HSCA investigator Dan Hardway discusses imminent release of JFK assassination files
Dan Hardway read many of the documents that are about to be released during his role as an investigator for the House Select Committee on Assassinations in the 1970s. As such, he can tell us a great deal more than the average person about what this release may prove. Here is his "for release" comment on these, "rush job - proofed only once".
- - -
- - -
WHAT WERE THEY
HIDING AND WHAT SHOULD WE LOOK FOR?
By Dan L. Hardway ©
October 26, 2017
As we
go into the hysteria of a massive JFK document dump, there is one remarkably
surviving document that has already been released that we should keep in mind –
especially when reading news coverage of the documents scheduled for release
today.
On April
1, 1967, the Head of the Covert Action Staff of the Central Intelligence Agency
(CIA) sent a dispatch to many of the CIA stations and bases around the world.[i] That the document survived may be remarkable
as it is clearly marked as “Destroy when no longer needed.” Or, then again, maybe it is not remarkable
that it has not been destroyed because the government and intelligence
community’s efforts to silence those who question the official story about John
Kennedy’s murder has never succeeded and, hence, the dispatch remains needful
from their viewpoint.
The
dispatch lays out a plan for defending the lone nut theory first advanced as
the major theme of the government cover-up of the assassination
investigation. The dispatch labels
people who question the lone nut theory as “conspiracy theorists”. It plainly states the purpose of the dispatch
“is to provide material for countering and discrediting the claims of the
conspiracy theorists…. Our play should point out, as applicable, that the
critics are (i) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (ii)
politically interested, (iii) financially interested, (iv) hasty and inaccurate
in their research, or (v) infatuated with their own theories.” It goes on to suggest that critics be
countered by advancing arguments such as they have produced no new evidence,
that they overvalue some evidence while ignoring other evidence, that large
scale conspiracies are “impossible to conceal in the United States,” that Oswald would not have been any “sensible
person’s choice for a co-conspirator”, and by pointing out the comprehensive
work of the Warren Commission which was composed of men “chosen for their
integrity, experience, and prominence.”
Many of
the claims in the dispatch are ludicrous in hindsight, but are still parroted
by main stream media sources. We’ve seen
them trotted out by lone nut theory defenders every time there has been a major
breakthrough in the assassination investigation. As I’ll discuss below, we are already seeing
some of these “plays” (as the dispatch calls them) already before the JFK
document release and I suspect we’ll see a lot more of them in the coming days.
Let’s start by looking at the possible validity of the plays.
At this
point in time, fifty-four years after the assassination and fifty-three years
after the publication of the Warren Report, there are researchers, analysts,
historians, attorneys and many others who have been researching this case for
most of that time. Many of them do not
advance “theories” about what happened, but rather try to find and analyze the
facts that have been hidden for so long and ask questions about what they
mean. They certainly are not wedded to
theories that were adopted before the evidence was in. And let’s think about that for a moment. The cover-up of the assassination began on
Air Force One as it flew back to D.C. from Dallas. The seeds are there in the released
transcripts of Lyndon Johnson’s telephone calls. If the standard is waiting to see all the
evidence, then the Warren Commission is totally discredited as it has now been
shown beyond any reasonable argument or doubt that not only did they not have
all the evidence in before issuing their report, the very investigating
agencies upon whom they relied actively conspire to keep evidence from them –
just as they have, and still do, actively conspired to keep the evidence from
the American people. Lone nut theorists
appear to be the ones wedded to the theory adopted before the evidence is in
and doing all they can to spin the evidence as it comes out to try to shore up
support for their theories.
