4 stories
see link for full story
http://www.wnd.com/2013/09/report-kenne ... i-payroll/
September 25, 2013
Report: Kennedy assassin was on FBI payroll
Author says Bill O'Reilly 'uncritically repeats the Warren Commission lie'
In his bestseller “Killing Kennedy,” author and Fox News host Bill O’Reilly “uncritically repeats the Warren Commission lie” that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin of President John F. Kennedy, charges Jerome Corsi, author of the newly released “Who Really Killed Kennedy? 50 Years Later: Stunning New Revelations about the JFK Assassination.”
Corsi, whose new book has overtaken O’Reilly’s on the Amazon list of top sellers about JFK, argues O’Reilly fails to take into account the extensive documentation produced over the last 50 years indicating Oswald was an agent of the federal government with an extensive CIA intelligence file that stretched back to 1957.
O’Reilly, says Corsi, uncritically presents Oswald as a communist-sympathizer who defected to the Soviet Union, without mentioning the documentary record.
Corsi, in his book, presents evidence that Oswald was a double agent in the “false defector program” in which the U.S. government encouraged military troops loyal to the United States to engage in a ruse in which they would defect to the Soviet Union to gain access to the inside operations of the KGB.
Secret details of JFK’s assassination are finally unlocked. Get your autographed copy of “Who Really Killed Kennedy?” by Jerome Corsi now!
O’Reilly also does not mention the evidence that Oswald was being paid by the FBI as an informant in November 1963, prior to the assassination. Corsi says the Warren Commission suppressed the information, concluding Oswald had no affiliation with U.S. intelligence agencies.
Corsi asks: “Was Bill O’Reilly simply unaware of this documentary evidence when he co-authored ‘Killing Kennedy’?”
“Who Really Killed Kennedy,” released last week as the 50th anniversary of the assassination approaches, is bolstered by recently declassified documents that shed new light on the greatest “who-done-it” mystery of the 20th century. Corsi sorted through tens of thousands of documents, all 26 volumes of the Warren Commission’s report, hundreds of books, several films and countless photographs.
Oswald’s CIA file
The documents on the JFK assassination released by the federal government in the past few years show the CIA had an intelligence file on Oswald.
His “201″ CIA file, a personality file, was numbered No. 39-61981, with the “39” denoting an intelligence file, Corsi points out.
The Mary Ferrell Foundation has made public 50,000 pages of documents from Oswald’s CIA file, including a small selection of the pre-assassination file, followed by a huge collection of post-assassination documents pertaining to the Warren Commission and other subsequent investigations of the JFK assassination.
Oswald’s 201 CIA file was opened by Counter Intelligence officer Elizabeth “Ann” Egerter in December 1960.
The pre-assassination part of Oswald’s 201 CIA file shows the CIA followed, step by step, every move Oswald made to return to the United States after “defecting” to the Soviet Union, says Corsi.
As early as October 1960, while the presidential campaign between Nixon and Kennedy was still going on, the Department of State undertook a project to identify and research all Americans who had defected to the Soviet Union, to Soviet bloc nations or to communist China.
At the Department of State’s “Office of Intelligence/Resources and Coordination,” Robert B. Elwood wrote to Richard Bissell, then CIA’s deputy director for plans – the position from which Bissell began planning under the Eisenhower administration the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba.
The assignment at the State Department fell to Otto F. Otepka, deputy director of the State Department Office of Security. Bissell shipped the file to James Angleton at CIA counter intelligence and to Robert L. Bannerman, the CIA deputy chief of security.
According to former military intelligence officer John Newman in his 1995 book “Oswald and the CIA,” Bannerman said the opening of Oswald’s “201 file” regarding his defection to the Soviet Union “would have all gone through Angleton.” The 201 opening was something on which “we worked very closely with Angleton and his staff,” Bannerman recalled.
At the CIA, Otepka continued to add to Oswald’s 201 file, noting key “red flags,” such as when Oswald applied for and received a U.S. passport on one day’s notice to return to the United States. Oswald also received an extra visa a month and a half before he left Russia, apparently so his Russian wife could accompany him home.
