bob McEwen; January 26, 1989.

14b. Peter Brennan, "Costa Rica Considers Seeking Contra Backer in U.S. -- Indiana Native Wanted on Murder Charge in 1984 Bomb Attack in Nicaragua", WashingtonPost, February 1, 1990.

14c. "Costa Rica Seeks Extradition of Indiana Farmer", Scripps-Howard News Service,April 25, 1991.

15. Press Release from the Costa Rican Embassy, Washington DC, On the Case of the Imprisonment of Costa Rican Citizen John Hull", February 6, 1989.

16. Brian Glick, War at Home, Boston: South End Press, 1989.

17. John Stockwell, The Praetorian Guard-- The U.S. Role in the New World Order, Boston: South End Press, 1991, p.121.

18. Hearings Before the Committee on Patents, United States Senate, 77th Cong., 2nd Session (1942)., part I, as cited in Joseph Borkin, The Crime and Punishment of I.G. Farben, New York: The Free Press, Macmillan, 1978, p.93.

19. R. Jeffrey Smith, "Study of A-Plant Neighbors' Health Urged", Washington Post, July 13, 1990, p.A6.

20. Tom Horton, "A Cost Higher Than the Peace Dividend -Price Tag Mounts to Clean Up Nuclear Weapons Sites",

Baltimore Sun, February 23, 1992, p.1K.

21. "The Nuclear Industry's Secret PR Strategy", EXTRA!, March 1992, p.15.

22a. Samuel S. Epstein, MD et al, Losing the War Against Cancer: Need for PublicPolicy Reform", Congressional Record, April 2, 1992, p.E947-9.

22b. Samuel S. Epstein, "The Cancer Establishment", Washington Post, March 10, 1992.

23a. Hon. Henry B. Gonzalez, "Efforts to Thwart Investigation of the BNL Scandal", Congressional Record, March 30, 1992, p.H2005-2014.

23b. Hon. David E. Skaggs (CO)., White House Spin Control on Pre-War Iraq Policy", Congressional Record, April 2, 1992, p.H2285.

23c. Nicholas Rostow, Special Assistant to the President and Legal Adviser, Memorandum to Jeanne S. Archibald et al, "Meeting on congressional requests for information and documents", April 8, 1991; Congressional Record, April 2, 1992,p.H2285.

24a. Michio Kaku, "Operation Desert Lie: Pentagon Confesses", The

Guardian, March11, 1992, p.4.

24b. J. Max Robins, "NBC's Unaired Iraq Tapes Not a Black and White Case", Variety Magazine, March 4, 1991, p.25.

25. Emory R. Searcy Jr., Clergy and Laity Concerned, Spring 1991 Letter to"Friends", p.1.

26. Jean Dimeo, "Selling Hispanics on Columbus -- Luis Vasquez-Ajmac Is Hired to Promote Smithsonian Project", Washington Post, November 18, 1991, p.Bus.8.

27. Hans Koning, "Teach the Truth About Columbus", Washington Post, September 3,1991, p.A19.

28a. James Kilpatrick,

"Software-Piracy Case Emitting Big Stench", St. Louis Post/Dispatch, March 18, 1991, p.3B. Elliot L. Richardson, "A High-Tech Watergate", New York Times, October 21,1991.

29. "BCCI -- NBC Sunday Today", February 23, 1992, p.12; transcript prepared by Burrelle's Information Services. The quote is from New York District Attorney Robert Morgenthau who is running his own independent investigation of BCCI.

30. Norman Bailey, former Reagan White House intelligence analyst; from an interview with Mark Rosenthal of NBC News. See note 29, p.5.

31. Jack Colhoun, "BCCI Skeletons Haunting Bush's Closet", The Guardian, September 18, 1991, p.9.

32. Robert Morgenthau. See note 29, p.10.

33. Russell Mokhiber, Corporate Crime and Violence, San Francisco: Sierra ClubBooks, 1989 paperback edition, p.227.

34. See note 33, p.136-7.

35. Morton Mintz, At Any Cost: Corporate Greed, Women, and the Dalkon Shield, NewYork: Pantheon, 1985. As cited in Mokhiber, see note 33, p.157.

36. See note 33, p.164-171.

37. See note 33, p.172-180.

38. Michael Waldman, Who Robbed America?, New York: Random House, 1990. The quote is from Ralph Nader's Introduction, p.iii.

39. See note 33, p.217.

40. See note 33, p.235.

41. See note 33, p.277-288.

42. See note 33, p.323.

43. Katherine Hoyt Gonzalez, Nicaragua Network Education Fund Newsletter, March1992, p.1.

44. William Blum, The CIA -- A Forgotten History, London: Zed Books Ltd., 1986,p.232-243.

45a. John Stockwell, In Search of Enemies, New York: Norton, 1978.

45b. See note 44, p.284-291.

46. See note 17, p.18.

47a. Letter to President George Bush from The Ad Hoc Committee for Panama (James Abourezk et

al)., January 10, 1990; published in The Nation, February 5, 1990, p.163.

47b. Philip E. Wheaton, Panama, Trenton NJ: Red Sea Press, 1992, p.145-7.

48a. Morton Mintz and Jerry S. Cohen, Power, Inc., New York: Bantam Books, 1977,p.521.

48b. "The International Oil Cartel", Federal Trade Commission, December 2, 1949. Cited in 48a, p.521.

49a. See note 44, p.67-76.

49b. See note 48a, p.530-1.

50. Ralph W. McGehee, Deadly Deceits, New York: Sheridan Square Publications, 1983,p.60.

51. HR-3385, "An Act to Provide Assistance for Free and Fair Elections in Nicaragua". Passed the U.S. House of Representatives on October 4, 1989 by avote of 263 to 136, and the Senate on October 17 by a vote of 64 to 35.

52. Jack Colhoun, "Gates Oozing Trail of Lies, Gets Top CIA Post", The Guardian,November 20, 1991, p.6.

53. Carl Bernstein, Time, February 24, 1992, Cover Story p.28-35.

54. "The U.S. and the Vatican on Birth Control", Time, February 24, 1992, p.35.

55. "Time's Missing Link: Poland to Latin America", National Catholic Reporter,February 28, 1992, p.24.

56a. Jim Lynn, "School of Americas Commander Hopes to Expand Mission", Benning Patriot, February 21, 1992, p.12.

56b. Vicky Imerman, "U.S. Army School of the Americas Plans Expansion", News Release from S.O.A. Watch, P.O. Bo 3330, Columbus, Georgia 31903.

57. 60 MINUTES, CBS, March 8, 1992.

58. Jack Colhoun, "Tricky Dick's Quick Election Fix", The Guardian, January 29,1992, p.18.

59a. Sean P. Murphy, "Several Probes May Have Ignored Evidence Against Police", Boston Globe, July 28, 1991, p.1.

59b. Christopher B. Daly, "Pattern of Police Abuses Reported in Boston Case", Washington Post, July 12, 1991, p.A3.

59c. Associated Press, "Dayton Police Probing Erasure of Arrest Video", WashingtonPost, May 26, 1991, p.A20.

59d. Gabriel Escobar, "Deaf Man's Death In Police Scuffle Called Homicide", Washington Post, May 18, 1991, p.B1.

59e. Jay Mathews, "L.A. Police Laughed at Beating", Washington Post, March 19, 1991, p.A1.

59f. David Maraniss, "One Cop's View of Police Violence", Washington Post, April 12,1991, p.A1.

59g. From News Services, "Police Abuse Detailed", Washington Post, February 8, 1992,p.A8.

60. Michael Dobbs, "Panhandling the Kremlin: How Gus Hall Got Millions",

Washington Post, March 1, 1992, p.A1.

61. David Streitfeld, "Secret Consortium To Publish Rushdie In Paperback", Washington Post, March 14, 1992, p.D1.

62a. See notes 48 and 49.

62b. See note 47b, p.63-76.

62c. "Fairness In Broadcasting Act of 1987", U.S. Senate Bill S742.

62d. "Now Let That 'Fairness' Bill Die", Editorial, Washington Post,

June 24, 1987. The Post opposed the Fairness in Broadcasting Act.

63. David E. Scheim, Contract on America -- The Mafia Murder of President John F.Kennedy, New York: Shapolsky Publishers, 1988, p.viii.

64. See note 63, p.28.

65a. Chuck Conconi, "Out and About", Washington Post, February 26, 1991, p.B3.

65b. George Lardner Jr., "On the Set: Dallas in Wonderland", Washington Post, May19, 1991, p.D1.

65c. George Lardner, "...Or Just a Sloppy Mess", Washington Post, June 2, 1991,p.D3.

65d. Charles Krauthammer, "A Rash of Conspiracy Theories -- When Do We Dig Up BillCasey?", Washington Post, July 5, 1991, p.A19.

65e. Eric Brace, "Personalities", Washington Post, October 31, 1991, p.C3.

65f. Associated Press, "'JFK' Director Condemned -- Warren Commission Attorney Calls Stone Film 'A Big Lie'", Washington Post, December 16, 1991, p.D14.

65g. Gerald R. Ford and David W. Belin, "Kennedy

Assassination: How About the Truth?", Washington Post, December 17, 1991, p.A21.

65h. Rita Kemply, "'JFK': History Through A Prism", Washington Post, December 20,1991, p.D1.

65i. George Lardner Jr., "The Way it Wasn't -- In 'JFK', Stone Assassinates the Truth", Washington Post, December 20, 1991, p.D2.

65j. Desson Howe, "Dallas Mystery: Who Shot JFK?", Washington Post, December 20,1991, p.55.

65k. Phil McCombs, "Oliver Stone, Returning the Fire -- In Defending His 'JFK' Conspiracy

Film, the Director Reveals His Rage and Reasoning", Washington Post, December 21, 1991, p.F1.

65l. George F. Will, "'JFK': Paranoid History", Washington Post, December 26, 1991,p.A23.

65m. "On Screen", 'JFK' movie review, Washington Post, Weekend, December 27, 1991.

65n. Stephen S. Rosenfeld, "Shadow Play", Washington Post, December 27, 1991, p.A21.

65o. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, "The Paranoid Style", Washington Post, December 29,1991, p.C7.

65p. Michael Isikoff, "H-e-e-e-e-r-e's Conspiracy! -- Why Did Oliver Stone Omit (Or Suppress!). the Role of Johnny Carson?", Washington Post, December 29, 1991,p.C2.

65q. Robert O'Harrow Jr., "Conspiracy Theory Wins Converts -- Moviegoers Say 'JFK' Nourishes Doubts That Oswald Acted Alone", Washington Post, January 2, 1992, p.B1.

65r. Michael R. Beschloss, "Assassination and Obsession", Washington Post, January 5, 1992, p.C1.

65s. Charles Krauthammer, "'JFK': A Lie, But Harmless", Washington Post,

January 10,1992, p.A19.

65t. Art Buchwald, "Bugged: The Flu Conspiracy", Washington Post, January 14, 1992,p.E1.

65u. Ken Ringle, "The Fallacy of Conspiracy Theories -- Good on Film, But the Motivation Is All Wrong", Washington Post, January 19, 1992, p.G1.

65v. Charles Paul Freund, "If History Is a Lie -America's Resort to Conspiracy Thinking", Washington Post, January 19, 1992, p.C1.

65w. Richard Cohen, "Oliver's Twist", Washington Post

Magazine, January 19, 1992, p.5.

65. Michael Isikoff, "Seeking JFK's Missing Brain", Washington Post, January 21,1992, p.A17.

65y. Don Oldenburg, "The Plots Thicken -- Conspiracy Theorists Are Everywhere", Washington Post, January 28, 1992, p.E5.

65z. Joel Achenbach, "JFK Conspiracy: Myth vs. the Facts", Washington Post, February 28, 1992, p.C5.

65A. List of books on the best-seller list: On the Trail of the Assassins is characterized as "conspiracy plot theories", Washington Post,

March 8, 1992,Bookworld, p.12

66. See notes 65n, 65w, 65l, 65b, 65c, and 65i.

67a. Peter Dale Scott, "Vietnamization and the Drama of the Pentagon Papers". Published in The Senator Gravel Edition of The Pentagon Papers, Volume V,p.211-247.

67b. Peter Dale Scott, The War Conspiracy -- The Secret Road to the Second Indochina War, Indianapolis/New York: Bobbs-Merrill, 1972, p. 215-224.

67c. L. Fletcher Prouty, The Secret Team, Copyright 1973. New printing, Costa Mesa CA: Institute for

Historical Review, 1990, p.402-416.

67d. See note 63, p.58, 183, 187, 194, 273-4.

67e. John M. Newman, JFK and Vietnam, New York: Warner Books, 1992.

67f. Peter Dale Scott, Letter to the Editor, The Nation, March 9, 1992, p.290.

68a. See note 65b.

68b. Oliver Stone, "The Post, George Lardner, and My Version of the JFK Assassination", Washington Post, June 2, 1991, p.D3.

69. See note 65b.

70. Jim Garrison, On the Trail of The Assassins, New York: Warner Books, 1988, 315/318.

71. Associated Press, "Garrison, 2 Others, Found Not Guilty Of Bribery Charge", Washington Post, September 28, 1973, p.A3.

72. See note 65c.

73. See note 65i.

74. See note 67e, p.438-450.

75. John G. Leyden, "Historians, Buffs, and Crackpots", Washington Post,

Bookworld, January 26, 1992, p.8.

76a. Tad Szulc, "New Doubts, Fears in JFK Assassination Probe", Washington Star,September 19, 1975, p.A1.

76b. Tad Szulc, "Warren Commission's Self-Doubts Grew Day by Day -- 'This Bullet Business Leaves Me Confused'", Washington Star, September

20, 1975, p.A1.

76c. Tad Szulc, "Urgent and Secret Meeting of the Warren Commission -Dulles Proposed that the Minutes be Destroyed", Washington Star, September 21, 1975,p.A1.

77. "Cable Sought to Discredit Critics of Warren Report", New York Times, December 26, 1977, p.A37.

78. Deborah Davis, Katharine The Great, New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1979,p.141-2.

79a. Eve Pell, "Private Censorship -- Killing 'Katharine The Great'", The Nation, November 12, 1983.

79b. Deborah Davis, Katharine The Great, Bethesda MD: National Press, 1987. Davis says, "...corporate documents that became available during my subsequent lawsuit against him [Harcourt Brace Jovanovich chairman, William Jovanovich] showed that 20,000 copies [of Katharine the Great] had been

"processed and converted into waste paper"".

79c. Daniel Brandt, "All the Publisher's Men -- A Suppressed Book About Washington Post Publisher Katharine Graham Is On Sale Again" National Reporter, Fall 1987, p.60.

79d. Deborah Davis, Katharine The Great, New York: Sheridan Square Press, 1991. "...publishers who don't give a shit", p.iv-v; bullying HBJ into recalling the book, p.iv-vi; lawsuit and settlement, p..

80. Benjamin C. Bradlee, Letter to Deborah Davis, April 1, 1987. See note 79d, p.304.

81. See note 79d, p.119-132.

82. Carl Bernstein, "The CIA and the Media -- How America's Most Powerful News Media Worked Hand in Glove with the Central Intelligence Agency and Why the Church Committee Covered It Up", Rolling Stone, October 20, 1977, p.63.

83a. Daniel Brandt, Letter to Richard L. Harwood of The Washington Post, September 15, 1988. The letter asks for the Post's rationale for its policy of protecting government covert actions, and whether this policy is still in effect.

83b. Daniel Brandt, "Little Magazines May Come and Go", The National Reporter, Fall 1988,

p.4. Notes the Post's protection of the identity of CIA agent Joseph F.Fernandez. Brandt says, "America needs to confront its own recent history as well as protect the interests of its citizens, and both can be accomplished by outlawing peacetime covert activity. This would contribute more to thesecurity of Americans than all the counterterrorist proposals and elite strike forces that ever found their way onto Pentagon wish-lists."

83c. Richard L. Harwood, Letter to Daniel Brandt, September 28, 1988. Harwood's twosentence letter reads, "We have a long-standing policy of not naming covert agents of the C.I.A., except in unusual

circumstances. We applied that policy to Fernandez."

84. See note 79d, p.131.

85. Katharine Graham, "Safeguarding Our Freedoms As We Cover Terrorist Acts", Washington Post, April 20, 1986, p.C1.

86. "conspire", �4�Random House Dictionary of the English Language, Second Edition Unabridged, 1987.

87. Howard Kurtz, "Media Notes", Washington Post, June 18, 1991, p.D1.

88. See note 65y.

89. See note 65n.

90. See note 65d.

91. William Casey, Private Communications with JCH, March 1992.

Richard Harwood, "What Conspiracy?", Washington Post, March 1, 1992, p.C6.

93. p. 29-32.

94a. Washington Post Electronic Data Base, Dialog Information Services Inc., April 25, 1992. In 1991 and 1992, the name Bill Clinton appeared in 878 Washington Post stories, columns,

letters, or editorials; "Jerry" Brown in 485, Pat Buchanan in 303, and Larry Agran in 28. In those 28, Agran's name appeared 76 times, Clinton's 151, and Brown 105. In only 1 of those 28 did Agran's name appear in a headline.

94b. Colman McCarthy, "What's 'Minor' About This Candidate?", Washington Post, February 1, 1992. Washington Post columnist McCarthy tells how television and party officials have kept presidential candidate Larry Agran out of sight. The Post's own daily news-blackout of Agran is not discussed.

94c. Scot Lehigh, "Larry Agran: 'Winner' in Debate With Little Chance For the Big Prize",

Boston Globe, February 25, 1992.

94d. Joshua Meyrowitz, "The Press Rejects a Candidate", Columbia Journalism Review,March/April, 1992.

95. Ben H. Bagdikian, The Effete Conspiracy And Other Crimes By The Press, NewYork: Harper and Row, 1972, p.36-7.

96a. 28 USC Section 455. "Any justice, judge, or magistrate of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned." [emphasis added]

96b. Alpo Petfoods, Inc. v. Ralston

Purina Co., 913 F2d 958 (CA DC 1990)..

96c. Monroe Freedman, "Thomas' Ethics and the Court -- Nominee 'Unfit to Sit' For Failing to Recuse In Ralston Purina Case", Legal Times, August 26, 1991.

96d. Paul D. Wilcher, "Opposition to the Confirmation of Judge Clarence Thomas to become a Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court on the grounds of his JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT", Letter to U.S. Senator Joseph R. Biden, October 15, 1991.

97. Al Kamen and Michael Isikoff, "'A Distressing Turn', Activists

Decry What Process Has Become", Washington Post, October 12, 1991, p.A1.

98. January 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 1992, p.A1 each day.

99. See note 86.

100. Thomas W. Lippman, "Energy Lobby Fights Unseen 'Killers'", Washington Post,April 1, 1992, p.A21. This article explains that "representatives of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers and the coal, oil, natural gas, offshore drilling and nuclear power industries, whose interests often conflict, pledged to work together to oppose amendments limiting offshore oil

drilling, nuclear power and carbon dioxide emissions soon to be offered by key House members".

101. "cartel", Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, 1977.

NOTES A good source on the Washington Post and Katharine Graham's attempt to suppress the Davis book,"Katherine The Great,", which was largely successful, is Carol Felsenthal's, "Power and Privilege at the Post, the Katharine Graham Story." For more information on Johnny Rosselli and Moses and Walter Annenberg, an excellent source is "All American Mafioso, the Johnny Rosselli Story," by Ed Becker and Charles Rappelye. An additional good short reference is "The CIA's Greatest Hits" by Mark Zepezauer. There you will find the reference to Carl Bernstein's classic ​"The CIA and the Media" which appeared in Rolling Stone on Oct. 20, 1977. Still another recent example of the CIA's control of the media is the spiking of ​Sally Denton's & Roger Morris' story,"THE CRIMES OF MENA"​ by Washington Post managing editor Bob Kaiser even though the story had been legally vetted and cleared for publication. Indeed the story, which details the CIA's involvement in drug trafficing, was already typeset and ready to go when it was killed withouty explanation. An example of media lies can be found in this ​example of a faked newspaper photograph.

Read more: ​MOCKINGBIRD: The Subversion Of The Free Press By The CIA | WHAT REALLY HAPPENED http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/MOCK/mockingbird.php#ixzz4Mg7p4c5Y

MOCKINGBIRD: The Subversion Of The  Free Press By The CIA    "You could get a journalist cheaper than a good call girl, for a couple hundred  dollars a month." ­ CIA operative discussing with Philip Graham, editor  Washington Post, on the availability and prices of journalists willing to peddle  CIA propaganda and cover stories. "Katherine The Great," by Deborah Davis  (New York: Sheridan Square Press, 1991)  "The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major  media." ­­ William Colby, former CIA Director, cited by Dave Mcgowan, Derailing  Democracy  "There is quite an incredible spread of relationships. You don't need to manipulate  Time magazine, for example, because there are [Central Intelligence] Agency people  at the management level." ­­ William B. Bader, former CIA intelligence officer, briefing  members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, The CIA and the Media, by Carl  Bernstein  "The Agency's relationship with [The New York] Times was by far its most valuable  among newspapers, according to CIA officials. [It was] general Times policy ... to  provide assistance to the CIA whenever possible." ­­ The CIA and the Media, by Carl  Bernstein  "Senator William Proxmire has pegged the number of employees of the federal  intelligence community at 148,000 ... though Proxmire's number is itself a  conservative one. The "intelligence community" is officially defined as including only  those organizations that are members of the U.S. Intelligence Board (USIB); a dozen  other agencies, charged with both foreign and domestic intelligence chores, are not  encompassed by the term.... The number of intelligence workers employed by the  federal government is not 148,000, but some undetermined multiple of that number."  ­­ Jim Hougan, Spooks  "For some time I have been disturbed by the way the CIA has been diverted from its  original assignment. It has become an operational and at times a policy­making arm  of the government.... I never had any thought that when I set up the CIA that it would  be injected into peacetime cloak and dagger operations." ­­former President Harry  Truman, 22 December 1963, one month after the JFK assassination, op­ed section of  the Washington Post, early edition    As terrible as it is to live in a nation where the press in known to be controlled by the  government, at least one has the advantage of knowing the bias is present, and to 

adjust for it. In the United States of America, we are taught from birth that our press is  free from such government meddling. This is an insideous lie about the very nature of  the news institution in this country. One that allows the government to lie to us while  denying the very fact of the lie itself.       The Alex Constantine Article  Tales from the Crypt  The Depraved Spies and Moguls of the CIA's Operation MOCKINGBIRD  by Alex Constantine  Who Controls the Media?  Soulless corporations do, of course. Corporations with grinning, double­breasted  executives, interlocking directorates, labor squabbles and flying capital. Dow. General  Electric. Coca­Cola. Disney. Newspapers should have mastheads that mirror the  world: The Westinghouse Evening Scimitar, The Atlantic­Richfield Intelligentser . It is  beginning to dawn on a growing number of armchair ombudsmen that the public print  reports news from a parallel universe ­ one that has never heard of  politically­motivated assassinations, CIA­Mafia banking thefts, mind control, death  squads or even federal agencies with secret budgets fattened by cocaine sales ­ a  place overrun by lone gunmen, where the CIA and Mafia are usually on their best  behavior. In this idyllic land, the most serious infraction an official can commit __is a  the employment of a domestic servant with (shudder) no residency status.  This unlikely land of enchantment is the creation of MOCKINGBIRD.  It was conceived in the late 1940s, the most frigid period of the cold war, when the  CIA began a systematic infiltration of the corporate media, a process that often  included direct takeover of major news outlets.  In this period, the American intelligence services competed with communist activists  abroad to influence European labor unions. With or without the cooperation of local  governments, Frank Wisner, an undercover State Department official assigned to the  Foreign Service, rounded up students abroad to enter the cold war underground of  covert operations on behalf of his Office of Policy Coordination. Philip Graham, __a  graduate of the Army Intelligence School in Harrisburg, PA, then publisher of the  Washington Post., was taken under Wisner's wing to direct the program code­named  Operation MOCKINGBIRD.  "By the early 1950s," writes formerVillage Voice reporter Deborah Davis in Katharine  the Great, "Wisner 'owned' respected members of the New York Times, Newsweek,  CBS and other communications vehicles, plus stringers, four to six hundred in all,  according to a former CIA analyst." The network was overseen by Allen Dulles, a  templar for German and American corporations who wanted their points of view  represented in the public print. Early MOCKINGBIRD influenced 25 newspapers and  wire agencies consenting to act as organs of CIA propaganda. Many of these were  already run by men with reactionary views, among them William Paley (CBS), C.D.  Jackson (Fortune), Henry Luce (Time) and Arthur Hays Sulzberger (N.Y. Times).  Activists curious about the workings of MOCKINGBIRD have since been appalled to 

f__ind in FOIA documents that agents boasting in CIA office memos of their pride in  having placed "important assets" inside every major news publication in the country. It  was not until 1982 that the Agency openly admitted that reporters on the CIA payroll  have acted as case officers to agents in the field.  "World War III has begun," Henry's Luce's Life declared in March, 1947. "It is in the  opening skirmish stage already." The issue featured an excerpt of a book by James  Burnham, who called for the creation of an "American Empire," "world­dominating in  political power, set up at least in part through coercion (probably including war, but  certainly the threat of war) and in which one group of people ... would hold more than  its equal share of power."  George Seldes, the famed anti­fascist media critic, drew down on Luce in 1947,  explaining tha__t "although avoiding typical Hitlerian phrases, the same doctrine of a  superior people taking over the world and ruling it, began to appear in the press,  whereas the organs of Wall Street were much more honest in favoring a doctrine  inevitably leading to war if it brought greater commercial markets under the American  flag."  On the domestic front, an abiding relationship was struck between the CIA and  William Paley, a wartime colonel and the founder of CBS. A firm believer in "all forms  of propaganda" to foster loyalty to the Pentagon, Paley hired CIA agents to work  undercover at the behest of his close friend, the busy grey eminence of the nation's  media, Allen Dulles. Paley's designated go­between in his dealings with the CIA was  Sig Mickelson, president of CBS News from 1954 to 1961.  The CIA's assimilation of old guard fascists was overseen by the Operations  Coordination Board, directed by C.D. Jackson, formerly an executive of Time  magazine and Eisenhower's Special Assistant for Cold War Strategy. In 1954 he was  succeeded by Nelson Rockefeller, who quit a year later, disgusted at the  administration's political infighting. Vice President Nixon succeeded Rockefeller as the  key cold war strategist.  "Nixon," writes John Loftus, a former attorney for the Justice Department's Office of  Special Investigations, took "a small boy's delight in the arcane tools of the  intelligence craft ­ the hidden microphones, the 'black' propaganda." Nixon especially  enjoyed his visit to a Virginia training camp to observe Nazis in the "special forces"  drilling at covert operations.  One of the fugitives recruited by the American intelligence underground was heroin  smuggler Hubert von Blcher, the son of A German ambassador. Hubert often bragged  that that he was trained by the Abwehr, the German military intelligence division, while  still a civilian in his twenties. He served in a recon unit of the German Army until  forced out for medical reasons in 1944, according to his wartime records. He worked  briefly as an assistant director for Berlin­Film on a movie entitled One Day ..., and  finished out the war flying with the Luftwaffe, but not to engage the enemy ­ his  mission was the smuggling of Nazi loot out of the country. His exploits were, in part,  the subject of Sayer and Botting's Nazi Gold, an account of the knockover of the  Reichsbank at the end of the war.  In 1948 he flew the coop to Argentina. Posing as a photographer named Huberto von 

Bleucher Corell, he immediately paid court to Eva Peron, presenting her with an  invaluable Gobelin tapestry (a selection from the wealth of artifacts confiscated by the  SS from Europe's Jews?). Hubert then met with Martin Bormann at the Hotel Plaza to  deliver German marks worth $80 million. The loot financed the birth of the National  Socialist Party in Argentina, among other forms of Nazi revival.  In 1951, Hubert migrated northward and took a job at the Color Corporation of  America in Hollywood. He eked out a living writing scripts for the booming movie  industry. His voice can be heard on a film set in the Amazon, produced by Walt  Disney. Nine years later he returned to Buenos Aires, then Dsseldorf, West Germany,  and established a firm that developed not movie scripts, but anti­chemical warfare  agents for the government. At the Industrie Club in Dsseldorf in 1982, von Blcher  boasted to journalists, "I am chief shareholder of Pan American Airways. I am the best  friend of Howard Hughes. The Beach Hotel in Las Vegas is 45 percent financed by  me. I am thus the biggest financier ever to appear in the Arabian Nights tales  dreamed up by these people over their second bottle of brandy."  Not really. Two the biggest financiers to stumble from the drunken dreams of  world­moving affluence were, in their time, Moses Annenberg, publisher of The  Philadelphia Inquirer, and his son Walter , the CIA/mob­anchored publisher of the TV  Guide. Like most American high­rollers, Annenberg lived a double life. Moses, his  father, was a scion of the Capone mob. Both Moses and Walter were indicted in 1939  for tax evasions totalling many millions of dollars ­ the biggest case in the history of  the Justice Department. Moses pled guilty and agreed to pay the government $8  million and settle $9 million in assorted tax claims, penalties and interest debts.  Moses received a three­year sentence. He died in Lewisburg Penitentiary.  Walter Annenbeg, the TV Guide magnate, was a lofty Republican. On the campaign  trail in April, 1988, George Bush flew into Los Angeles to woo Reagan's kitchen  cabinet. "This is the topping on the cake," Bush's regional campaign director told the  Los Angeles Times. The Bush team met at Annenberg's plush Rancho Mirage estate  at Sunnylands, California. It was at the Annenberg mansion that Nixon's cabinet was  chosen, and the state's social and contributor registers built over a quarter­century of  state political dominance by Ronald Reagan, whose acting career was launched by  Operation MOCKINGBIRD.  The commercialization of television, coinciding with Reagan's recruitment by the  Crusade for Freedom, a CIA front, presented the intelligence world with  unprecedented potential for sowing propaganda and even prying in the age of Big  Brother. George Orwell glimpsed the possibilities when he installed omniscient video  surveillance technology in 1948, a novel rechristened 1984 for the first edition  published in the U.S. by Harcourt, Brace. Operation Octopus, according to federal  files, was in full swing by 1948, a surveillance program that turned any television set  with tubes into a broadcast transmitter. Agents of Octopus could pick up audio and  visual images with the equipment as far as 25 miles away.  Hale Boggs was investigating Operation Octopus at the time of his disappearance in  the midst of the Watergate probe.  In 1952, at MCA, Actors' Guild president Ronald Reagan ­ a screen idol recruited by 

MOCKINGBIRD's Crusade for Freedom to raise funds for the resettlement of Nazis in  the U.S., according to Loftus ­ signed a secret waiver of the conflict­of­interest rule  with the mob­controlled studio, in effect granting it a labor monopoly on early  television programming. In exchange, MCA made Reagan a part owner. Furthermore,  historian C. Vann Woodward, writing in the New York Times, in 1987, reported that  Reagan had "fed the names of suspect people in his organization to the FBI secretly  and regularly enough to be assigned 'an informer's code number, T­10.' His FBI file  indicates intense collaboration with producers to 'purge' the industry of subversives."  No one ever turned a suspicious eye on Walter Cronkite, a former intelligence officer  and in the immediate postwar period UPI's Moscow correspondent. Cronkite was  lured to CBS by Operation MOCKINGBIRD's Phil Graham, according to Deborah  Davis.  Another television conglomerate, Cap Cities, rose like a horror­film simian from CIA  and Mafia heroin operations. Among other organized­crime Republicans, Thomas  Dewey and his neighbor Lowell Thomas threw in to launch the infamous Resorts  International, the corporate front for Lansky's branch of the federally­sponsored mob  family and the corporate precursor to Cap Cities. Another of the investors was James  Crosby, a Cap Cities executive who donated $100,000 to Nixon's 1968 presidential  campaign. This was the year that Resorts bought into Atlantic City casino interests.  Police in New jersey attempted, with no success, to spike the issuance of a gambling  license to the company, citing Mafia ties.  In 1954, this same circle of investors, all Catholics, founded the broadcasting  company notorious for overt propagandizing and general spookiness. The company's  chief counsel was OSS veteran William Casey, who clung to his shares by concealing  them in a blind trust even after he was appointed CIA director by Ronald Reagan in  1981.  "Black radio" was the phrase CIA critic David Wise coined in The Invisible  Government to describe the agency's intertwining interests in the emergence of the  transistor radio with the entrepreneurs who took to the airwaves. "Daily, East and  West beam hundreds of propaganda broadcasts at each other in an unrelenting  babble of competition for the minds of their listeners. The low­price transistor has  given the hidden war a new importance," enthused one foreign correspondent.  A Hydra of private foundations sprang up to finance the propaganda push. One of  them, Operations and Policy Research, Inc. (OPR), received hundreds of thousands  of dollars from the CIA through private foundations and trusts. OPR research was the  basis of a television series that aired in New York and Washington, D.C. in 1964, Of  People and Politics, a "study" of the American political system in 21 weekly  installments.  In Hollywood, the visual cortex of The Beast, the same CIA/Mafia combination that  formed Cap Cities sank its claws into the film studios and labor unions. Johnny  Rosselli was pulled out of the Army during the war by a criminal investigation of  Chicago mobsters in the film industry. Rosselli, a CIA asset probably assassinated by  the CIA, played sidekick to Harry Cohn, the Columbia Pictures mogul who visited  Italy's Benito Mussolini in 1933, and upon his return to Hollywood remodeled his office 

after the dictator's. The only honest job Rosselli ever had was assistant purchasing  agent (and a secret investor) at Eagle Lion productions, run by Bryan Foy, a former  producer for 20th Century Fox. Rosselli, Capone's representative on the West Coast,  passed a small fortune in mafia investments to Cohn. Bugsy Seigel pooled gambling  investments with Billy Wilkerson, publisher of the Hollywood Reporter.  In the 1950s, outlays for global propaganda climbed to a full third of the CIA's covert  operations budget. Some 3, 000 salaried and contract CIA employees were eventually  engaged in propaganda efforts. The cost of disinforming the world cost American  taxpayers an estimated $265 million a year by 1978, a budget larger than the  combined expenditures of Reuters, UPI and the AP news syndicates.  In 1977, the Copely News Service admitted that it worked closely with the intelligence  services ­ in fact, 23 employees were full­time employees of the Agency.  Most consumers of the corporate media were ­ and are ­ unaware of the effect that  the salting of public opinion has on their own beliefs. A network anchorman in time of  national crisis is an instrument of psychological warfare in the MOCKINGBIRD media.  He is a creature from the national security sector's chamber of horrors. For this  reason consumers of the corporate press have reason to examine their basic beliefs  about government and life in the parallel universe of these United States.     How the Washington Post Censors the News  [Note the highlighted paragraph]  How the Washington Post Censors the News    A Letter to the Washington Post  by Julian C. Holmes  _____________________________________________________  April 25, 1992  Richard Harwood, Ombudsman  The Washington Post  1150 15th Street NW  Washington, DC 20071  Dear Mr. Harwood,    Though the Washington Post does not over­extend itself in the pursuit of hard news,  just let drop the faintest rumor of a government "conspiracy", and a klaxon horn goes  off in the news room. Aroused from apathy in the daily routine of reporting  assignations and various other political and social sports events, editors and reporters  scramble to the phones. The klaxon screams its warning: the greatest  single threat to herd­journalism, corporate profits, and government stability ­­ the  dreaded "CONSPIRACY THEORY"!!    It is not known whether anyone has actually been hassled or accosted by any of these  frightful spectres, but their presence is announced to Post readers with a salvo of  warnings to avoid the tricky, sticky webs spun by the wacko "CONSPIRACY 