To try
to argue that the Warren Commission members, its supporters since, and those
covering up the evidence and resisting release of documentation, were not
politically or financially interested in the cover-up should be accepted as
facially absurd at this point. Indeed,
even in 1967, the CIA dispatch openly admits to such interest, pointing out
that opinion polls showing that more than half of the public was questioning
the Warren Commission’s lone nut theory reflects a “trend of opinion [that] is
a matter of concern to the U.S. Government, including our organization.” Questioning the rectitude and wisdom of the
members of the Warren Commission would “tend to cast doubt on the whole
leadership of American society.” An
“increasing tendency to hint that President Johnson himself, as the one person
who might be said to have benefited”[ii]
could implicate him. Such concerns
“affects not only the individual concerned, but also the whole reputation of
the American government.”[iii]
The Chief of Covert Action then
acknowledges the Agency’s own interest: “Our organization itself is directly
involved: among other facts, we contributed information to the investigation.” Indeed, they also covered-up information, as
they have now admitted.[iv] The Agency’s concern, one that continues to
this day, is plainly stated: the conspiracy theories expose them to “suspicion
on our organization, for example by falsely alleging that Lee Harvey Oswald
worked for us.” The CIA’s main personal,
if you will, stake in covering up and countering criticism has always been to
deflect any possible focus on their relationship to the purported lone-nut
assassin.
Hasty
and inaccurate in their research? How
many documents are about to be released that have never been seen? And who is it that is sure of their
theory? What can we say now about
critics who for over fifty years have called for the release of all the
information so that the American people can see and judge for themselves?
Arguing
that there is no new evidence is like standing in front of a camel and
insisting it is a horse. New evidence
has dribbled out now over the decades, in small manageable doses that can be
dismissed as disconnected by the lone-nut theorists. And the blatant hubris of the argument is
astounding. These are people who can
suppress the evidence and taunt you because you don’t have it! It’s like prosecuting attorneys in criminal
cases who refuse to reveal exculpatory evidence while simultaneously shifting
the burden of proof to the accused. And
as for the weighing all the evidence argument, how do you expect that to go if
you control the evidence and only let the evidence out that supports your
theory? Convenient. And if someone else does come up with a fact
that contradicts your lone-nut theory, you can always deny it even though you
know your suppressed evidence supports it.
No wonder there has been such resistance by the Agency to full disclosure.
Conspiracy
theories can’t be hidden in America?
Really? That’s why J. Edgar
Hoover was able to do all that he did to undermine American civil liberties for
fifty years without exposure that wouldn’t have even come then had not there
been a break-in at a small FBI field office in Media, Pennsylvania.[v] MKULTRA wasn’t as successful. It was only covered up for 25 years or so, as
was the CIA programs to save and use ex-Nazi scientists and intelligence
officers after the Second World War. Actually,
all that needs to be said in rebuttal is that for 50 years the CIA and our
government vehemently denied that there was a conspiracy to keep information
from the Warren Commission. It is a
prime tenet and support of the lone-nut theorists. In spite of the denials, finally, three years
ago, the Agency in their internal secret magazine, in an article written by
their official historian, admitted there was such a conspiracy, although they
called it benign[vi]. We’ll return to this in a bit.
Next,
we have a point I will concede: Oswald as a co-conspirator. I agree, he’s hardly one that a rational
person might choose. But, is he one a
rational person might choose as a patsy?
-- an entirely different question.
Remember, that being a patsy was Oswald’s claim in one of the few brief
encounters he had with the press. That
claim would have been, presumably, a major theme developed by competent defense
lawyers had he lived long enough to be tried.
But the lone-nut theorists dismiss that possibility out of hand. Nothing to see here, folks, just move
on. There was no investigation of this
in the hasty Warren Commission investigation that led to the establishment of
the lone-nut theory.
As far
as the Warren Commission membership goes, I will concede their then-prominence,
but I have to wonder, in light of the evidence that has come in since, about
their integrity and experience as support for the integrity of their work. Allen Dulles was the head of the CIA fired by
President Kennedy. His collusion with
the CIA in the pendency of the Warren Commission is shown in documents that
have been released in the last few years.
