Joan Mellen talk at COPA 2013 on Garrison, CIA et al.

[Albert Doyle]

I agree with David. It's hugely frustrating hearing/reading experienced researchers blaming "the CIA" for the assassination. The CIA is not a monolithic entity, and the claim that "they" were fundamentally responsible is not an accurate characterisation of the conspiracy.

It is imperative that we are more rigorous in our analysis and precise in our language where these matters are concerned.

I don't know. I find it equally frustrating that researchers make such broad statements but then don't back it with anything like naming who, then, was responsible. If it was good enough for Jim Garrison it's good enough for me. Don't get me wrong I fully espouse the Drago model and feel it is accurate, however I did notice that after Charles made the grand statement that persons who pointed to CIA were "simple minded" he had a bad habit of not following through with anything to substantiate his point. The problem I have with this admonishment of oversimplifying by blaming CIA is how it makes the mistake of avoiding recognizing how many main CIA players and methods were involved in the assassination. No matter what the hierarchy there's no denying the main operatives in the assassination were either direct CIA or operating under their control during the actual action. I disagree with David and agree with Joan. CIA was definitely giving the orders in the Plaza. The reason for that is obvious. It's because they had the useful asset of both invisibility and impunity by their charter. Persons who say the military predated the CIA and had a traditional precedent that they never relinquished miss the obvious fact that CIA was actually the highest branch of that military order formed for that very purpose during the total military domination of WWII. It was directly formed after the model of British intelligence which went by the formal title "Military Intelligence". I would even add that in recognition to its fealty to its Sponsors OSS chose "Central" Intelligence instead of military intelligence, but it was still the main acting arm of those powers. Clearly CIA was formed to allow military power to obviate the restrictions of war conventions and domestic law as a political branch of the military. A God-like agency acting above and outside conventional government in order to enforce the new order imposed by the national security ethic. Sure, I agree with persons stressing the "3D" nature of the assassination, but not at the expense of ignoring how much CIA was responsible for the main actions involved in the assassination and how they have continued to exercise that power in an expanding manner ever since. No, I would say CIA naturally took precedence over the military simply because it was designed to do so by its nature. Especially its useful asset of having total national security impunity which is exactly where you would hide a coup d'etat in a republic such as ours. Who did Truman complain about in the Washington Post? Was it the Pentagon or was it the CIA? Who controlled the insidious resistance in Viet Nam against Kennedy's orders? Was it the military or was it the CIA? The sword cuts both ways. I have seen a tendency for deep political advocates to err in the same manner by grossly oversimplifying CIA's role in the opposite direction. Clearly the answer here is CIA was responsible and was doing it under the guidance and approval of those Sponsors. Too often I see the Drago/Deep Politics model used as a grandiose retreat into the safety of a pure position. However I feel that's a little too easy and spares the offerer of having to practice that more complicated version themselves.


.