THEORISTS".    Recall how the Post saved us from the truth about Iran­Contra.    Professional conspiracy exorcist Mark Hosenball was hired to ridicule the idea that  Oliver North and his CIA­associated gangsters had conspired to do wrong (*1). And  when, in their syndicated column, Jack Anderson and Dale Van Atta discussed some  of the conspirators, the Post sprang to protect its readers, and the conspirators, by  censoring the Anderson column before printing it (*2).    But for some time the lid had been coming off the Iran­Contra conspiracy. In 1986, the  Christic Institute, an interfaith center for law and public policy, had filed a lawsuit  alleging a U.S. arms­for­drugs trade that helped keep weapons flowing to the  CIA­Contra army in Nicaragua, and cocaine flowing to U.S. markets (*3). In 1988  Leslie Cockburn published Out of Control, a seminal work on our bizarre, illegal war  against Nicaragua (*4). The Post contributed to this discovery process by disparaging  the charges of conspiracy and by publishing false information about the  drug­smuggling evidence presented to the House Subcommittee on Narcotics Abuse  and Control. When accused by Committee Chairman Charles Rangel (D­NY). of  misleading reporting, the Post printed only a partial correction and declined to print a  letter of complaint from Rangel (*5).    Sworn testimony before Senator John Kerry's Subcommittee on Terrorism, Narcotics,  and International Operations confirmed U.S. Government complicity in the drug trade  (*6). With its coverup of the arms/drug conspiracy evaporating, the  ever­accommodating Post shifted gears and retained Hosenball to exorcise from our  minds a newly emerging threat to domestic tranquility, the "October Surprise"  conspiracy (*7). But close on the heels of Hosenball and the Post came Barbara  Honegger and then Gary Sick who authored independently, two years apart, books  with the same title, "October Surprise" (*8). Honegger was a member of the  Reagan/Bush campaign and transition teams in 1980. Gary Sick, professor of Middle  East Politics at Columbia University, was on the staff of the National Security Council  under Presidents Ford, Carter, and Reagan. In 1989 and 1991 respectively, Honegger  and Sick published their evidence of how the Republicans made a deal to supply  arms to Iran if Iran would delay release of the 52 United States hostages until after the  November 1980 election. The purpose of this deal was to quash the possibility of a  pre­election release(an October surprise). which would have bolstered the reelection  prospects for President Carter.    Others published details of this alleged Reagan­Bush conspiracy. In October 1988,  Playboy Magazine ran an expose "An Election Held Hostage"; FRONTLINE did  another in April 1991 (*9). In June, 1991 a conference of distinguished journalists,  joined by 8 of the former  hostages, challenged the Congress to "make a full, impartial investigation" of the 

election/hostage allegations. The Post reported the statement of the hostages, but not  a word of the conference itself  which was held in the Dirksen Senate Office Building Auditorium (*10). On February  5, 1992 a gun­shy, uninspired House of Representatives begrudgingly authorized an  "October Surprise" investigation by a task  force of 13 congressmen headed by Lee Hamilton (D­IN). who had chaired the House  of Representatives Iran­Contra Committee. Hamilton has named as chief team  counsel Larry Barcella, a lawyer who represented BCCI when the Bank was indicted  in 1988 (*11).    Like the Washington Post, Hamilton had not shown interest in pursuing the U.S.  arms­for­drugs operation (*12). He had accepted Oliver North's lies,and as Chairman  of the House Intelligence Committee he derailed House Resolution 485 which had  asked President Reagan to answer questions about Contra support activities of  government officials and others (*13). After CIA operative John    Hull (from Hamilton's home state). was charged in Costa Rica with "international drug  trafficking and hostile acts against the nation's security", Hamilton and 18 fellow  members of Congress tried to intimidate Costa Rican President Oscar Arias Sanchez  into handling Hull's case "in a manner that will not complicate U.S.­Costa Rican  relations" (*14). The Post did not report the Hamilton letter or the Costa Rican  response that declared Hull's case to be "in as good hands as our 100 year old  uninterrupted democracy can provide to all citizens" (*15).    Though the Post does its best to guide our thinking away from conspiracy theories, it  is difficult to avoid the fact that so much wrongdoing involves government or corporate  conspiracies:    In its COINTELPRO operation, the FBI used disinformation, forgery, surveillance,  false arrests, and violence to illegally harass U.S.citizens in the 60's (*16).    The CIA's Operation MONGOOSE illegally sabotaged Cuba by "destroying crops,  brutalizing citizens, destabilizing the society, and conspiring with the Mafia to  assassinate Fidel Castro and other leaders" (*17).    "Standard Oil of New Jersey was found by the Antitrust Division of the Department of  Justice to be conspiring with I.G.Farben...of Germany. ...By its cartel agreements with  Standard Oil, the United States was effectively prevented from developing or  producing [fo rWorld War­II] any substantial amount of synthetic rubber," said Senator  Robert LaFollette of Wisconsin (*18).    U.S. Government agencies knowingly withheld information about dosages of radiation  "almost certain to produce thyroid abnormalities or cancer" that contaminated people  residing near the nuclear weapons factory at Hanford, Washington (*19). 

  Various branches of Government deliberately drag their feet in getting around to  cleaning up the Nation's dangerous nuclear weapons sites (*20). State and local  governments back the nuclear industry's secret public relations strategy (*21).    "The National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society and some twenty  comprehensive cancer centers, have misled and confused the public and Congress  by repeated claims that we are winning the war against cancer. In fact, the cancer  establishment has continually minimized the evidence for increasing cancer rates  which it has largely attributed to smoking and dietary fat, while discounting or ignoring  the causal role of avoidable  eposures to industrial carcinogens in the air, food, water, and the workplace." (*22).    The Bush Administration coverup of its pre­Gulf­War support of Iraq "is yet another  example of the President's people conspiring to keep both Congress and the  American people in the dark" (*23).    If you think about it, conspiracy is a fundamental aspect of doing business in this  country.    Take the systematic and cooperative censorship of the Persian Gulf War by the  Pentagon and much of the news media (*24).    Or the widespread plans of business and government groups to spend $100 million in  taxes to promote a distorted and truncated history of Columbus in America (*25).  along the lines of the Smithsonian Institution's "fusion of the two worlds", (*26). rather  than examining more realistic aspects of the Spanish invasion, like "anger, cruelty,  gold, terror, and death" (*27).    Or circumstances surrounding the U.S. Justice Department theft from the INSLAW  company of sophisticated, law­enforcement computer software which "now point to a  widespread conspiracy implicating lesser Government officials in the theft of  INSLAW's technology", says former U.S. Attorney General Elliot Richardson (*28).    Or Watergate.    Or the "largest bank fraud in world financial history" (*29), where the White House  knew of the criminal activities at "the Bank of Crooks and Criminals International"  (BCCI) (*30), where U.S. intelligence agencies did their secret banking (*31), and  where  bribery of prominent American public officials "was a way of doing business" (*32).    Or the 1949 conviction of "GM [General Motors], Standard Oil of California, Firestone,  and E. Roy Fitzgerald, among others, for criminally conspiring to replace electric 

transportation with gas­ and diesel­powered buses and to monopolize the sale of  buses and related products to transportation companies throughout the country" [in,  among others, the cities of New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, St. Louis, Oakland,  Salt Lake City, and Los Angeles] (*33).    Or the collusion in 1973 between Senator Abraham Ribicoff (D­CT). and the U.S.  Department of Transportation to overlook safety defects in the 1.2 million Corvair  automobiles manufactured by General Motors in the early 60's (*34).    Or the A. H. Robins Company, which manufactured the Dalkon Shield intrauterine  contraceptive, and which ignored repeated warnings of the Shield's hazards and  which "stonewalled, deceived, covered up, and    covered up the coverups...[thus inflicting] on women a  worldwide epidemic of pelvic infections." (*35).    Or that cooperation between McDonnell Douglas Aircraft Company and the FAA  resulted in failure to enforce regulations regarding the unsafe DC­10 cargo door which  failed in flight killing all 364 passengers on Turkish Airlines Flight 981 on March 3,  1974 (*36).  Or the now­banned, cancer­producing pregnancy drug  Diethylstilbestrol (DES). that was sold by manufacturers who ignored tests which  showed DES to be carcinogenic; and who acted "in concert with each other in the  testing and marketing of DES for miscarriage purposes" (*37).    Or the conspiracies among bankers and speculators, with the cooperation of a  corrupted Congress, to relieve depositors of their savings. This "arrogant disregard  from the White House, Congress and corporate world for the interests and rights of  the American people" will cost U.S. tapayers many hundreds of billions of dollars  (*38).    Or the Westinghouse, Allis Chalmers,Federal Pacific, and General Electric executives  who met surreptitiously in hotel rooms to fix prices and eliminate competition on heavy  industrial equipment (*39).  Or the convictions of Industrial Biotest Laboratories (IBT). officers for fabricating  safety tests on prescription drugs (*40).    Or the conspiracy by the asbestos industry to suppress knowledge of medical  problemsrelating to asbestos (*41).    Or the 1928 Achnacarry Agreement through which oil companies "agreed not to  engage in any effective price competition" (*42).    Or the conspiracy among U.S. Government agencies and the Congress to cover up 

the nature of our decades­old war against the people of Nicaragua    a covert war that continues in 1992 with the U.S. Government applying pressure for  the Nicaraguan police to reorganize into a more repressive force (*43).    Or the conspiracy by the CIA and the U.S. Government to interfere in the Chilean  election process with military aid, covert actions, and an economic boycott which  culminated in the overthrow of the legitimately elected government and the  assassination of President Salvador Allende in 1973 (*44).    Or the conspiracy among U.S. officials including Secretary of State Henry Kissinger  and CIA Director William Colby to finance terrorism in Angola for the purpose of  disrupting Angola's plans for peaceful elections in October 1975, and to lie about  these actions to the Congress and the news media (*45). And CIA Director George  Bush's subsequent cover up of this U.S.­sponsored terrorism (*46).    Or President George Bush's consorting with the Pentagon to invade Panama in 1989  and thereby violate the Constitution of the United States, the U.N. Charter, the O.A.S.  Charter, and the Panama Canal Treaties (*47).    Or the "gross antitrust violations" (*48) and the conspiracy of American oil companies  and the British and U.S. governments to strangle Iran economically after Iran  nationalized the British­owned Anglo­Iranian Oil Company in 1951. And the  subsequent overthrow by the CIA in 1953 of Iranian Prime Minister Muhammed  Mossadegh (*49).    Or the CIA­planned assassination of Congo head­of­state Patrice Lumumba (*50).    Or the deliberate and wilful efforts of President George Bush, Senator Robert Dole,  Senator George Mitchell, various U.S. Government agencies, and members of both  Houses of the Congress to buy the 1990 Nicaraguan national elections for the  presidential candidate supported by President Bush (*51).    Or the collective approval by 64 U.S. Senators of Robert Gates to head the CIA, in the  face of "unmistakable evidence that Gates lied about his role in the Iran­Contra  scandal" (*52).    Or "How Reagan and the Pope Conspired to Assist Poland's Solidarity Movement and  Hasten the Demise of Communism" (*53).    Or how the Reagan Administration connived with the Vatican to ban the use of USAID  funds by any country "for the promotion of birth control or abortion" (*54).    Or "the way the Vatican and Washington colluded to achieve common purpose in 

Central America" (*55).    Or the collaboration of Guatemalan strong­man and mass murderer Hector Gramajo  with the U.S. Army to design "programs to build civilian­military cooperation" at the  U.S. Army School of the Americas (SOA) at Fort Benning, Georgia; five of the nine  soldiers accused in the 1989 Jesuit massacre in El Salvador are graduates of SOA  which trains Latin/American military personnel (*56).    Or the conspiracy of the Comanche Peak Nuclear Plant administration to harass and  cause bodily harm to whistleblower Linda Porter who uncovered dangerous working  conditions at the facility (*57).    Or the conspiracy of President Richard Nxion and the Government of South Vietnam  to delay the Paris Peace Talks until after the 1968 U.S. presidential election (*58).    Or the pandemic coverups of police violence (*59).    Or the always safe­to­cite worldwide communist conspiracy (*60).    Or maybe the socially responsible, secret consortium to publish The Satanic Verses in  paperback (*61).    Conspiracies are obviously a way to get things done, and the Washington Post offers  little comment unless conspiracy theorizing threatens to expose a really important  conspiracy that, let's say, benefits big business or big government.    Such a conspiracy would be like our benevolent CIA's 1953 overthrow of the Iranian  government to help out U.S. oil companies; or like our illegal war against Panama to  tighten U.S. control over Panama and the Canal; or like monopoly control of  broadcasting that facilitates corporate censorship on issues of public importance  (*62). When the camouflage of such conspiracies is stripped away, public confidence  in the conspiring officials can erode ­­ depending on how seriously the citizenry  perceives the conspiracy to have violated the public trust. Erosion of public trust in the  status quo is what the Post seems to  see as a real threat to its corporate security.    Currently, the Post has mounted vituperative, frenzied attacks on Oliver Stone's movie  "JFK", which reexamines the U.S. Government's official (Warren Commission. finding  that a single gunman, acting alone, killed President John F. Kennedy. The movie also  is the story of New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison's unsuccessful prosecution  of Clay Shaw, the only person ever tried in connection  with the assassination. And the movie proposes that the Kennedy assassination was  the work of conspirators whose interests would not be served by a president who, had  he lived, might have disengaged us from our war against Vietnam. 

  The Post ridicules a reexamination of the Kennedy assassination along lines  suggested by "JFK". Senior Post journalists like Charles Krauthammer, Ken Ringle,  George Will, Phil McCombs, and Michael Isikoff, have been called up to man the  bulwarks against public sentiment which has never supported the government's  non­conspiratorial assassination thesis. In spite of the facts that the Senate  Intelligence Committee of 1975 and 1976 found that "both the FBI and CIA had  repeatedly lied to the Warren Commission" (*63) and that the 1979 Report of the  House Select Committee on Assassinations found that President Kennedy was  probably killed "as a result of a conspiracy" (*64), a truly astounding number of Post  stories have been used as vehicles to discredit "JFK" as just another conspiracy (*65).    Some of the more vicious attacks on the movie are by editor Stephen Rosenfeld, and  journalists Richard Cohen, George Will, and George Lardner Jr (*66). They ridicule  the idea that Kennedy could have had second thoughts about escalating the Vietnam  War and declaim that there is no historical justification for this idea. Seasoned  journalist Peter Dale Scott, former Pentagon/CIA liaison chief L. Fletcher Prouty, and  investigators David Scheim and John Newman have each authored defense of the  "JFK" thesis that Kennedy was not enthusiastic about staying in Vietnam (*67). But  the Post team just continues ranting against the possibility of a high­level  assassination conspiracy while offering little justification for its arguments.    An example of particularly shabby scholarship and unacceptable behavior is George  Lardner Jr's contribution to the Post's campaign against the movie. Lardner wrote  three articles, two before the movie was completed, and the third upon its release. In  May, six months before the movie came out, Lardner obtained a copy of the first draft  of the script and, contrary to accepted standards, revealed in the Post the contents of  this copyrighted movie (*68). Also in this article, (*69). Lardner discredits Jim Garrison  with hostile statements from a former Garrison associate Pershing Gervais. Lardner  does not tell the reader that subsequent to the Clay Shaw trial, in a U.S. Government  criminal action brought against Garrison, Government witness Gervais, who helped  set up Garrison for prosecution, admitted under oath that in a May 1972 interview with  a New Orleans television reporter, he, Gervais, had said that the U.S. Government's  case against Garrison was a fraud (*70). The Post's 1973 account of thebr> Garrison  acquittal mentions this controversy, but when I recently asked Lardner about this, he  was not clear as to whether he remembered  it (*71).    Two weeks after his first "JFK" article, Lardner blustered his way through a  justification for his unauthorized possession of the early draft ofthe movie (*72). He  also defended his reference to Pershing Gervais by lashing out at Garrison as a writer  "of gothic fiction".    When the movie was released in December, Lardner "reviewed" it (*73). He again 

ridiculed the film's thesis that following the Kennedy assassination, President Johnson  reversed Kennedy's plans to de­escalate the Vietnam War. Lardner cited a  memorandum issued by  Johnson four days after Kennedy died. Lardner says this memorandum was written  before the assassination, and that it "was a continuation of Kennedy's policy". In fact,  the memorandum was drafted the day before the assassination by McGeorge Bundy  (Kennedy's Assistant for National Security Affairs) Kennedy was in Texas, and may  never have seen it.  Following the assassination, it was rewritten; and the final version provided for  escalating the war against Vietnam (*74) ­­ facts that Lardner avoided.    The Post's crusade against exposing conspiracies is blatantly dishonest:    The Warren Commission inquiry into the Kennedy Assassination was for the most  part conducted in secret. This fact is buried in the Post (*75). Nor do current readers  of this newspaper find meaningful discussion of the Warren Commission's secret  doubts about both the FBI  and the CIA (*76). Or of a dispatch from CIA headquarters instructing co­conspirators  at field stations to counteract the "new wave of books and articles criticizing the  [Warren] Commission's findings...[and] conspiracy theories ...[that] have frequently  thrown suspicion on our organization" and to "discuss the publicity problem with  liaison and friendly elite contacts, especially politicians and editors "and to"employ  propaganda assets to answer and refute the attacks of the critics. ...Book reviews and  feature articles are particularly  appropriate for this purpose. ...The aim of this dispatch is to provide material for  countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists..." (*77).    In 1979, Washington journalist Deborah Davis published Katharine The Great, the  story of Post publisher Katharine Graham and her newspaper's close ties with  Washington's powerful elite, a number of whom were with the CIA.    Particularly irksome to Post editor Benjamin Bradlee was a Davis claim that Bradlee  had "produced CIA material" (*78). Understandably sensitive about this kind of  publicity, Bradlee told Davis' publisher Harcourt Brace Jovanovich ,"Miss Davis is  lying ...I never produced  CIA material ...what I can do is to brand Miss Davis as a fool and to put your company  in that special little group of publishers who don't give a shit for the truth". The Post  bullied HBJ into recalling the book; HBJ shredded 20,000 copies; Davis sued HBJ for  breach of contract and damage to reputation; HBJ settled out of court; and Davis  published her book elsewhere with an appendix that demonstrated Bradlee to have  been deeply involved with producing cold­war/CIA propaganda (*79). Bradlee still  says the allegations about his association with people in the CIA are false, but he has  apparently taken no action to contest the xetensive documentation presented by  Deborah Davis in the second and third editions of her book (*80). 

  And it's not as if the Post were new to conspiracy work.    Former Washington Post publisher Philip Graham "believing that the function  of the press was more often than not to mobilize consent for the policies of the  government, was one of the architects of what became a widespread practice:  the use and manipulation of journalists by the CIA" (*81). This scandal was  known by its code name Operation MOCKINGBIRD. Former Washington Post  reporter Carl Bernstein cites a former CIA deputy director as saying, "It was  widely known that Phil Graham was someone you could get help from" (*82).  More recently the Post provided cover for CIA personality Joseph Fernandez by  "refusing to print his name for over a year up until the day his indictment was  announced ...for crimes committed in his official capacity as CIA station chief in  Costa Rica" (*83).    Of the meetings between Graham and his CIA acquaintances at which the availability  and prices of journalists were discussed, a former CIA man recalls, "You could get a  journalist cheaper than a good call girl, for a couple hundred dollars a month" (*84).  One may wish to  consider Philip Graham's philosophy along with a more recent statement from his wife  Katharine Graham, current Chairman of the Board of the Washington Post. In a  lecture on terrorism and the news media, Mrs. Graham said: "A second challenge  facing the media is how to prevent  terrorists from using the media as a platform fortheir views. ... The point is that we  generally know when we are being manipulated, and we've learned better how and  where to draw the line, though the decisions are often difficult" (*85).    Today, the Post and its world of big business are apparently terrified that our elite and  our high­level public officials may be exposed as conspirators behind Contra  drug­smuggling, October Surprise, or the  assassination of President Kennedy. This fear is truly remarkable in that, like most of  us and like most institutions, the Post runs its business as a conspiracy of like­minded  entrepreneurs ­­ a conspiracy  "to act or work together toward the same result or goal" (*86). But where the Post  really parts company from just plain people is when it pretends that conspiracies  associated with big business or government are "coincidence". Post reporter Lardner  vents the frustration  inherent in having to maintain this dichotomy. He lashes out at Oliver Stone and  suggests that Stone may actually believe that the Post's opposition to Stone's movie  is a "conspiracy". Lardner assures us that Stone's complaints are "groundless and  paranoid and smack of McCarthyism" (*87).    So how does the Post justify devoting so much energy to ridiculing those who  investigate conspiracies? 

  The Post has answers: people revert to conspiracy theories because they need  something "neat and tidy" (*88) that "plugs a gap no other generally accepted theory  fills', (*89. and "coincidence ...is always the safest and most likely explanation for any  conjunction of curious  circumstances ..." (*90).    And what does this response mean? It means that "coincidence theory" is what the  Post espouses when it would prefer not to admit to a conspiracy. In other words,  some things just "happen". And, besides, conspiracy to do certain things would be a  crime; "coincidence" is a  safer bet.    Post Ombudsman Richard Harwood, who, it is rumored, serves as Executive Director  of the Benevolent Protective Order of Coincidence Theorists, (*91) recently issued a  warning about presidential candidates "who have begun to mutter about a press  conspiracy". Ordinarily, Harwood would simply dismiss these charges as "symptoms  of the media paranoia that quadrennially engulfs members of the American political  class" (*92). But a fatal mistake was made by the mutterers; they used the "C" word  against the PRESS! And Harwood exploded his off­the­cuff comment into an entire  column ­­ ending it with:"We are the new journalists, immersed too long, perhaps, in  the cleansing  waters of political conformity. But conspirators we ain't".    Distinguished investigative journalist Morton Mintz, a 29­year veteran of the  Washington Post, now chairs the Fund for Investigative Journalism. In the December  issue of The Progressive, Mintz wrote "A Reporter Looks Back in Anger ­­ Why the  Media Cover Up Corporate Crime". Therein he discussed the difficulties in convincing  editors to  accept important news stories. He illustrated the article with his own experiences at  the Post, where he says he was known as "the biggest pain in the ass in the office"  (*93).    Would Harwood argue that grief endured by journalists at the hands of editors is a  matter of random coincidence?    And that such policy as Mintz described is made independently by editors without  influence from fellow editors or from management? Would Harwood have us believe  that at the countless office "meetings" in which news people are ever in attendance,  there is no discussion of  which stories will run and which ones will find inadequate space? That there is no  advanced planning for stories or that there are no cooperative efforts among the staff?  Or that in the face of our news­media "grayout" of presidential candidate Larry Agran,  (*94) a Post journalist would be free to give news space to candidate Agran equal to 

that the Post lavishes on candidate Clinton? Let's face it: these possibilities are about  as likely as Barbara Bush entertaining guests at a soup kitchen.    Would Harwood have us believe that media critic and former Post Ombudsman Ben  Bagdikian is telling less than the truth in his account of wire­service control over news:  "The largely anonymous men who control the syndicate and wire service copy desks  and the central wire photo machines determine at a single decision what millions will  see and hear. ...there seems to be little doubt that these gatekeepers preside over an  operation in which an appalling amount of press agentry sneaks in the back door of  American journalism and marches untouched out the front door as 'news'" (*95).    When he sat on the U.S. District Court of Appeals in Washington, Judge Clarence  Thomas violated U.S. law when he failed to remove himself from a case in which he  then proceeded to reverse a $10 million judgment against the Ralston Purina  Company (*96). Ralston Purina, the  animal feed empire, is the family fortune of Thomas' mentor, Senator John Danforth.  The Post limited its coverage of the Thomas malfeasance to 56 words buried in the  middle of a 1200­word article (*97). Would  Harwood have us believe that the almost complete blackout on this matter by the  major news media and the U.S. Senate was a matter of coincidence? Could a Post  reporter have written a story about Ralston Purina if she had wanted to? Can a brick  swim?    Or take the fine report produced last September by Ralph Nader's Public Citizen.  Titled All the Vice President's Men, it documents "How the Quayle Council on  Competitiveness Secretly Undermines Health,  Safety, and Environmental Programs". Three months later, Post journalists David  Broder and Bob Woodward published "The President's Understudy", a seven­part  series on Vice President Quayle. Although this series does address Quayle's role with  the Competitiveness  Council, its handling of the Council's disastrous impact on America is inadequate. It is  40,000 words of mostly aimless chatter about Quayle memorabilia: youth, family,  college record, Christianity, political aspirations, intellectual aspirations, wealthy  friends, government  associates, golf, travels, wife Marilyn, and net worth ­­ revealing little about Quayle's  abilities, his understanding of society's problems, or his thoughts about justice and  freedom, and never mentioning the comprehensive Nader study of Quayle's record in  the  Bush Administration (*98).    Now, did Broder or did Woodward forget about the Nader study? Or did both of them  forget? Or did one, or the other, or both decide not to mention it? Did these two  celebrated, seasoned Post reporters ever discuss together their jointly authored  stories? Did they decide to publish such a barren set of articles because it would 

enhance their reputations? How did management feel about the use of precious news  space for such frivolity? Is it possible that so many pages were dedicated to this  twaddle without people "acting or working together toward the same result or goal"?  (*99) Do crocodiles fly?    On March 20, front­page headlines in the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times,  USA Today, and the Washington Post read respectively:    TSONGAS DROPPED OUT OF THE PRESIDENTIAL RACE CLEARING CLINTON'S  PATH    TSONGAS ABANDONS CAMPAIGN LEAVING CLINTON CLEAR PATH TOWARD  SHOWDOWN  WITH BUSH    TSONGAS CLEARS WAY FOR CLINTON    TSONGAS EXIT CLEARS WAY FOR CLINTON    This display of editorial independence should at least raise questions of whether the  news media collective mindset is really different from that of any other cartel ­­ like oil,  diamond, energy, (*100) or manufacturing cartels, a cartel being "a combination of  independent  commercial enterprises designed to limit competition" (*101).    The Washington Post editorial page carries the heading:    AN INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPER    Is it? Of course not. There probably is no such thing. Does the Post"conspire" to keep  its staff and its newspaper from wandering too far from the safety of mediocrity? The  Post would respond that the question is absurd. In that I am not privy to the Post's  telephone  conversations, I can only speculate on how closely the media elite must monitor the  staff. But we all know how few micro­seconds it takes a new reporter to learn what  subjects are taboo and what are "safe", and that experienced reporters don't have to  ask.    What is more important, however, than speculating about how the Post communicates  within its own corporate structure and with other members of the cartel, is to  document and publicize what the Post does in public, namely, how it shapes and  censors the news.    Sincerely, 

  Julian C. Holmes    Copies to: Public­spirited citizens, both inside and outside the news media, And ­  maybe a few others.  Notes to Letter of April  25, 1992:    1. Mark Hosenball,  "The Ultimate  Conspiracy",  Washington Post,  September 11, 1988,  p.C1    2a. Julian Holmes,  Letter to Washington  Post Ombudsman  Richard Harwood,  June 4,1991. Notes  that the Post  censored, from the  Anderson/Van Atta  column, references to  the Christic Institute  and to Robert Gates.    2b. Jack Anderson  and Dale Van Atta,  "Iran­Contra Figure  Dodges Extradition",  Washington  Merry­Go­Round,  United Feature  Syndicate, May 26,  1991. This is the  column submitted to  the Post (see note  2a)..    2c. Jack Anderson and  Dale Van Atta, "The  Man Washington  Doesn't Want to 

Extradite", Washington  Post, May 26, 1991.  The column (see note  2b). as it appeared in  the Post (see note  2a)..    3a. Case No.  86­1146­CIV­KING,  Amended Complaint  for RICO Conspiracy,  etc., United States  District Court,  Southern District of  Florida, Tony Avirgan  and Martha Honey v.  John Hull et al.,  October 3, 1986.    3b. Vince Bielski and  Dennis Bernstein,  "Reports: Contras  Send Drugs to U.S.",  Cleveland Plain  Dealer, November 16,  1986.    3c. Neal Matthews, "I  Ran Drugs for Uncle  Sam" (based on  interviews with Robert  Plumlee, contra  resupply pilot)., San  Diego Reader, April 5,  1990.    4. Leslie Cockburn,  Out of Control. New  York: Atlantic Monthly  Press, 1987.    5a. Peter Dale Scott  and Jonathan  Marshall, Cocaine 

Politics, University  ofCalifornia Press,  1991, p.179­181.    5b. David S.  Hilzenrath, "Hill Panel  Finds No Evidence  Linking Contras to  Drug Smuggling",  Washington Post, July  22, 1987, p.A07.    5c. Partial correction  to the Washington  Post of July 22,  Washington Post, July  24,1987, p.A3.    5d. The Washington  Post declined to  publish SubCommittee  Chairman Rangel's  Letter­ to­the­Editor of  July 22, 1987. It was  printed in the  Congressional Record  on August 6, 1987,  p.E3296­7.    6a. Michael Kranish,  "Kerry Says US  Turned Blind Eye to  Contra­Drug Trail",  Boston Globe, April  10, 1988.    6b. Mary McGrory,  "The Contra­Drug  Stink", Washington  Post, April 10, 1988,  p.B1. 6c. Robert Parry  with Rod Nordland,  "Guns for Drugs?  Senate Probers Trace 

an Old Contra  Connection to George  Bush's Office",  Newsweek, May 23,  1988, p.22.    6d. Dennis Bernstein,  "Iran­Contra ­­ The  Coverup Continues",  The Progressive,  November 1988, p.24.        Read more:​  ​ whatreallyhappened.com  http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/MOCK/mockingbird.php#ixzz3f5V mnPrZ   

10/10/2016

[1999] Testimony of Mr. William Schaap on the role of the U.S. Government in the assassination of Martin Luther King

[back] Mockingbird  CHAOS COINTELPRO

Testimony of Mr. William Schaap, attorney, military and intelligence specialization, co-publisher Covert Action Quarterly, on the role of the U.S. Government in the assassination of Martin Luther King MLK Conspiracy Trial Transcript - Volume 9 November 30, 1999 THE CIRCUIT COURT OF SHELBY COUNTY, TENNESSEE THIRTIETH JUDICIAL DISTRICT AT MEMPHIS _______________________________________________ CORETTA SCOTT KING, MARTIN LUTHER KING, III, BERNICE KING, DEXTER SCOTT KING and YOLANDA KING, Plaintiffs, Vs. Case No. 97242-4 T.D. LOYD JOWERS and OTHER UNKNOWN CO-CONSPIRATORS, Defendants. _______________________________________________ PROCEEDINGS November 30th, 1999 VOLUME IX _______________________________________________ Before the Honorable James E. Swearengen, Division 4, Judge presiding. _______________________________________________ DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD COURT REPORTERS Suite 2200, One Commerce Square Memphis, Tennessee 38103 (901) 529-1999 DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD (901) 529-1999 1185 - APPEARANCES For the Plaintiffs: MR. WILLIAM PEPPER Attorney at Law 575 Madison Avenue, Suite 1006 New York, New York 10022 (212) 605-0515 For the Defendant: MR. LEWIS K. GARRISON, Sr. Attorney at Law 100 North Main Street, Suite 1025 Memphis, Tennessee 38103 (901) 527-6445 Reported by: MS. MARGIE J. ROUTHEAUX Registered Professional Reporter Daniel, Dillinger, Dominski, Richberger & Weatherford 2200 One Commerce Square http://whale.to/b/schaap.html

1/18

10/10/2016

[1999] Testimony of Mr. William Schaap on the role of the U.S. Government in the assassination of Martin Luther King

Memphis, Tennessee 38103 DANIEL, DILLINGER, DOMINSKI, RICHBERGER, WEATHERFORD (901) 529-1999 1186 - INDEX WITNESS: PAGE NUMBER ... WILLIAM SCHAAP Direct Examination By Mr. Pepper --------------- 1299 TRIAL EXHIBITS 24 --------------- 1265 (Collective) 25 --------------- 1271 26 --------------- 1275 27 --------------- 1286 28 --------------- 1304     MR. PEPPER: Plaintiffs call Mr. William Schaap to the stand. WILLIAM SCHAAP, Having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. PEPPER: Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Schaap. A. Good afternoon. Q. Would you state your full name and address for the record, please. A. My name is William Schaap. My address is 143 West Fourth Street, New York, New York. Q. Could you give us a summary of your professional background, please. THE COURT: Before you do that, spell your last name. THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. S C H A A P. THE COURT: Thank you. A. I'm an attorney. I graduated from the University of Chicago Law School in 1964. I've been a practicing lawyer since then. And I'm a member of the bar of the State of New York and of the District of Columbia. I specialized in the 1970's in military law. I practiced military law in Asia and Europe. I later became the editor in chief of the Military Law Reporter in Washington for a number of years. And in the 70's and 80's I was staff counsel of the Center for Constitutional Rights in New York City. I also in the late 1980's was an adjunct professor at John J. College of Criminal Justice of the City University of New York where I taught courses on propaganda and disinformation. Q. (BY MR. PEPPER) Have you also been involved in journalism and publishing? A. Yes, I have. Since 1977 or '78, in addition to being a practicing lawyer, I've also been a journalist and a publisher and a writer specializing in intelligence-related matters and particularly their relationship to the media. http://whale.to/b/schaap.html

2/18

10/10/2016

[1999] Testimony of Mr. William Schaap on the role of the U.S. Government in the assassination of Martin Luther King