He passed out a book to Commission members at their first meeting taking
the position that American assassins are always lone-nuts. Earl Warren was coerced into serving against
his will by Lyndon Johnson and the supposed threat of nuclear war. Gerald Ford was in J. Edgar Hoover’s
pocket. John J. McCloy was steeped in
the intelligence community and was almost single handedly responsible for the
end of prosecution of Nazi war criminals and the early release of those who had
already been convicted when he became the High Commissioner for post-war
Germany. Richard Russell, Jr., and Hale
Boggs both privately rejected the Warren Commission’s lone nut theory, as did
Lyndon Johnson, Robert F. Kennedy, Jacqueline Kennedy and many, many
others. But the conspiracy of silence
took years to break, and when broken, the revelations came out piecemeal and
were dismissed at the time as insignificant, old news – just conspiracy
theorists.
And,
speaking of that title, “conspiracy theorist”, is designed to be
pejorative. If you can stick it to
someone, then you don’t have to listen to what they say. Even if they are reporting new evidence,
they’re just wacky conspiracy theorists.
Just like those nuts who for years said J. Edgar Hoover was running a
program to subvert dissidents illegally, or that the CIA was illegally
surveilling U.S. citizens, or that the CIA had covered up information to keep
it from other government entities that were investigating the Kennedy murder,
right? Even if the person only reported
facts and asked questions, they were (and are) labelled a “conspiracy theorist”
solely for the purpose of undermining their credibility and lessening any
impact they might have on public opinion.
And when it comes to light that the answer to the question they raised,
“is it possible there was a conspiracy?’ is, “Not only is it possible, there
was indeed a conspiracy,” then even a blind bird occasionally finds a
worm. And the cover-up artists say this
without shame even though they have known about the conspiracy from the
get-go. The next stage is to come up
with a new spin such as, the cover-up was “benign”, or shifting suspicion where
they want it to go. What, exactly, was
covered up in other words.
As noted by Lance deHaven-Smith, a
professor at Florida State University, the CIA in 1967 began a campaign to
“popularize the term ‘conspiracy theory’ and make a conspiracy belief a target
of ridicule and hostility.” He notes
that the campaign, “must be credited, unfortunately, with being one of the most
successful propaganda initiatives in all time.”[vii] He summarizes why the label has been used as
a sword by those who resist the truth: “[T]he conspiracy-theory label, as it is
applied in public discourse, does not disparage conspiratorial thinking or
analysis in general, even though this is what the term suggests. Rather the broad-brush ‘conspiracy theory’ disparages inquiry and questioning that challenge
official accounts of troubling
political events in which public officials themselves may have had a hand. A conspiracy theory directs suspicion at
officials who benefit from political crimes and tragedies. The
theories are considered dangerous not because they are obviously false, but
because, viewed objectively and without deference to U.S. political officials
and institutions, they are often quite plausible.”[viii]
So, the first thing to remember
going into the next few days is to stop when you see the label and ask, “Why is
the writer of this story disparaging this idea?
Who is he trying to deflect suspicion from? Why is he trying to direct my suspicion
elsewhere? Can I reject the label and recover an objective view what this
labeled individual has to say?” Then do
your best to find out what the idea being attacked really is rather than just
rejecting it out of hand because of the labelling. Remember, the term “conspiracy theory” gained
prominence as a result of a CIA led propaganda initiative specifically
addressed at protecting their own interests.
We see a blatant example of this
dismissive labelling in CNN’s coverage of the upcoming document release. Jeremy Diamond writes, “A decision to
withhold even a sliver of the documents could give conspiracy theorists more
fodder to propel their claims.”[ix] So, what you are supposed to take away is
that if anyone raises any questions about documents being withheld after the
release date, they have to be a “conspiracy theorist” who isn’t worthy of your
time or attention. Consider, what is
there to hide at this point? If
something is not released, why is it illegitimate to ask why, especially in
view of our government’s relationship with the truth, or lack thereof, over the
past six decades? What purpose is served
by Mr. Diamond’s advance labelling?
The appeal to authority is also
used in battling “conspiracy theories.”
It is seen in the CIA dispatch’s appeal to the apparent authority of the
Warren Commission created by the then-reputations of its members and the
superficially extensive investigation.
