PDA

View Full Version : John Prados' THE FAMILY JEWELS - The CIA, Secrecy and Presidential Power



Anthony Thorne
08-18-2013, 11:59 AM
Mark Crispin Miller (a good writer and the author of CRUEL AND UNUSUAL and FOOLED AGAIN, covering the Bush administration and electronic vote fraud respectively) has been editing and overseeing a series of books for the University of Texas Press, collectively titled ‘Discovering America’. Miller is evidently open to quality conspiratorial research and his receptiveness bore fruit with the publication earlier this year of Lance DeHaven-Smith’s CONSPIRACY THEORY IN AMERICA. I’m consequently looking forward to reading the next volume in the series that could be of interest to DPF members – John Prados’ THE FAMILY JEWELS: THE CIA, SECRECY AND PRESIDENTIAL POWER. Fingers crossed this volume has some tidbits for those already immersed in the subject.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Family-Jewels-Presidential-Discovering/dp/0292737629

In December 1974, a front-page story in the New York Times revealed the explosive details of illegal domestic spying by the Central Intelligence Agency. This included political surveillance, eavesdropping, detention, and interrogation. The revelation of illegal activities over many years shocked the American public and led to investigations of the CIA by a presidential commission and committees in both houses of Congress, which found evidence of more abuse, even CIA plans for assassinations. Investigators and the public soon discovered that the CIA abuses were described in a top-secret document agency insiders dubbed the “Family Jewels.” That document became ground zero for a political firestorm that lasted more than a year. The “Family Jewels” debacle ultimately brought about greater congressional oversight of the CIA, but excesses such as those uncovered in the 1970s continue to come to light.

The Family Jewels probes the deepest secrets of the CIA and its attempts to avoid scrutiny. John Prados recounts the secret operations that constituted “Jewels” and investigators’ pursuit of the truth, plus the strenuous efforts—by the agency, the executive branch, and even presidents—to evade accountability. Prados reveals how Vice President Richard Cheney played a leading role in intelligence abuses and demonstrates that every type of “Jewel” has been replicated since, especially during the post-9/11 war on terror. The Family Jewels masterfully illuminates why these abuses are endemic to spying, shows that proper relationships are vital to control of intelligence, and advocates a system for handling “Family Jewels” crises in a democratic society.

As an aside, Amazon is helpfully suggesting a book for those who visit the above link, and it's also worth at least making note of. Stephen Kinzer has a new biography of the Dulles bothers, John Foster and Allen, out in October.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Brothers-Foster-Dulles-Secret/dp/0805094970/ref=pd_sim_sbs_b_2

Charles Drago
08-18-2013, 02:26 PM
Alas, Mark Crispin Miller's JFK/deep politics credentials are as suspect today as they were seven years ago.

In April, 2006, he declared that his "good friend" Thom Hartmann and Lamar Waldron and "solved" the JFK assassination with their then-new book, the now-utterly discredited Ultimate Sacrifice.

Read the good (?) professor's blurb at

http://markcrispinmiller.com/2006/04/jfks-assassination-solved-14/


Shortly after encountering this nonsense I posted a detailed refutation of the Hartmann/Waldron theory, to which Miller responded.

Our exchange has been removed from Miller's current website, where you can read the JFK/deep politics naif Miller in all his long-standing, JFK-related arrogance and ignorance:

http://markcrispinmiller.com/2006/04/jfks-assassination-solved-14/


I'm pleased to note that our aforementioned exchange can be found at:

http://markcrispinmiller.com/2006/05/more-truth-about-the-jfk-assassination/


MY ORIGINAL E-MAIL

I trust that you will accept the following in the spirit in which it is offered: as a respectful plea for the application of identical levels of scholarship and analysis to the issue of the assassination of John F. Kennedy that you demonstrate with profound regularity in your work on the greater meanings of election thefts and related matters.

As a quick Google search will indicate, I have published essays on the subject of the disenfranchisement of the American electorate commonly referred to as the “Kennedy assassination” in academic journals, and lectured on same at scholarly conferences. Most recently I contributed the introduction to “A Certain Arrogance,” by George Michael Evica, PhD (author of “And We Are All Mortal,” originally published by the University of Hartford Press and soon to be reissued in updated form), a study of the abuses of liberal educational and religious institutions by American intelligence agencies during the Cold War.