For more than 20 years I've been the co-publisher of a magazine called the Covert Action Quarterly which particularly deals with reporting on intelligence agencies, primarily U.S. agencies but also foreign. I published a magazine for a number of years called Lies Of Our Times which specifically was a magazine about propaganda and disinformation. And I've been the managing director of the Institute for Media Analysis for a number of years. I also, for about 20 years now, I think, was one of the principals in a publishing company called Sheraton Square Press that published books and pamphlets relating to intelligence and the media. Q. Do you also write? Have you authored articles and works? A. Yes, I do. I've written, oh, dozens of articles on -- particularly on media and intelligence. I've edited about seven or eight books on the subject. I've contributed sections to a number of other books and had -- I've -- many of my articles, of course, have appeared in my own -- our own publications, but I've also had articles appear around the world including New York Times, Washington Post and major media like -- like those. I've appeared a lot on radio and television as an expert on intelligence and the media. I'm slowing down a bit now because I'm getting older. But I used to do a lot of speaking at universities and colleges around the country and debating government officials and people connected to organizations that supported the CIA and the other -FBI and the other intelligence agencies. Q. Have you ever testified as an expert witness in the area of governmental use of media for disinformation and propaganda? A. Yes, I have. I've -- I've testified as an expert in that field in both state and federal courts in this country. I've testified in foreign courts. I testified once before the United Nations on that subject and once before the U.S. Congress. Q. Mr. Schaap, I'm going to show you a copy of a -- of your own CV. It's a summary of your professional qualifications. I want you to confirm its accuracy. A. Yes, that's -- that's my CV that I prepared. MR. PEPPER: Your Honor, we move admission of Mr. Schaap's CV and move that he be accepted as an expert witness in the matter at hand for the issues of government use of media or disinformation and propaganda purposes. THE COURT: Objections? MR. GARRISON: I have no objection. THE COURT: All right. (Whereupon said document was marked as Trial Exhibit Number 28.) Q. (BY MR. PEPPER) Mr. Schaap, in the course of your research, have you had occasion to study the use of the media by government agencies? A. Yes, I have. I've studied many government reports on the subject. Many, many books have been written about it and articles. In fact, I've written many of those articles. Q. Can you give the Court and the Jury a brief summary of the subject indicating the extent to which this type of activity by government still takes place? A. Yes, I can. I -- I won't go into ancient history, but it should be noted that -- that governments around the world have secretly used the media for their purposes for many hundreds of years, probably thousands. But certainly from the 16th and 17th century in England on there has been a great deal of research about the use by governments -- a secret use of the media. http://whale.to/b/schaap.html

3/18

10/10/2016

[1999] Testimony of Mr. William Schaap on the role of the U.S. Government in the assassination of Martin Luther King

For our purposes though, the -- particularly relating to the U.S., the most significant and the first major deliberate program in this country was during World War I when President Wilson set up an organization called the Committee For Public Information under a public relations executive -- a man named George Creole. The purpose of this committee was to propagandize the war effort against Germany. This was created immediately after the U.S. entered World War I in 1917. And in propagandizing the war effort and war news, it was the policy of this committee to have no compunctions about falsifying the news whenever it was felt that that was necessary to help the war effort. Q. Can you give us an example of the type of falsification of the news that you're talking about. A. Yes. They -- the Committee For Public Information purported very often to release documents, supposedly genuine documents, to the press in order to substantiate whatever particular position the -- the Wilson government might have been taking at the time. And one of the most famous that happened early in its creation in 1917 was a disinformation campaign to suggest that the Russian revolutionaries, Lenin in particular and Trotsky, were actually German agents being paid by the Kaiser. The Government and Creole's committee made up the story. They made up -- created phony documents. They passed it all to friends in the major newspapers. And almost immediately this was front page news around the United States and around the world. Q. I'm going to show you a New York Times headline of that era and see if that's the kind of falsification you're talking about. A. Yes, this is -- the rest of the text is from an article where that headline appeared. But that was on the front page of the New York Times in 1917. And later it transpired that the documents were -- were forgeries that had been created by Mr. Creole. And, of course, it was obvious by the current course of history, the Russian revolutionaries were hardly friends of the Kaiser. Q. Yes, indeed. A. Much less employees. Q. Can you continue with your summary, please. A. Yes. After World War I, the U.S. continued to be the -- or actually became the world's leader in the control of information. Britain had been more pre-eminent before World War I. But at the end of the war, the U.S. was really in control of all the world communication media. And disinformation was used by the government sporadically during the inter-war years. It was particularly used in the red scares of the 1920's and the creation of disinformation suggesting various opponents of the government were communists. But it wasn't a major aspect of government policy until the advent of World War II. And that was when deliberate disinformation or a structure for emitting deliberate disinformation became very, very important. Q. What happened at that point in history to bring about that resurgence? A. Well, at the very beginning of World War II there were really two schools of thought competing, both of which had government agencies. One that was set up was called the Office of War Information which was a civilian organization although it worked closely with the War Department, as it was then called. And it was headed by a man named Elmer Davis who was a very famous reporter -- journalist. His philosophy was that the agency should tell the American people exactly what was happening -- tell them the truth. If we lost a battle somewhere in Europe or the Pacific, we should tell the people we lost that battle. If we won a battle, we'd tell them we won it. But he believed that in the long run we would do best by reporting the truth.

http://whale.to/b/schaap.html

4/18

10/10/2016

[1999] Testimony of Mr. William Schaap on the role of the U.S. Government in the assassination of Martin Luther King

But at the same time another key organization that developed during World War II was the Office of Strategic Services, the OSS, which was headed by a military man, William Donovan, who was known as Wild Bill Donovan, who believed the saying that George Creole had -- his philosophy from World War I, which was that you should lie to the people whenever it's necessary, whenever you think lying will help maintain morale and win the war. This struggle was taking place, of course, in the context of World War II. And Donovan won both with President Roosevelt and afterward with President Truman. His philosophy that disinformation was a powerful -- a valuable weapon for a country to have, and that the disadvantages of lying to the American people were outweighed by the advantages of being able to manipulate the media. So when the war was over, the Office of War Information was dissolved. The OSS was transformed into the CIA. And the CIA was now existing in peace time, mind you. World War II is over, and now the CIA is set up with this information as a major part of its work and, in fact, as most of the reports later pointed out, the largest single part of the CIA's operations. The -- within the government at least, the acceptability of lying to the public became very widespread and acceptable even in time of peace. There had been people who felt, well, it's one thing when you're at war. But even in time of peace it became acceptable, and it spread from other agencies, including the -- the FBI which also began to engage in media manipulation in a very, very large way. Q. So in addition to being a war time strategy with respect to the security of the nation and the -- the promulgation of -- of falsehoods in times of war, this tactic started to be used in peace time. A. Exactly. That was the major difference. Certain things were -- were much more acceptable or expected over the course of history in time of war and were generally supposed to stop when the war was over. Now, there were people who argued in the late 40's that the Cold War was a war just like a hot war, and that was the war that was on, and that was why we had to do this. But what really happened is there were not battles being waged between soldiers. There was not a hot war going on anywhere, and yet the -- the infrastructure that had been set up to spread disinformation to be able to lie became institutionalized and became operating at a greater and greater level. Q. Mr. Schaap, how is it that some individuals like yourself have become more aware of these kinds of practices in our lifetimes while the mass of the population has not? A. Well, it's mostly because -- by coincidence there were a number of factors that came together, mostly in the 1970's, leading to major congressional investigations of these activities leading some newspapers to fund serious in-depth investigative reports. And in the middle and late 70's there were a series -- a huge series of congressional reports on intelligence activities, a whole section of which was devoted to media activities. And then there were major exposes in the New York Times and the Washington Post. It was sort of the Watergate mentality, I guess, that allowed this to happen. There was a window of a few years when exposing government misconduct, particularly past government misconduct -- and as far as the government was concerned, the older the better. But at least there was a window of opportunity where this was acceptable even within the mainstream, the establishment press. It was not frowned upon as much as it might have been at other times both before and since. Q. Before we go into some specific instances of this and details, can you explain to the Court and Jury really how does disinformation work? And why is it so -- why is it so successful? A. Well, you have to understand first the target of propaganda -- of disinformation. The consumer of the false news so to speak is -- in what we're talking about is the American public in general and sometimes the public overseas. Disinformation is almost always by -- by definition, about things that the average person has no separate personal knowledge of, otherwise it couldn't really work. I mean, you can't fool the people you're http://whale.to/b/schaap.html

5/18

10/10/2016

[1999] Testimony of Mr. William Schaap on the role of the U.S. Government in the assassination of Martin Luther King

talking about. You can fool the other people who don't know about it. You're not trying to fool the people you're talking about. The simplest example is during the Vietnam War when there was a massive bombing campaign and the U.S. was bombing Cambodia. President Nixon and Secretary of State Kissinger repeatedly made public statements that we were not dropping bombs in Cambodia. Well, you couldn't fool the Cambodians who looked up and saw the bombs falling in their back yard. They knew you were bombing Cambodia. But the American people by and large accepted these statements as truth, and in fact that was a disinformation campaign that was later admitted. You're -- really we're talking about things that the public has no separate knowledge of. And it's also reinforced by the fact that Americans generally tend to believe what their government tells them, to believe that government officials on all levels generally tell the truth. And that -- if you have that, that absence of skepticism, it's a major plus for the disinformationists. And, also, it's very, very unusual around the world other than in the United States. In most other countries, particularly in Europe, it's much more the opposite. People tend on average to be very skeptical of their government. If the Italian government issues a statement, the average Italian on the street will say it's probably a lie until you can prove to me otherwise that it's not a lie. Because governments lie. That's what they -- you know, they sort of expect them to do that whereas Americans don't expect that. The average American would hear something from the government or hear the news on television and assumes that what they're hearing is the truth unless they're shown otherwise. They assume that almost nothing is ever a conspiracy. In Europe it's very much the opposite. Anything happens. They tend to think it's a conspiracy unless you show them that it wasn't a conspiracy. I mean, after all, "conspiracy" just means, you know, more than one person being involved in something. And if you stop and think about it, almost everything significant that happens anywhere involves more than one person. Yet here there is a -- not a myth really, but there's just an underlying assumption that most things are not conspiracies. And when you have that, it enables a government which has a propaganda program, has a disinformation program, to be relatively successful in -- in having its disinformation accepted. The other reason why it -- why it works even though as we -- as we know, somewhere there are people who know it's not true. Somewhere they know you're lying about something. But another reason it works is that disinformation is very, very effective over time. The longer that you, whoever you are, can control the spin on a story, the more that spin becomes accepted as the absolute truth. And in this country the government has a great deal of power and influence over that spin. Q. Why is it so effective over time? A. Well, this is an area where I had to consult with other experts because it turns out really to be a neurological function. And that was first explained to me by a -- a professor at Harvard Medical School. And it has to do with the way the human brain remembers things, the way we learn things, the way we create patterns and associations and reinforce -- well, I don't know how you -- it sort of like channels in the brain when certain things trigger certain collateral thoughts. And when you associate one thing with another over time, just the mention of the one brings the association of the other. What this will sometimes mean is that even when something is later exposed as a lie, if it was accepted as a truth for a long time, the exposure of it as a lie is not believed. It's in one ear and out the other. The best example that we know in my field is one that John Stockwell reported on. He was a CIA officer in Angola -- for Angola. But they were based -- the CIA station was based in the Congo. And when the Cuban troops were sent in to help the Angolans fight the South Africans during the early and mid 70's, the CIA's task was to try to discredit the Cubans and do whatever it could to make people around the world think it was a terrible thing that the Cubans were helping the Angolans. http://whale.to/b/schaap.html

6/18

10/10/2016

[1999] Testimony of Mr. William Schaap on the role of the U.S. Government in the assassination of Martin Luther King

So Stockwell's group in Congo sat down, and one guy says to the other guy, let's think of something terrible to say that the Cubans did. And another guy says, hey, why don't we say they're raping Angolan women. That would be a great thing to say. The other guy says, terrific. And they call in their media experts, and they start sitting there at their desk at the CIA office and they start typing out these news stories about how a group of Cuban soldiers raped a bunch of Angolan women in some operation. And then they write Story Number 2 which is that the villagers got incensed and decided they didn't want the Cubans anymore, and they were going to find the fellows who did it and arrest them. And in Story Number 3 the villagers captured the Cubans. In Story Number 4 they were tried by a jury of the women victims and they were later executed with their own weapons. And they made a series of about 12 newspaper stories in a row. And with one phone call and one visit, it went over the wire services, it went into Europe, it went into the United States, it went around the world. And for about a six-month period there were all these stories about the horrible Cuban rapes in Angola. And what that does is when you hear -- the average person hears Angola or Cuban, they'll think rape of the women. And if they hear rape of the women, they will think Angola or Cubans. And if you get Angola, they'll think Cubans and rape of the women. And these patterns build up so that that becomes the truth embedded in your mind. Four years later John Stockwell quit the CIA and wrote a book exposing it. Wrote a big piece for the New York Times about how the entire Cuban/Angola story was a fabrication. And he sat there at the desk typing it. And the day after that story appeared, there was still 900 million people around the world who thought the phony story was true. Because when year, after year, after year you hear that something was the case, one story -- one day saying, hey, the whole thing was a lie, and it doesn't register on their brain. It can't beat those -- those patterns that have been built up. Q. Let's go back now taking an example -- let's go back now to the general area of intelligence because all of this activity is useless unless there's a structure into which it fits and into which it can be put out. Can you deal with the kind of structure of media operations that puts out this kind of disinformation. How extensive is it? A. Yes. We can be -- we have a lot of information about the CIA. We have a certain amount of information about the FBI, a certain amount about military intelligence. And the reason for this is because there were those congressional investigations that I mentioned before. There have been reports published, particularly from the Church Committee in the late 70's, where they published volume after volume describing the extent of media operations by the CIA and -- and other agencies. They -- the exact amounts of money that were being spent were -- were not divulged by those initial reports because that was considered to be classified. The intelligence budgets are always classified except at the same time every few weeks you'll read something in the newspaper where they say, the classified budget, which is approximately 25 billion dollars, and so on and so on and so forth. So what we -- what we have learned from these reports is that -- the first thing was that about a third of the whole CIA budget went to media propaganda operations. Q. Well, if a third of the CIA's budget went to media propaganda operations, how much would that be approximately? A. We're talking about hundreds of millions of dollars a year just for that. I mean, the intelligence budget -- now everything together is according to these -- all these reports that say it's secret, but it's about 25 to 30 billion dollars a year. Now, a lot of that is high-tech stuff. It has nothing to do with what we're talking about -- satellites and so on. But the stuff that goes to the CIA is several billion. And when you factor out overhead and things like that, you have got your operational amount. Most of the estimates suggest that -- that hundreds of billion -- hundreds of http://whale.to/b/schaap.html

7/18

10/10/2016

[1999] Testimony of Mr. William Schaap on the role of the U.S. Government in the assassination of Martin Luther King

millions of dollars -- close to a billion dollars are being spent every year by the United States on secret propaganda. Again, we have fairly good figures for the CIA because it at least has been admitted in the past that they did do this stuff. They admit they do it now except they say they don't do it within the United States. But they admit that that's part of what they do. The FBI is much harder to -- to get figures for because they don't generally admit to conducting media operations. And unless and until something gets exposed and they have to admit that particular operation, they -they deny to an extent where it's really hard to try and estimate how much money is being used by the FBI and by the military intelligence agencies. But it's sort of clear that hundreds of millions of dollars a year are being spent by various aspects of the government on deliberately creating and spreading lies. Q. Before we get into the specifics of media operations related to the Martin Luther King case and James Earl Ray, can you give us -- just to finish the background, can you give us some idea of the influence that the CIA and the FBI have had over the media. A. Yes. Again, this was something that very specific figures came out in the 70's and 80's, and we don't know the precise figures. Today we have no reason to think that they are significantly less than when they came out. But when the Church Committee reported on the CIA media operations, for example, beyond friends in the press, beyond having people who were just generally -- thought along similar lines, it turned out that they had thousands of journalists in their employ. Not merely friendly, not merely agents, not merely someone you could pass a story to, but people who might have appeared to the outside world to be a reporter for CBS was in fact a CIA employee getting a salary from the CIA. And that was repeated thousands of times all around the world. They also owned outright, the CIA -- about that time 250 or more media organizations. That's wire services, newspapers, magazines, radio, TV stations -- all around the world that they owned outright. The actual shareholder of the company turned out to be some CIA front. The Church Committee, unfortunately, did not name very many of these organizations because those that got named, of course, had to close down immediately. But it was learned that -- even things like the Rome Daily American, which was a major English language newspaper in Rome, for 20 or 30 years had been owned by the CIA. This was published and, of course, the paper closed the next day. But most people didn't realize the extent of the intelligence media organization. It's fairly incredible. They sort of brag about it. When you read the books about the history of the CIA, one of the heroes was the first man in charge of media operations, a man named Frank Wisner. And they referred to his organization as the Mighty Wurlitzer. And there's this image of this guy sitting at one of those giant organs, you know, with seventeen keyboards and you're playing this -- sort of like The Phantom of the Opera in that scene, and there was the guy running the CIA media operations all around the world. And he really was because every single city of any size on earth, he had some employee who was -- supposedly worked for a newspaper or a magazine or a radio station or a wire service, and they could get stories anywhere. Q. Can you give just one or two more specific examples. A. Yes. There was one -- actually in an article that was published written by a former CIA officer named James Willcot, who was not in the propaganda division, he was in finance. But he was so amazed he wrote a little article about this. And he was stationed in Japan one time when there was a big debate raging there over whether nuclear power ships should be able to dock in Japanese ports. It's been a very touchy issue -- at least since Hiroshima it's been a very touchy issue in Japan -- even peaceful uses of nuclear power.

http://whale.to/b/schaap.html

8/18

10/10/2016

[1999] Testimony of Mr. William Schaap on the role of the U.S. Government in the assassination of Martin Luther King

And the U.S. line was to promote the docking of nuclear power ships because the U.S. had more and more of them. So they wanted the Japanese papers to editorialize in favor of this in the debate that was going on. And Jim said he looked and he saw this guy at a nearby desk sit down and type -- this is a CIA officer, an employee of the U.S. Government -- type an editorial and then wave goodbye to everybody, left the office. The next morning that appeared as the editorial -- the lead editorial in the largest newspaper in Japan. Now, that level -- they didn't go to a friendly publisher and say, gee, we would sort of like it if you could maybe do something a little bit favorable to this issue. They wrote the editorial, they handed it to the guy. And the next day in Japanese it appears in the paper. Another thing showing the influence here in this country was during the Vietnam War. I don't know if -- well, some people might. People my age will remember it. There was -- Life magazine that had a cover picture of a North Vietnamese stamp that showed the Vietnamese shooting down American planes. And it showed U.S. planes with U.S. markings being burst into flames and crashing and U.S. pilots being killed. And it was a pretty bizarre and gruesome set of postage stamps. And there was a whole story in there basically trying to give the line that the Vietnamese were glorifying the killing of Americans. And they thought it was so great to kill Americans that they were putting it on their postage stamps. The only thing that was later learned is that these were not North Vietnamese stamps. They were CIA forgeries. Had never been real stamps. And the CIA was able to have them appear on the cover of Life magazine as if they were the real thing. That level of influence is something that many people don't realize. And when you read the congressional reports, page after page after page, it's absolutely astonishing how, given the urgency and given that they have hundreds of millions of dollars at their command, they could get almost anything to appear almost anywhere. Q. What about the FBI and domestic propaganda? A. Well, the FBI, there's much less documentation, again, because the official position is that the FBI doesn't do this. Whereas the official position is the CIA does do it although they tried not to talk about it. But what did come out in the congressional reports primarily is that a major FBI division that was called the crime reporting division was theoretically supposed to keep track of how federal crimes were being reported. Why that was their business, I don't know. But that's what its theory was. But in fact what it was doing was a whole division set up to keep track of journalists and reporters and magazines and newspapers to decide who could be counted on to write stories that the FBI wanted written, who would slant stories the way they wanted it. The question of whether these particular reporters were actually FBI employees, like so many were CIA employees, is unclear. That's never been admitted by the government that the FBI actually took its own employees and had them get a job as a correspondent on the newspaper, whereas we know the CIA did that in many, many places. There's no reason to think they couldn't have done it other than the fact that it hasn't yet been -- been exposed. But in any event, there were significant pressures available to the FBI to -- to use their friends. And the Church Committee report gives -- gives many, many examples -- copies of memos from Hoover on down where there would be a thing attached and say, get this information to our friends at the Copely News Service, get this information to our friends at Reader's Digest, get this to our friendly AP reporter and so on. And then, of course, they would show the clipping indicating that in fact someone had gotten it to their friends, and it would then go over the wires or appear in stories. Q. Let's turn now to the use of the media in this type of campaign against Martin Luther King, Jr. But before you do that, could you tell the Court and the Jury, what are the sources of -- underlying your testimony -- this aspect of it. http://whale.to/b/schaap.html

9/18

10/10/2016

[1999] Testimony of Mr. William Schaap on the role of the U.S. Government in the assassination of Martin Luther King

A. Yes. I did a goodly amount of additional research and preparation and contemplation of appearing here. And there really are two main sources. The first, of course, is the various congressional reports that we have talked about. In addition to reports about the general operations or misconduct of the CIA or the FBI, there have been specific studies -- I don't know if they have been mentioned in this case, but there have been specific studies relating to Martin Luther King, Jr., both with respect to attacks on him while he was alive and also specific reports with respect to his murder. There was an entire volume published from one of the Senate investigations on the FBI media campaign against Dr. King. [See Final Report of the Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities of the United States Senate, 94th Congress, 2nd Session, 1976, Book III, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Case Study] And there was a House Committee that published a volume investigating his assassination. And these, of course, are the -- the most important sources for what I'm talking about and what other people have written about because they have a great deal of government documentation in them which no private journalist could ever get their hands on. There are things in there that even the best of research wouldn't be able to obtain. But the congressional committees had subpoena powers and were able to amass thousands of documents, most of which were photocopied and attached to their reports. Q. For our purposes here, as well as those sources, what other sources have you used? A. Well, I've also, of course, reviewed many books that have been written on the subject -- hundreds of articles. And I've -- I've done briefcases full of clippings that were major stories written about Dr. King, particularly in the last few years of his life. And then the -- most of the coverage in the first few years of the James Earl Ray case. Both before and after his guilty plea there was intensive coverage, as you can imagine. And throughout the 60's and into the early 70's, there was quite a bit of coverage, and those clippings that I've been able to find I've reviewed. Some of the sporadic coverage in the 80's and 90's I've also been able to assemble and review, although the level of that coverage has decreased very much over the last decade or so. Q. What do the congressional reports -- if you can summarize them, give some instances, what do the congressional reports tell us about the FBI's use of the media in general but then particularly as it relates to Dr. King? A. Well, in general, the first thing they show is that throughout its history, the FBI has made relations with the media a key area. Not so much infiltrating employees as the CIA did, but cultivating very, very deep connections throughout the American media. They had the entire division of the FBI -- the crime reporting division was dealing solely with developing friendly journalists, developing ways in which you could get what you wanted to appear in the papers to be there and what you didn't want not to be there on a level that was -- nobody realized until these -- these reports came out. The crime reporting division was keeping track of virtually every journalist in America that wrote anything that had to do with the FBI. And whether everything was being classified as friendly or unfriendly, it -- of course, it was somewhat complicated because it generally meant: Did J. Edgar Hoover like what they wrote or not like what they wrote? And practically -- the opinion of nobody else at the FBI mattered while Hoover was alive. But he kept charts on every significant journalist as to who was helpful. And when you look through the reports and the documents that have come out, you will see statements by Hoover and his immediate subordinates get this information to friendly journalists. Get this to our friend at U.S. News and World Report. Get this to some friendly reporters in Memphis. And you just see all that sort of stuff. Interestingly though, this information -- it never mattered whether the information was true or false. That was not what it was about. You find FBI planting information that's true, you find them planting information that's false. The critical thing was if they had the friend at that media place, that friend was going to run what they wanted without investigating it. http://whale.to/b/schaap.html

10/18

10/10/2016

[1999] Testimony of Mr. William Schaap on the role of the U.S. Government in the assassination of Martin Luther King

Q. Could you just cut through -- tell us what the Church Committee said about CoIntellPro reports and explain to the Court and the Jury what were the CoIntellPro activities. A. CoIntellPro was Counter Intelligence Program, and that was the -- the major FBI program to counter what it conceived to be threats to American democracy. And it was, at least in my opinion, rather paranoid in what it considered threats. It had divisions trying to operate against communists, against socialists, against the New Left, against the Old Left, against what they referred to as Black Nationalists, what they referred to as hate groups. They had a separate section just on the Nation of Islam. They had a separate section on the Civil Rights Movement. They had a hybrid program on CommInfil which was to deal with the possibility that communists were infiltrating non-communist groups. So they had one section trying to disrupt groups they felt were communist influence or dangerous, and another one trying to infiltrate groups or find out about groups that they thought other people were infiltrating. Basically they -- and, of course, you have to understand, "counter intelligence program" was really a misnomer. Because counter intelligence normally means you're trying to find things out. Counter intelligence officers in war time and in espionage are supposed to be finding out information. But these were active committees, not passive. And what counter intelligence programs were, were overt attempts -- sometimes very, very complicated operations to disrupt organizations which they felt were a threat regardless of whether the organizations were committing any crimes. I mean, the irony of this is that while the FBI theoretically was supposed to limit itself to investigating crimes, and federal crimes at that, it basically took the position that, you know, thinking bad thoughts was a crime. Or if you didn't like the current government of that day, that was a crime. And if J. Edgar Hoover decided the group should be disrupted, then CoIntellPro would sit down and figure out how to disrupt it. Q. Where was Dr. King in this constellation? Where did they -- how did they regard him? How was he targeted? A. Well, he was just about the top of the list in terms of J. Edgar Hoover for reasons that are still unclear. Many books have been written about J. Edgar Hoover, and I don't think anybody quite understands what made him tick. He hated Dr. King. He made no bones about it. I mean, he would -- he would send letters using -- referring to him as garbage, referring to him as slime. When Martin Luther King was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, he wrote a long diatribe about how that was the most ridiculous thing he ever heard of in his life, and in fact started a whole thing to disrupt the Nobel Peace Prize program. But he and the SCLC, as Dr. King's organization, were by themselves a major target of the FBI from early on. He certainly was being investigated in the 50's. It wasn't until the early 60's that it really intensified. But Hoover was much more public about Dr. King than almost any other individual. He would be public about "the communists" or "the terrorists" or whatever. But Martin Luther King he specifically used -- used the most horrendous language to describe him. And once went on a -- the only time he ever gave a press interview called him -- called Martin Luther King the most notorious liar in the history of the United States. Q. Okay. A. And he was saying that because King had had the temerity to say that the FBI agents in the south weren't being terribly helpful to blacks who were having problems with the racism there. Q. Can you give an example of some of the media operations that the FBI and Hoover mounted against Dr. King's organization. A. Sure. The first really significant ones were -- were to -- to suggest that the Southern Christian Leadership Conference was communist infiltrated and communist dominated. They -- the FBI had prepared dossiers on King http://whale.to/b/schaap.html

11/18

10/10/2016

[1999] Testimony of Mr. William Schaap on the role of the U.S. Government in the assassination of Martin Luther King

and on everybody who was working with him and had two people who were close to Dr. King who had at some time in the past had some affiliations with communists. You should understand, because this came out later, they had no evidence whatsoever that either of these two people was at that time a communists or that either of these two people was trying to impose some communist line on Dr. King, but they decided to say that anyway. And they prepared dossiers on these two -- one was a white lawyer, Stanley Levinson, the other was a black organizer named Jack O'Dell. And what they did is they -- the same way, get us a friend at this paper, get us a friend there. They started planting stories. And I think I've -Q. Let me -- let me -A. -- given you one of the key ones. Q. Yes, let's pull up on the stand one of the stories -- screen one of the stories that they planted. A. That's the second page. I think the headline is -- right. This was a major story about -- about Jack O'Dell and an attempt to -- I mean, they were attempting to discredit Dr. King and the organization. They were not -- they were not trying to just get rid of O'Dell because that would be better for the organization. But they spread this -this particular clipping, I believe, is from The Atlanta Constitution. But it says in it that -- it makes reference to prior articles in the St. Louis Globe Democrat, in the New Orleans Times Picayune. The story which was essentially based on the FBI spreading this -- this information appeared all over the country. Q. Other than a general attack, is there anything -- anything else significant about this -- this article? A. Well, actually, this is a good one because it demonstrates some of the techniques they used. The most significant one is being fuzzy whenever you can. It has -- in there it talks -- it refers to O'Dell and says: "Has been identified as a member of the National Committee of the Communist Party." And that -- this is sort of the passive tense to avoid saying what -- what you know. When you say someone has been -- you don't say who identified him. You don't even say whether this identification has been confirmed. You don't say whether it's true or false. I mean, you know, one person anywhere can say something about anybody, and then you say he has been identified as a such and such. That's very important, particularly because we -- that's in the present tense. It says: "Has been identified as a member of the communist party." We know now that at the time, when the FBI gave this information to its friend, they knew that was untrue. Because they knew -- whatever might have been ten years before, they knew at that time that he was not a member of the Communist Party and yet they sent out this information saying he has been identified as a member of the Communist Party. Q. Was this a part of a broader effort on the part of the FBI to discredit the Black Movement and to tie the Civil Rights Movement to communists generally and communist infiltration? A. Very much so. It was one of the -- the few instances where -- where Hoover actually testified before Congress and allowed the testimony to be public. He -- the line was that the -- the Black Movement -- the Civil Rights Movement was being exploited by communists. And this particular clipping is another example -- again, this is from the New York Times -- of this program. These are all -- despite the fact that many of them have bylines, although this one does not have a byline, these are all based on material packets -- press packets almost that were prepared by the FBI and given to their -- to their friends in these -- in these stories. And in this case, it's even more significant because this was part of a campaign that was so organized that Hoover got his friends to write stories about it before his testimony became public so that when the testimony then became public, as it did for this one, people would know about it. One of his very, very close friends was

http://whale.to/b/schaap.html

12/18

10/10/2016

[1999] Testimony of Mr. William Schaap on the role of the U.S. Government in the assassination of Martin Luther King

Stewart -- Joseph Alsop, who was a syndicated national columnist back then. And this was Alsop's column about the terribly sad fact that the Civil Rights Movement in America was totally being run by the communists. This, again, was based on whatever the FBI handed him and asked him to publish. This was just one week before the other story where the -- where the testimony became public. Q. There was an escalating battle between Hoover's FBI and Martin Luther King's SCLC and the Civil Rights and then anti-war activities. What -- how did it intensify from the standpoint of media operations against Dr. King? A. Well, the first real escalation was in sixty -- in late '64 when I mentioned before that Hoover gave a press conference and called King the most notorious liar in the country. This was sort of a -- it was shocking that he said it, it was shocking that he said it in the context of a public meeting with journalists. And it appeared all over the country. And the whole conference was reprinted in U.S. News and World Report with a short response from -- from Dr. King. That was the start of -- of a campaign which continued right up until -- until King's death. I mentioned before that during the Nobel Peace Prize period of time this was in -- the nomination was in late '64, and he received it in January of '65. Hoover had the FBI do everything they could to minimize -- he couldn't stop the Swedish and Norwegian governments from giving him the prize. But he did everything that he could to try to stop it from being honored here. There was a major banquet in Dr. King's honor in Atlanta when he came back from receiving the prize. Hoover got the editor of the Atlanta Constitution personally to go around and try and persuade various people not to attend the banquet. There were also a series of articles around this time trying to show that -- that King was being influenced by communists which were being -- again, we learned this from reports. The FBI, as the CIA, was actually writing the articles anonymously and then trying to get their friends in papers to print the article under somebody else's name. And there were a whole series, some of which actually did get printed, some of which didn't. There were also -- I won't go -- I mean, there are big -- hundreds and hundreds of pages of reports detailing all the things that the FBI did. They -- one of the most outrageous was a doctored tape recording that was prepared that purported to -- to be a recording of Dr. King engaging in raucous and possibly sexual activities with various people. It turned out to be - most of it was totally fraudulent. And what wasn't fraudulent did not have to do with anything torrid going on. It was all put together. And the tape -- in fact, the tape was originally used -- and this is one of the things that the House Committee found the most outrageous -- in an attempt to try and drive Dr. King to commit suicide. Shortly before he went to get the Nobel Prize, the tape was mailed to him with a long letter basically saying, if you don't kill yourself, we're going to make this public. Nothing ever happened because he was getting so much mail that this thing that somebody thought was -- somebody made a tape of one of his speeches. And they put it in the back room, and they didn't get to look at it until about nine months later, long after he had come back. And then they saw the note trying to get him to commit suicide. And then, ten years later, we discover that it was the FBI who wrote that note and made that tape and mailed it to Dr. King. THE COURT: Let's take a few seconds and stretch. (Brief break taken.) THE COURT: Bring in the Jury. (Jury In.) Q. (BY MR. PEPPER) Mr. Schaap, you've described an awesome power that exists in government influenced and controlled, sometimes owned, media -- print, audio, visual media entities -- and how that http://whale.to/b/schaap.html

13/18

10/10/2016

[1999] Testimony of Mr. William Schaap on the role of the U.S. Government in the assassination of Martin Luther King

infrastructure gets focused on opponents of the United States such as Martin Luther King. Do you see how this incredible power was brought against Dr. King and intensified against him during the last year of his life? A. Yes. I think the -- the main reason for that was very, very specific. There was one speech that Dr. King gave in April of 1967 at Riverside Church in New York City where he came out against the war in Vietnam. And if you remember back to that period of time, this was a fundamental debate gripping every aspect of this country, the pros and cons of the involvement in Vietnam. And when Dr. King came out against the U.S. involvement there, this was immediately accepted by J. Edgar Hoover as proof that he was a communist, proof that he was a terrible person. Q. But didn't this have the effect of unifying all the forces -- all of the intelligence forces of the United States, and so now just -- it was not just an FBI matter, but it -- it seemed to spread to military intelligence, central intelligence and other areas too, didn't it? A. Absolutely. Once Dr. King made that statement, the CIA in particular considered him and his movement fair game. Even to the extent that their operations were limited to foreign policy, the -- again, because of the congressional investigations, we know that the CIA, which people thought did not operate domestically within the U.S., had a huge domestic program called Operation Chaos which was designed to counter opposition to the Vietnam War. And even though they later admitted it was illegal and later admitted they shouldn't have been doing it, there have been whole books of congressional reports about all the Operation Chaos activity in the United States, and what they called Black Nationalists were a specific target of that -- that campaign. Q. Did this continue into 1968 in his activities with the Sanitation Workers' Strike in Memphis and planning for the Poor People's Campaign in Washington? A. Absolutely. The campaign against Dr. King's activities went up to the very last day of his life. In particular, on the -- his involvement with the strike in Memphis, the FBI decided at that point to try to spread stories that he was encouraging violence. One of the -- the key articles was in the Christian Science Monitor at the end of March of '68 and, again, gives all of the -- the themes that the FBI wanted -- wanted planted, particularly about violence. The article uses bizarre language for something about a small strike in a medium-sized town that, you know, was something but was not like an earth-shaking event. This was the Sanitation Workers' Strike. And this story refers to it as a potentially cataclysmic racial confrontation. Not quite World War III, but along that kind of language. And stories that began to appear -- and this was just before Dr. King was killed -- were -- were suggesting that he was closely allied with violent forces. Q. Mr. Schaap, this Court and Jury has heard testimony from a former New York Times reporter who was told by his national editor -- Times reporters in this courtroom notwithstanding -- told by his national editor, Claude Sitton, to go to Memphis and nail Dr. King. Those were the words Earl Caldwell used in his testimony here. Is that the kind of thing you're talking about? A. Oh, absolutely. Hoover was -- you see from the memos in the report -- and Lord knows what we don't know and haven't seen -- was sending people out everywhere to talk to all of their friendly media contacts to get King. And they would usually deliver packets of information, much of it false, to be used as part of the -- of the campaign. They also were -- used a lot of interesting tactics. And you see in these stories a lot of fuzzy -- I mean, the story that's on the screen, for example, has a sentence in it near the end where it says: "Many blacks have mixed feelings about Dr. King." I mean, this is a -- they teach you in Journalism 101 not to use sentences like that. What does it mean "many blacks"? Many -- everybody had mixed feelings about everything. If you want to do it, you say who has what feelings. http://whale.to/b/schaap.html