This technique appears again in Mr. Diamond’s article: “Historians who
have closely studied the Kennedy assassination have said they do not expect the
documents to … contradict the conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald was solely
responsible for killing Kennedy.”[x] Really, what historians? Why are none named. Why does he not give any consideration to
people such as Dr. David R. Wrone, an emeritus professor of history at the
University of Wisconsin, and Dr. John Newman, an adjunct professor of history
at James Madison University, whose lifetime study of the subject has led them
to the conclusion that Oswald could not have been solely responsible?[xi] I haven’t spoken to them but I would venture
to guess that neither Dr. Wrone nor Dr. Newman expect the documents to support
Mr. Diamond’s lone-nut theory.
Then we have Phil Shenon’s return
to the fray in The Guardian this morning.[xii]
Even in the title of his article, “Files will shed light on a JFK shooting
conspiracy – but not the one you think”, Mr. Shenon starts to try to divert
attention in the direction he wants it to go.
He states plainly what he doesn’t want you to consider: first, a second
assassin in Dealey Plaza even though his assertion that “most credible” evidence
supports the lone-nut theory is patently not true.[xiii] Second, about a mafia plot to kill Oswald he
asks “What half-way competent Mob boss would choose a delusional blabbermouth
like Ruby…?” echoing the CIA dispatch’s question about what rational person
would ever choose Oswald as a co-conspirator?
Again, as with the CIA’s question, Shenon’s borrowed technique avoids
the important questions and shuts off the possibility of objective
investigation and consideration of other alternatives. It’s a form of straw-man argument, but more
slanderous and pernicious – you must be crazy if you don’t accept what I
say. For example, what about the
possibility that Ruby was called on as an emergency stop gap measure only after
an initial plan to dispose of the patsy failed?
I’m not saying that is what happened, but I am asking why it should be
crazy, then or now, to consider the possibility and investigate it? Third, “a
sprawling coup d’état involving everyone from President Johnson” on down the
chain of command. I, too, find that less
credible than most. But, then again, we
have to consider that the evidence is now pretty much indisputable that
President Johnson led the cover-up conspiracy and that his leadership and the
conspiracy to cover-up anything that didn’t support the loan nut theory began
immediately after the assassination. I
have to ask, “Doesn’t that raise questions in your mind that merit
investigation and, if possible, answers?”
Why should we accept Mr. Shenon’s belittling dismissal of any questioning
or review to see what’s actually in the evidence before we dismiss it?
So, having told you what not to
look for because even raising the questions can undermine proper deference to
U.S. officials and institutions, he gives us the concession that we are now
believed. The CIA has admitted they
participated in a benign cover-up of information during the Warren Commission
investigation.[xiv] Mr. Shenon acknowledges that the evidence is
indisputable that both the CIA and the FBI had, at least, had Oswald under
“aggressive surveillance in the months before the assassination.”[xv] Mr. Shenon then advances the spin that the
CIA and FBI embarrassment over not taking action to better protect the
president in Dallas in light of what they knew is the reason for the benign
cover-up: “ [I]mmediately after the assassination, panicked officials at
both the CIA and FBI tried, desperately, to cover up evidence of the extent of
their knowledge of Oswald, fearing their bungling of the intelligence about
JFK’s assassin might be exposed – and that they would be blamed for the
president’s murder.” Yes sir, that
certainly explains why the cover-up began immediately on Air Force One on the
way back to D.C. on November 22, 1963.
As ridiculous as that idea is, it’s even more ridiculous to think that
this embarrassment of two agencies would lead the whole government – from the
president on down -- not just to cover up then, but to continue the cover-up
and resist disclosure for more than fifty years of most of the documentary
evidence, not to mention the massive destruction of evidence that has taken
place. When an offered concession is as
implausible as this, what is the questions that the concede is trying to avoid
being asked? Could there have been other
motivations for such a cover-up?
