Michael Piper and Final Judgment

[David Josephs]

I must be doing something right because Colby called me an anti-semite and Rago wants a piece of me. I don't want to become an EF vs DPF pawn because, frankly, I must admit I'm a lightweight in this field amongst many of the most researched. I just wanted to discuss the credible material in Piper that I think is being denied to the detriment of the full assassination knowledge that is the professed goal of many of those who are doing the denial. I disagree that evidence of facilitation has not been shown. In my opinion the best evidence for it is the irrational reaction and categorical avoidance shown by those who oppose it. Look at the banks gentlemen. The old story of power follows money holds true. - I won't disparage this forum because I believe its members are some of the best and most of the material is very valuable in the understanding of the Deep Politics that best define these things. I just disagree on Piper.

Well then Albert... when you find that CREDIBLE MATERIAL I for one will be here to read it and try to see your POV...
When you can state that material without WOULD HAVE's and COULD BE's and I THINK's and let the words defend themselves

We are ready - without a pro/anti Israel stance... to put Piper's pieces together to make a picture.... yet as I've posted repeatedly...
that request has not been met with much in the way of Piper's "credible material". Sorry but Sy Hersh does not count as credible.


So Albert,
Do you believe Lansky was in the same league as NE/CFR establishment?
Sat at the same tables and broke bread...

I ask since I believe there are levels of power that ALLOWED the mafia to do its thing, that ALLOWED and promoted the actions of the CIA and other clandestine military intelligence groups.

You believe that the "power" in America DID NOT HAVE their hands in and were in full control of these groups and was swift with vengence should anyone stray?

Lansky was, imo, a high level facilitator with limited planning and implementation power in THIER world yet much larger within HIS world....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1UNJTPtmZhI

This man is a low-life lying murderer... and for all the support that is claimed between Meyer and Israel... at the end of the day... Israel would not take him.
For being so instrumental, supposedly, in assisting Mossad/CIA with the killing of JFK and securing the future of the Israeli A-Bomb... THIS is how he was rewarded?

Rabbi Burg reached his decision on Meyer Lansky in September, 1971. It was his
opinion, after careful examination of the evidence that Meyer Lansky was a
person with a criminal past and was likely to endanger the public welfare. His
application for Israeli citizenship was denied.

During the trial, Bach's arguments became more strained yet it reached a sympathetic ear in the legal panel. Bach argued that Lansky's repeated use of the U.S. Constitutional protection of the Fifth Amendment and his refusal to answer questions to the Kefauver Committee could be reasonably interpreted as a tacit admission of guilt.

"Shimon Agranat, the chief justice, broke in. Lansky, he pointed out, had been exercising the constitutional right of any American citizen.

Bach responded by agreeing that this argument was legally correct in a courtroom situation, when it came to deciding what evidence might properly be considered by a judge or jury. But the minister of the interior was not a judge. He was a bureaucrat trying to assess the criminality of a difficult and elusive man, and faced with such a challenge, argued the state attorney, the minister was entitled to take account of all the circumstances. Meyer Lansky had been given the chance by the Kefauver committee to clear his name in the public and official forum, and had declined the offer on the grounds that any answer he gave might tend to incriminate him. The Israeli minister of the Interior was entitled to draw the same conclusion from that as any reasonable man in the street." [SUP][SUP]33[/SUP][/SUP]

The writing was on the wall, the words hung in the air. The decision came later, September 11, 1972; Rabbi Yosef Burg's decision to deny Meyer Lansky the Right of Return was upheld. Burg was not a judge hearing evidence in a court of law. He was an administrator making a reasonable man decision about what he believed to be the truth. Bach looked at Lansky and felt vindicated. Evil in his view did not necessarily look evil. Bach had stared at the inconsequential bureaucratic face of the penultimate evil, Adolph Eichmann, eleven years earlier. To Bach, Lansky was, as Hannah Arendt described Eichmann, the banality of evil. Bach was victorious. He felt he had saved Israel.
Years later Gabriel Bach was appointed to the Israeli Supreme Court