14/18

10/10/2016

[1999] Testimony of Mr. William Schaap on the role of the U.S. Government in the assassination of Martin Luther King

But the whole thing was to try to say he's violent, he's hanging around with violent people, and basically the blacks in this country shouldn't support him. Q. What was this operation like -- this media blitz, this media disinformation campaign? What was it like after Dr. King was killed? A. Well, for one thing, the attempts to discredit Dr. King -- particularly the FBI attempts -- did not stop after his death. They continued to send out their little dossiers and reports and phony information to try and discredit his memory. They also -- in the beginning when, of course, the assassin had not yet been caught or, rather, no one yet had been caught and charged with the assassination, had to give the impression that the FBI was doing a great job. I mean, one of the criticisms that was unavoidable is when Hoover had already publicly attacked Dr. King in all these magazines and said he thought he was a liar and thought he was the worst problem facing the United States and so on, it became a problem for the FBI then to try and convince America that they were doing everything in their power to apprehend his killer. And to do that, they had to pull out all the stops and get all their friendly columnists writing story after story that they were doing everything they could. And also subsequently to try and add to the stories that they were convinced that James Earl Ray was the lone assassin. Q. Let me put up this article. This story relates to a Jack Anderson column. A. Yes. This is interesting for what it reveals later. This was a story that came out in 1975. That's actually an interesting example of Jack Anderson criticizing a group of people, of whom he fails to mention he was one at the time. It's something that happens often when columnists decide to clear the -- clear the slate. But he was reporting at this time about how the FBI had waged the campaign against Dr. King, how he knew about it, how he knew about all these gross accusations that were being -- being handed out. It's -- I mean, the story is only interesting because why didn't he say it at the time is one's first thought. But at least he stayed abreast of some of it. He also was able to -- to explain that a number of rumors about Dr. King had been proven to be not true. What he didn't know at the time because the Congressional Report came out a little bit later -what he didn't know is that even the FBI at the time they were spreading the stories when Dr. King was alive knew that the stories were not true. Q. Now, at the same time they were trying to discredit Dr. King and continued to discredit his name after he was killed, they were trying to enhance the -- the manhunt and the law enforcement work during that time. A. Yes. Not only enhance, but use hyperbole that was pretty bizarre. Although, of course, you can understand the pressures that were on them when no one had been caught. Drew Pearson, who was a very close friend of Hoover's, had a nationally syndicated column and wrote one basically designed to try and kill the rumors that Hoover wasn't trying hard because he didn't like King. And in it Pearson says he is convinced that the FBI is conducting perhaps the most painstaking exhaustive manhunt ever before undertaken in the United States. Why -- how he would know is beyond us, but that's clearly what Hoover told him to say. They also -- I don't have the clipping here. But they also had another one of their very close operatives, Jeremiah O'Leary, who was then with the Washington Star, did an article for the Reader's Digest. And he went one beyond Pearson and said it was the greatest manhunt in law enforcement history in the world. So he was now saying this wasn't only the greatest manhunt in America, it was the greatest manhunt ever, anywhere. There were -- there are a whole -- and, of course, when Ray was arrested, then there was a state of sort of selfcongratulatory columns done by the same friends of the FBI showing what a wonderful job they had done. Q. Are there any other aspects of this coverage after Dr. King's death that were clearly media operations? http://whale.to/b/schaap.html

15/18

10/10/2016

[1999] Testimony of Mr. William Schaap on the role of the U.S. Government in the assassination of Martin Luther King

A. Well, there certainly are in my opinion. At this point, once we get beyond the things that have been admitted in the Congressional Reports, I'm drawing my conclusions based on my own experience and expertise. But it certainly seems clear that there were media operations around -- not only that the FBI had done a wonderful job, but also on the -- the campaign to demonstrate that -- not only that James Earl Ray had done it, but that he had acted alone. Q. What are the possible operations that you actually see? A. Well, there -- you see in stories, again by friends of the FBI, statements like: It looks like the theory that there was a conspiracy is untrue. The FBI has exploded the theory that there was a conspiracy. The -- even people who had -- see, they -- they got caught a little bit because in the beginning they were planting stories that had conspiracy -- I mean, there was a story that the FBI planted at the very beginning saying that Dr. King had been killed by the husband -- by an irate husband of a lover of his. Now, later -- ten years later we saw that this was invented and that they had made up this story. But then they were sort of stuck. Because if you're saying that Ray was hired by somebody else to do it, that's a conspiracy. So then they had to drop that story because now the line was there was no conspiracy. Now they're saying -- and the same people. Pearson mentioned that story and then later on denounced the generally prevalent theory that the murder involved a conspiracy without pointing out that he was one of the people who were part of the original prevalent theory. Even -- particularly, actually, after the guilty plea, when it got -- there was no longer a judicial proceeding going on about which they could feed the stories they wanted to, they still felt a compulsion to periodically come up with stories that there was no conspiracy, there was no plot. This one on the screen being another one of these -these examples. Q. This is the continuation of the lone killer, lone nut gunman that was -- had to be perpetuated throughout the period of James Earl Ray's incarceration? A. Absolutely. It never -- because Ray insisted virtually from the day of the plea that there was a conspiracy, they felt compelled to -- to continue to plant these -- these stories. They -- they went on for a number of years at a very intense level, and then it sort of petered off. But in the first year after the plea of guilty, Anderson wrote a number of columns saying there just wasn't any conspiracy. Max Lerner wrote columns saying Ray was the killer, there's nothing to the conspiracy theory. And when -- another example of how they -- they fuzzied it was even at the time of the plea, there was a story on the - in the Washington Post, which I think I've given you a copy of, where they said: No evidence of any plot, Jury is told. Now that isn't really what the Jury was told. But if you read the story, it was that the prosecution was not presenting any evidence of a plot, which is very different from saying -- of course, they didn't present any evidence that there wasn't a plot either. Yet if you look at that headline, it looks like something has been said and done in court showing a jury there was no -- no plot. And that's not what happened. It wasn't -- it wasn't discussed either way. And they -- they -- there was a story I believe the next week in the Washington Post where the title of the story was: "Ray Alone Still Talks of a Plot." Which, again, journalistically was ridiculous. Because there were millions upon millions of Americans talking about whether there was a plot. And a story which, you know, tries to create the impression that James Earl Ray was stark raving mad and was the only person in America who thought there might have been a plot. That campaign went -- and, in fact, they then said, well, what we really meant was that he's the only person who is officially involved in the proceedings and thinks there's a plot, everyone else doesn't. And even that wasn't true because the next day there was a story in the papers that the -- the judge here -- the judge at the time, Judge http://whale.to/b/schaap.html

16/18

10/10/2016

[1999] Testimony of Mr. William Schaap on the role of the U.S. Government in the assassination of Martin Luther King

Battle, wasn't sure and thought maybe there had been a plot and certainly made it clear that under Tennessee law if further -- if co-conspirators came up or were arrested or indicted, they would be subject to -- to trial. Q. Let me pass this article to you and ask you to look at that, Mr. Schaap. That's an article that appeared in the New York Times, Column 1 on the 17th of November, 1978, right at the time when the -- both Ray brothers were being questioned and examined in public before the House Select Committee on Assassination. And that article speaks of an independent investigation by the New York Times and the FBI and the Select Committee, into an Alton, Illinois, bank robbery -- an investigation which never took place because it's now been established. Is that an example of the type of disinformation that one finds in an attempt to train the public minds? A. Oh, absolutely. Given the fact that subsequently it was shown that they were not suspects in that robbery, it -the first thing it means is that the -- the reporter is saying some things which had to have been simply fed to him and not checked. Because if you're saying something happened, which in fact very, very basic journalism would have proven didn't happen, you are either doing it on your own to spread some disinformation, which is extremely unlikely, or you're being asked to put a spin on something that you know is going to -- to be coming out. The -- again, I'm -- I don't know what happened in Alton, Illinois. But if, as I understand there's been testimony, it is clear that the Ray brothers were not suspects in that case, this story is clearly disinformation because it's designed to make it appear not only that they were suspects in that case but that they did it, and to make it appear that two investigations confirmed that whereas, since we know it wasn't true, it's impossible that either investigation could have confirmed it. Q. Let me ask you finally -- this has been a long road -- how you regard -- what is your explanation for the fact that there has been such little national media coverage of these -- of this trial and this evidence and this event here in this Memphis courtroom, which is the first trial ever to be able to produce evidence on this assassination -- what has happened here that Mighty Wurlitzer is not sounding but is in fact totally silent -- almost totally silent? A. Oh, but -- as we know, silence can be deafening. Disinformation is not only getting certain things to appear in print, it's also getting certain things not to appear in print. I mean, the first -- the first thing I would say as a way of explanation is the incredibly powerful effect of disinformation over a long period of time that I mentioned before. For 30 years the official line has been that James Earl Ray killed Martin Luther King and he did it all by himself. That's 30 years, not -- nothing like the short period when the line was that the Cubans raped the Angolan women. But for 30 years it's James Earl Ray killed Dr. King, did it all by himself. And when that is imprinted in the minds of the general public for 30 years, if somebody stood up and confessed and said: I did it. Ray didn't do it, I did it. Here's a movie. Here's a video showing me do it. 99 percent of the people wouldn't believe him because it just -- it just wouldn't click in the mind. It would just go right to -- it couldn't be. It's just a powerful psychological effect over 30 years of disinformation that's been imprinted on the brains of the -- the public. Something to the country couldn't -- couldn't be. Q. Not only -- excuse me. Not only psychological, but weren't you also saying neurological? A. Yes. I'm not a doctor. But what I understood is that these -- the brain's patterns of thinking are a physical aspect of the human brain. That's how we develop patterns of thought, how we develop associations. And then, of course, the Mighty Wurlitzer we talked about is still there, it's still playing its tune. And even though you might think 30 years is a long time, that almost everybody who might get in trouble is probably dead by now, that's -- that's how it works. People obtain influence, people make vast sums of money through this propaganda. Those people pass that influence on to others, they pass the money down the line, and all of that can be at risk for a very, very long time. There are documents from the investigation of the assassination of Abraham Lincoln that are still classified. Don't ask me why, but they were originally sealed for 100 years. And then in 1965 President Linden Johnson http://whale.to/b/schaap.html

17/18

10/10/2016

[1999] Testimony of Mr. William Schaap on the role of the U.S. Government in the assassination of Martin Luther King

said, well, it's so close to the Kennedy assassination, if people read the Lincoln documents, it might make them think funny things about Kennedy, so he classified them for another 50 years. So now the grand children of anybody around Lincoln was around are long dead, and these documents are still -- still classified. And we're talking today about a case that's 100 years more immediate than Lincoln. And the establishment is still the establishment. Q. Mr. Schaap, thank you very much for joining us this afternoon. A. Thank you. MR. PEPPER: Nothing further, Your Honor. THE COURT: Just a moment. Mr. Garrison? MR. GARRISON: Your Honor, I have no questions of this witness. THE COURT: You have nothing. Very well. Sir, you may stand down. Thank you very much. THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honor. (Witness excused.) (Court adjourned until December 1, 1999, at 10:00 a.m.)

http://whale.to/b/schaap.html

18/18

10/10/2016

Operation Mockingbird - 9/11 Review

 

9/11 Review Web Site:  Home Page  Search  About Donate  911Review.Com Top Topics:  FrontPage                 Conspiracy Of Silence            Political Art       Anthrax Attacks            Inside Job            Leahy Vs Ashcroft 200406            McMedia            Patriot Act       Building 7 Collapse            Guardian            Muslims Suspend Physics       Latest Headlines       OngoingCoverup            Air Force Stand down            Coverup By White House            Flight 77 BlackBoxes            Flights            In His Own Words            InsiderTrading            OpenAndFairTrials            Pentagon Attack Cctv Video            Prior Knowledge       Osama Bin Asset            BinLaden            Bin Laden Confession            Cia Visas For Patsies            Experienced Skeptics            Hijackers Alive AndWell            Hijackers Patsies       Pentagon Attack            Flight77            Flight 77 Sites            Pentagon Attack Damage            Pentagon Attack Debris            Pentagon Attack Fire            Pentagon Attack Legend            Pentagon Mascal            Pentagon Plane Rotor       Pentagon Strike            Flight 77 Patsies             Flight77 Witnesses             Killtown            PentagonAttackHole             Pentagon Attack Videos            Pentagon Attack Witnesses Blast

 

Operation Mockingbird From: 

International Advocates For Health Freedom.

Operation Mockingbird The Subversion Of America's Free Press By The CIA. March 24, 2000. "You could get a journalist cheaper than a good call girl, for a couple hundred dollars a month." CIA operative discussing with Philip Graham, editor Washington Post, on the availability and prices of journalists willing to peddle CIA propaganda and cover stories. "Katherine The Great," by Deborah Davis (New York: Sheridan Square Press, 1991) As terrible as it is to live in a nation where the press in known to be controlled by the government, at least one has the advantage of knowing the bias is present, and to adjust for it. In the United States of America, we are taught from birth that our press is free from such government meddling. This is an insideous lie about the very nature of the news institution in this country. One that allows the government to lie to us while denying the very fact of the lie itself. Tales from the Crypt The Depraved Spies and Moguls of the CIA's Operation MOCKINGBIRD By Alex Constantine.

http://911review.org/Wiki/OperationMockingbird.shtml

Who Controls the Media? Soulless corporations do, of course. Corporations with grinning, double­breasted executives, interlocking directorates, labor squabbles and flying capital. Dow. General Electric. Coca­Cola. Disney. Newspapers should have mastheads that mirror the world: The Westinghouse Evening Scimitar, The Atlantic­Richfield Intelligentser . It is beginning to dawn on a growing number of armchair ombudsmen that the public print reports news from a parallel universe ­ one that has never heard of politically­motivated assassinations, CIA ­ Mafia banking thefts, mind control, death squads or even federal agencies with secret budgets fattened by cocaine sales ­ a place overrun by lone gunmen, where the CIA and Mafia are usually on their best behavior. In this idyllic land, the most serious infraction an official can commit __is a the employment of a domestic servant with (shudder) no residency status. This unlikely land of enchantment is the creation of MOCKINGBIRD. It was conceived in the late 1940s, the most frigid period of the cold war, when the CIA began a systematic infiltration of the corporate media, a process that often included direct takeover of major news outlets. In this period, the American intelligence services competed with communist activists abroad to influence European labor unions. With 1/28

10/10/2016

Operation Mockingbird - 9/11 Review

      Sept 11 WebSites            Grable,Rosalee       TrustedNewsSites       Twin Towers       Whats Next

 More topics... News:  911 Ommission TortureAct  CanadasPatriotAct3  ChemtrailsOverOttawa  TrustedNewsSites Essays:  BogusWarOnTerrorism  FemaTheSecretGovernment  TruthLiesLegendof911  DUTrojanHorse Viewpoints:  Conspiracy Of Silence  FraudulentLegislation  WhatsNext  StanleyHiltonLawsuit Mirrors:  geocities.com/killtown  elitewatch.netfirms.com  lightscion.com  baltech.org/lederman  angieon911.com

or without the cooperation of local governments, Frank Wisner, an undercover State Department official assigned to the Foreign Service, rounded up students abroad to enter the cold war underground of covert operations on behalf of his Office of Policy Coordination. Philip Graham, ­ a graduate of the Army Intelligence School in Harrisburg, PA, then publisher of the Washington Post., was taken under Wisner's wing to direct the program code­named Operation MOCKINGBIRD. Your Ad Here

"By the early 1950s," writes former Village Voice reporter Deborah Davis in Katharine the Great, "Wisner 'owned' respected members of the New York Times, Newsweek, CBS and other communications vehicles, plus stringers, four to six hundred in all, according to a former CIA analyst." The network was overseen by Allen Dulles, a templar for German and American corporations who wanted their points of view represented in the public print. Early MOCKINGBIRD influenced 25 newspapers and wire agencies consenting to act as organs of CIA propaganda. Many of these were already run by men with reactionary views, among them William Paley (CBS), C.D. Jackson (Fortune), Henry Luce (Time) and Arthur Hays Sulzberger (N.Y. Times). Activists curious about the workings of MOCKINGBIRD have since been appalled to f__ind in FOIA documents that agents boasting in CIA office memos of their pride in having placed "important assets" inside every major news publication in the country. It was not until 1982 that the Agency openly admitted that reporters on the CIA payroll have acted as case officers to agents in the field. "World War III has begun," Henry's Luce's Life declared in March, 1947. "It is in the opening skirmish stage already." The issue featured an excerpt of a book by James Burnham, who called for the creation of an "American Empire," "world­dominating in political power, set up at least in part through coercion (probably including war, but certainly the threat of war) and in which one group of people ... would hold more than its equal share of power."

Secret Evidence #########

http://911review.org/Wiki/OperationMockingbird.shtml

George Seldes, the famed anti­fascist media critic, drew down on Luce in 1947, explaining that "although avoiding typical Hitlerian phrases, the same doctrine of a superior people taking over the world and ruling it, began to appear in the press, whereas the organs of Wall Street were much more honest in favoring a doctrine inevitably leading to war if it brought greater commercial markets under the American flag." On the domestic front, an abiding relationship was struck between the CIA and William Paley, a wartime colonel and the founder of CBS. A firm believer in "all forms of propaganda" to foster loyalty to the Pentagon, Paley hired CIA agents to work undercover at the behest of his close friend, the busy grey eminence of the nation's media, Allen Dulles. Paley's designated go­between in his dealings with the CIA was Sig Mickelson, president of CBS News from 1954 to 1961. 2/28

10/10/2016

Operation Mockingbird - 9/11 Review

The CIA's assimilation of old guard fascists was overseen by the Operations Coordination Board, directed by C.D. Jackson, formerly an executive of Time magazine and Eisenhower's Special Assistant for Cold War Strategy. In 1954 he was succeeded by Nelson Rockefeller, who quit a year later, disgusted at the administration's political infighting. Vice President Nixon succeeded Rockefeller as the key cold war strategist. "Nixon," writes John Loftus, a former attorney for the Justice Department's Office of Special Investigations, took "a small boy's delight in the arcane tools of the intelligence craft ­ the hidden microphones, the 'black' propaganda." Nixon especially enjoyed his visit to a Virginia training camp to observe Nazis in the "special forces" drilling at covert operations. One of the fugitives recruited by the American intelligence underground was heroin smuggler Hubert von Blcher, the son of A German ambassador. Hubert often bragged that that he was trained by the Abwehr, the German military intelligence division, while still a civilian in his twenties. He served in a recon unit of the German Army until forced out for medical reasons in 1944, according to his wartime records. He worked briefly as an assistant director for Berlin­Film on a movie entitled One Day ..., and finished out the war flying with the Luftwaffe, but not to engage the enemy ­ his mission was the smuggling of Nazi loot out of the country. His exploits were, in part, the subject of Sayer and Botting's Nazi Gold, an account of the knockover of the Reichsbank at the end of the war. In 1948 he flew the coop to Argentina. Posing as a photographer named Huberto von Bleucher Corell, he immediately paid court to Eva Peron, presenting her with an invaluable Gobelin tapestry (a selection from the wealth of artifacts confiscated by the SS from Europe's Jews?). Hubert then met with Martin Bormann at the Hotel Plaza to deliver German marks worth $80 million. The loot financed the birth of the National Socialist Party in Argentina, among other forms of Nazi revival. In 1951, Hubert migrated northward and took a job at the Color Corporation of America in Hollywood. He eked out a living writing scripts for the booming movie industry. His voice can be heard on a film set in the Amazon, produced by Walt Disney. Nine years later he returned to Buenos Aires, then Dsseldorf, West Germany, and established a firm that developed not movie scripts, but anti­ chemical warfare agents for the government. At the Industrie Club in Dsseldorf in 1982, von Blcher boasted to journalists, "I am chief shareholder of Pan American Airways. I am the best friend of Howard Hughes. The Beach Hotel in Las Vegas is 45 percent financed by me. I am thus the biggest financier ever to appear in the Arabian Nights tales dreamed up by these people over their second bottle of brandy." Not really. Two the biggest financiers to stumble from the drunken dreams of world­moving affluence were, in their time, Moses Annenberg, publisher of The Philadelphia Inquirer, and his son Walter , the CIA / mob ­anchored publisher of the TV Guide. Like http://911review.org/Wiki/OperationMockingbird.shtml

3/28

10/10/2016

Operation Mockingbird - 9/11 Review

most American high­rollers, Annenberg lived a double life. Moses, his father, was a scion of the Capone mob. Both Moses and Walter were indicted in 1939 for tax evasions totalling many millions of dollars ­ the biggest case in the history of the Justice Department. Moses pled guilty and agreed to pay the government $8 million and settle $9 million in assorted tax claims, penalties and interest debts. Moses received a three­year sentence. He died in Lewisburg Penitentiary. Walter Annenbeg, the TV Guide magnate, was a lofty Republican. On the campaign trail in April, 1988, George Bush flew into Los Angeles to woo Reagan's kitchen cabinet. "This is the topping on the cake," Bush's regional campaign director told the Los Angeles Times. The Bush team met at Annenberg's plush Rancho Mirage estate at Sunnylands, California. It was at the Annenberg mansion that Nixon's cabinet was chosen, and the state's social and contributor registers built over a quarter­century of state political dominance by Ronald Reagan, whose acting career was launched by Operation MOCKINGBIRD. The commercialization of television, coinciding with Reagan's recruitment by the Crusade for Freedom, a CIA front, presented the intelligence world with unprecedented potential for sowing propaganda and even prying in the age of Big Brother. George Orwell glimpsed the possibilities when he installed omniscient video surveillance technology in 1948, a novel rechristened 1984 for the first edition published in the U.S. by Harcourt, Brace. Operation Octopus, according to federal files, was in full swing by 1948, a surveillance program that turned any television set with tubes into a broadcast transmitter. Agents of Octopus could pick up audio and visual images with the equipment as far as 25 miles away. Hale Boggs was investigating Operation Octopus at the time of his disappearance in the midst of the Watergate probe. In 1952, at MCA, Actors' Guild president Ronald Reagan ­ a screen idol recruited by MOCKINGBIRD's Crusade for Freedom to raise funds for the resettlement of Nazis in the U.S., according to Loftus ­ signed a secret waiver of the conflict­of­interest rule with the mob­ controlled studio, in effect granting it a labor monopoly on early television programming. In exchange, MCA made Reagan a part owner. Furthermore, historian C. Vann Woodward, writing in the New York Times, in 1987, reported that Reagan had "fed the names of suspect people in his organization to the FBI secretly and regularly enough to be assigned 'an informer's code number, T­10.' His FBI file indicates intense collaboration with producers to 'purge' the industry of subversives." No one ever turned a suspicious eye on Walter Cronkite, a former intelligence officer and in the immediate postwar period UPI's Moscow correspondent. Cronkite was lured to CBS by Operation MOCKINGBIRD's Phil Graham, according to Deborah Davis. Another television conglomerate, Cap Cities, rose like a horror­film simian from CIA and Mafia heroin operations. Among other http://911review.org/Wiki/OperationMockingbird.shtml

4/28

10/10/2016

Operation Mockingbird - 9/11 Review

organized­crime Republicans, Thomas Dewey and his neighbor Lowell Thomas threw in to launch the infamous Resorts International, the corporate front for Lansky's branch of the federally­ sponsored mob family and the corporate precursor to Cap Cities. Another of the investors was James Crosby, a Cap Cities executive who donated $100,000 to Nixon's 1968 presidential campaign. This was the year that Resorts bought into Atlantic City casino interests. Police in New jersey attempted, with no success, to spike the issuance of a gambling license to the company, citing Mafia ties. In 1954, this same circle of investors, all Catholics, founded the broadcasting company notorious for overt propagandizing and general spookiness. The company's chief counsel was OSS veteran William Casey, who clung to his shares by concealing them in a blind trust even after he was appointed CIA director by Ronald Reagan in 1981. "Black radio" was the phrase CIA critic David Wise coined in The Invisible Government to describe the agency's intertwining interests in the emergence of the transistor radio with the entrepreneurs who took to the airwaves. "Daily, East and West beam hundreds of propaganda broadcasts at each other in an unrelenting babble of competition for the minds of their listeners. The low­price transistor has given the hidden war a new importance," enthused one foreign correspondent. A Hydra of private foundations sprang up to finance the propaganda push. One of them, Operations and Policy Research, Inc. (OPR), received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the CIA through private foundations and trusts. OPR research was the basis of a television series that aired in New York and Washington, D.C. in 1964, Of People and Politics, a "study" of the American political system in 21 weekly installments. In Hollywood, the visual cortex of The Beast, the same CIA/Mafia combination that formed Cap Cities sank its claws into the film studios and labor unions. Johnny Rosselli was pulled out of the Army during the war by a criminal investigation of Chicago mobsters in the film industry. Rosselli, a CIA asset probably assassinated by the CIA, played sidekick to Harry Cohn, the Columbia Pictures mogul who visited Italy's Benito Mussolini in 1933, and upon his return to Hollywood remodeled his office after the dictator's. The only honest job Rosselli ever had was assistant purchasing agent (and a secret investor) at Eagle Lion productions, run by Bryan Foy, a former producer for 20th Century Fox. Rosselli, Capone's representative on the West Coast, passed a small fortune in mafia investments to Cohn. Bugsy Seigel pooled gambling investments with Billy Wilkerson, publisher of the Hollywood Reporter. In the 1950s, outlays for global propaganda climbed to a full third of the CIA's covert operations budget. Some 3, 000 salaried and contract CIA employees were eventually engaged in propaganda efforts. The cost of disinforming the world cost American taxpayers an estimated $265 million a year by 1978, a budget larger than the http://911review.org/Wiki/OperationMockingbird.shtml

5/28

10/10/2016

Operation Mockingbird - 9/11 Review

combined expenditures of Reuters, UPI and the AP news syndicates. In 1977, the Copely News Service admitted that it worked closely with the intelligence services ­ in fact, 23 employees were full­time employees of the Agency. Most consumers of the corporate media were ­ and are ­unaware of the effect that the salting of public opinion has on their own beliefs. A network anchorman in time of national crisis is an instrument of psychological warfare in the MOCKINGBIRD media. He is a creature from the national security sector's chamber of horrors. For this reason consumers of the corporate press have reason to examine their basic beliefs about government and life in the parallel universe of these United States. How the Washington Post Censors the News A Letter to the Washington Post by Julian C. Holmes April 25, 1992 Richard Harwood, Ombudsman The Washington Post 1150 15th Street NW Washington, DC 20071 Dear Mr. Harwood, Your Ad Here

Though the Washington Post does not over­extend itself in the pursuit of hard news, just let drop the faintest rumor of a government "conspiracy", and a klaxon horn goes off in the news room. Aroused from apathy in the daily routine of reporting assignations and various other political and social sports events, editors and reporters scramble to the phones. The klaxon screams its warning: the greatest single threat to herd­journalism, corporate profits, and government stability ­­ the dreaded "CONSPIRACY THEORY"!! It is not known whether anyone has actually been hassled or accosted by any of these frightful spectres, but their presence is announced to Post readers with a salvo of warnings to avoid the tricky, sticky webs spun by the wacko "CONSPIRACY THEORISTS". Recall how the Post saved us from the truth about Iran­Contra. Professional conspiracy exorcist Mark Hosenball was hired to ridicule the idea that Oliver North and his CIA­associated gangsters had conspired to do wrong (*1). And when, in their syndicated column, Jack Anderson and Dale Van Atta discussed some of the conspirators, the Post sprang to protect its readers, and the conspirators, by censoring the Anderson column before printing it (*2). But for some time the lid had been coming off the Iran­Contra conspiracy. In 1986, the Christic Institute, an interfaith center for law and public policy, had filed a lawsuit alleging a U.S. arms­for­drugs trade that helped keep weapons flowing to the CIA ­ Contra army in Nicaragua, and cocaine flowing to U.S. markets (*3). In 1988 Leslie http://911review.org/Wiki/OperationMockingbird.shtml

6/28

10/10/2016

Operation Mockingbird - 9/11 Review

Cockburn published Out of Control, a seminal work on our bizarre, illegal war against Nicaragua (*4). The Post contributed to this discovery process by disparaging the charges of conspiracy and by publishing false information about the drug­smuggling evidence presented to the House Subcommittee on Narcotics Abuse and Control. When accused by Committee Chairman Charles Rangel (D­ NY). of misleading reporting, the Post printed only a partial correction and declined to print a letter of complaint from Rangel (*5). Sworn testimony before Senator John Kerry's Subcommittee on Terrorism, Narcotics, and International Operations confirmed U.S. Government complicity in the drug trade (*6). With its coverup of the arms/drug conspiracy evaporating, the ever­accommodating Post shifted gears and retained Hosenball to exorcise from our minds a newly emerging threat to domestic tranquility, the "October Surprise" conspiracy (*7). But close on the heels of Hosenball and the Post came Barbara Honegger and then Gary Sick who authored independently, two years apart, books with the same title, "October Surprise" (*8). Honegger was a member of the Reagan / Bush campaign and transition teams in 1980. Gary Sick, professor of Middle East Politics at Columbia University, was on the staff of the National Security Council under Presidents Ford, Carter, and Reagan. In 1989 and 1991 respectively, Honegger and Sick published their evidence of how the Republicans made a deal to supply arms to Iran if Iran would delay release of the 52 United States hostages until after the November 1980 election. The purpose of this deal was to quash the possibility of a pre­election release(an October surprise). which would have bolstered the reelection prospects for President Carter. Others published details of this alleged Reagan­Bush conspiracy. In October 1988, Playboy Magazine ran an expose "An Election Held Hostage"; FRONTLINE did another in April 1991 (*9). In June, 1991 a conference of distinguished journalists, joined by 8 of the former hostages, challenged the Congress to "make a full, impartial investigation" of the election/hostage allegations. The Post reported the statement of the hostages, but not a word of the conference itself which was held in the Dirksen Senate Office Building Auditorium (*10). On February 5, 1992 a gun­shy, uninspired House of Representatives begrudgingly authorized an "October Surprise" investigation by a task force of 13 congressmen headed by Lee Hamilton (D­IN). who had chaired the House of Representatives Iran­Contra Committee. Hamilton has named as chief team counsel Larry Barcella, a lawyer who represented BCCI when the Bank was indicted in 1988 (*11). Like the Washington Post, Hamilton had not shown interest in pursuing the U.S. arms­for­drugs operation (*12). He had accepted Oliver North's lies,and as Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee he derailed House Resolution 485 which had asked President Reagan to answer questions about Contra support activities of government officials and others (*13). After CIA operative John Hull (from Hamilton's home state), was charged in http://911review.org/Wiki/OperationMockingbird.shtml

7/28

10/10/2016

Operation Mockingbird - 9/11 Review

Costa Rica with "international drug trafficking and hostile acts against the nation's security", Hamilton and 18 fellow members of Congress tried to intimidate Costa Rican President Oscar Arias Sanchez into handling Hull's case "in a manner that will not complicate U.S.­Costa Rican relations" (*14). The Post did not report the Hamilton letter or the Costa Rican response that declared Hull's case to be "in as good hands as our 100 year old uninterrupted democracy can provide to all citizens" (*15). Though the Post does its best to guide our thinking away from conspiracy theories, it is difficult to avoid the fact that so much wrongdoing involves government or corporate conspiracies: In its COINTELPRO operation, the FBI used disinformation, forgery, surveillance, false arrests, and violence to illegally harass U.S.citizens in the 60's (*16). The CIA's Operation MONGOOSE illegally sabotaged Cuba by "destroying crops, brutalizing citizens, destabilizing the society, and conspiring with the Mafia to assassinate Fidel Castro and other leaders" (*17). "Standard Oil of New Jersey was found by the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice to be conspiring with I.G.Farben...of Germany. ...By its cartel agreements with Standard Oil, the United States was effectively prevented from developing or producing [for World War­II] any substantial amount of synthetic rubber," said Senator Robert LaFollette of Wisconsin (*18). U.S. Government agencies knowingly withheld information about dosages of radiation "almost certain to produce thyroid abnormalities or cancer" that contaminated people residing near the nuclear weapons factory at Hanford, Washington (*19). Various branches of Government deliberately drag their feet in getting around to cleaning up the Nation's dangerous nuclear weapons sites (*20). State and local governments back the nuclear industry's secret public relations strategy (*21). "The National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society and some twenty comprehensive cancer centers, have misled and confused the public and Congress by repeated claims that we are winning the war against cancer. In fact, the cancer establishment has continually minimized the evidence for increasing cancer rates which it has largely attributed to smoking and dietary fat, while discounting or ignoring the causal role of avoidable eposures to industrial carcinogens in the air, food, water, and the workplace." (*22). The Bush Administration coverup of its pre­Gulf­War support of Iraq "is yet another example of the President's people conspiring to keep both Congress and the American people in the dark" (*23). If you think about it, conspiracy is a fundamental aspect of doing business in this country. http://911review.org/Wiki/OperationMockingbird.shtml