I am glad you asked. Remember, in the 1967 dispatch the CIA
acknowledged their basis of concern and, I believe, their motivation for
participating in, if not leading, the cover-up of information for all these
years. Not just hiding information from
the Warren Commission, but continuing to hide it and resist its disclosure even
up to the present. They acknowledged that
the main CIA concern was that conspiracy theories might link them to the use of
Oswald in intelligence operations. This
concern is still found in David Robarge’s article admitting CIA’s, or at least,
Director McCone’s, participation in a conspiracy to hid information from the
Warren Commission. The article talks
about the anti-Castro plots and the Nosenko information that was not shared
with the Commission.[xvi] This was used as an opportunity by Mr. Shenon
to revive the kinda-like-maybe Castro did it theory, a theory was first raised
on November 23rd in a Cuban exile publication sponsored and paid for
by CIA .[xvii]
But you have to read Mr. Robarge’s
article carefully. It is always wise to
carefully parse CIA pronouncements to see what they are actually saying. Mr. Robarge never specifically states that
the CIA was mainly concerned in suppressing Kennedy murder information in
preventing information about their attempts to murder Castro getting out. Here’s what he actually says about the
motivation for the cover-up: “Moreover, the DCI shared the [Johnson] administration’s
interest in avoiding disclosures about covert actions that would circumstantially
implicate CIA in conspiracy theories, and possibly lead to calls for a tough US
response against the perpetrators of the assassination. If the commission did not know to ask about
covert operations against Cuba, he was not going to give them any suggestions
where to look.”[xviii]
Taken in toto, the statement would draw you to infer that the Castro
assassination plots were what was being covered up. But if that is the case, why has the
resistance to disclosure remained so fierce even after those plots were
disclosed in 1975? And earlier in the
article, Robarge clearly states that electronic intercepts had, within a few
days, convinced the administration and the Agency that neither the USSR nor
Cuba had any complicity in the assassination.[xix] So who might the “perpetrators” be against
whom “calls for a tough US response“ might be made if they already knew that
neither Soviet Russia nor Cuba were complicit?
Notice the specific structure of Mr. Robarge’s statement: “avoiding
disclosures about covert actions that would circumstantially
implicate CIA in conspiracy theories.” I submit to you that this is the same
motivation that existed in 1967 as stated by the CIA Chief of Covert Action in
the April 1 dispatch: “Conspiracy theories have frequently thrown suspicion on
our organization, for example by falsely alleging that Lee Harvey Oswald worked
for us.”[xx]
The CIA has told us what they were
trying to hide. They have been trying to
hide information that could implicate them as an organization participating in
a conspiracy based on the fact that Oswald was not only under aggressive
surveillance, but was also being utilized in some capacity by them in active
intelligence operations shortly before the assassination. Those operations were directed at Cuba. The ones they didn’t want to be asked about,
as Mr. Robarge states, were “covert operations against Cuba,” not covert Castro
assassination plans. Please note in his
article that Robarge is careful to specify the Castro assassination plots when
he is talking about them. He is equally
careful here to not reference them but, rather, more general “covert operations
against Cuba.” We should be looking for
information on Oswald’s involvement in those operations in this document
release. They’ve told us where to look.[xxi]
[i] Dispatch, Countering Criticism of the Warren
Report, from Chief of CA Staff to Chiefs of Certain Stations and Bases, April
1, 1967, RIF 104-10009-10022.
[ii]
Que bono? Certainly not just Johnson,
but the basic investigative question never seems to have even been raised, let
alone considered, by the Warren Commission or the intelligence community in
1963-1964.
[iii]
“L’Etat, c’est moi.” The Agency’s concern was well-founded. The JFK murder cover-up was the beginning of
the unravelling of government credibility in the United States and led directly
to the growth of the secrecy culture that subsequently allowed the Vietnam war,
Watergate, Iran-Contra, Iraqi WMD’s, etc., etc., etc.
[iv] David
Robarge, “DCI John McCone and the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy,”
Studies in Intelligence, (Vol. 57, No. 3, 09/2013), Approved for Release and
declassified, 09/29/2014, available at http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB493/docs/intell_ebb_026.PDF.
[v]
See, e.g., Betty Medsger, The Burglary: The Discovery of J. Edgar Hoover’s
Secret FBI, Knopf 2014.