Otepka also added to Oswald’s file, according to Corsi, when he learned Oswald had received a State Department loan that made his return to the U.S. possible financially. There are indications in the file that Attorney General Bobby Kennedy was aware of Oswald and his 201 file a year and a half before the JFK assassination.
The Justice Department evidently intervened with the Dallas Police, asking them not to pursue, investigate or arrest Oswald for allegedly firing a shot at Gen. Edwin Walker in Dallas prior to the Kennedy assassination.
Walker urged the House Select Committee on Investigations to look into the extraordinary intervention that traced back to Bobby Kennedy.
Oswald and the FBI
“As remarkable as it seems, the evidence suggests Lee Harvey Oswald prior to the assassination was on the payroll of the FBI,” says Corsi.
J. Lee Rankin, the general counsel of the Warren Commission, wrote a memo to the file in January 1964 documenting that a reliable source informed him of journalists in Texas who commonly knew Oswald was receiving a monthly check of $200 from the FBI.
In that letter, as reproduced in the archives preserved by the Mary Ferrell Foundation online, Rankin documents that on Jan. 22, 1964, he received a telephone call from Waggoner Carr, attorney general of Texas, communicating on a confidential basis an allegation that Oswald had been an undercover agent for the FBI since September 1962 and had been paid $200 a month from an account designated as No. 179.
Rankin’s letter further documents that on Jan. 23, 1964, Secret Service Report No. 766 summarized an interview conducted by FBI agent Bertram with Houston Post reporter Alonso H. Hudkins III that read in part:
On December 19, Mr. Hudkins advised that he had just returned from a weekend in Dallas, during which time he talked to Allen Sweatt, Chief Criminal Division, Sheriff’s Office, Dallas. Chief Sweatt mentioned that it was his opinion that Lee Harvey Oswald was being paid $200 a month by the FBI as an informant in connection with their subversive investigation. He furnished the alleged informant number assigned to Oswald by the FBI as “S172.”
Rankin, says Corsi, further affirmed that District Attorney Wade in Dallas and “others of the Texas representatives” stated the rumors that Oswald was an undercover agent were widely held among members of the press in Dallas and that Melvin Belli, attorney for Jack Ruby, was aware of the allegations.
Wade further told Rankin that Oswald was an informant for the CIA, carrying No. 110669.
As documented by the proceedings of the Warren Commission’s executive session Jan. 27, 1964, another document archived online by the Mary Ferrell Foundation, Rankin presented to the commissioners the allegations of Oswald’s connections to the FBI and the CIA.
At that meeting, Rankin made clear his intention to cover up the information when he told the commission, “We do have a dirty rumor that is very bad for the commission, and it is very damaging to the agencies that are involved in it, and it must be wiped out so insofar as it is possible to do so by this commission.”
At the Warren Commission’s executive session on Jan. 27, 1964, commissioner Allen Dulles commented in concluding the discussion of the information Oswald was a paid FBI agent: “I think this record ought to be destroyed. Do you think we need a record of this?”
Corsi contends the Warren Commission suppressed evidence of Oswald’s relationship with the FBI, precisely because the information undermined the commission’s central conclusion that Oswald was the lone assassin.
Corsi says the evidence shows Oswald was a patriotic U.S. citizen who earned his employment as a well-trained intelligence operative, with his primary allegiance to the CIA. It could be, Corsi concludes, “a key part of the deep secret the CIA could not afford the U.S. public to know in the aftermath of the JFK assassination when the Warren Report was issued in 1964.”
see link for full story
http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/civ ... ard/nZ6kF/
Tuesday, Sept. 24, 2013
Civil liberties group claims FBI harassment toward friends of man killed by agent
Related
Raw: Todashev press conference Pt. 1 gallery
Raw: Todashev press conference Pt. 1
Raw: Todashev Press Conference Pt. 2 gallery
Raw: Todashev Press Conference Pt. 2
View Larger
Todashev photo
Todashev
ORLANDO, Fla. —
An American-Islamic civil liberties group told only Eyewitness News that it has damaging information showing a pattern of harassment by the FBI toward friends of a man who was shot and killed by an agent in Orlando.