8/28

10/10/2016

Operation Mockingbird - 9/11 Review

Take the systematic and cooperative censorship of the Persian Gulf War by the Pentagon and much of the news media (*24). Or the widespread plans of business and government groups to spend $100 million in taxes to promote a distorted and truncated history of Columbus in America (*25). along the lines of the Smithsonian Institution's "fusion of the two worlds", (*26). rather than examining more realistic aspects of the Spanish invasion, like "anger, cruelty, gold, terror, and death" (*27). Or circumstances surrounding the U.S. Justice Department theft from the INSLAW company of sophisticated, law­enforcement computer software which "now point to a widespread conspiracy implicating lesser Government officials in the theft of INSLAW's technology", says former U.S. Attorney General Elliot Richardson (*28). Or Watergate. Or the "largest bank fraud in world financial history" (*29), where the White House knew of the criminal activities at "the Bank of Crooks and Criminals International" (BCCI) (*30), where U.S. intelligence agencies did their secret banking (*31), and where bribery of prominent American public officials "was a way of doing business" (*32). Or the 1949 conviction of "GM [General Motors], Standard Oil of California, Firestone, and E. Roy Fitzgerald, among others, for criminally conspiring to replace electric transportation with gas­ and diesel­powered buses and to monopolize the sale of buses and related products to transportation companies throughout the country" [in, among others, the cities of New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, St. Louis, Oakland, Salt Lake City, and Los Angeles] (*33). Or the collusion in 1973 between Senator Abraham Ribicoff (D­CT). and the U.S. Department of Transportation to overlook safety defects in the 1.2 million Corvair automobiles manufactured by General Motors in the early 60's (*34). Or the A. H. Robins Company, which manufactured the Dalkon Shield intrauterine contraceptive, and which ignored repeated warnings of the Shield's hazards and which "stonewalled, deceived, covered up, and covered up the coverups...[thus inflicting] on women a worldwide epidemic of pelvic infections." (*35). Or that cooperation between Mc Donnell Douglas Aircraft Company and the FAA resulted in failure to enforce regulations regarding the unsafe DC­10 cargo door which failed in flight killing all 364 passengers on Turkish Airlines Flight 981 on March 3, 1974 (*36). Or the now­banned, cancer­producing pregnancy drug Diethylstilbestrol (DES). that was sold by manufacturers who http://911review.org/Wiki/OperationMockingbird.shtml

9/28

10/10/2016

Operation Mockingbird - 9/11 Review

ignored tests which showed DES to be carcinogenic; and who acted "in concert with each other in the testing and marketing of DES for miscarriage purposes" (*37). Or the conspiracies among bankers and speculators, with the cooperation of a corrupted Congress, to relieve depositors of their savings. This "arrogant disregard from the White House, Congress and corporate world for the interests and rights of the American people" will cost U.S. tapayers many hundreds of billions of dollars (*38). Or the Westinghouse, Allis Chalmers,Federal Pacific, and General Electric executives who met surreptitiously in hotel rooms to fix prices and eliminate competition on heavy industrial equipment (*39). Or the convictions of Industrial Biotest Laboratories (IBT). officers for fabricating safety tests on prescription drugs (*40). Or the conspiracy by the asbestos industry to suppress knowledge of medical problemsrelating to asbestos (*41). Or the 1928 Achnacarry Agreement through which oil companies "agreed not to engage in any effective price competition" (*42). Or the conspiracy among U.S. Government agencies and the Congress to cover up the nature of our decades­old war against the people of Nicaragua a covert war that continues in 1992 with the U.S. Government applying pressure for the Nicaraguan police to reorganize into a more repressive force (*43). Or the conspiracy by the CIA and the U.S. Government to interfere in the Chilean election process with military aid, covert actions, and an economic boycott which culminated in the overthrow of the legitimately elected government and the assassination of President Salvador Allende in 1973 (*44). Or the conspiracy among U.S. officials including Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and CIA Director William Colby to finance terrorism in Angola for the purpose of disrupting Angola's plans for peaceful elections in October 1975, and to lie about these actions to the Congress and the news media (*45). And CIA Director George Bush's subsequent cover up of this U.S.­sponsored terrorism (*46). Or President George Bush's consorting with the Pentagon to invade Panama in 1989 and thereby violate the Constitution of the United States, the U.N. Charter, the O.A.S. Charter, and the Panama Canal Treaties (*47). Or the "gross antitrust violations" (*48) and the conspiracy of American oil companies and the British and U.S. governments to strangle Iran economically after Iran nationalized the British­owned Anglo­Iranian Oil Company in 1951. And the subsequent overthrow http://911review.org/Wiki/OperationMockingbird.shtml

10/28

10/10/2016

Operation Mockingbird - 9/11 Review

by the CIA in 1953 of Iranian Prime Minister Muhammed Mossadegh (*49). Or the CIA­planned assassination of Congo head­of­state Patrice Lumumba (*50). Or the deliberate and wilful efforts of President George Bush, Senator Robert Dole, Senator George Mitchell, various U.S. Government agencies, and members of both Houses of the Congress to buy the 1990 Nicaraguan national elections for the presidential candidate supported by President Bush (*51). Or the collective approval by 64 U.S. Senators of Robert Gates to head the CIA, in the face of "unmistakable evidence that Gates lied about his role in the Iran­Contra scandal" (*52). Or "How Reagan and the Pope Conspired to Assist Poland's Solidarity Movement and Hasten the Demise of Communism" (*53). Or how the Reagan Administration connived with the Vatican to ban the use of USAID funds by any country "for the promotion of birth control or abortion" (*54). Or "the way the Vatican and Washington colluded to achieve common purpose in Central America" (*55). Or the collaboration of Guatemalan strong­man and mass murderer Hector Gramajo with the U.S. Army to design "programs to build civilian­military cooperation" at the U.S. Army School of the Americas (SOA) at Fort Benning, Georgia; five of the nine soldiers accused in the 1989 Jesuit massacre in El Salvador are graduates of SOA which trains Latin/American military personnel (*56). Or the conspiracy of the Comanche Peak Nuclear Plant administration to harass and cause bodily harm to whistleblower Linda Porter who uncovered dangerous working conditions at the facility (*57). Or the conspiracy of President Richard Nxion and the Government of South Vietnam to delay the Paris Peace Talks until after the 1968 U.S. presidential election (*58). Or the pandemic coverups of police violence (*59). Or the always safe­to­cite worldwide communist conspiracy (*60). Or maybe the socially responsible, secret consortium to publish The Satanic Verses in paperback (*61). Conspiracies are obviously a way to get things done, and the Washington Post offers little comment unless conspiracy theorizing threatens to expose a really important conspiracy that, let's say, benefits big business or big government. Your Ad Here http://911review.org/Wiki/OperationMockingbird.shtml

11/28

10/10/2016

Operation Mockingbird - 9/11 Review

Such a conspiracy would be like our benevolent CIA's 1953 overthrow of the Iranian government to help out U.S. oil companies; or like our illegal war against Panama to tighten U.S. control over Panama and the Canal; or like monopoly control of broadcasting that facilitates corporate censorship on issues of public importance (*62). When the camouflage of such conspiracies is stripped away, public confidence in the conspiring officials can erode ­­ depending on how seriously the citizenry perceives the conspiracy to have violated the public trust. Erosion of public trust in the status quo is what the Post seems to see as a real threat to its corporate security. Currently, the Post has mounted vituperative, frenzied attacks on Oliver Stone's movie "JFK", which reexamines the U.S. Government's official (Warren Commission. finding that a single gunman, acting alone, killed President John F. Kennedy. The movie also is the story of New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison's unsuccessful prosecution of Clay Shaw, the only person ever tried in connection with the assassination. And the movie proposes that the Kennedy assassination was the work of conspirators whose interests would not be served by a president who, had he lived, might have disengaged us from our war against Vietnam. The Post ridicules a reexamination of the Kennedy assassination along lines suggested by "JFK". Senior Post journalists like Charles Krauthammer, Ken Ringle, George Will, Phil Mc Combs, and Michael Isikoff, have been called up to man the bulwarks against public sentiment which has never supported the government's non­ conspiratorial assassination thesis. In spite of the facts that the Senate Intelligence Committee of 1975 and 1976 found that "both the FBI and CIA had repeatedly lied to the Warren Commission" (*63) and that the 1979 Report of the House Select Committee on Assassinations found that President Kennedy was probably killed "as a result of a conspiracy" (*64), a truly astounding number of Post stories have been used as vehicles to discredit "JFK" as just another conspiracy (*65). Some of the more vicious attacks on the movie are by editor Stephen Rosenfeld, and journalists Richard Cohen, George Will, and George Lardner Jr (*66). They ridicule the idea that Kennedy could have had second thoughts about escalating the Vietnam War and declaim that there is no historical justification for this idea. Seasoned journalist Peter Dale Scott, former Pentagon/CIA liaison chief L. Fletcher Prouty, and investigators David Scheim and John Newman have each authored defense of the "JFK" thesis that Kennedy was not enthusiastic about staying in Vietnam (*67). But the Post team just continues ranting against the possibility of a high­ level assassination conspiracy while offering little justification for its arguments. An example of particularly shabby scholarship and unacceptable behavior is George Lardner Jr's contribution to the Post's campaign against the movie. Lardner wrote three articles, two before the movie was completed, and the third upon its release. In May, six months before the movie came out, Lardner obtained a copy of the http://911review.org/Wiki/OperationMockingbird.shtml

12/28

10/10/2016

Operation Mockingbird - 9/11 Review

first draft of the script and, contrary to accepted standards, revealed in the Post the contents of this copyrighted movie (*68). Also in this article, (*69). Lardner discredits Jim Garrison with hostile statements from a former Garrison associate Pershing Gervais. Lardner does not tell the reader that subsequent to the Clay Shaw trial, in a U.S. Government criminal action brought against Garrison, Government witness Gervais, who helped set up Garrison for prosecution, admitted under oath that in a May 1972 interview with a New Orleans television reporter, he, Gervais, had said that the U.S. Government's case against Garrison was a fraud (*70). The Post's 1973 account of the Garrison acquittal mentions this controversy, but when I recently asked Lardner about this, he was not clear as to whether he remembered it (*71). Two weeks after his first "JFK" article, Lardner blustered his way through a justification for his unauthorized possession of the early draft ofthe movie (*72). He also defended his reference to Pershing Gervais by lashing out at Garrison as a writer "of gothic fiction". When the movie was released in December, Lardner "reviewed" it (*73). He again ridiculed the film's thesis that following the Kennedy assassination, President Johnson reversed Kennedy's plans to de­ escalate the Vietnam War. Lardner cited a memorandum issued by Johnson four days after Kennedy died. Lardner says this memorandum was written before the assassination, and that it "was a continuation of Kennedy's policy". In fact, the memorandum was drafted the day before the assassination by Mc George Bundy (Kennedy's Assistant for National Security Affairs) Kennedy was in Texas, and may never have seen it. Following the assassination, it was rewritten; and the final version provided for escalating the war against Vietnam (*74) ­­ facts that Lardner avoided. The Post's crusade against exposing conspiracies is blatantly dishonest: The Warren Commission inquiry into the Kennedy Assassination was for the most part conducted in secret. This fact is buried in the Post (*75). Nor do current readers of this newspaper find meaningful discussion of the Warren Commission's secret doubts about both the FBI and the CIA (*76). Or of a dispatch from CIA headquarters instructing co­conspirators at field stations to counteract the "new wave of books and articles criticizing the [Warren] Commission's findings...[and] conspiracy theories ...[that] have frequently thrown suspicion on our organization" and to "discuss the publicity problem with liaison and friendly elite contacts, especially politicians and editors "and to "employ propaganda assets to answer and refute the attacks of the critics. ...Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose. ...The aim of this dispatch is to provide material for countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists..." (*77). In 1979, Washington journalist Deborah Davis published Katharine The Great, the story of Post publisher Katharine Graham and her newspaper's close ties with Washington's powerful elite, a number of whom were with the CIA. http://911review.org/Wiki/OperationMockingbird.shtml

13/28

10/10/2016

Operation Mockingbird - 9/11 Review

Particularly irksome to Post editor Benjamin Bradlee was a Davis claim that Bradlee had "produced CIA material" (*78). Understandably sensitive about this kind of publicity, Bradlee told Davis' publisher Harcourt Brace Jovanovich ,"Miss Davis is lying ...I never produced CIA material ...what I can do is to brand Miss Davis as a fool and to put your company in that special little group of publishers who don't give a shit for the truth". The Post bullied HBJ into recalling the book; HBJ shredded 20,000 copies; Davis sued HBJ for breach of contract and damage to reputation; HBJ settled out of court; and Davis published her book elsewhere with an appendix that demonstrated Bradlee to have been deeply involved with producing cold­war/CIA propaganda (*79). Bradlee still says the allegations about his association with people in the CIA are false, but he has apparently taken no action to contest the xetensive documentation presented by Deborah Davis in the second and third editions of her book (*80). And it's not as if the Post were new to conspiracy work. Former Washington Post publisher Philip Graham "believing that the function of the press was more often than not to mobilize consent for the policies of the government, was one of the architects of what became a widespread practice:the use and manipulation of journalists by the CIA" (*81). This scandal was known by its code name Operation MOCKINGBIRD. Former Washington Post reporter Carl Bernstein cites a former CIA deputy director as saying, "It was widely known that Phil Graham was someone you could get help from" (*82). More recently the Post provided cover for CIA personality Joseph Fernandez by "refusing to print his name for over a year up until the day his indictmen twas announced ...for crimes committed in his official capacity as CIA station chief in Costa Rica" (*83). Of the meetings between Graham and his CIA acquaintances at which the availability and prices of journalists were discussed, a former CIA man recalls, "You could get a journalist cheaper than a good call girl, for a couple hundred dollars a month" (*84). One may wish to consider Philip Graham's philosophy along with a more recent statement from his wife Katharine Graham, current Chairman of the Board of the Washington Post. In a lecture on terrorism and the news media, Mrs. Graham said: "A second challenge facing the media is how to prevent terrorists from using the media as a platform fortheir views. ... The point is that we generally know when we are being manipulated, and we've learned better how and where to draw the line, though the decisions are often difficult" (*85). Today, the Post and its world of big business are apparently terrified that our elite and our high­level public officials may be exposed as conspirators behind Contra drug­smuggling, October Surprise, or the assassination of President Kennedy. This fear is truly remarkable in that, like most of us and like most institutions, the Post runs its business as a conspiracy of like­minded entrepreneurs ­­a conspiracy "to act or work together toward the same result or goal" (*86). But where the Post really parts company from just plain http://911review.org/Wiki/OperationMockingbird.shtml

14/28

10/10/2016

Operation Mockingbird - 9/11 Review

people is when it pretends that conspiracies associated with big business or government are "coincidence". Post reporter Lardner vents the frustration inherent in having to maintain this dichotomy. He lashes out at Oliver Stone and suggests that Stone may actually believe that the Post's opposition to Stone's movie is a "conspiracy". Lardner assures us that Stone's complaints are "groundless and paranoid and smack of Mc Carthyism" (*87). So how does the Post justify devoting so much energy to ridiculing those who investigate conspiracies? The Post has answers: people revert to conspiracy theories because they need something "neat and tidy" (*88) that "plugs a gap no other generally accepted theory fills', (*89. and "coincidence ...is always the safest and most likely explanation for any conjunction of curious circumstances ..." (*90). And what does this response mean? It means that "coincidence theory" is what the Post espouses when it would prefer not to admit to a conspiracy. In other words, some things just "happen". And, besides, conspiracy to do certain things would be a crime; "coincidence" is a safer bet. Post Ombudsman Richard Harwood, who, it is rumored, serves as Executive Director of the Benevolent Protective Order of Coincidence Theorists, (*91) recently issued a warning about presidential candidates "who have begun to mutter about a press conspiracy". Ordinarily, Harwood would simply dismiss these charges as "symptoms of the media paranoia that quadrennially engulfs members of the American political class" (*92). But a fatal mistake was made by the mutterers; they used the "C" word against the PRESS! And Harwood exploded his off­the­cuff comment into an entire column ­­ ending it with:"We are the new journalists, immersed too long, perhaps, in the cleansing waters of political conformity. But conspirators we ain't". Distinguished investigative journalist Morton Mintz, a 29­year veteran of the Washington Post, now chairs the Fund for Investigative Journalism. In the December issue of The Progressive, Mintz wrote "A Reporter Looks Back in Anger ­­ Why the Media Cover Up Corporate Crime". Therein he discussed the difficulties in convincing editors to accept important news stories. He illustrated the article with his own experiences at the Post, where he says he was known as "the biggest pain in the ass in the office" (*93). Would Harwood argue that grief endured by journalists at the hands of editors is a matter of random coincidence? And that such policy as Mintz described is made independently by editors without influence from fellow editors or from management? Would Harwood have us believe that at the countless office "meetings" in which news people are ever in attendance, there is no discussion of which stories will run and which ones will find inadequate space? That there is no advanced planning for stories or that there are no cooperative efforts among the staff? Or that in the http://911review.org/Wiki/OperationMockingbird.shtml

15/28

10/10/2016

Operation Mockingbird - 9/11 Review

face of our news­media "grayout" of presidential candidate Larry Agran, (*94) a Post journalist would be free to give news space to candidate Agran equal to that the Post lavishes on candidate Clinton? Let's face it: these possibilities are about as likely as Barbara Bush entertaining guests at a soup kitchen. Would Harwood have us believe that media critic and former Post Ombudsman Ben Bagdikian is telling less than the truth in his account of wire­service control over news: "The largely anonymous men who control the syndicate and wire service copy desks and the central wire photo machines determine at a single decision what millions will see and hear. ...there seems to be little doubt that these gatekeepers preside over an operation in which an appalling amount of press agentry sneaks in the back door of American journalism and marches untouched out the front door as 'news'" (*95). When he sat on the U.S. District Court of Appeals in Washington, Judge Clarence Thomas violated U.S. law when he failed to remove himself from a case in which he then proceeded to reverse a $10 million judgment against the Ralston Purina Company (*96). Ralston Purina, the animal feed empire, is the family fortune of Thomas' mentor, Senator John Danforth. The Post limited its coverage of the Thomas malfeasance to 56 words buried in the middle of a 1200­ word article (*97). Would Harwood have us believe that the almost complete blackout on this matter by the major news media and the U.S. Senate was a matter of coincidence? Could a Post reporter have written a story about Ralston Purina if she had wanted to? Can a brick swim? Or take the fine report produced last September by Ralph Nader's Public Citizen. Titled All the Vice President's Men, it documents "How the Quayle Council on Competitiveness Secretly Undermines Health, Safety, and Environmental Programs". Three months later, Post journalists David Broder and Bob Woodward published "The President's Understudy", a seven­part series on Vice President Quayle. Although this series does address Quayle's role with the Competitiveness Council, its handling of the Council's disastrous impact on America is inadequate. It is 40,000 words of mostly aimless chatter about Quayle memorabilia: youth, family, college record, Christianity, political aspirations, intellectual aspirations, wealthy friends, government associates, golf, travels, wife Marilyn, and net worth ­­ revealing little about Quayle's abilities, his understanding of society's problems, or his thoughts about justice and freedom, and never mentioning the comprehensive Nader study of Quayle's record in the Bush Administration (*98). Now, did Broder or did Woodward forget about the Nader study? Or did both of them forget? Or did one, or the other, or both decide not to mention it? Did these two celebrated, seasoned Post reporters ever discuss together their jointly authored stories? Did they decide to publish such a barren set of articles because it would enhance their reputations? How did management feel about the use of precious news space for such frivolity? Is it possible that so many pages were dedicated to this twaddle without people "acting or http://911review.org/Wiki/OperationMockingbird.shtml

16/28

10/10/2016

Operation Mockingbird - 9/11 Review

working together toward the same result or goal"? (*99) Do crocodiles fly? On March 20, front­page headlines in the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, USA Today, and the Washington Post read respectively: TSONGAS DROPPED OUT OF THE PRESIDENTIAL RACE CLEARING CLINTON'S PATH TSONGAS ABANDONS CAMPAIGN LEAVING CLINTON CLEAR PATH TOWARD SHOWDOWN WITH BUSH TSONGAS CLEARS WAY FOR CLINTON TSONGAS EXIT CLEARS WAY FOR CLINTON This display of editorial independence should at least raise questions of whether the news media collective mindset is really different from that of any other cartel ­­like oil, diamond, energy, (*100) or manufacturing cartels, a cartel being "a combination of independent commercial enterprises designed to limit competition" (*101). The Washington Post editorial page carries the heading: AN INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPER Is it? Of course not. There probably is no such thing. Does the Post "conspire" to keep its staff and its newspaper from wandering too far from the safety of mediocrity? The Post would respond that the question is absurd. In that I am not privy to the Post's telephone conversations, I can only speculate on how closely the media elite must monitor the staff. But we all know how few micro­seconds it takes a new reporter to learn what subjects are taboo and what are "safe", and that experienced reporters don't have to ask. What is more important, however, than speculating about how the Post communicates within its own corporate structure and with other members of the cartel, is to document and publicize what the Post does in public, namely, how it shapes and censors the news. Sincerely, Julian C. Holmes Copies to: Public­spirited citizens, both inside and outside the news media, And ­ maybe a few others. Notes to Letter of April 25, 1992: 1. Mark Hosenball, "The Ultimate Conspiracy", Washington Post, September 11, 1988, p.C1 2a. Julian Holmes, Letter to Washington Post Ombudsman Richard Harwood, June 4,1991. Notes that the Post censored, from the Anderson/Van Atta column, references to the Christic Institute and to Robert Gates. http://911review.org/Wiki/OperationMockingbird.shtml

17/28

10/10/2016

Operation Mockingbird - 9/11 Review

2b. Jack Anderson and Dale Van Atta, "Iran­Contra Figure Dodges Extradition", Washington Merry­Go­Round, United Feature Syndicate, May 26, 1991. This is the column submitted to the Post (see note 2a).. 2c. Jack Anderson and Dale Van Atta, "The Man Washington Doesn't Want to Extradite", Washington Post, May 26, 1991. The column (see note 2b). as it appeared in the Post (see note 2a).. 3a. Case No. 86­1146­CIV­KING, Amended Complaint for RICO Conspiracy, etc., United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, Tony Avirgan and Martha Honey v. John Hull et al., October 3, 1986. 3b. Vince Bielski and Dennis Bernstein, "Reports: Contras Send Drugs to U.S.", Cleveland Plain Dealer, November 16, 1986. 3c. Neal Matthews, "I Ran Drugs for Uncle Sam" (based on interviews with Robert Plumlee, contra resupply pilot)., San Diego Reader, April 5, 1990. 2. Leslie Cockburn, Out of Control. New York: Atlantic Monthly Press, 3. 5a. Peter Dale Scott and Jonathan Marshall, Cocaine Politics, University ofCalifornia Press, 1991, p.179­181. 5b. David S. Hilzenrath, "Hill Panel Finds No Evidence Linking Contras to Drug Smuggling", Washington Post, July 22, 1987, p.A07. 5c. Partial correction to the Washington Post of July 22, Washington Post, July 24,1987, p.A3. 5d. The Washington Post declined to publish SubCommittee Chairman Rangel's Letter­ to­the­Editor of July 22, 1987. It was printed in the Congressional Record on August 6, 1987, p.E3296­7. 6a. Michael Kranish, "Kerry Says US Turned Blind Eye to Contra­ Drug Trail", Boston Globe, April 10, 1988. 6b. Mary Mc Grory, "The Contra­Drug Stink", Washington Post, April 10, 1988, p.B1. 6c. Robert Parry with Rod Nordland, "Guns for Drugs? Senate Probers Trace an Old Contra Connection to George Bush's Office", Newsweek, May 23, 1988, p.22. 6d. Dennis Bernstein, "Iran­Contra ­­ The Coverup Continues", The Progressive, November 1988, p.24. 6e. "Drugs, Law Enforcement and Foreign Policy", A Report Prepared by the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Narcotics, and International Operations of the Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate, December 4. 7a. Mark Hosenball, "If It's October ... Then It's Time for an Iranian Conspiracy Theory", Washington Post, October 9, 1988, p.D1. http://911review.org/Wiki/OperationMockingbird.shtml

18/28

10/10/2016

Operation Mockingbird - 9/11 Review

7b. Mark Hosenball, "October Surprise! Redux! The Latest Version of the 1980 'Hostage­ Deal' Story Is Still Full of Holes", Washington Post, April 21, 1991,p.B2. 8a. Barbara Honegger, October Surprise, New York: Tudor, 1989. 8b. Gary Sick, October Surprise, New York: Times Books, Random House, 5. 9a. Abbie Hoffman and Jonathan Silvers, "An Election Held Hostage", Playboy, October 1988, p.73. 9b. Robert Parry and Robert Ross, "The Election Held Hostage", FRONTLINE, WGBH­TV,April 16, 1991. 10a. Reuter, "Ex­Hostages Seek Probe By Congress", Washington Post, June 14,1991,p.A4. 10b. "An Election Held Hostage?", Conference, Dirksen Senate Office Building Auditorium, Washington DC, June 13, 1991; Sponsored by The Fund For New Priorities in America, 171 Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 6. 11a. David Brown and Guy Gugliotta, "House Approves Inquiry Into 'OctoberSurprise'", Washington Post, February 6, 1992, p.A11. 11b. Jack Colhoun, "Lawmakers Lose Nerve on October Surprise", The Guardian, December 11, 1991, p.7. 11c. Jack Colhoun, "October Surprise Probe Taps BCCI Lawyer", The Guardian, February 26, 1992, p.3. 7. See note 5a, p.180­1. 13a. See note 4, p.229, 240­1. 13b. Report of the Congressional Committees Investigating the Iran­Contra Affair, Senate Report No. 100­216, House Report No. 100­433, November 1987, p.139­141. 14a. Letter to His Excellency Oscar Arias Sanchez, President of the Republic of Costa Rica; from Members of the U.S. Congress David Dreier, Lee Hamilton, Dave Mc Curdy, Dan Burton, Mary Rose Oakar, Jim Bunning, Frank Mc Closkey, Cass Ballenger, Peter Kostmayer, Jim Bates, Douglas Bosco, James Inhofe, Thomas Foglietta, Rod Chandler, Ike Skelton, Howard Wolpe, Gary Ackerman, Robert Lagomarsino, and Bob Mc Ewen; January 26, 1989. 14b. Peter Brennan, "Costa Rica Considers Seeking Contra Backer in U.S. ­­ Indiana Native Wanted on Murder Charge in 1984 Bomb Attack in Nicaragua", WashingtonPost, February 1, 1990. 14c. "Costa Rica Seeks Extradition of Indiana Farmer", Scripps­ Howard News Service,April 25, 1991. http://911review.org/Wiki/OperationMockingbird.shtml

19/28

10/10/2016

Operation Mockingbird - 9/11 Review

8. Press Release from the Costa Rican Embassy, Washington DC, On the Case of the Imprisonment of Costa Rican Citizen John Hull", February 6, 1989. 9. Brian Glick, War at Home, Boston: South End Press, 1989. 10. John Stockwell, The Praetorian Guard­­ The U.S. Role in the New World Order, Boston: South End Press, 1991, p.121. 11. Hearings Before the Committee on Patents, United States Senate, 77th Cong., 2nd Session (1942)., part I, as cited in Joseph Borkin, The Crime and Punishment of I.G. Farben, New York: The Free Press, Macmillan, 1978, p.93. 12. R. Jeffrey Smith, "Study of A­Plant Neighbors' Health Urged", Washington Post, July 13, 1990, p.A6. 13. Tom Horton, "A Cost Higher Than the Peace Dividend ­­ Price Tag Mounts to Clean Up Nuclear Weapons Sites", Baltimore Sun, February 23, 1992, p.1K. 14. "The Nuclear Industry's Secret PR Strategy", EXTRA!, March 1992, p.15. 22a. Samuel S. Epstein, MD et al, Losing the War Against Cancer: Need for PublicPolicy Reform", Congressional Record, April 2, 1992, p.E947­9. 22b. Samuel S. Epstein, "The Cancer Establishment", Washington Post, March 10, 1992. 23a. Hon. Henry B. Gonzalez, "Efforts to Thwart Investigation of the BNL Scandal", Congressional Record, March 30, 1992, p.H2005­2014. 23b. Hon. David E. Skaggs (CO)., White House Spin Control on Pre­War Iraq Policy", Congressional Record, April 2, 1992, p.H2285. 23c. Nicholas Rostow, Special Assistant to the President and Legal Adviser, Memorandum to Jeanne S. Archibald et al, "Meeting on congressional requests for information and documents", April 8, 1991; Congressional Record, April 2, 1992,p.H2285. 24a. Michio Kaku, "Operation Desert Lie: Pentagon Confesses", The Guardian, March11, 1992, p.4. 24b. J. Max Robins, "NBC's Unaired Iraq Tapes Not a Black and White Case", Variety Magazine, March 4, 1991, p.25. 15. Emory R. Searcy Jr., Clergy and Laity Concerned, Spring 1991 Letter to"Friends", p.1. 16. Jean Dimeo, "Selling Hispanics on Columbus ­­ Luis Vasquez­ Ajmac Is Hired to Promote Smithsonian Project", Washington Post, November 18, 1991, p.Bus.8. 17. Hans Koning, "Teach the Truth About Columbus", Washington Post, September 3,1991, p.A19.

http://911review.org/Wiki/OperationMockingbird.shtml

20/28

10/10/2016

Operation Mockingbird - 9/11 Review

28a. James Kilpatrick, "Software­Piracy Case Emitting Big Stench", St. Louis Post/Dispatch, March 18, 1991, p.3B. Elliot L. Richardson, "A High­Tech Watergate", New York Times, October 21,1991. 18. "BCCI ­­ NBC Sunday Today", February 23, 1992, p.12; transcript prepared by Burrelle's Information Services. The quote is from New York District Attorney Robert Morgenthau who is running his own independent investigation of BCCI. 19. Norman Bailey, former Reagan White House intelligence analyst; from an interview with Mark Rosenthal of NBC News. See note 29, p.5. 20. Jack Colhoun, "BCCI Skeletons Haunting Bush's Closet", The Guardian, September 18, 1991, p.9. 21. Robert Morgenthau. See note 29, p.10. 22. Russell Mokhiber, Corporate Crime and Violence, San Francisco: Sierra ClubBooks, 1989 paperback edition, p.227. 23. See note 33, p.136­7. 24. Morton Mintz, At Any Cost: Corporate Greed, Women, and the Dalkon Shield, NewYork: Pantheon, 1985. As cited in Mokhiber, see note 33, p.157. 25. See note 33, p.164­171. 26. See note 33, p.172­180. 27. Michael Waldman, Who Robbed America?, New York: Random House, 28. The quote is from Ralph Nader's Introduction, p.iii. 29. See note 33, p.217. 30. See note 33, p.235. 31. See note 33, p.277­288. 32. See note 33, p.323. 33. Katherine Hoyt Gonzalez, Nicaragua Network Education Fund Newsletter, March1992, p.1. 34. William Blum, The CIA ­­ A Forgotten History, London: Zed Books Ltd., 1986,p.232­243. 45a. John Stockwell, In Search of Enemies, New York: Norton, 1978. 45b. See note 44, p.284­291. 35. See note 17, p.18. 47a. Letter to President George Bush from The Ad Hoc Committee for Panama (James Abourezk et al)., January 10, 1990; published in The Nation, February 5, 1990, p.163. 47b. Philip E. Wheaton, Panama, Trenton NJ: Red Sea Press, 1992, p.145­7. 48a. Morton Mintz and Jerry S. Cohen, Power, Inc., New York: Bantam Books, 1977,p.521. 48b. "The International Oil Cartel", Federal Trade Commission, December 2, 1949. Cited in 48a, p.521. http://911review.org/Wiki/OperationMockingbird.shtml

21/28

10/10/2016

Operation Mockingbird - 9/11 Review

49a. See note 44, p.67­76. 49b. See note 48a, p.530­1. 36. Ralph W. Mc Gehee, Deadly Deceits, New York: Sheridan Square Publications, 1983,p.60. 37. HR­3385, "An Act to Provide Assistance for Free and Fair Elections in Nicaragua". Passed the U.S. House of Representatives on October 4, 1989 by avote of 263 to 136, and the Senate on October 17 by a vote of 64 to 35. 38. Jack Colhoun, "Gates Oozing Trail of Lies, Gets Top CIA Post", The Guardian,November 20, 1991, p.6. 39. Carl Bernstein, Time, February 24, 1992, Cover Story p.28­35. 40. "The U.S. and the Vatican on Birth Control", Time, February 24, 1992, p.35. 41. "Time's Missing Link: Poland to Latin America", National Catholic Reporter,February 28, 1992, p.24. 56a. Jim Lynn, "School of Americas Commander Hopes to Expand Mission", Benning Patriot, February 21, 1992, p.12. 56b. Vicky Imerman, "U.S. Army School of the Americas Plans Expansion", News Release from S.O.A. Watch, P.O. Bo 3330, Columbus, Georgia 31903. 42. 60 MINUTES, CBS, March 8, 1992. 43. Jack Colhoun, "Tricky Dick's Quick Election Fix", The Guardian, January 29,1992, p.18. 59a. Sean P. Murphy, "Several Probes May Have Ignored Evidence Against Police", Boston Globe, July 28, 1991, p.1. 59b. Christopher B. Daly, "Pattern of Police Abuses Reported in Boston Case", Washington Post, July 12, 1991, p.A3. 59c. Associated Press, "Dayton Police Probing Erasure of Arrest Video", WashingtonPost, May 26, 1991, p.A20. 59d. Gabriel Escobar, "Deaf Man's Death In Police Scuffle Called Homicide", Washington Post, May 18, 1991, p.B1. 59e. Jay Mathews, "L.A. Police Laughed at Beating", Washington Post, March 19, 1991, p.A1. 59f. David Maraniss, "One Cop's View of Police Violence", Washington Post, April 12,1991, p.A1. 59g. From News Services, "Police Abuse Detailed", Washington Post, February 8, 1992,p.A8. 44. Michael Dobbs, "Panhandling the Kremlin: How Gus Hall Got Millions", Washington Post, March 1, 1992, p.A1. 45. David Streitfeld, "Secret Consortium To Publish Rushdie In Paperback", Washington Post, March 14, 1992, p.D1. 62a. See notes 48 and 49. http://911review.org/Wiki/OperationMockingbird.shtml

22/28

10/10/2016

Operation Mockingbird - 9/11 Review

62b. See note 47b, p.63­76. 62c. "Fairness In Broadcasting Act of 1987", U.S. Senate Bill S742. 62d. "Now Let That 'Fairness' Bill Die", Editorial, Washington Post, June 24, 1987. The Post opposed the Fairness in Broadcasting Act. 46. David E. Scheim, Contract on America ­­ The Mafia Murder of President John F.Kennedy, New York: Shapolsky Publishers, 1988, p.viii. 47. See note 63, p.28. 65a. Chuck Conconi, "Out and About", Washington Post, February 26, 1991, p.B3. 65b. George Lardner Jr., "On the Set: Dallas in Wonderland", Washington Post, May19, 1991, p.D1. 65c. George Lardner, "...Or Just a Sloppy Mess", Washington Post, June 2, 1991,p.D3. 65d. Charles Krauthammer, "A Rash of Conspiracy Theories ­­ When Do We Dig Up BillCasey?", Washington Post, July 5, 1991, p.A19. 65e. Eric Brace, "Personalities", Washington Post, October 31, 1991, p.C3. 65f. Associated Press, "'JFK' Director Condemned ­­Warren Commission Attorney Calls Stone Film 'A Big Lie'", Washington Post, December 16, 1991, p.D14. 65g. Gerald R. Ford and David W. Belin, "Kennedy Assassination: How About the Truth?", Washington Post, December 17, 1991, p.A21. 65h. Rita Kemply, "'JFK': History Through A Prism", Washington Post, December 20,1991, p.D1. 65i. George Lardner Jr., "The Way it Wasn't ­­ In 'JFK', Stone Assassinates the Truth", Washington Post, December 20, 1991, p.D2. 65j. Desson Howe, "Dallas Mystery: Who Shot JFK?", Washington Post, December 20,1991, p.55. 65k. Phil Mc Combs, "Oliver Stone, Returning the Fire ­­In Defending His 'JFK' Conspiracy Film, the Director Reveals His Rage and Reasoning", Washington Post, December 21, 1991, p.F1. 65l. George F. Will, "'JFK': Paranoid History", Washington Post, December 26, 1991,p.A23. http://911review.org/Wiki/OperationMockingbird.shtml