[vi]
One CIA officer is also on record calling Operation Phoenix in Vietnam that
tortured and killed myriads of Vietnamese civilians “benign”.
[vii]
Lance deHaven-Smith, Conspiracy Theory in America, University of Texas Press
2013, at p. 25.
[viii]
Id., at 41. Emphasis added.
[ix]
Jeremy Diamond, JFK Files: Trump teases release as deadline arrives, CNN, 26
Oct 2017, available at https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/10/26/politics/jfk-assassination-files-classified-document-release-donald-trump/index.html.
[x]
Id.
[xi] See, e.g.,
David R. Wrone, Two Assassinations: Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy, Lincoln
Fellowship of Wisconsin, Meeting
(37th: 1980 : Madison), Alfred Whital Stern Collection of Lincolniana
(Library of Congress); http://aarclibrary.org/board-of-directors/ ; John Newman, Oswald and the CIA:
The Documented Truth About the Unknown Relationship Between the U.S. Government
and the Alleged Killer of JFK, Skyhouse 2008; John Newman, JFK and Vietnam:
Deception, Intrigue, and the Struggle for Power, 2nd Ed., CreateSpace
Independent Publishing 2016;
John Newman, Countdown to Darkness: The Assassination of President Kennedy
Volume II, CreateSpace Independent Publishing 2017.
[xii]
Philip Shenon, Files will shed light on a JFK shooting conspiracy – but not the
one your think, The Guardian, 26 Oct 2017, available at https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/26/john-f-kennedy-asssassination-documents-national-archives
[xiii]
Most ear and eye witnesses on record from Dealey Plaza put a second shooter on
the grassy knoll. Any fair analysis of
the Zapruder film supports a finding of a shot from the front. The acoustics work of the HSCA showing a
shooter on the knoll is also still supported by the best scientific evidence in
spite of vigorous attempts to discredit it.
[xiv]
Technically, the Robarge article, see note iv above, did not concede CIA
participation so much as to blame the JFK appointed Director of Central
Intelligence, John McCone, of participating in a benign cover-up. See, Dan Hardway, A Cruel and Shocking
Misinterpretation, 2015, available at http://aarclibrary.org/a-cruel-and-shocking-misinterpretation/;
Dan Hardway, Thank You, Phil Shenon, 2015, available at
http://aarclibrary.org/thank-you-phil-shenon/
[xv] A
more objective and careful review of CIA documentation shows that there is even
more documentary evidence that the CIA was using Oswald as a witting or
unwitting asset in at least one intelligence operation. See, e.g., John
Newman, Oswald and the CIA: The Documented Truth About the Unknown Relationship
Between the U.S. Government and the Alleged Killer of JFK, Skyhouse 2008; John
Newman, Countdown to Darkness: The Assassination of President Kennedy Volume II,
CreateSpace Independent Publishing 2017; JFKFacts, Exclusive: JFK investigator
on how CIA stonewalled Congress, http://jfkfacts.org/hardway-declaration-cia-stonewalled-jfk-investigation/; Declaration of Dan L. Hardway, Morley v. CIA, CA #
03-02545-RJL, D.C.D.C. 11 May 2016, Docket No. 156.
[xvi] Robarge
above at n. 4.
[xvii]
See, Phil Shenon, Phil Shenon, “Yes, the CIA Director was Part of the JFK
Assassination Cover-Up,” Politico, 10/06/2015, available at http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/10/jfk-assassination-john-mccone-warren-commission-cia-213197;
Dan Hardway, Thank You, Phil Shenon, 2015, available at http://aarclibrary.org/thank-you-phil-shenon/
[xviii] Robarge, above, n. 4, at p. 9.
[xix] The
National Security Agency has never released such intercepts.
[xx] Dispatch, above at n. 1.
[xxi]
This article is going out quickly and will be reviewed and supplemented in the
future. One supplement will address the
modus operandi of CIA cover-up and obstruction of investigations. Another will
deal with what we know before the present document release about possible
covert operations against Cuba that may have involved Oswald.