CAIR-Florida claims agents have continually intimidated friends of Ibragim Todashev.
The group's director, Hassan Shibly, said he plans to release the information Wednesday during a news conference or by email.
He insists it will show that the FBI keeps harassing those friends months after the FBI killed the Chechen man inside his apartment.
"There's been a pattern and practice right now of the FBI intimidating and bringing perceptual charges and harassing many, many individuals who are associated with Ibragim," Shibly said by phone.
Todashev was killed as he was questioned over his possible role in a Boston-area triple murder allegedly involving bombing suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev.
Eyewitness News learned agents from the Boston FBI office were again in Central Florida just last week. This time, they grilled Ashurmamad Miraliev over his friendship with Todashev.
"They've basically taken retaliatory action against individuals who are familiar or associated with Ibragim Todashev, who are key witnesses into what happened in the days before he was killed," Shibly said.
Miraliev spent at least eight hours undergoing FBI questioning. He remains locked up in the Osceola County Jail on an unrelated witness tampering charge.
Eyewitness News also spoke to Todashev's former girlfriend off-camera who said she was just released from jail after spending roughly three months locked up on immigration issues, including five days in solitary confinement.
see link for full story
http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/201 ... ts_sources
Metadata May Not Catch Many Terrorists, But It's Great at Busting Journalists' Sources
Tuesday, September 24, 2013
The National Security Agency says that the telephone metadata it collects on every American is essential for finding terrorists. And that's debatable. But this we know for sure: Metadata is very useful for tracking journalists and discovering their sources.
On Monday, a former FBI agent and bomb technician pleaded guilty to leaking classified information to the Associated Press about a successful CIA operation in Yemen. As it turns out, phone metadata was the key to finding him.
The prosecution of the former agent, Donald Sachtleben, brings the number of leaks prosecutions under the Obama administration to eight, nearly three times the number prosecuted under all previous administrations. What's driving this record-breaking prosecution of leakers? Is it that this president especially despises loose talk with reporters and the time-worn culture of Washington backstabbing that they represent?
Not likely. The real reason the government is going after leakers is because it can. Investigators today have greater access to phone records and e-mails than they did before Obama took office, allowing them to follow digital data trails straight to the source.
After the AP published its big scoop on the Yemen operation, on May 7, 2012, FBI investigators started looking for the source of the story. They interviewed more than 550 officials, but they came up short.
So, in a highly controversial move, investigators secretly obtained a subpoena for phone records of AP reporters and editors. The records, which included the metadata of who had called whom, and how long the call lasted, covered a period in April and May of 2012. That was right around the time that the AP was reporting the Yemen story.
Once investigators looked at that phone metadata, they got their big break in the case.
"Sachtleben was identified as a suspect ... only after toll records for phone numbers related to the reporter were obtained through a subpoena and compared to other evidence collected during the leak investigation," the Justice Department said yesterday in a statement. "This allowed investigators to obtain a search warrant authorizing a more exhaustive search of Sachtleben's cellphone, computer and other electronic media..."
The reporter is not named in the court documents, but two of the AP's best investigative journalists, Adam Goldman and Matt Apuzzo, wrote the Yemen story.
More FP Coverage the NSA Leaks
Obama to World: Bad News. The American Empire Is Dead.
Dilma Blasts U.S. Spies as International Crooks
Spy Drones, Disputed Islands, and Diplomatic Firestorms
The phone metadata wasn't just the key to Satchleben. It sped up the investigation dramatically. The FBI had conducted 550 fruitless interviews, and with one scan of a reporter's phone record, they had their man. It's no wonder that the Obama administration is going after leakers so often. Metadata is the closest thing to a smoking gun that they're likely to have, absent a wiretap or a copy of an email in which the source is clearly seen giving a reporter classified information.