23/28

10/10/2016

Operation Mockingbird - 9/11 Review

65m. "On Screen", 'JFK' movie review, Washington Post, Weekend, December 27, 1991. 65n. Stephen S. Rosenfeld, "Shadow Play", Washington Post, December 27, 1991, p.A21. 65o. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, "The Paranoid Style", Washington Post, December 29,1991, p.C7. 65p. Michael Isikoff, "H­e­e­e­e­r­e's Conspiracy! ­­Why Did Oliver Stone Omit (Or Suppress!). the Role of Johnny Carson?", Washington Post, December 29, 1991,p.C2. 65q. Robert O'Harrow Jr., "Conspiracy Theory Wins Converts ­­ Moviegoers Say 'JFK' Nourishes Doubts That Oswald Acted Alone", Washington Post, January 2, 1992, p.B1. 65r. Michael R. Beschloss, "Assassination and Obsession", Washington Post, January 5, 1992, p.C1. 65s. Charles Krauthammer, "'JFK': A Lie, But Harmless", Washington Post, January 10,1992, p.A19. 65t. Art Buchwald, "Bugged: The Flu Conspiracy", Washington Post, January 14, 1992,p.E1. 65u. Ken Ringle, "The Fallacy of Conspiracy Theories ­­Good on Film, But the Motivation Is All Wrong", Washington Post, January 19, 1992, p.G1. 65v. Charles Paul Freund, "If History Is a Lie ­­America's Resort to Conspiracy Thinking", Washington Post, January 19, 1992, p.C1. 65w. Richard Cohen, "Oliver's Twist", Washington Post Magazine, January 19, 1992, p.5. 48. Michael Isikoff, "Seeking JFK's Missing Brain", Washington Post, January 21,1992, p.A17. 65y. Don Oldenburg, "The Plots Thicken ­­ Conspiracy Theorists Are Everywhere", Washington Post, January 28, 1992, p.E5. 65z. Joel Achenbach, "JFK Conspiracy: Myth vs. the Facts", Washington Post, February 28, 1992, p.C5. 65A. List of books on the best­seller list: On the Trail of the Assassins is characterized as "conspiracy plot theories", Washington Post, March 8, 1992,Bookworld, p.12 49. See notes 65n, 65w, 65l, 65b, 65c, and 65i. 67a. Peter Dale Scott, "Vietnamization and the Drama of the Pentagon Papers". Published in The Senator Gravel Edition of The Pentagon Papers, Volume V,p.211­247.

http://911review.org/Wiki/OperationMockingbird.shtml

24/28

10/10/2016

Operation Mockingbird - 9/11 Review

67b. Peter Dale Scott, The War Conspiracy ­­ The Secret Road to the Second Indochina War, Indianapolis/New York: Bobbs­Merrill, 1972, p. 215­224. 67c. L. Fletcher Prouty, The Secret Team, Copyright 1973. New printing, Costa Mesa CA: Institute for Historical Review, 1990, p.402­416. 67d. See note 63, p.58, 183, 187, 194, 273­4. Your Ad Here

67e. John M. Newman, JFK and Vietnam, New York: Warner Books, 1992. 67f. Peter Dale Scott, Letter to the Editor, The Nation, March 9, 1992, p.290. 68a. See note 65b. 68b. Oliver Stone, "The Post, George Lardner, and My Version of the JFK Assassination", Washington Post, June 2, 1991, p.D3. 50. See note 65b. 51. Jim Garrison, On the Trail of The Assassins, New York: Warner Books, 1988, 315/318. 52. Associated Press, "Garrison, 2 Others, Found Not Guilty Of Bribery Charge", Washington Post, September 28, 1973, p.A3. 53. See note 65c. 54. See note 65i. 55. See note 67e, p.438­450. 56. John G. Leyden, "Historians, Buffs, and Crackpots", Washington Post, Bookworld, January 26, 1992, p.8. 76a. Tad Szulc, "New Doubts, Fears in JFK Assassination Probe", Washington Star,September 19, 1975, p.A1. 76b. Tad Szulc, "Warren Commission's Self­Doubts Grew Day by Day ­­ 'This Bullet Business Leaves Me Confused'", Washington Star, September 20, 1975, p.A1. 76c. Tad Szulc, "Urgent and Secret Meeting of the Warren Commission ­­ Dulles Proposed that the Minutes be Destroyed", Washington Star, September 21, 1975,p.A1. 57. "Cable Sought to Discredit Critics of Warren Report", New York Times, December 26, 1977, p.A37. 58. Deborah Davis, Katharine The Great, New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1979,p.141­2. 79a. Eve Pell, "Private Censorship ­­ Killing 'Katharine The Great'", The Nation, November 12, 1983.

http://911review.org/Wiki/OperationMockingbird.shtml

25/28

10/10/2016

Operation Mockingbird - 9/11 Review

79b. Deborah Davis, Katharine The Great, Bethesda MD: National Press, 59. Davis says, "...corporate documents that became available during my subsequent lawsuit against him [Harcourt Brace Jovanovich chairman, William Jovanovich] showed that 20,000 copies [of Katharine the Great] had been "processed and converted into waste paper"". 79c. Daniel Brandt, "All the Publisher's Men ­­ A Suppressed Book About Washington Post Publisher Katharine Graham Is On Sale Again" National Reporter, Fall 1987, p.60. 79d. Deborah Davis, Katharine The Great, New York: Sheridan Square Press, 1991. "...publishers who don't give a shit", p.iv­v; bullying HBJ into recalling the book, p.iv­vi; lawsuit and settlement, p.. 60. Benjamin C. Bradlee, Letter to Deborah Davis, April 1, 1987. See note 79d, p.304. 61. See note 79d, p.119­132. 62. Carl Bernstein, "The CIA and the Media ­­ How America's Most Powerful News Media Worked Hand in Glove with the Central Intelligence Agency and Why the Church Committee Covered It Up", Rolling Stone, October 20, 1977, p.63. 83a. Daniel Brandt, Letter to Richard L. Harwood of The Washington Post, September 15, 1988. The letter asks for the Post's rationale for its policy of protecting government covert actions, and whether this policy is still in effect. 83b. Daniel Brandt, "Little Magazines May Come and Go", The National Reporter, Fall 1988, p.4. Notes the Post's protection of the identity of CIA agent Joseph F.Fernandez. Brandt says, "America needs to confront its own recent history as well as protect the interests of its citizens, and both can be accomplished by outlawing peacetime covert activity. This would contribute more to thesecurity of Americans than all the counterterrorist proposals and elite strike forces that ever found their way onto Pentagon wish­lists." 83c. Richard L. Harwood, Letter to Daniel Brandt, September 28, 1988. Harwood's two­ sentence letter reads, "We have a long­ standing policy of not naming covert agents of the C.I.A., except in unusual circumstances. We applied that policy to Fernandez." 63. See note 79d, p.131. 64. Katharine Graham, "Safeguarding Our Freedoms As We Cover Terrorist Acts", Washington Post, April 20, 1986, p.C1. 65. "conspire", 4Random House Dictionary of the English Language, Second Edition Unabridged, 1987. 66. Howard Kurtz, "Media Notes", Washington Post, June 18, 1991, p.D1. 67. See note 65y. 68. See note 65n. 69. See note 65d. http://911review.org/Wiki/OperationMockingbird.shtml

26/28

10/10/2016

Operation Mockingbird - 9/11 Review

70. William Casey, Private Communications with JCH, March 1992. Richard Harwood, "What Conspiracy?", Washington Post, March 1, 1992, p.C6. 71. p. 29­32. 94a. Washington Post Electronic Data Base, Dialog Information Services Inc., April 25, 1992. In 1991 and 1992, the name Bill Clinton appeared in 878 Washington Post stories, columns, letters, or editorials; "Jerry" Brown in 485, Pat Buchanan in 303, and Larry Agran in 28. In those 28, Agran's name appeared 76 times, Clinton's 151, and Brown 72. In only 1 of those 28 did Agran's name appear in a headline. 94b. Colman Mc Carthy, "What's 'Minor' About This Candidate?", Washington Post, February 1, 1992. Washington Post columnist Mc Carthy tells how television and party officials have kept presidential candidate Larry Agran out of sight. The Post's own daily news­blackout of Agran is not discussed. 94c. Scot Lehigh, "Larry Agran: 'Winner' in Debate With Little Chance For the Big Prize", Boston Globe, February 25, 1992. 94d. Joshua Meyrowitz, "The Press Rejects a Candidate", Columbia Journalism Review,March/April, 1992. 73. Ben H. Bagdikian, The Effete Conspiracy And Other Crimes By The Press, NewYork: Harper and Row, 1972, p.36­7. 96a. 28 USC Section 455. "Any justice, judge, or magistrate of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned." [emphasis added] 96b. Alpo Petfoods, Inc. v. Ralston Purina Co., 913 F2d 958 (CA DC 1990).. 96c. Monroe Freedman, "Thomas' Ethics and the Court ­­ Nominee 'Unfit to Sit' For Failing to Recuse In Ralston Purina Case", Legal Times, August 26, 1991. 96d. Paul D. Wilcher, "Opposition to the Confirmation of Judge Clarence Thomas to become a Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court on the grounds of his JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT", Letter to U.S. Senator Joseph R. Biden, October 15, 1991. 74. Al Kamen and Michael Isikoff, "'A Distressing Turn', Activists Decry What Process Has Become", Washington Post, October 12, 1991, p.A1. 75. January 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 1992, p.A1 each day. 76. See note 86. 77. Thomas W. Lippman, "Energy Lobby Fights Unseen 'Killers'", Washington Post,April 1, 1992, p.A21. This article explains that http://911review.org/Wiki/OperationMockingbird.shtml

27/28

10/10/2016

Operation Mockingbird - 9/11 Review

"representatives of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers and the coal, oil, natural gas, offshore drilling and nuclear power industries, whose interests often conflict, pledged to work together to oppose amendments limiting offshore oil drilling, nuclear power and carbon dioxide emissions soon to be offered by key House members". 78. "cartel", Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, 1977. NOTES: A good source on the Washington Post and Katharine Graham's attempt to suppress the Davis book,"Katherine The Great,", which was largely successful, is Carol Felsenthal's, "Power and Privilege at the Post, the Katharine Graham Story." For more information on Johnny Rosselli and Moses and Walter Annenberg, an excellent source is "All American Mafioso, the Johnny Rosselli Story," by Ed Becker and Charles Rappelye. An additional good short reference is "The CIA's Greatest Hits" by Mark Zepezauer. There you will find the reference to Carl Bernstein's classic "The CIA and the Media" which appeared in Rolling Stone on Oct. 20, Still another recent example of the CIA's control of the media is the spiking of Sally Denton's & Roger Morris' story,"The Crimes Of Mena" by Washington Post managing editor Bob Kaiser even though the story had been legally vetted and cleared for publication. Indeed the story, which details the CIA's involvement in drug trafficing, was already typeset and ready to go when it was killed without explanation. Links: Who Controls the Media?

Homeland Security Contracts for Vast New Detention Camps 9/11: Mae Brussell vs. Solomon and Parry SPOOKS AT MT. HOLYOKE Who Killed Dorothy Kilgallen? More Spooks at Mt. Holyoke The price of freedom now is very high:  Contribute

Your Ad Here

http://911review.org/Wiki/OperationMockingbird.shtml

28/28

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/Spin1.htm

Media 'SPIN' Part 1 of 2

apfn.org

By Joshua Holland, AlterNet. Posted December 13, 2005

[[In a wide-ranging interview, 'Wag the Dog' author Larry Beinhart describes how members of the news media censor stories -- even as they publish them. ]] In a speech this fall, Al Gore spoke of the "strangeness" in our political discourse. He bemoaned the "new pattern of serial obsessions that periodically take over the airwaves for weeks at a time," and the lack of desire for accountability in American journalism. On top of all this, the idea that perception is far more important than reality has become the principle of our broadcast politics, debasing our political discourse to a game of controlling the spin. Larry Beinhart has thought long and hard about the nature of message-based politics. Beinhart, author of the bestselling novel, "Wag the Dog," recently waded into the nonfiction world of 21st-century communications with his new book "Fog Facts: Searching for Truth in the Land of Spin." AlterNet caught up with Beinhart outside of Woodstock, New York, in the cabin in the woods he shares with his wife and son. What are "fog facts?" Fog facts are things that have been published or are easily known but have disappeared in the fog. And there are lots of facts that should disappear in the fog; they're trivia, they're nonsense, and we don't need to know them. I'm talking about things that are important -- that once you bring them to the foreground it changes your picture of reality. How does a fact become a fog fact? With certain exceptions, news is not automatically big news. The exceptions are dead popes, the World Series, tsunamis, volcanoes, wars the wars that involve us anyway -- but most news actually becomes news -- including wars -- because of press releases. The example I always use -- because we're in the small town of Woodstock -- is the little league schedule. If the little league schedule is going to be in the newspaper, it's only because the coach or the coach's wife sends it to the newspaper. Most news originates as a press release or a press conference or an announcement. And if it's going to stay in the news, it has to get new press releases and new stories. Someone has to work at that, someone has to invest effort and time to make it a big story. And if nobody does that, it may not be a story at all, or it may be a one-time item. You know, page 12 of the New York Times, page 26. And part of what happens is that people in the media -- especially print people -- think that if they're reported it they've done their job. Their job is not to determine what effect it has on the population, how well we absorb it, how excited we get about it -- that's not their job. Their job is to get the fact and put it in the paper. They're done. Then if the fact comes back again, as a new press release or a new twist, they go with it. Two great examples are the Oil-For-Food money. Everybody in America knows that there's some kind of weird scandal about what the U.N. did with the Oil-For-Food money. They don't know exactly what it is but they there's something scandalous, that Kofi Annan is a little dirty. Now, as far as been MDT Page 1 ofknow 10 Octanybody's 10, 2016 02:57:27AM

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/Spin1.htm weird scandal about what

the U.N. did with the Oil-For-Food money. They don't know exactly what it is but they know there's something scandalous, that Kofi Annan is a little dirty. Now, as far as anybody's been able to tell so far, the corruption and malfeasance involved several hundreds of thousands of dollars at most, excluding those moneys that Saddam Hussein was able to hold onto, which was generally approved by all parties or permitted by all parties. But however much the U.N. did wrong was fairly minor. After the U.S. conquest of Iraq the Oil-For-Food money was transferred to a new entity, the CPA -- the Coalition Provisional Authority run by Paul Bremer. And about $9 billion dollars of oil money went into the CPA, plus about $10 billion dollars of other funds went into the CPA. And this money was essentially being held in trust for the Iraqi government. Now they ripped through about $19 billion dollars of it -- it has essentially disappeared. If I remember correctly out of 20 billion dollars there was about half a billion left. And it surfaced in only about three isolated stories. The reason for that is that there is no constituency that has influence in the American media that gives a damn about Iraq's money. There's a very big constituency in the United States that hates the U.N.. And they hate the U.N. because the notion of any restraint on America's sovereign, unfettered authority is something that just disturbs them to no end. So they were eager to find things that would tarnish the U.N., so they worked that story very hard -- the right wing -- they pushed that story and we heard a lot about it. So one stayed a fog fact and one's a well-known fact. Another instance is when the media itself will decide that they want to create a fog-fact -- they don't want something known. The most notorious example of this was the recount that the media itself paid for after the Florida election in 2000. There was enough controversy about it that a consortium of the major players in the media business -- the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Tribune Company -- which is the Chicago Tribune -- the Los Angeles Times, CNN, the Wall Street Journal and the St. Petersburg Times all got together and said we're going to recount these votes and we're going to find out who really won. And they went and they spent a million dollars on it. And who really won, presumably, was news. That was the exciting thing. If they found out that it was Al Gore who won, then obviously on the face of it that's bigger news than George Bush won. That's old news. Who cares? And when they counted all the discernible votes -- according to the standard way you could tell what the voter intended, Al Gore won. So, headlines should have been "Al Gore got more votes" or "Al Gore should have been president," or "Wrong man elected" or "Supreme Court stopped recount just in time to save Bush." Right? But those weren't the headlines. The headlines were "Bush won anyway," "Recount shows Bush won," "Recount shows Supreme Court stopping vote didn't matter." And the New York Times was the worst offender. Unless you read the story with the care of an accountant, it was literally impossible to decipher that Al Gore got more votes. The truth is, I didn't figure it out. I read the story and I thought, "oh shit, that's a disappointment." Two years later I was reading a story by the other Gore -- Vidal -- and he mentioned it. And I went back and re-read the Times story. And I thought, "Oh my God. Al Gore got more votes than George Bush. It's astonishing." And then I read all the others and I said, "This is one of the most amazing media events that I've ever seen." I want to find out how all seven of them all made the same decision to bury the story. Not to deny the story, but to bury the story so that they could in good conscience say "we reported the truth." And they did. And yet they all spun it so heavily that even dedicated lefties and the bloggers all missed it. Is this a sinister plot, or is something else afoot?

There are Page 2 of 10

certain structural impediments to how the media functions. We have in the United States what'sMDT Oct 10, 2016 02:57:27AM

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/Spin1.htm

There are certain structural impediments to how the media functions. We have in the United States what's known as objective journalism, which contrasted with the European model. In Europe, the newspapers -and these traditions go back strictly to the newspaper days -- were all owned by political parties or affiliated with political parties. There was the Communist paper, there was the monarchist paper, there was the revisionist paper, and there was the Nazi paper, the Social Democrat, the Christian, whatever. So when you read the paper you knew there was a point of view and you expected it. We took a different tradition, which was for a long time a very effective and honorable one. The journalist tries to actually be a non-judgmental gatherer of the facts. You lay them out there in as coherent an order as possible and then you make up your own mind. Sounds like a Fox News slogan. But there are certain weaknesses in the system. For anything controversial, it essentially depends on there being two separate but equal contestants. In political issues if there's a strong liberal and strong conservative view, you get them into the paper and you can sort it out. But in certain situations like going to war, in which the administration could play the patriotism card, what happens is you have George Bush hollering for war. And George Bush got to say, "we're going to war because they have WMD and they're associated with Al Qaeda." Scott Ritter got up and said, "you know, I was a weapons inspector and I was there and we got rid of all the weapons. Let me tell you that if there's anything left -- and there might be something left -- but if there's anything left it probably doesn't work." O.K., they report it. And Bush shrugs and he goes and he says, "They have weapons of mass destruction -with nukes." And the press dutifully reports it because he's the president of the United States. So Scott Ritter goes and speaks the next time. But the press doesn't report it -- they did Scott Ritter already! Same with Hans Blix. For every three stories Hans Blix got Colin Powell got 10, Dick Cheney got 50, George Bush got 200, Condi Rice got another 150 and Rumsfeld got another 100. So in the aggregate number of stories, the number of times you heard that he had weapon of mass destruction compared to the number of times you heard he didn't means that the Scott Ritter story for most people disappeared into the fog. And the Hans Blix thing disappeared into the fog. Even now it's really hard to sort out the sequence of what I think are the really significant events that have happened. Every administration uses the media, every administration spins us. Clinton did it, FDR did it, you name it. They've all done it. Why is this administration different? It's a combination of things -- sort of a perfect storm. One is that -- this is difficult because it implies motive, and consciousness -- but these are guys who have an agenda that could not possibly be sold honestly. So, for them to even do it requires dishonesty. Clinton's dishonesty was largely in his personal life. And politically, he would attempt to do things and when he found out he couldn't do them he made adjustments and did something else. I don't know if that's lying or making adjustments, but this is something different. These are people who very much want, for example, to take Social Security. To them this is just a huge pile of money just sitting there. And they really wanted to take that money and put it -- and give it to businesses. They wanted to dump it into Wall Street. What a bonanza! And it makes them crazy that they can't. And if they know that about themselves, they could not run on that, and say "this is what we want to do," so they say "we want to save social security." So whether they can convince themselves that's true, I can't answer. But it requires them to run, in essence, on something that's not true. Bushenomics is about the use of government for transferring money from regular people to rich people. That's what government is for in their minds. And all their economic decisions have done or attempted to do exactly that. So3 these Page of 10

are people who have policies that aren't saleable so they have to lie to sell them. relations MDT Oct 10,Public 2016 02:57:27AM

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/Spin1.htm

So these are people who have policies that aren't saleable so they have to lie to sell them. Public relations has reached a level of maturity -- over the last 20 years public relations has grown up immensely, especially in the corporate world. When some community group wants to force their local industry to take PCBs out of the river, the corporations will form a group called Citizens for Healthy Rivers. And whatever statement they make, it'll read: "and the spokesperson for Citizens for Healthy Rivers says it's actually better for PCBs to be stuck at the bottom of the river then be churned up by dredging." So Citizens for Healthy Rivers is opposed to dredging gets repeated over and over again. They've learned to put fake labels on what they do -- they learned it in business. And we see this administration doing it very assiduously with their bills: Healthy Forest act, Clear Skies act -- with mercury! -- the methodologies for doing this have grown up. So it's a perfect storm. It's an administration that has an agenda that's not sale-able, we have a compliant media fixated on reporting "he said she said," we have all of these Astroturf citizens groups. Let me put to you the last question, which is 9/11, before and after. How did that create a proliferation of fog facts? Once we have 9/11 we have war hysteria. The war hysteria was worst among people in the media. People in the media were just scared shitless. Perhaps more so in New York than anywhere else. I think that's what made the New York Times go off the rails. And it caused the deification of George W. Bush. Rather than point out that on 9/11 he flew to Nebraska -- you know, he didn't go stand at the helm of the ship and steer us out of trouble, he got as far away as he could get -- they just sat there until he did the bullhorn act. Then he was a hero -- thank God! And we all had to band together -- there was this tribal thing -- and we had to fight the outsiders and anyone who disagreed was a traitor. We had an administration that, after they got over being scared shitless themselves, pushed it for everything it was worth. They had had an agenda that they were waiting for an opportunity to achieve. Some argue that the new media -- we hear endlessly about the blogosphere and the relationship that's developing between the blogs and the traditional media -- are going to usher in a new era of media transparency. Others argue that announcing the death of the mainstream media is premature. What's your view, are we headed to a time when a few major outlets can emphasize X while Y falls off the screen? I really don't know. I don't know. But what I think is that objective journalism as it stands now sucks. It's got a lot of problems. One is that the guys who make money from spinning it have figured out how to do it. And the media is essentially worthless if it's all spin and that's where a lot of the distrust of the media comes from. There are two ways to change. We can fall into the European model where there's a left media and a right media. The other possibility is to redefine what objective media is. And this has been done in a small way in political campaigns. It's done with political advertising. They take a political advertisement and they take the responsibility of objectively, by their own standards -- not one from column A and one from column B -looking at an ad and going through it line by line and saying how truthful it is. So that to me is a higher standard and a useful standard of objective journalism. These guys should go out and do the work that I'm paying them for. And they're not doing the job that they want to do either. There are a lot of dissatisfied journalists out there going, "There's something wrong and we don't know how to fix it." Well there's the model to fix it. http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/29278/ -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MEDIA Page 4 of 10

SPIN REVOLVES AROUND THE WORD "TERRORIST"

Oct 10, 2016 02:57:27AM MDT

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/Spin1.htm

MEDIA SPIN REVOLVES AROUND THE WORD "TERRORIST" By Norman Solomon During the first two days of this month, CNN's website displayed an odd little announcement. "There have been false reports that CNN has not used the word 'terrorist' to refer to those who attacked the World Trade Center and Pentagon," the notice said. "In fact, CNN has consistently and repeatedly referred to the attackers and hijackers as terrorists, and it will continue to do so." The CNN disclaimer was accurate -- and, by conventional media standards, reassuring. But it bypassed a basic question that festers beneath America's overwhelming media coverage of recent weeks: Exactly what qualifies as "terrorism"? For this country's mainstream journalists, that's a non-question about a no-brainer. More than ever, the proper function of the "terrorist" label seems obvious. "A group of people commandeered airliners and used them as guided missiles against thousands of people," says NBC News executive Bill Wheatley. "If that doesn't fit the definition of terrorism, what does?" True enough. At the same time, it's notable that American news outlets routinely define terrorism the same way that U.S. government officials do. Usually, editors assume that reporters don't need any formal directive because the appropriate usage is simply understood. The Wall Street Journal does provide some guidelines, telling its staff that the word terrorist "should be used carefully, and specifically, to describe those people and nongovernmental organizations that plan and execute acts of violence against civilian or noncombatant targets." In newsrooms across the United States, media professionals would agree. But -- in sharp contrast -- Reuters has stuck to a distinctive approach for decades. "As part of a policy to avoid the use of emotive words," the global news service says, "we do not use terms like 'terrorist' and 'freedom fighter' unless they are in a direct quote or are otherwise attributable to a third party. We do not characterize the subjects of news stories but instead report their actions, identity and background so that readers can make their own decisions based on the facts." Since mid-September, the Reuters management has taken a lot of heat for maintaining this policy -- and for reiterating it in an internal memo, which included the observation that "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." In a clarifying statement, released on Oct. 2, the top execs at Reuters explained: "Our policy is to avoid the use of emotional terms and not make value judgments concerning the facts we attempt to report accurately and fairly." Reuters reports from 160 countries, and the "terrorist" label is highly contentious in quite a few of them. Behind the scenes, many governments have pressured Reuters to flatly describe their enemies as terrorists in news dispatches. From the vantage point of government leaders in Ankara or Jerusalem or Moscow, for example, journalists shouldn't hesitate to describe their violent foes as terrorists. But why should reporters oblige by pinning that tag on Kurdish combatants in Turkey, or Palestinian militants in occupied territories, or rebels in Chechnya? Unless we buy into the absurd pretense that governments don't engage in "terrorism," the circumscribed use of the term by U.S. media makes no sense. Turkish military forces have certainly terrorized and killed many civilians; the same is true of Israeli forces and Russian troops. As a result, plenty of Kurds, Palestinians and Chechens are grieving. American reporters could plausibly expand their working definition of terrorism to include all organized acts of terror and murder committed against civilians. But such consistency would meet with fierce opposition in high places. Page 5 ofWashington 10 Oct 10, 2016 02:57:27AM MDT

of terror and murder committed http://www.apfn.org/apfn/Spin1.htm

against civilians. But such consistency would meet with fierce opposition in

high Washington places. During the 1980s, with a non-evasive standard for terrorism, news accounts would have routinely referred to the Nicaraguan contra guerrillas -- in addition to the Salvadoran and Guatemalan governments -- as U.S.-backed "terrorists." Today, for instance, such a standard would require news coverage of terrorism in the Middle East to include the Israeli assaults with bullets and missiles that take the lives of Palestinian children and other civilians. Evenhanded use of the "terrorist" label would mean sometimes affixing it directly on the U.S. government. During the past decade, from Iraq to Sudan to Yugoslavia, the Pentagon's missiles have destroyed the lives of civilians just as innocent as those who perished on Sept. 11. If journalists dare not call that "terrorism," then perhaps the word should be retired from the media lexicon. It's entirely appropriate for news outlets to describe the Sept. 11 hijackers as "terrorists" -- if those outlets are willing to use the "terrorist" label with integrity across the board. But as long as news organizations are not willing to do so, the Reuters policy is the only principled journalistic alternative. There is no credible reason to believe that mainstream U.S. media will jump off Uncle Sam's propaganda merry-go-round about "terrorism." And the problem goes far beyond the deeply hypocritical routine of condemning some murderously explosive actions against civilians while applauding or even implementing others. More than five years have passed since Madeleine Albright, then secretary of state, appeared on the CBS program "60 Minutes" and explained her lack of concern about the deaths resulting from U.S.-led sanctions against Iraq. In a broadcast that aired on May 12, 1996, the CBS correspondent Lesley Stahl asked Albright: "We have heard that a half a million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died when -- in -- in Hiroshima. And -- and, you know, is the price worth it?" "I think this is a very hard choice," Albright replied, "but the price -- we think the price is worth it." Since then, by continuing to impose sanctions on Iraq, the U.S. government has killed hundreds of thousands more children. Of course such present-day policies did not stop Albright's successor from immediately claiming the high moral ground on Sept. 11. Responding to the tragic events that day, Colin Powell denounced "people who feel that with the destruction of buildings, with the murder of people, they can somehow achieve a political purpose." Obviously, top U.S. officials still believe that they can "somehow achieve a political purpose" with sanctions that are killing several thousand Iraqi children every month. While standing on that policy platform, the officials fervently deplore terrorism. http://www.zmag.org/solorerr.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------The Science of Media Spin-Doctor Selective Cognition MANIPULATING PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS With Fraudulent Tripe! Bush Regime & U.S. Media Propaganda Game Plan

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------The Propaganda Game Plan strategy for the Bush Regime & U.S. Media is predictable and CERTAIN. Look Page 6 of for 10 the following 'Media Hypes' to coincide with the following events (REMEMBER Oct-10,This 2016Was 02:57:27AM MDT

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/Spin1.htm

Look for the following 'Media Hypes' to coincide with the following events (REMEMBER -- This Was Written and These "Events" were Predicted in January 2003!): Minute-by-minute U.S. Media bombardment of reports of "Grandiose Heroic Acts" purportedly performed by U.S. military personnel in a propaganda coup designed to foster an image of the U.S. War as one of "building" and "helping," while designed to undermine and dispel the True image of incredible destruction and the wholesale decimation of many innocent Iraqi Civilian lives, including women and children (1,252 at last count). Minute-by-minute U.S. Media bombardment of "U.S. Military Casualty" stories, which are virtually always presented in conjunction with unsupported, unverified accounts of an alleged Iraqi military atrocity which purportedly is directly linked to the U.S. casualty. The obvious agitprop strategy here is to "INCITE" the public with fury and anger and hatred for the 'enemy' ... thus bolstering public support for the War. Minute-by-minute U.S. Media bombardment of U.S. military "Loved Ones Back Home" stories, which are virtually always presented in conjunction with unsupported, unverified accounts of an alleged Iraqi military atrocity which purportedly is directly linked to the 'Loved One' and the dangers s\he faces. The obvious agitprop strategy here is to "INCITE" the public with fury and anger and hatred for the 'enemy' ... thus bolstering public support for the War. Minute-by-minute U.S. Media bombardment of purportedly new (updated) snippets of information supposedly adding to the body of evidence and purportedly "proving conclusively" that Saddam "has and was about to use" weapons of mass destruction or chemical-biological weapons. The U.S. Media will dispense this as gospel and will always be seen putting words in the mouths of military expert interviewees to this effect. There will be a complete absence of critical media analysis or scrutiny of the accuracy or details of the information or the validity of the inferences \conclusions being hastily drawn. The U.S. Media will be seen accepting such info hastily and uncritically, because it is commonly understood that the legitimacy of this War DEMANDS that such facts be present. Minute-by-minute U.S. Media bombardment of purportedly new (updated) snippets of information supposedly adding to the body of evidence and purportedly "proving conclusively" that Saddam "had connections to Al Queda and World-Wide Terrorist networks" - in an effort to legitimize this War and despite the fact that nearly all Iraq experts have repudiated such claims as utterly implausible given Saddam's dislike for such groups. The U.S. Media will dispense this as gospel and will always be seen putting words in the mouths of military expert interviewees to this effect. There will be a complete absence of critical analysis or scrutiny of the accuracy or details of the information or the validity of the inferences \conclusions being hastily drawn. The U.S. Media will be seen accepting such info hastily and uncritically, because it is commonly understood that the legitimacy of this War DEMANDS that such facts be present. EXAMPLE: The U.S. Media is already propagating irresponsible claims that Al Queda terrorist lists have been found at an Iraqi site. They are touting this as conclusive proof of Iraq's connection to World-wide terrorism and the events of 9\11. In fact, if such information is true, it may represent divisions and disagreements within Saddam's ranks. Furthermore, such a list, if it really exists, most likely would represent a very recent 'last resort' effort by Saddam to defend against an imminent U.S. attack. This is a good example of irresponsible U.S. journalism ... and the Fox network is the worst. Minute-by-minute U.S. Media bombardment of purportedly new (updated) snippets of information supposedly further illustrating overwhelming U.S. military successes ... while confidently touting what a speedy 'slam-dunk' War this is shaping up to be. The propaganda strategy is designed to instill in viewers

the7 belief Page of 10

that "it is almost over" and just a little more patience will get you to the Promised This Oct 10,Land. 2016 02:57:27AM MDT

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/Spin1.htm

the belief that "it is almost over" and just a little more patience will get you to the Promised Land. This agitprop U.S. Media strategy is in recognition of the fact that every day this War continues, support for it erodes.

Minute-by-minute U.S. Media bombardment of purportedly new (updated) polls purportedly showing non-eroding or growing public support for the War. The propaganda strategy is designed to instill in viewers the belief that support for the War is not eroding, and therefore there is no reason for anyone to abandon support. This agitprop U.S. Media strategy is in recognition of the fact that every time there is erosion of support there tends to be a rapid domino effect of further erosion of support. The polls are bogus. The poll questions are 'loaded,' suggestive and specious. The poll questions present false either\or dilemmas which force respondents to either answer favorably or refuse to answer altogether because "their" answer option is not offered in the answer choices given to them. (See special article on "Bogus U.S. Media Polling") Scant or non-existent U.S. Media reports about the number of casualties suffered by innocent Iraqi Civilians. Whatever numbers are proffered by the U.S. Media, they will be characterized as 'soft' unreliable numbers in an effort to trivialize them. The agitprop strategy here is to minimize and trivialize the grotesque harm inflicted by the U.S. and to minimize and trivialize the decimation of the people Bush claims to be liberating (1,252 at last count). Scant or in most cases, a complete NEWS VOID regarding U.S. Media reports about the "DETAILS" of casualties suffered by innocent Iraqi Civilians. Whatever generalities are proffered by the U.S. Media, they will be characterized as 'soft' unreliable accounts in an effort to trivialize them or dismiss them. This will translate as an aversion-avoidance of details about young children having their limbs torched off by U.S. bombs, or entire Iraqi families incinerated by U.S. bombs. The whole point of 'embedded journalists' was supposed to be the accurate portrayal of such facts. But the U.S. Media has become the propaganda wing of the Bush Regime and such factual information is deemed unpatriotic and off-limits. (Just ask Peter Arnett). The agitprop strategy here is to minimize and trivialize the grotesque harm inflicted by the U.S. and to minimize and trivialize the decimation of the people Bush claims to be liberating.