My JFK-related message has been succinctly presented: Anyone with reasonable access to the evidence who does not conclude that President Kennedy was killed as the result of a criminal conspiracy is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime.

Conspiracy in this assassination is as well-established and incontrovertible an example of historical truth as is the Holocaust, and all who are in a position to know that truth and who instead choose to deny it are morally and intellectually akin to Holocaust Deniers.

Your unequivocal endorsement of the conclusions of Lamar Waldron and Thom Hartmann as presented in their “Ultimate Sacrifice” is deeply troubling. FYI, you should know that, during the latter stages of Lamar’s research, I was pleased to assist him in the presentation of a paper at an academic conference in Dallas, and otherwise to encourage his work.

After the closest, most informed reading of the final product, however, I reluctantly must conclude that my support was ill-considered.

The Waldron/Hartman thesis is fatally flawed in many areas. We can go on at length with an exchange of positions on the book; for the purposes of this e-mail, I will direct your attention to a single issue.

The authors’ view of the hierarchical structure of the intelligence/organized crime nexus of the period under consideration is at best myopic (although in comparison to their appreciations of the levels of authority and areas of operation and influence of high-ranking CIA officers involved in the assassination conspiracy, it is relatively 20/20).

In terms of your work on the elections thefts, I commend you for the courage you exhibit as you bear the slings and arrows sent your way by the ad hominids, so to speak. I’m reminded of the Chinese proverb, “When a finger points at the moon, the fool looks at the finger.”

I thank you again for your critically important books and lectures. I hope that this communication will spur you to deeper consideration of the still-reverberating echoes of the Dealey Plaza crossfire.

MILLER'S RESPONSE

Thanks for your email, and by all means do tell me where the Waldron/Hartmann
thesis is mistaken. I do assure you that I read the book with care, and found its
scholarship impressive. In other words, I did not hail the book because I wanted to
believe its claims, but read it before judging it (which is of course my usual practice).

Which is to say that my mind is open. So do enlighten me. (BTW, whoever said that
JFK’s murder was not the result of a criminal conspiracy? And why is W/H’s
argument “preposterous on its face”? Those mafiosi had every reason to whack
Kennedy.)

In any case, I do appreciate your kind remarks about my work on Bush/Cheney’s
election fraud.

MY SECOND OFFERING

I had no doubt that you read the book in its entirety and thoughtfully. Regarding my analysis of the shortcomings of W/H’s methods and conclusions, and in response to your direct questions, I submit the following abbreviated remarks:

1. “Whoever said that JFK’s murder was not the result of a criminal conspiracy?” — The Warren Commission and its apologists, for starters. Not to mention historians, scholars, intellectuals (Noam Chomsky, for heaven's sake), and otherwise well-informed friends who should know better, and the same mainstream press that denies the reality of the election thefts you document so convincingly.

Indeed, it is the imprimatur of the parent state alone that accounts for the longevity of the lone nut absurdity. As I’ve put it to a number of audiences: Imagine … what if the official government investigators had operated honestly, and as a result concluded that, based upon unbiased analyses of ballistic, eyewitness, earwitness, photographic, medical, circumstantial, and general forensic evidence, conspirators of the domestic political variety had ordered the hit; then, almost immediately, a small group of self-styled “critics” dismissed that work and instead proposed what in fact we know today as the real WC’s theory. How long do you think the shelf life of such a rogue argument would be? Forty three years? How about 43 seconds!

2. “Why is W/H’s argument ‘preposterous on its face’? Those Mafiosi had every reason to whack Kennedy.” — Indeed they had, and I’d argue that there’s little doubt that figures from OC were brought into the plot in the roles of Facilitators and, later, False Sponsors. What is preposterous is Lamar’s argument that Marcello, Trafficante, and Rosselli enjoyed the means to play the roles of prime Sponsors and planners.

I stipulate that when we implicitly differentiate between “organized crime,” and “big business,” and “intelligence agencies” in the contexts of the crime, and of what Peter Dale Scott has termed the “deep political” structure of the period, we are citing distinctions without true differences. John Rosselli — “Colonel John Rawlston,” big time player at JM/WAVE, the CIA’s Miami operation, and trusted confidante of David Sanchez Morales, action officer there — is THE prime example of the living, connective tissue between OC and CIA.