The subpoena of the AP's records was roundly criticized by press groups. The Justice Department didn't tell AP about the subpoena in advance, as is customary in these cases. And the department didn't reveal until May 2013, a year after the story ran, that investigators had been combing through journalists' phone logs.
The AP called the secret subpoena a "massive and unprecedented intrusion" into the news-gathering process. And it may have resulted in a backlash. Sources close to the Justice Department have said recently that investigators are unlikely to aggressively go after a leaker via a reporter's phone records again because of the controversy over the AP case. They've also been chastened in another leaks investigation, in which a Fox News reporter was named as a potential co-conspirator because he asked his source for information, a move that drew similar howls from press advocates.
Of course, the FBI doesn't just look at reporters' phone records. They can examine government employees' work phones and email accounts without a warrant. The FBI also had a stroke of unexpected luck in the Sachtleben case, because the government had already seized his cell phone and computer as part of a child pornography investigation. When the FBI found the link to the AP reporter in the phone records, they scanned Sachtleben's devices. On his phone, they discovered text messages and records of calls between Sachtleben and an AP reporter -- again, he's not named in court documents -- about a notorious Yemeni bomb maker. On May 2, Sachtleben visited a lab where U.S. technicians were examining a new underwear device that the bombmaker had built, and that had been captured by the CIA before it could be used, the documents say. This was the germ of the AP's story, which ran five days later.
But the FBI would not have been tipped to Sachtleben as the AP's source in the first place absent that link from the reporter's phone records. If you're looking for a case study in the power of metadata, you've found it.
see link for full story
http://techcrunch.com/2013/09/24/senato ... d-of-2014/
Senators Demand Answers On NSA Snooping — By The End Of 2014
2013-09-24_13h03_57
This week nine members of the Senate Judiciary Committee sent a letter to the inspector general of the Intelligence Community, I. Charles McCullough III, asking him to conduct a full review of U.S. intelligence operations, and to “make public the findings.”
This almost sounds compelling: A bipartisan group of Senators demanding that the intelligence wing of the United States government take a hard look at itself and report its findings to the public. Of course, asking a consummate intelligence insider to vet his own team isn’t exactly exciting.
Mr. McCullough III is a former FBI agent, helped draft the intelligence portions of the Patriot Act, and worked in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. So the guy has friends throughout the agencies that he has now been asked to both vet and then publicly discuss. What do you want to wager that this report comes out milquetoast?
Here’s what the senators want the inspector general to focus on:
The use and implementation of Section 215 and Section 702 authorities, including the manner in which information – and in particular, information about U.S. persons – is collected, retained, analyzed and disseminated.
Applicable minimization procedures and other relevant procedures and guidelines, including whether they are consistent across agencies and the extent to which they protect the privacy rights of U.S. persons.
Any improper or illegal use of the authorities or information collected pursuant to them.
An examination of the effectiveness of the authorities as investigative and intelligence tools.
That’s actually quite a fine list. While asking the inspector general to grade the law he helped to write and vet the performance of his friends in an unbiased fashion is humorous, the senators’ final request is my favorite:
Please proceed to administratively perform reviews of the implementation of Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act and Section 702 of FISA, and submit the reports no later than December 31, 2014.
So the report can come out more than a year from now, and meet expectations. Assuming that the good inspector complies with the request, he has 15 months to produce something that says nothing. Empty attempts at oversight are worse than doing nothing, as they provide cover for parties that otherwise would be easier to excoriate.
Ars Technica has a good take on the situation at hand: “As more and more has come out about the scope of American surveillance programs, lawmakers are realizing that they don’t know very much about what exactly is going on.” Yes, and the rest of us don’t know enough either.
But asking Mr. McCullough III to educate us next year about what is going on now doesn’t even pass the laugh test. I’m not sure if the good senators understand how anemic their attempt at controlling the intelligence apparatus in fact is, and that alone is depressing.