When Scant U.S. Media reports about the "DETAILS" of casualties suffered by innocent Iraqi victims are disseminated, they will always ... ALWAYS be presented ONLY IF THE VICTIMS or survivors EXPRESS ANTI-SADDAM SENTIMENTS. And they will always ... ALWAYS be presented ONLY in tandem with an upbeat spin-story showing how the U.S. is working with the victims and their survivors to "rebuild a better tomorrow." Whatever generalities are proffered by the U.S. Media, they will be characterized as 'soft' unreliable accounts in an effort to trivialize them or dismiss them. This will translate as an aversion-avoidance of details about young children having their limbs torched off by U.S. bombs, or entire Iraqi families incinerated by U.S. bombs. The whole point of 'embedded journalists' was supposed to be the accurate portrayal of such facts. But the U.S. Media has become the propaganda wing of the Bush Regime and such factual information is deemed unpatriotic and off-limits. (Just ask Peter Arnett). The agitprop strategy here is to minimize and trivialize the grotesque harm inflicted by the U.S. and to minimize and trivialize the decimation of the people Bush claims to be liberating. Whatever generalities are proffered by the U.S. Media about horrendous incidents involving extremely ugly, unflattering facts about casualties inflicted on innocent Iraqi Civilians by the U.S. military, they will be characterized as 'soft' unreliable accounts in an effort to trivialize them or dismiss them. report willMDT Page 8 of 10 OctNo 10, such 2016 02:57:27AM

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/Spin1.htm unflattering facts about casualties

inflicted on innocent Iraqi Civilians by the U.S. military, they will be characterized as 'soft' unreliable accounts in an effort to trivialize them or dismiss them. No such report will ever be disseminated by the U.S. Media unless and until a torrent of U.S. officials and 'experts' have been copiously prepared to justify and "explain away" the incident as either "Saddam's fault" or as "understandable and defensible under the circumstances" or as "exaggerated Saddam propaganda" or as "unconfirmed at this time." The "unconfirmed at this time" U.S. Media and Bush strategist ploy is frequently used and is calculated to provide a "cooling off period" before deeming the public ready to grapple with the grim Truth. Once it is deemed that the public has largely forgotten about the incident, or when the incident has been eclipsed by some other incident, then the U.S. Media and Bush strategists will disclose, in dribs and drabs over many days and weeks, the facts surrounding the casualties inflicted on innocent Iraqi victims by the U.S. military. These accounts will always ... ALWAYS be couched in euphemistic terms that gloss-over and trivialize the significance of the disclosed facts. And these accounts will always ... ALWAYS be plagued with red-herring distraction arguments which purportedly mitigate blame or exonerate U.S. actions entirely, while castigating those who would criticize "with the benefit of 20\20 hindsight." Expect to see a torrent of "unconfirmed at this time" U.S. Media and Bush strategist responses every time a grizzly set of facts surfaces which are unflattering to the U.S. and the U.S. War effort. The U.S. Media and Bush Regime strategy is simple and obvious. The Rule is this: "Strike while the iron is HOT, when it involves flaming, hostile public sentiments against Iraq or Saddam." The Converse Rule is this: "Wait until the iron is COLD, when it involves flaming, hostile public sentiments against Bush, the U.S., the U.S. military or the U.S. War effort." The U.S. Media are full partners with the Bush Regime in sticking to this operational Propaganda GamePlan. Minute-by-minute U.S. Media bombardment of "Alleged Iraqi Military Atrocity" stories, which are virtually always presented in conjunction with unsupported, unverified accounts of alleged Iraqi military events which occurred at a totally different time and place and which cannot be directly linked to the alleged new atrocity claim. The obvious agitprop strategy here is to "INCITE" the public with fury and anger and hatred for the 'enemy' ... so the public will be inclined to accept the unsupported claims uncritically, with the presumption that "it is probably true and accurate." This U.S. Media propaganda ploy is the most commonly utilized counterfeit in their agitprop arsenal. Its overall effect is to erode the 'public scrutiny of information' standard so that little or no competent proof or evidence is necessary in order for the public to "buy into it" as though it is gospel ... as though it had legitimacy ... as though it was conclusively True and Accurate, even though it is NOT. Sincerely, Government Watch 2002 [email protected] Parents For Responsible Education Thaddeus Brandon Jacobs [email protected] http://www.geocities.com/blubakhe777/gameplan.html CIA/Media Propaganda Operation Mockingbird: CIA Media Manipulation   Part 1 http://www.apfn.org/apfn/mockingbird.htm Part 2 http://www.apfn.org/apfn/mockingbird2.htm Part 3 http://www.apfn.org/apfn/mockingbird3.htm Part 4 http://www.apfn.org/apfn/Mockingbird4.htm

Audio: Media & Mind Control in America by9Steven Jacobson Page of 10

Oct 10, 2016 02:57:27AM MDT

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/Spin1.htm Audio: Media & Mind Control

in America

by Steven Jacobson #1 http://www.apfn.net/audio/L001I060312110344-mind-control1.MP3  (5.24MB) 22Min 52 Sec #2 http://www.apfn.net/audio/L002I060312112719-mind-control2.MP3  (4.75MB) 20Min 45 Sec Subscribe to apfn-1

chooser.gif (706373 bytes)

Powered by groups.yahoo.com

American Patriot Friends Network Without Justice, there is JUST_US!  APFN

Sitemap

Hit Counter

Page 10 of 10

Oct 10, 2016 02:57:27AM MDT

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/Spin2.htm

Media 'SPIN' Part 2

apfn.org

Fox News: Iraq Civil War “Made Up By The Media?” Fox News continues its crackerjack analysis of sectarian strife in Iraq. Previously, it explored whether “an all-out civil war in Iraq” could be “a good thing.” Now they have an new theory. Where Did SPIN Originate? This is of American origin and came about during the 1980s, when the need for 'sound bites' became pressing enough to require a new class of publicist to provide them. The earliest printed references are from that period, For example, this from the New York Times, Oct. 1984: "A dozen men in good suits and women in silk dresses will circulate smoothly among the reporters, spouting confident opinions. They won't be just press agents trying to impart a favorable spin to a routine release. They'll be the Spin Doctors, senior advisers to the candidates." So, why 'spin'? For the derivation of that we need to go back to yarn. We know that sailors and other storytellers have a reputation for spinning yarns. Given a phrase in the language like 'spin a yarn', we might expect to assume that a yarn was a tall tale and that the tellers spun it out. That's not quite right though. Until the phrase was coined, yarn was just thread. The phrase was coined as an entity, just meaning 'tell a tale'. That came about in the early 19th century and was first written down in James Hardy Vaux's 'A new and comprehensive vocabulary of the flash language', in 1812: "Yarning or spinning a yarn, signifying to relate their various adventures, exploits, and escapes to each other." So, spin became associated with telling a story. It began to be used in a political and promotional context in the late 1980s. For example, in the Guardian Weekly, Jan. 1978: "The CIA can be an excellent source [of information], though, like every other, its offerings must be weighed for factuality and spin." From there it is a small step for the people employed to weave reports of factual events into palatable stories to be called 'spin doctors'. http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20060901165821AAdjwPH GIs Told 'Spin Iraq War' Specialist Leonard Clark, a National Guardsman, was demoted to private and fined $1,640 for posting anti-war statements on an Internet blog. Clark wrote entries describing the company's commander as a "glory seeker" and the battalion sergeant major an "inhuman monster". His last entry before the blog was shut down told how his fellow soldiers were becoming Page 1 of 7increasingly

opposed to the US operation in Iraq.

Oct 10, 2016 02:57:32AM MDT

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/Spin2.htm

increasingly opposed to the US operation in Iraq. Pentagon Orders Soldiers to Promote Iraq War While on Leave /////////////////////////////////////////////////// by Doug Thompson Capitol Hill Blue http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7918.shtml  December 29, 2005

Good soldiers follow orders and hundreds of American military men and women returned to the United States on holiday leave this month with orders to sell the Iraq war to a skeptical public. The program, coordinated through a Pentagon operation dubbed “Operation Homefront,” ordered military personnel to give interviews to their hometown newspapers, television stations and other media outlets and praise the American war effort in Iraq. Initial reports back to the Pentagon deem the operation a success with dozens of front page stories in daily and weekly newspapers around the country along with upbeat reports on local television stations. “We've learned as a military how to do this better,” Captain David Diaz, a military reservist, told his hometown paper, The Roanoke (VA) Times. “My worry is that we have the right military strategy and political strategies now but the patience of the American public is wearing thin.” When pressed by the paper on whether or not his commanding officers told him to talk to the press, Diaz admitted he was “encouraged” to do so. So reporter Duncan Adams asked: “Did Diaz return to the U.S. on emergency leave with an agenda -- to offer a positive spin that could help counter growing concerns among Americans about the U.S. exit strategy? How do we know that's not his strategy, especially after he discloses that superior officers encouraged him to talk about his experiences in Iraq?” Replied Diaz: “You don't. I can tell you that the direction we've gotten from on high is that there is a concern about public opinion out there and they want to set the record straight.” Diaz, an intelligence officer, knows how to avoid a direct answer. Other military personnel, however, tell Capitol Hill Blue privately that the pressure to “sell the war” back home is enormous. “I’ve been promised an early release if I do a good job promoting the war,” says one reservist who asked not to be identified. In interviews with a number of reservists home for the holidays, a pattern emerges on the Pentagon’s propaganda effort. Soldiers are encouraged to contact their local news media outlets to offer interviews about the war. A detailed set of talking points encourages them to: --Admit initial doubts about the war but claim conversion to a belief in the American mission; Page 2 of 7--Praise

military leadership in Iraq and throw in a few words of support for the Bush Oct 10, 2016 02:57:32AM MDT

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/Spin2.htm

--Praise military leadership in Iraq and throw in a few words of support for the Bush administration; --Claim the mission to turn security of the country over to the Iraqis is working; --Reiterate that America must not abandon its mission and must stay until the “job is finished.” --Talk about how “things are better” now in Iraq. “My worry is that we have the right military strategy and political strategies now but the patience of the American public is wearing thin,” Diaz told The Roanoke Times. “It’s way better now (in Iraq). People are friendlier. They seem more relaxed, and they say, ’Thank you, mister,’” Sgt. Christopher Desierto told his hometown paper, The Maui News. But soldiers who are home and don’t have to return to Iraq tell a different story. “I've just been focused on trying to get the rest of these guys home,” says Sgt. Major Floyd Dubose of Jackson, MS, who returned home after 11 months in Iraq with the Mississippi Army National Guard's 155th Combat Brigade. And the Army is cracking down on soldiers who go on the record opposing the war. Specialist Leonard Clark, a National Guardsman, was demoted to private and fined $1,640 for posting anti-war statements on an Internet blog. Clark wrote entries describing the company's commander as a "glory seeker" and the battalion sergeant major an "inhuman monster". His last entry before the blog was shut down told how his fellow soldiers were becoming increasingly opposed to the US operation in Iraq. “The message is clear,” says one reservist who is home for the holidays but has to return and asked not to be identified. “If you want to get out of this man’s Army with an honorable (discharge) and full benefits you better not tell the truth about what is happening in-country.” But Sgt. Johnathan Wilson, a reservist, got his honorable discharge after he returned home earlier this month and he’s not afraid to talk on the record. “Iraq is a classic FUBAR,” he says. “The country is out of control and we can’t stop it. Anybody who tries to sell a good news story about the war is blowing it out his ass. We don’t win and eventually we will leave the country in a worse shape than it was when we invaded.” http://colorado.indymedia.org/newswire/display/12256/index.php  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------9/10/06 ...SUNDAY 9/11 SPIN SHOWS MEET THE PRESS: V.P. DICK CHENEY...KEEPS UP THE LIES! AUDIO: http://www.apfn.net/pogo/L001-tv-news-911a.MP3 9/10/06...CNN 9/11 CONSPIRACY FOLKS CRAZY CNN: WOLF INTERVIEW:  SEC. RICE...BACKS UP THE LIES! Page 3 of 7AUDIO

Oct 10, 2016 02:57:32AM MDT

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/Spin2.htm

AUDIO http://www.apfn.net/pogo/L002-tv-news-911b.MP3 9/10/06...ABC'S THIS WEEK... INTERVIEW: FOUR OF THE FIVE MEMBERS OF THE 9/11 COMMISSION "YOU LIE AND I'LL SWEAR TOO IT!" AUDIO: http://www.apfn.net/pogo/L003-tv-news-911c.MP3 9/11 EYEWITNESS http://www.apfn.org/APFN/911_eyewitness1.htm (NEW) Media "SPIN" Doctors & Their Tactics 'SPIN' Part 1 http://www.apfn.org/apfn/Spin1.htm Part 2 http://www.apfn.org/apfn/Spin2.htm   -------- Original Message -------Subject: A DAY OF REMEMBRANCE Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 06:37:06 -0500 From: Carolyn Kay [email protected]

A DAY OF REMEMBRANCE Air America Radio’s programming, all day on Monday, September 11, 2006, will be in remembrance of the day, five years ago, that put horror in our hearts, but that gave us the opportunity to be one nation again. Click here to find a local station that carries the programming. Or listen on XM satellite, channel 167. Or to listen on the internet, go to the Air America Radio website, and click on the Listen Live text. What happened to the unity? The Huffington Post Brent Budowsky Historians Will Morally Impeach George W. Bush For Exploiting, Not Honoring, 9-11 09.09.2006 Who was not moved by the courage of our police and fire fighters rushing into burning buildings to save our fellow Americans? Who wasn't inspired by the courage Page 4 of 7and

valor of Pentagon workers who rushed out of the building when theOct attack first 10, 2016 02:57:32AM MDT

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/Spin2.htm

and valor of Pentagon workers who rushed out of the building when the attack first struck and then, realizing their collagues and friends were in grave danger, turned around and rushed right back in, to save them? The infamy of the crime was met with the united will and the united spirit of a United America, backed by the decent opinion of men and women in every corner of the world. Never before in our history have our people been more hurt by a single act that struck on our shores. Never before in our history have our people reacted to such infamy, to such hurt, with a greater and more powerful proof of our courage and nobility. Never before in our history has the patriotism and honor of our people inspired such respect and admiration throughout the free world. And never before in our history has any leader of our Nation exploited such an event with such smallness, such partisanship, such disunity, such contempt and such vindictiveness... [Click here for more.—Caro] Lots more really good stuff at MakeThemAccountable.com. Carolyn Kay MakeThemAccountable.com The remarkable thing is that we really love our neighbor as ourselves: we do unto others as we do unto ourselves. We hate others when we hate ourselves. We are tolerant toward others when we tolerate ourselves. We forgive others when we forgive ourselves. We are prone to sacrifice others when we are ready to sacrifice ourselves. – Eric Hoffer ======================================== Media "SPIN" Doctors & Their Tactics 'SPIN' Part 1 http://www.apfn.org/apfn/Spin1.htm Part 2 http://www.apfn.org/apfn/Spin2.htm

MSNBC Poll - Most Think 9/11 Was INSIDE JOB !! http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14727720/ Do you believe any of the conspiracy theories suggesting the U.S. government was somehow involved in 9/11? * 62186 responses Page 5 of 7

Oct 10, 2016 02:57:32AM MDT

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/Spin2.htm

No. These theories are absurd and disrespectful -- especially to those who lost their lives on 9/11. 37% I'm not sure. 5.9% ================= "PROOF "THEY KNOW".... HERE'S THE ALERT TO AIRLINES! http://www.apfn.org/apfn/travel_6-23-01.htm Media & Government E-mail Addresses http://www.venusproject.com/ethics_in_action/Media_Email_Addresses.html

9/11 FIVE YEARS LATER: WHAT HAVE WE ACCOMPLISHED? An Assessment of the 9/11 Truth Movement http://www.septembereleventh.org/five_years_later.php   "Each time a person stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others. . .they send forth a ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring, those ripples build a current that can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance." - Robert F. Kennedy -------------------------------------------------------  FACE THE TRUTH: For some of us, the events of September 11th brought a devastating personal loss. We lost spouses, parents, children, grandchildren, colleagues, and close friends. Nonetheless, we are grateful for the spontaneous outpouring of goodwill from friends and strangers that has helped sustain us over the past several years.  We, like many others, are determined to generate even more good in the world out of our tragedy.

Our Voices Together Honors those who lost their lives through terrorist attacks by supporting worthwhile Oct 10, 2016 02:57:32AM MDT international projects, fostering goodwill and promoting

Page 6 of 7

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/Spin2.htm

international projects, fostering goodwill and promoting understanding. http://www.ourvoicestogether.org/ ###   Audio: Media & Mind Control in America by Steven Jacobson #1 http://www.apfn.net/audio/L001I060312110344-mind-control1.MP3  (5.24MB) 22Min 52 Sec #2 http://www.apfn.net/audio/L002I060312112719-mind-control2.MP3  (4.75MB) 20Min 45 Sec CIA/Media Propaganda Operation Mockingbird: CIA Media Manipulation   Part 1 http://www.apfn.org/apfn/mockingbird.htm Part 2 http://www.apfn.org/apfn/mockingbird2.htm Part 3 http://www.apfn.org/apfn/mockingbird3.htm Part 4 http://www.apfn.org/apfn/Mockingbird4.htm SpinWatch http://www.spinwatch.org/modules.php?name=News&file=categories&catid=50  Media Spin and Misperception http://www.heartheissues.com/mediaspin.html Subscribe to apfn-1

chooser.gif (706373 bytes)

Powered by groups.yahoo.com

American Patriot Friends Network Without Justice, there is JUST_US!  APFN

Sitemap

Hit Counter

Page 7 of 7

Oct 10, 2016 02:57:32AM MDT

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/mockingbird3.htm

OPERATION MOCKINGBIRD Part 3

apfn.org

How the Washington Post Censors the News [Note: Look for the paragraph indicated by asterisks] How the Washington Post Censors the News A Letter to the Washington Post by Julian C. Holmes ________________ April 25, 1992 Richard Harwood, Ombudsman The Washington Post 1150 15th Street NW Washington, DC 20071 Dear Mr. Harwood, Though the Washington Post does not over-extend itself in the pursuit of hard news, just let drop the faintest rumor of a government "conspiracy", and a klaxon horn goes off in the news room. Aroused from apathy in the daily routine of reporting assignations and various other political and social sports events, editors and reporters scramble to the phones. The klaxon screams its warning: the greatest single threat to herd-journalism, corporate profits, and government stability -- the dreaded "CONSPIRACY THEORY"!! It is not known whether anyone has actually been hassled or accosted by any of these frightful spectres, but their presence is announced to Post readers with a salvo of warnings to avoid the tricky, sticky webs spun by the wacko "CONSPIRACY THEORISTS". Recall how the Post saved us from the truth about Iran-Contra. Professional conspiracy exorcist Mark Hosenball was hired to ridicule the idea that Oliver North and his CIA-associated gangsters had conspired to do wrong (*1). And when, in their syndicated column, Jack Anderson and Dale Van Atta discussed some of the conspirators, the Post sprang to protect its readers, and the conspirators, by censoring the Anderson column before printing it (*2). But for some time the lid had been coming off the Iran-Contra conspiracy. In 1986, the Christic Institute, an interfaith center for law and public policy, had filed a lawsuit alleging a U.S. arms-for-drugs trade that helped keep weapons flowing to the CIA-Contra army in Nicaragua, and cocaine flowing to U.S. markets (*3). In 1988 Leslie Cockburn published Out of Control, a seminal work on our bizarre, illegal war against Nicaragua (*4). The Post contributed to this discovery process by disparaging the charges of conspiracy and by publishing false information about the drug-smuggling evidence presented to the House Subcommittee on Narcotics Abuse and Control. When accused by Committee Chairman Charles Rangel (D-NY). of misleading reporting, the Post printed only a partial correction and declined to print a letter of complaint from Rangel (*5). Sworn testimony before Senator John Kerry's Subcommittee on Terrorism, Narcotics, and International Operations confirmed U.S. Government complicity in the drug trade (*6). With its coverup of the arms/drug conspiracy evaporating, the ever-accommodating Post shifted gears and retained Hosenball to exorcise from our minds a newly emerging threat to domestic tranquility, the "October Surprise" conspiracy (*7). But close on the heels of Hosenball and the Post Page 1 of 22

came Barbara Honegger and then Gary Sick who authored independently,Oct two10,years 2016 02:58:17AM MDT

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/mockingbird3.htm

Post came Barbara Honegger and then Gary Sick who authored independently, two years apart, books with the same title, "October Surprise" (*8). Honegger was a member of the Reagan/Bush campaign and transition teams in 1980. Gary Sick, professor of Middle East Politics at Columbia University, was on the staff of the National Security Council under Presidents Ford, Carter, and Reagan. In 1989 and 1991 respectively, Honegger and Sick published their evidence of how the Republicans made a deal to supply arms to Iran if Iran would delay release of the 52 United States hostages until after the November 1980 election. The purpose of this deal was to quash the possibility of a pre-election release(an October surprise). which would have bolstered the reelection prospects for President Carter. Others published details of this alleged Reagan-Bush conspiracy. In October 1988, Playboy Magazine ran an expose "An Election Held Hostage"; FRONTLINE did another in April 1991 (*9). In June, 1991 a conference of distinguished journalists, joined by 8 of the former hostages, challenged the Congress to "make a full, impartial investigation" of the election/hostage allegations. The Post reported the statement of the hostages, but not a word of the conference itself which was held in the Dirksen Senate Office Building Auditorium (*10). On February 5, 1992 a gun-shy, uninspired House of Representatives begrudgingly authorized an "October Surprise" investigation by a task force of 13 congressmen headed by Lee Hamilton (D-IN). who had chaired the House of Representatives Iran-Contra Committee. Hamilton has named as chief team counsel Larry Barcella, a lawyer who represented BCCI when the Bank was indicted in 1988 (*11). Like the Washington Post, Hamilton had not shown interest in pursuing the U.S. arms-for-drugs operation (*12). He had accepted Oliver North's lies,and as Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee he derailed House Resolution 485 which had asked President Reagan to answer questions about Contra support activities of government officials and others (*13). After CIA operative John Hull (from Hamilton's home state). was charged in Costa Rica with "international drug trafficking and hostile acts against the nation's security", Hamilton and 18 fellow members of Congress tried to intimidate Costa Rican President Oscar Arias Sanchez into handling Hull's case "in a manner that will not complicate U.S.-Costa Rican relations" (*14). The Post did not report the Hamilton letter or the Costa Rican response that declared Hull's case to be "in as good hands as our 100 year old uninterrupted democracy can provide to all citizens" (*15). Though the Post does its best to guide our thinking away from conspiracy theories, it is difficult to avoid the fact that so much wrongdoing involves government or corporate conspiracies: In its COINTELPRO operation, the FBI used disinformation, forgery, surveillance, false arrests, and violence to illegally harass U.S.citizens in the 60's (*16). The CIA's Operation MONGOOSE illegally sabotaged Cuba by "destroying crops, brutalizing citizens, destabilizing the society, and conspiring with the Mafia to assassinate Fidel Castro and other leaders" (*17). "Standard Oil of New Jersey was found by the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice to be conspiring with I.G.Farben...of Germany. ...By its cartel agreements with Standard Oil, the United States was effectively prevented from developing or producing [fo rWorld War-II] any substantial amount of synthetic rubber," said Senator Robert LaFollette of Wisconsin (*18). U.S. Government agencies knowingly withheld information about dosages of radiation "almost certain Page 2 of 22

to produce thyroid abnormalities or cancer" that contaminated people residing near02:58:17AM the Oct 10, 2016 MDT

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/mockingbird3.htm

certain to produce thyroid abnormalities or cancer" that contaminated people residing near the nuclear weapons factory at Hanford, Washington (*19). Various branches of Government deliberately drag their feet in getting around to cleaning up the Nation's dangerous nuclear weapons sites (*20). State and local governments back the nuclear industry's secret public relations strategy (*21). "The National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society and some twenty comprehensive cancer centers, have misled and confused the public and Congress by repeated claims that we are winning the war against cancer. In fact, the cancer establishment has continually minimized the evidence for increasing cancer rates which it has largely attributed to smoking and dietary fat, while discounting or ignoring the causal role of avoidable eposures to industrial carcinogens in the air, food, water, and the workplace." (*22). The Bush Administration coverup of its pre-Gulf-War support of Iraq "is yet another example of the President's people conspiring to keep both Congress and the American people in the dark" (*23). If you think about it, conspiracy is a fundamental aspect of doing business in this country. Take the systematic and cooperative censorship of the Persian Gulf War by the Pentagon and much of the news media (*24). Or the widespread plans of business and government groups to spend $100 million in taxes to promote a distorted and truncated history of Columbus in America (*25). along the lines of the Smithsonian Institution's "fusion of the two worlds", (*26). rather than examining more realistic aspects of the Spanish invasion, like "anger, cruelty, gold, terror, and death" (*27). Or circumstances surrounding the U.S. Justice Department theft from the INSLAW company of sophisticated, law-enforcement computer software which "now point to a widespread conspiracy implicating lesser Government officials in the theft of INSLAW's technology", says former U.S.attorney General Elliot Richardson (*28). Or Watergate. Or the "largest bank fraud in world financial history" (*29), where the White House knew of the criminal activities at "the Bank of Crooks and Criminals International" (BCCI) (*30), where U.S. intelligence agencies did their secret banking (*31), and where bribery of prominent American public officials "was a way of doing business" (*32). Or the 1949 conviction of "GM [General Motors], Standard Oil of California, Firestone, and E. RoyFitzgerald, among others, for criminally conspiring to replace electric transportation with gas- and diesel-powered buses and to monopolize the sale of buses and related products to transportation companies throughout the country" [in, among others, the cities of New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, St. Louis, Oakland, Salt Lake City, and Los Angeles] (*33). Or the collusion in 1973 between Senator Abraham Ribicoff (D-CT). and the U.S. Department of Transportation to overlook safety defects in the 1.2 million Corvair automobiles manufactured by General Motors in the early 60's (*34). Or the A. H. Robins Company, which manufactured the Dalkon Shield intrauterine contraceptive, and which ignored repeated warnings of the Shield's hazards and which "stonewalled, Page 3 of 22

deceived, covered up, and covered up the coverups...[thus inflicting] on 2016 women a Oct 10, 02:58:17AM MDT

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/mockingbird3.htm

"stonewalled, deceived, covered up, and covered up the coverups...[thus inflicting] on women a worldwide epidemic of pelvic infections." (*35). Or that cooperation between McDonnell Douglas Aircraft Company and the FAA resulted in failure to enforce regulations regarding the unsafe DC-10 cargo door which failed in flight killing all 364 passengers on Turkish Airlines Flight 981 on March 3, 1974 (*36). Or the now-banned, cancer-producing pregnancy drug Diethylstilbestrol (DES). that was sold by manufacturers who ignored tests which showed DES to be carcinogenic; and who acted "in concert with each other in the testing and marketing of DES for miscarriage purposes" (*37). Or the conspiracies among bankers and speculators, with the cooperation of a corrupted Congress, to relieve depositors of their savings. This "arrogant disregard from the White House, Congress and corporate world for the interests and rights of the American people" will cost U.S. tapayers many hundreds of billions of dollars (*38). Or the Westinghouse, Allis Chalmers,Federal Pacific, and General Electric executives who met surreptitiously in hotel rooms to fix prices and eliminate competition on heavy industrial equipment (*39). Or the convictions of Industrial Biotest Laboratories (IBT). officers for fabricating safety tests on prescription drugs (*40). Or the conspiracy by the asbestos industry to suppress knowledge of medical problemsrelating to asbestos (*41). Or the 1928 Achnacarry Agreement through which oil companies "agreed not to engage in any effective price competition" (*42). Or the conspiracy among U.S. Government agencies and the Congress to cover up the nature of our decades-old war against the people of Nicaragua a covert war that continues in 1992 with the U.S. Government applying pressure for the Nicaraguan police to reorganize into a more repressive force (*43). Or the conspiracy by the CIA and the U.S. Government to interfere in the Chilean election process with military aid, covert actions, and an economic boycott which culminated in the overthrow of the legitimately elected government and the assassination of President Salvador Allende in 1973 (*44). Or the conspiracy among U.S. officials including Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and CIA Director William Colby to finance terrorism in Angola for the purpose of disrupting Angola's plans for peaceful elections in October 1975, and to lie about these actions to the Congress and the news media (*45). And CIA Director George Bush's subsequent cover up of this U.S.-sponsored terrorism (*46). Or President George Bush's consorting with the Pentagon to invade Panama in 1989 and thereby violate the Constitution of the United States, the U.N. Charter, the O.A.S. Charter, and the Panama Canal Treaties (*47). Or the "gross antitrust violations" (*48) and the conspiracy of American oil companies and the British and U.S. governments to strangle Iran economically after Iran nationalized the British-owned Page 4 of 22

Anglo-Iranian Oil Company in 1951. And the subsequent overthrow in Oct by 10, the 2016CIA 02:58:17AM MDT

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/mockingbird3.htm

British-owned Anglo-Iranian Oil Company in 1951. And the subsequent overthrow by the CIA in 1953 of Iranian Prime Minister Muhammed Mossadegh (*49). Or the CIA-planned assassination of Congo head-of-state Patrice Lumumba (*50). Or the deliberate and wilful efforts of President George Bush, Senator Robert Dole, Senator George Mitchell, various U.S. Government agencies, and members of both Houses of the Congress to buy the 1990 Nicaraguan national elections for the presidential candidate supported by President Bush (*51). Or the collective approval by 64 U.S. Senators of Robert Gates to head the CIA, in the face of "unmistakable evidence that Gates lied about his role in the Iran-Contra scandal" (*52). Or "How Reagan and the Pope Conspired to Assist Poland's Solidarity Movement and Hasten the Demise of Communism" (*53). Or how the Reagan Administration connived with the Vatican to ban the use of USAID funds by any country "for the promotion of birth control or abortion" (*54). Or "the way the Vatican and Washington colluded to achieve common purpose in Central America" (*55). Or the collaboration of Guatemalan strong-man and mass murderer Hector Gramajo with the U.S. Army to design "programs to build civilian-military cooperation" at the U.S. Army School of the Americas (SOA) at Fort Benning, Georgia; five of the nine soldiers accused in the 1989 Jesuit massacre in El Salvador are graduates of SOA which trains Latin/American military personnel (*56). Or the conspiracy of the Comanche Peak Nuclear Plant administration to harass and cause bodily harm to whistleblower Linda Porter who uncovered dangerous working conditions at the facility (*57). Or the conspiracy of President Richard Nxion and the Government of South Vietnam to delay the Paris Peace Talks until after the 1968 U.S. presidential election (*58). Or the pandemic coverups of police violence (*59). Or the always safe-to-cite worldwide communist conspiracy (*60). Or maybe the socially responsible, secret consortium to publish The Satanic Verses in paperback (*61). Conspiracies are obviously a way to get things done, and the Washington Post offers little comment unless conspiracy theorizing threatens to expose a really important conspiracy that, let's say, benefits big business or big government. Such a conspiracy would be like our benevolent CIA's 1953 overthrow of the Iranian government to help out U.S. oil companies; or like our illegal war against Panama to tighten U.S. control over Panama and the Canal; or like monopoly control of broadcasting that facilitates corporate censorship on issues of public importance (*62). When the camouflage of such Page 5 of 22

conspiracies is stripped away, public confidence in the conspiring officials Oct can10,erode -2016 02:58:17AM MDT

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/mockingbird3.htm

such conspiracies is stripped away, public confidence in the conspiring officials can erode -depending on how seriously the citizenry perceives the conspiracy to have violated the public trust. Erosion of public trust in the status quo is what the Post seems to see as a real threat to its corporate security. Currently, the Post has mounted vituperative, frenzied attacks on Oliver Stone's movie "JFK", which reexamines the U.S. Government's official (Warren Commission. finding that a single gunman, acting alone, killed President John F. Kennedy. The movie also is the story of New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison's unsuccessful prosecution of Clay Shaw, the only person ever tried in connection with the assassination. And the movie proposes that the Kennedy assassination was the work of conspirators whose interests would not be served by a president who, had he lived, might have disengaged us from our war against Vietnam. The Post ridicules a reexamination of the Kennedy assassination along lines suggested by "JFK". Senior Post journalists like Charles Krauthammer, Ken Ringle, George Will, Phil McCombs, and Michael Isikoff, have been called up to man the bulwarks against public sentiment which has never supported the government's non-conspiratorial assassination thesis. In spite of the facts that the Senate Intelligence Committee of 1975 and 1976 found that "both the FBI and CIA had repeatedly lied to the Warren Commission" (*63) and that the 1979 Report of the House Select Committee on Assassinations found that President Kennedy was probably killed "as a result of a conspiracy" (*64), a truly astounding number of Post stories have been used as vehicles to discredit "JFK" as just another conspiracy (*65). Some of the more vicious attacks on the movie are by editor Stephen Rosenfeld, and journalists Richard Cohen, George Will, and George Lardner Jr (*66). They ridicule the idea that Kennedy could have had second thoughts about escalating the Vietnam War and declaim that there is no historical justification for this idea. Seasoned journalist Peter Dale Scott, former Pentagon/CIA liaison chief L. Fletcher Prouty, and investigators David Scheim and John Newman have each authored defense of the "JFK" thesis that Kennedy was not enthusiastic about staying in Vietnam (*67). But the Post team just continues ranting against the possibility of a little justification for its arguments. An example of particularly shabby scholarship and unacceptable behavior is George Lardner Jr's contribution to the Post's campaign against the movie. Lardner wrote three articles, two before the movie was completed, and the third upon its release. In May, six months before the movie came out, Lardner obtained a copy of the first draft of the script and, contrary to accepted standards, revealed in the Post the contents of this copyrighted movie (*68). Also in this article, (*69). Lardner discredits Jim Garrison with hostile statements from a former Garrison associate Pershing Gervais. Lardner does not tell the reader that subsequent to the Clay Shaw trial, in a U.S. Government criminal action brought against Garrison, Government witness Gervais, who helped set up Garrison for prosecution, admitted under oath that in a May 1972 interview with a New Orleans television reporter, he, Gervais, had said that the U.S. Government's case against Garrison was a fraud (*70). The Post's 1973 account of the Garrison acquital mentions this controversy, but when I recently asked Lardner about this, he was not clear as to whether he remembered it (*71). Two weeks after his first "JFK" article, Lardner blustered his way through a justification for his unauthorized possession of the early draft ofthe movie (*72). He also defended his reference to Pershing Gervais by lashing out at Garrison as a writer "of gothic fiction". Page 6 of 22

Oct 10, 2016 02:58:17AM MDT

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/mockingbird3.htm Pershing Gervais by lashing

out at Garrison as a writer "of gothic fiction".