But when Lamar argues that David Atlee Phillips, head of the CIA’s Western Hemisphere Division at the time and one of the knights (perhaps I should say bishops), if you will, of the agency, could somehow have been manipulated by OC figures and, to use the appropriate vernacular, otherwise become the wise guys’ bitch, he dismisses volumes of scholarship, supported by scores of cubic feet of documentary record, establishing precisely the inverse relationship.

On the mechanical level, the assassination could not have been executed in the manner that unfolded in Dealey Plaza had not security been stripped from the motorcade. And simply stated, none of the godfathers or their proprietary rogue intelligence officers had the jam to pull that off.

(Indeed, security stripping remains a sine qua non for successful attacks on targets well protected by, for the most part, incorruptible guards. It happened in advance of the JFK and MLK murders. And if you’ll permit me a bit of latitude, it took place before the assassinations of the American electoral process in 2000 and 2004; the security afforded by conventional voting machines, paper trails, and hand counts was stripped, thus leaving the target all but defenseless.)

Lamar and Hartmann have performed a great service to history by uncovering the AM/WORLD plan. Discussion of their intentionally ham-handed implication that the so-called “Coup Leader” was none other than El Che is best left for another time.

Like all effective disinformation (intended or otherwise), the central argument of “Ultimate Sacrifice” is gift-wrapped within a goodly amount of fact and startling revelation. The goal: cognitive dissonance. Or might I say, stripping the security provided by reason.

Another fatal flaw in L/H’s presentation: [They] cannot present a scenario for the godfathers’ selection of LHO as the perfect patsy (no other description is fitting) that passes the laugh test. The tired Uncle Dutz Murret argument simply doesn't hold water.

3. “[I] read [“Ultimate Sacrifice”] before judging it (which is of course my usual practice).” I’m certain that you did, and in fact I have too much respect for your work to have assumed any other scenario. But the question must be raised: Have you given equal consideration to the conflicting literature and historical record, readings of which surely would more clearly inform your judgment and, I'm willing to wager, lead to an entirely different conclusion?

Please know that I have not contributed original research to the investigation of the JFK murder and its ramifications. Rather, my role has been to offer original thinking on such matters as the definition and pursuit of justice in the case (I was first to propose an amnesty commission), influencing public opinion and political action in terms of pressing for new investigations and further declassifications and releases of pertinent documents, etc. Accordingly, I’d like to recommend two book-length treatments of the Kennedy assassination and related issues that I believe you’ll value and from which great benefit may be derived.

“Deep Politics and the Death of JFK,” by Peter Dale Scott (University of California), and “The Man Who Knew Too Much,” by Dick Russell (Carroll and Graf). I won’t presume to describe these complex and compelling arguments other than to note my certainty that, by comparison, “Ultimate Sacrifice” will suffer greatly in your estimation.

Finally (for now), I’ll make certain that you receive a copy of the previously referenced “A Certain Arrogance” by Professor Evica. And I do so hope that we can continue this dialogue.

Thanks again for all your work, and for your prompt and courteous response.

Jim Hackett II
08-19-2013, 03:13 PM
Quite a while ago I looked at this faulty book. Unlike POSE-ner's Case Closed which I read in a library copy, "The Ultimate Sacrifice" I looked thru in a Used/Remaindered Book Store.
In 5 minutes I put the junk back on the shelf. I didn't read it. I didn't need to read it to confirm it was junk.

Soon whom do I see interviewed on CSPAN on the weekend history shows? A Professor from somewhere endorsing the lies of Hartmann and Waldron.
I pretty much take it for granted for decades that if the Murder of the President is even touched on in MSM media presentations,
all efforts will be present to directly or indirectly refute the concept of the US Government and DOD being involved in the Murder or the CoverUp.

We all know the efforts to coverup and obfuscate.
If Big D and the US Government and the DOD were not involved the efforts would not be needed, nor would the efforts of "officialdom" current and the BS of the Church Lady still be on-going 50 years later.

To paraphrase Fletcher Prouty:
Lee Harvey Oswald didn't kill the President.
and
They all knew (about the plotS).
Jim