When the movie was released in December, Lardner "reviewed" it (*73). He again ridiculed the film's thesis that following the Kennedy assassination, President Johnson reversed Kennedy's plans to de-escalate the Vietnam War. Lardner cited a memorandum issued by Johnson four days after Kennedy died. Lardner says this memorandum was written before the assassination, and that it "was a continuation of Kennedy's policy". In fact, the memorandum was drafted the day before the assassination by McGeorge Bundy (Kennedy's Assistant for National Security Affairs) Kennedy was in Texas, and may never have seen it. Following the assassination, it was rewritten; and the final version provided for escalating the war against Vietnam (*74) -- facts that Lardner avoided. The Post's crusade against exposing conspiracies is blatantly dishonest: The Warren Commission inquiry into the Kennedy Assassination was for the most part conducted in secret. This fact is buried in the Post (*75). Nor do current readers of this newspaper find meaningful discussion of the Warren Commission's secret doubts about both the FBI and the CIA (*76). Or of a dispatch from CIA headquarters instructing co-conspirators at field stations to counteract the "new wave of books and articles criticizing the [Warren] Commission's findings...[and] conspiracy theories ...[that] have frequently thrown suspicion on our organization" and to "discuss the publicity problem with liaison and friendly elite contacts, especially politicians and editors "and to "employ propaganda assets to answer and refute the attacks of the critics. ...Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose. ...The aim of this dispatch is to providematerial for countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists..." (*77). In 1979, Washington journalist Deborah Davis published Katharine The Great, the story of Post publisher Katharine Graham and her newspaper's close ties with Washington's powerful elite, a number of whom were with the CIA. Particularly irksome to Post editor Benjamin Bradlee was a Davis claim that Bradlee had "produced CIA material" (*78). Understandably sensitive about this kind of publicity, Bradlee told Davis' publisher Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, "Miss Davis is lying ...I never produced CIA material ...what I can do is to brand Miss Davis as a fool and to put your company in that special little group of publishers who don't give a shit for the truth". The Post bullied HBJ into recalling the book; HBJ shredded 20,000 copies; Davis sued HBJ for breach of contract and damage to reputation; HBJ settled out of court; and Davis published her book elsewhere with an appendix that demonstrated Bradlee to have been deeply involved with producing cold-war/CIA propaganda (*79). Bradlee still says the allegations about his association with people in the CIA are false, but he has apparently taken no action to contest the xetensive documentation presented by Deborah Davis in the second and third editions of her book (*80). And it's not as if the Post were new to conspiracy work. ************************** Former Washington Post publisher Philip Graham "believing that the function of the press was more often than not to mobilize consent for the policies of the government, was one of the architects of what became a widespread practice:the use and manipulation of journalists by the CIA" (*81). This scandal was known by its code name Operation MOCKINGBIRD. Former Washington Post reporter Carl Bernstein cites a former CIA deputy director as saying, "It was widely known that Phil Graham was someone you could get help from" (*82). More recently the Post provided cover for CIA personality Joseph Fernandez by "refusing to print his name for over a year up until the day his indictmen twas announced ...for crimes committed official Page 7 of 22 Octin 10,his 2016 02:58:17AM MDT

Post provided cover for CIA http://www.apfn.org/apfn/mockingbird3.htm

personality Joseph Fernandez by "refusing to print his name for over a year up until the day his indictmen twas announced ...for crimes committed in his official capacity as CIA station chief in Costa Rica" (*83). ****************** Of the meetings between Graham and his CIA acquaintances at which the availability and prices of journalists were discussed, a former CIA man recalls, "You could get a journalist cheaper than a good call girl, for a couple hundred dollars a month" (*84). One may wish to consider Philip Graham's philosophy along with a more recent statement from his wife Katharine Graham, current Chairman of the Board of the Washington Post. In a lecture on terrorism and the news media, Mrs. Graham said: "A second challenge facing the media is how to prevent terrorists from using the media as a platform fortheir views. ... The point is that we generally know when we are being manipulated, and we've learned better how and where to draw the line, though the decisions are often difficult" (*85). Today, the Post and its world of big business are apparently terrified that our elite and our high-level public officials may be exposed as conspirators behind Contra drug-smuggling, October Surprise, or the assassination of President Kennedy. This fear is truly remarkable in that, like most of us and like most institutions, the Post runs its business as a conspiracy of like-minded entrepreneurs -- a conspiracy "to act or work together toward the same result or goal" (*86). But where the Post really parts company from just plain people is when it pretends that conspiracies associated with big business or government are "coincidence". Post reporter Lardner vents the frustration inherent in having to maintain this dichotomy. He lashes out at Oliver Stone and suggests that Stone may actually believe that the Post's opposition to Stone's movie is a "conspiracy". Lardner assures us that Stone's complaints are "groundless and paranoid and smack of McCarthyism" (*87). So how does the Post justify devoting so much energy to ridiculing those who investigate conspiracies? The Post has answers: people revert to conspiracy theories because they need something "neat and tidy" (*88) that "plugs a gap no other generally accepted theory fills', (*89. and "coincidence ...is always the safest and most likely explanation for any conjunction of curious circumstances ..." (*90). And what does this response mean? It means that "coincidence theory" is what the Post espouses when it would prefer not to admit to a conspiracy. In other words, some things just "happen". And, besides, conspiracy to do certain things would be a crime; "coincidence" is a safer bet. Post Ombudsman Richard Harwood, who, it is rumored, serves as Executive Director of the Benevolent Protective Order of Coincidence Theorists, (*91) recently issued a warning about presidential candidates "who have begun to mutter about a press conspiracy". Ordinarily, Harwood would simply dismiss these charges as "symptoms of the media paranoia that quadrennially engulfs members of the American political class" (*92). But a fatal mistake was made by the mutterers; they used the "C" word against the PRESS! And Harwood exploded his off-the-cuff comment into an entire column -- ending it with:"We are the new journalists, immersed too long, perhaps, in the cleansing waters of political conformity. But conspirators we ain't".

Distinguished investigative journalist Morton Mintz, a 29-year veteran of the Washington Post, now chairs the Fund for Investigative Journalism. In the December issue of The Progressive, Mintz wrote "A Reporter Looks Back in Anger -- Why the Media Cover Up Corporate Page 8 of 22 Oct 10,Crime". 2016 02:58:17AM MDT

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/mockingbird3.htm now chairs the Fund for Investigative

Journalism. In the December issue of The Progressive, Mintz wrote "A Reporter Looks Back in Anger -- Why the Media Cover Up Corporate Crime". Therein he discussed the difficulties in convincing editors to accept important news stories. He illustrated the article with his own experiences at the Post, where he says he was known as "the biggest pain in the ass in the office" (*93). Would Harwood argue that grief endured byjournalists at the hands of editors is a matter of random coincidence? And that such policy as Mintz described is made independently by editors without influence from fellow editors or from management? Would Harwood have us believe that at the countless office "meetings" in which news people are ever in attendance, there is no discussion of which stories will run and which ones will find inadequate space? That there is no advanced planning for stories or that there are no cooperative efforts among the staff? Or that in the face of our news-media "grayout" of presidential candidate Larry Agran, (*94) a Post journalist would be free to give news space to candidate Agran equal to that the Post lavishes on candidate Clinton? Let's face it: these possibilities are about as likely as Barbara Bush entertaining guests at a soup kitchen. Would Harwood have us believe that media critic and former Post Ombudsman Ben Bagdikian is telling less than the truth in his account of wire-service control over news: "The largely anonymous men who control the syndicate and wire service copy desks and the central wire photo machines determine at a single decision what millions will see and hear. ...there seems to be little doubt that these gatekeepers preside over an operation in which an appalling amount of press agentry sneaks in the back door of American journalism and marches untouched out the front door as 'news'" (*95). When he sat on the U.S. District Court of Appeals in Washington, Judge Clarence Thomas violated U.S. law when he failed to remove himself from a case in which he then proceeded to reverse a $10 million judgment against the Ralston Purina Company (*96). Ralston Purina, the animal feed empire, is the family fortune of Thomas' mentor, Senator John Danforth. The Post limited its coverage of the Thomas malfeasance to 56 words buried in the middle of a 1200-word article (*97). Would Harwood have us believe that the almost complete blackout on this matter by the major news media and the U.S. Senate was a matter of coincidence? Could a Post reporter have written a story about Ralston Purina if she had wanted to? Can a brick swim? Or take the fine report produced last September by Ralph Nader's Public Citizen. Titled All the Vice President's Men, it documents "How the Quayle Council on Competitiveness Secretly Undermines Health, Safety, and Environmental Programs". Three months later, Post journalists David Broder and Bob Woodward published "The President's Understudy", a seven-part series on Vice President Quayle. Although this series does address Quayle's role with the Competitiveness Council, its handling of the Council's disastrous impact on America is inadequate. It is 40,000 words of mostly aimless chatter about Quayle memorabilia: youth, family, college record, Christianity, political aspirations, intellectual aspirations, wealthy friends, government associates, golf, travels, wife Marilyn, and net worth -- revealing little about Quayle's abilities, his understanding of society's problems, or his thoughts about justice and freedom, and never mentioning the comprehensive Nader study of Quayle's record in the Bush Administration (*98).

Now, did Broder or did Woodward forget about the Nader study? Or did both of them forget? Or did one, or the other, or both decide not to mention it? Did these two celebrated, seasoned Post reporters ever discuss together their jointly authored stories? Did they decide to publish Page 9 of 22 Oct 10, 2016 02:58:17AM MDT

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/mockingbird3.htm Or did one, or the other, or

both decide not to mention it? Did these two celebrated, seasoned Post reporters ever discuss together their jointly authored stories? Did they decide to publish such a barren set of articles because it would enhance their reputations? How did management feel about the use of precious news space for such frivolity? Is it possible that so many pages were dedicated to this twaddle without people "acting or working together toward the same result or goal"? (*99) Do crocodiles fly? On March 20, front-page headlines in the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, USA Today, and the Washington Post read respectively: TSONGAS DROPPED OUT OF THE PRESIDENTIAL RACE CLEARING CLINTON'S PATH TSONGAS ABANDONS CAMPAIGN LEAVING CLINTON CLEAR PATH TOWARD SHOWDOWN WITH BUSH TSONGAS CLEARS WAY FOR CLINTON TSONGAS EXIT CLEARS WAY FOR CLINTON This display of editorial independence should at least raise questions of whether the news media collective mindset is really different from that of any other cartel -- like oil, diamond, energy, (*100) or manufacturing cartels, a cartel being "acombination of independent commercial enterprises designed to limit competition" (*101). The Washington Post editorial page carries the heading: AN INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPER Is it? Of course not. There probably is no such thing. Does the Post "conspire" to keep its staff and its newspaper from wandering too far from the safety of mediocrity? The Post would respond that the question is absurd. In that I am not privy to the Post's telephone conversations, I can only speculate on how closely the media elite must monitor the staff. But we all know how few micro-seconds it takes a new reporter to learn what subjects are taboo and what are "safe", and that experienced reporters don't have to ask. What is more important, however, than speculating about how the Post communicates within its own corporate structure and with other members of the cartel, is to document and publicize what the Post does in public, namely, how it shapes and censors the news. Sincerely, Julian C. Holmes Copies to: Public-spirited citizens, both inside and outside the news media, And - maybe a few others. _______________________

Notes to Letter of April 25, 1992: 1. Mark Hosenball, "The Ultimate Conspiracy", Washington Post, September 11, 1988, p.C1 Page 10 of 22

Oct 10, 2016 02:58:17AM MDT

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/mockingbird3.htm

2a. Julian Holmes, Letter to Washington Post Ombudsman Richard Harwood, June 4,1991. Notes that the Post censored, from the Anderson/Van Atta column, references to the Christic Institute and to Robert Gates. 2b. Jack Anderson and Dale Van Atta, "Iran-Contra Figure Dodges Extradition", Washington Merry-Go-Round, United Feature Syndicate, May 26,1991. This is the column submitted to the Post (see note 2a).. 2c. Jack Anderson and Dale Van Atta, "The Man Washington Doesn't Want to Extradite", Washington Post, May 26, 1991. The column (see note 2b). as it appeared in the Post (see note 2a).. 3a. Case No. 86-1146-CIV-KING, Amended Complaint for RICO Conspiracy, etc., United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, Tony Avirgan and Martha Honey v. John Hull et al., October 3, 1986. 3b. Vince Bielski and Dennis Bernstein, "Reports: Contras Send Drugs to U.S.", Cleveland Plain Dealer, November 16, 1986. 3c. Neal Matthews, "I Ran Drugs for Uncle Sam" (based on interviews with Robert Plumlee, contra resupply pilot)., San Diego Reader, April 5, 1990. 4. Leslie Cockburn, Out of Control. New York: Atlantic Monthly Press, 1987. 5a. Peter Dale Scott and Jonathan Marshall, Cocaine Politics, University ofCalifornia Press, 1991, p.179-181. 5b. David S. Hilzenrath, "Hill Panel Finds No Evidence Linking Contras to Drug Smuggling", Washington Post, July 22, 1987, p.A07. 5c. Partial correction to the Washington Post of July 22, Washington Post, July 24,1987, p.A3. 5d. The Washington Post declined to publish SubCommittee Chairman Rangel's Letterto-the-Editor of July 22, 1987. It was printed in the Congressional Record on August 6, 1987, p.E3296-7. 6a. Michael Kranish, "Kerry Says US Turned Blind Eye to Contra-Drug Trail", Boston Globe, April 10, 1988. 6b. Mary McGrory, "The Contra-Drug Stink", Washington Post, April 10, 1988, p.B1. 6c. Robert Parry with Rod Nordland, "Guns for Drugs? Senate Probers Trace an Old Contra Connection to George Bush's Office", Newsweek, May 23, 1988, p.22. 6d. Dennis Bernstein, "Iran-Contra -- The Coverup Continues", The Progressive, November 1988, p.24. 6e. "Drugs, Law Enforcement and Foreign Policy", A Report Prepared by the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Narcotics, and International Operations of the Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate, December 1988. Page 11 of7a. 22

Mark Hosenball, "If It's October ... Then It's Time for an Iranian Conspiracy Theory", Oct 10, 2016 02:58:17AM MDT

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/mockingbird3.htm

7a. Mark Hosenball, "If It's October ... Then It's Time for an Iranian Conspiracy Theory", Washington Post, October 9, 1988, p.D1. 7b. Mark Hosenball, "October Surprise! Redux! The Latest Version of the 1980 'Hostage- Deal' Story Is Still Full of Holes", Washington Post, April 21, 1991,p.B2. 8a. Barbara Honegger, October Surprise, New York: Tudor, 1989. 8b. Gary Sick, October Surprise, New York: Times Books, Random House, 1991. 9a. Abbie Hoffman and Jonathan Silvers, "An Election Held Hostage", Playboy, October 1988, p.73. 9b. Robert Parry and Robert Ross, "The Election Held Hostage", FRONTLINE, WGBH-TV,April 16, 1991. 10a. Reuter, "Ex-Hostages Seek Probe By Congress", Washington Post, June 14,1991,p.A4. 10b. "An Election Held Hostage?", Conference, Dirksen Senate Office Building Auditorium, Washington DC, June 13, 1991; Sponsored by The Fund For New Priorities in America, 171 Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016. 11a. David Brown and Guy Gugliotta, "House Approves Inquiry Into 'OctoberSurprise'", Washington Post, February 6, 1992, p.A11. 11b. Jack Colhoun, "Lawmakers Lose Nerve on October Surprise", The Guardian, December 11, 1991, p.7. 11c. Jack Colhoun, "October Surprise Probe Taps BCCI Lawyer", The Guardian, February 26, 1992, p.3. 12. See note 5a, p.180-1. 13a. See note 4, p.229, 240-1. 13b. Report of the Congressional Committees Investigating the Iran-Contra Affair, Senate Report No. 100-216, House Report No. 100-433, November 1987, p.139-141. 14a. Letter to His Excellency Oscar Arias Sanchez, President of the Republic of Costa Rica; from Members of the U.S. Congress David Dreier, Lee Hamilton, Dave McCurdy, Dan Burton, Mary Rose Oakar, Jim Bunning, Frank McCloskey, Cass Ballenger, Peter Kostmayer, Jim Bates, Douglas Bosco, James Inhofe, Thomas Foglietta, Rod Chandler, Ike Skelton, Howard Wolpe, Gary Ackerman, Robert Lagomarsino, and Bob McEwen; January 26, 1989. 14b. Peter Brennan, "Costa Rica Considers Seeking Contra Backer in U.S. -- Indiana Native Wanted on Murder Charge in 1984 Bomb Attack in Nicaragua", WashingtonPost, February 1, 1990. 14c. "Costa Rica Seeks Extradition of Indiana Farmer", Scripps-Howard News Service,April 25, 1991. 15. Press Release from the Costa Rican Embassy, Washington DC, On the Case of the of Costa Rican Citizen John Hull", February 6, 1989. Page 12 ofImprisonment 22 Oct 10, 2016 02:58:17AM MDT

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/mockingbird3.htm

Imprisonment of Costa Rican Citizen John Hull", February 6, 1989. 16. Brian Glick, War at Home, Boston: South End Press, 1989. 17. John Stockwell, The Praetorian Guard-- The U.S. Role in the New World Order, Boston: South End Press, 1991, p.121. 18. Hearings Before the Committee on Patents, United States Senate, 77th Cong., 2nd Session (1942)., part I, as cited in Joseph Borkin, The Crime and Punishment of I.G. Farben, New York: The Free Press, Macmillan, 1978, p.93. 19. R. Jeffrey Smith, "Study of A-Plant Neighbors' Health Urged", Washington Post, July 13, 1990, p.A6. 20. Tom Horton, "A Cost Higher Than the Peace Dividend -- Price Tag Mounts to Clean Up Nuclear Weapons Sites", Baltimore Sun, February 23, 1992, p.1K. 21. "The Nuclear Industry's Secret PR Strategy", EXTRA!, March 1992, p.15. 22a. Samuel S. Epstein, MD et al, Losing the War Against Cancer: Need for PublicPolicy Reform", Congressional Record, April 2, 1992, p.E947-9. 22b. Samuel S. Epstein, "The Cancer Establishment", Washington Post, March 10, 1992. 23a. Hon. Henry B. Gonzalez, "Efforts to Thwart Investigation of the BNL Scandal", Congressional Record, March 30, 1992, p.H2005-2014. 23b. Hon. David E. Skaggs (CO)., White House Spin Control on Pre-War Iraq Policy", Congressional Record, April 2, 1992, p.H2285. 23c. Nicholas Rostow, Special Assistant to the President and Legal Adviser, Memorandum to Jeanne S. Archibald et al, "Meeting on congressional requests for information and documents", April 8, 1991; Congressional Record, April 2, 1992,p.H2285. 24a. Michio Kaku, "Operation Desert Lie: Pentagon Confesses", The Guardian, March11, 1992, p.4. 24b. J. Max Robins, "NBC's Unaired Iraq Tapes Not a Black and White Case", Variety Magazine, March 4, 1991, p.25. 25. Emory R. Searcy Jr., Clergy and Laity Concerned, Spring 1991 Letter to"Friends", p.1. 26. Jean Dimeo, "Selling Hispanics on Columbus --Luis Vasquez-Ajmac Is Hired to Promote Smithsonian Project", Washington Post, November 18, 1991, p.Bus.8. 27. Hans Koning, "Teach the Truth About Columbus", Washington Post, September 3,1991, p.A19. 28a. James Kilpatrick, "Software-Piracy Case Emitting Big Stench", St. Louis Post/Dispatch, March 18, 1991, p.3B. Elliot L. Richardson, "A High-Tech Watergate", New York Times, October 21,1991. Page 13 of29. 22

"BCCI -- NBC Sunday Today", February 23, 1992, p.12; transcript preparedOct by10, Burrelle's 2016 02:58:17AM MDT

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/mockingbird3.htm

29. "BCCI -- NBC Sunday Today", February 23, 1992, p.12; transcript prepared by Burrelle's Information Services. The quote is from New York District Attorney Robert Morgenthau who is running his own independent investigation of BCCI. 30. Norman Bailey, former Reagan White House intelligence analyst; from an interview with Mark Rosenthal of NBC News. See note 29, p.5. 31. Jack Colhoun, "BCCI Skeletons Haunting Bush's Closet", The Guardian, September 18, 1991, p.9. 32. Robert Morgenthau. See note 29, p.10. 33. Russell Mokhiber, Corporate Crime and Violence, San Francisco: Sierra ClubBooks, 1989 paperback edition, p.227. 34. See note 33, p.136-7. 35. Morton Mintz, At Any Cost: Corporate Greed, Women, and the Dalkon Shield, NewYork: Pantheon, 1985. As cited in Mokhiber, see note 33, p.157. 36. See note 33, p.164-171. 37. See note 33, p.172-180. 38. Michael Waldman, Who Robbed America?, New York: Random House, 1990. The quote is from Ralph Nader's Introduction, p.iii. 39. See note 33, p.217. 40. See note 33, p.235. 41. See note 33, p.277-288. 42. See note 33, p.323. 43. Katherine Hoyt Gonzalez, Nicaragua Network Education Fund Newsletter, March1992, p.1. 44. William Blum, The CIA -- A Forgotten History, London: Zed Books Ltd., 1986,p.232-243. 45a. John Stockwell, In Search of Enemies, New York: Norton, 1978. 45b. See note 44, p.284-291. 46. See note 17, p.18. 47a. Letter to President George Bush from The Ad Hoc Committee for Panama (James Abourezk et al)., January 10, 1990; published in The Nation, February 5, 1990, p.163. 47b. Philip E. Wheaton, Panama, Trenton NJ: Red Sea Press, 1992, p.145-7. 48a. Morton Mintz and Jerry S. Cohen, Power, Inc., New York: Bantam Books, 1977,p.521. Page 14 of48b. 22

"The International Oil Cartel", Federal Trade Commission, December 2, 1949. Cited Oct 10, 2016in 02:58:17AM MDT

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/mockingbird3.htm

48b. "The International Oil Cartel", Federal Trade Commission, December 2, 1949. Cited in 48a, p.521. 49a. See note 44, p.67-76. 49b. See note 48a, p.530-1. 50. Ralph W. McGehee, Deadly Deceits, New York: Sheridan Square Publications, 1983,p.60. 51. HR-3385, "An Act to Provide Assistance for Free and Fair Elections in Nicaragua". Passed the U.S. House of Representatives on October 4, 1989 by avote of 263 to 136, and the Senate on October 17 by a vote of 64 to 35. 52. Jack Colhoun, "Gates Oozing Trail of Lies, Gets Top CIA Post", The Guardian,November 20, 1991, p.6. 53. Carl Bernstein, Time, February 24, 1992, Cover Story p.28-35. 54. "The U.S. and the Vatican on Birth Control", Time, February 24, 1992, p.35. 55. "Time's Missing Link: Poland to Latin America", National Catholic Reporter,February 28, 1992, p.24. 56a. Jim Lynn, "School of Americas Commander Hopes to Expand Mission", Benning Patriot, February 21,1992, p.12. 56b. Vicky Imerman, "U.S. Army School of the Americas Plans Expansion", News Release from S.O.A.Watch, P.O. Bo 3330, Columbus, Georgia 31903. 57. 60 MINUTES, CBS, March 8, 1992. 58. Jack Colhoun, "Tricky Dick's Quick Election Fix", The Guardian, January 29,1992, p.18. 59a. Sean P. Murphy, "Several Probes May Have Ignored Evidence Against Police", Boston Globe, July 28, 1991, p.1. 59b. Christopher B. Daly, "Pattern of Police Abuses Reported in Boston Case", Washington Post, July 12, 1991, p.A3. 59c. Associated Press, "Dayton Police Probing Erasure of Arrest Video", WashingtonPost, May 26, 1991, p.A20. 59d. Gabriel Escobar, "Deaf Man's Death In Police Scuffle Called Homicide", Washington Post, May 18, 1991, p.B1. 59e. Jay Mathews, "L.A. Police Laughed at Beating", Washington Post, March 19, 1991, p.A1. 59f. David Maraniss, "One Cop's View of Police Violence", Washington Post, April 12,1991, p.A1. 59g. From News Services, "Police Abuse Detailed", Washington Post, February 8, 1992,p.A8. Page 15 of60. 22

Michael Dobbs, "Panhandling the Kremlin: How Gus Hall Got Millions", Washington Post, Oct 10, 2016 02:58:17AM MDT

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/mockingbird3.htm

60. Michael Dobbs, "Panhandling the Kremlin: How Gus Hall Got Millions", Washington Post, March 1, 1992, p.A1. 61. David Streitfeld, "Secret Consortium To Publish Rushdie In Paperback", Washington Post, March 14, 1992, p.D1. 62a. See notes 48 and 49. 62b. See note 47b, p.63-76. 62c. "Fairness In Broadcasting Act of 1987", U.S. Senate Bill S742. 62d. "Now Let That 'Fairness' Bill Die", Editorial, Washington Post, June 24, 1987. The Post opposed the Fairness in Broadcasting Act. 63. David E. Scheim, Contract on America -- The Mafia Murder of President John F.Kennedy, New York: Shapolsky Publishers, 1988, p.viii. 64. See note 63, p.28. 65a. Chuck Conconi, "Out and About", Washington Post, February 26, 1991, p.B3. 65b. George Lardner Jr., "On the Set: Dallas in Wonderland", Washington Post, May19, 1991, p.D1. 65c. George Lardner, "...Or Just a Sloppy Mess", Washington Post, June 2, 1991,p.D3. 65d. Charles Krauthammer, "A Rash of Conspiracy Theories -- When Do We Dig Up BillCasey?", Washington Post, July 5, 1991, p.A19. 65e. Eric Brace, "Personalities", Washington Post, October 31, 1991, p.C3. 65f. Associated Press, "'JFK' Director Condemned -- Warren Commission Attorney Calls Stone Film 'A Big Lie'", Washington Post, December 16, 1991, p.D14. 65g. Gerald R. Ford and David W. Belin, "Kennedy Assassination: How About the Truth?", Washington Post, December 17, 1991, p.A21. 65h. Rita Kemply, "'JFK': History Through A Prism", Washington Post, December 20,1991, p.D1. 65i. George Lardner Jr., "The Way it Wasn't -- In 'JFK', Stone Assassinates the Truth", Washington Post, December 20, 1991, p.D2. 65j. Desson Howe, "Dallas Mystery: Who Shot JFK?", Washington Post, December 20,1991, p.55. 65k. Phil McCombs, "Oliver Stone, Returning the Fire -- In Defending His 'JFK' Conspiracy Film, the Director Reveals His Rage and Reasoning", Washington Post, December 21, 1991, p.F1. Page 16 of65l. 22

George F. Will, "'JFK': Paranoid History", Washington Post, December 26, 1991,p.A23. Oct 10, 2016 02:58:17AM MDT

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/mockingbird3.htm

65l. George F. Will, "'JFK': Paranoid History", Washington Post, December 26, 1991,p.A23. 65m. "On Screen", 'JFK' movie review, Washington Post, Weekend, December 27, 1991. 65n. Stephen S. Rosenfeld, "Shadow Play", Washington Post, December 27, 1991, p.A21. 65o. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, "The Paranoid Style", Washington Post, December 29,1991, p.C7. 65p. Michael Isikoff, "H-e-e-e-e-r-e's Conspiracy! -- Why Did Oliver Stone Omit (Or Suppress!). the Role of Johnny Carson?", Washington Post, December 29, 1991,p.C2. 65q. Robert O'Harrow Jr., "Conspiracy Theory Wins Converts -- Moviegoers Say 'JFK' Nourishes Doubts That Oswald Acted Alone", Washington Post, January 2, 1992, p.B1. 65r. Michael R. Beschloss, "Assassination and Obsession", Washington Post, January 5, 1992, p.C1. 65s. Charles Krauthammer, "'JFK': A Lie, But Harmless", Washington Post, January 10,1992, p.A19. 65t. Art Buchwald, "Bugged: The Flu Conspiracy", Washington Post, January 14, 1992,p.E1. 65u. Ken Ringle, "The Fallacy of Conspiracy Theories -- Good on Film, But the Motivation Is AllWrong", Washington Post, January 19, 1992, p.G1. 65v. Charles Paul Freund, "If History Is a Lie -- America's Resort to Conspiracy Thinking", Washington Post, January 19, 1992, p.C1. 65w. Richard Cohen, "Oliver's Twist", Washington Post Magazine, January 19, 1992, p.5. 65. Michael Isikoff, "Seeking JFK's Missing Brain", Washington Post, January 21,1992, p.A17. 65y. Don Oldenburg, "The Plots Thicken -- Conspiracy Theorists Are Everywhere", Washington Post, January 28, 1992, p.E5. 65z. Joel Achenbach, "JFK Conspiracy: Myth vs. the Facts", Washington Post, February 28, 1992, p.C5. 65A. List of books on the best-seller list: On the Trail of the Assassins is characterized as "conspiracy plot theories", Washington Post, March 8, 1992,Bookworld, p.12 66. See notes 65n, 65w, 65l, 65b, 65c, and 65i. 67a. Peter Dale Scott, "Vietnamization and the Drama of the Pentagon Papers". Published in The Senator Gravel Edition of The Pentagon Papers, Volume V,p.211-247. 67b. Peter Dale Scott, The War Conspiracy -- The Secret Road to the Second Indochina War, Indianapolis/New York: Bobbs-Merrill, 1972, p. 215-224. 67c. L. Fletcher Prouty, The Secret Team, Copyright 1973. New printing, Costa Mesa CA: Institute for Historical Review, 1990, p.402-416. Page 17 of 22

Oct 10, 2016 02:58:17AM MDT

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/mockingbird3.htm

67d. See note 63, p.58, 183, 187, 194, 273-4. 67e. John M. Newman, JFK and Vietnam, New York: Warner Books, 1992. 67f. Peter Dale Scott, Letter to the Editor, The Nation, March 9, 1992, p.290. 68a. See note 65b. 68b. Oliver Stone, "The Post, George Lardner, and My Version of the JFK Assassination", Washington Post, June 2, 1991, p.D3. 69. See note 65b. 70. Jim Garrison, On the Trail of The Assassins, New York: Warner Books, 1988, 315/318. 71. Associated Press, "Garrison, 2 Others, Found Not Guilty Of Bribery Charge", Washington Post, September 28, 1973, p.A3. 72. See note 65c. 73. See note 65i. 74. See note 67e, p.438-450. 75. John G. Leyden, "Historians, Buffs, and Crackpots", Washington Post, Bookworld, January 26, 1992, p.8. 76a. Tad Szulc, "New Doubts, Fears in JFK Assassination Probe", Washington Star,September 19, 1975, p.A1. 76b. Tad Szulc, "Warren Commission's Self-Doubts Grew Day by Day -- 'This Bullet Business Leaves Me Confused'", Washington Star, September 20, 1975, p.A1. 76c. Tad Szulc, "Urgent and Secret Meeting of the Warren Commission -- Dulles Proposed that the Minutes be Destroyed", Washington Star, September 21, 1975,p.A1. 77. "Cable Sought to Discredit Critics of Warren Report", New York Times, December 26, 1977, p.A37. 78. Deborah Davis, Katharine The Great, New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1979,p.141-2. 79a. Eve Pell, "Private Censorship -- Killing 'Katharine The Great'", The Nation, November 12, 1983. 79b. Deborah Davis, Katharine The Great, Bethesda MD: National Press, 1987. Davis says, "...corporate documents that became available during my subsequent lawsuit against him [Harcourt Brace Jovanovich chairman, William Jovanovich] showed that 20,000 copies [of Katharine the Great] had been "processed and converted into waste paper"". 79c. Daniel Brandt, "All the Publisher's Men -- A Suppressed Book About Washington Post Page 18 ofPublisher 22

Katharine Graham Is On Sale Again" National Reporter, Fall 1987, p.60. Oct 10, 2016 02:58:17AM MDT

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/mockingbird3.htm

Publisher Katharine Graham Is On Sale Again" National Reporter, Fall 1987, p.60. 79d. Deborah Davis, Katharine The Great, New York: Sheridan Square Press, 1991. "...publishers who don't give a shit", p.iv-v; bullying HBJ into recalling the book, p.iv-vi; lawsuit and settlement, p.. 80. Benjamin C. Brad lee, Letter to Deborah Davis, April 1, 1987. See note 79d, p.304. 81. See note 79d, p.119-132. 82. Carl Bernstein, "The CIA and the Media -- How America's Most Powerful News Media Worked Hand in Glove with the Central Intelligence Agency and Why the Church Committee Covered It Up", Rolling Stone, October 20, 1977, p.63. 83a. Daniel Brandt, Letter to Richard L. Harwood of The Washington Post, September 15, 1988. The letter asks for the Post's rationale for its policy of protecting government covert actions, and whether this policy is still in effect. 83b. Daniel Brandt, "Little Magazines May Come and Go", The National Reporter, Fall 1988, p.4. Notes the Post's protection of the identity of CIA agent Joseph F.Fernandez. Brandt says, "America needs to confront its own recent history as well as protect the interests of its citizens, and both can be accomplished by outlawing peacetime covert activity. This would contribute more to thesecurity of Americans than all the counterterrorist proposals and elite strike forces that ever found their way onto Pentagon wish-lists." 83c. Richard L. Harwood, Letter to Daniel Brandt, September 28, 1988. Harwood's twosentence letter reads, "We have a long-standing policy of not naming covert agents of the C.I.A., except in unusual circumstances. We applied that policy to Fernandez." 84. See note 79d, p.131. 85. Katharine Graham, "Safeguarding Our Freedoms As We Cover Terrorist Acts", Washington Post, April 20, 1986, p.C1. 86. "conspire", 4Random House Dictionary of the English Language, Second Edition Unabridged, 1987. 87. Howard Kurtz, "Media Notes", Washington Post, June 18, 1991, p.D1. 88. See note 65y. 89. See note 65n. 90. See note 65d. 91. William Casey, Private Communications with JCH, March 1992. Richard Harwood, "What Conspiracy?", Washington Post, March 1, 1992, p.C6. 93. p. 29-32. 94a. Washington Post Electronic Data Base, Dialog Information Services Inc., April 25, 1992. In 1991 and 1992, the name Bill Clinton appeared in 878 Washington Post stories, columns, or editorials; "Jerry" Brown in 485, Pat Buchanan in 303, and Larry Agran in10, 28. In those Page 19 ofletters, 22 Oct 2016 02:58:17AM MDT

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/mockingbird3.htm
<