-Caveat Lector-
Daniel Sheehan answers questions from the audience:
QUESTION: There are two questions that occur to me right away.
Some of this information must have come out in the Watergate
investigation. Why wasn't it pursued at that time? Obviously,
there must have been that information. The other one: You talk
about a shadowy world. When did this shadowy world begin? When
did the separation between the military and civilian clearly
collapse, causing so many of our problems?
SHEEHAN: The first question: A number of these issues must have
surfaced at least during the the Watergate investigation. And
why were they not pursued?
Well, let me give you one very special example of an issue
that arose during the Watergate investigation. You will all
remember that extraordinary conversation of March 21 [1973],
where President Nixon was discussing the Watergate investigation
with John Dean. And Nixon said to John Dean, "John, I want you to
go to the CIA and have them tell the FBI to get out of this
investigation." And John Dean said to him: "Well, Mr. President,
what am I going to tell them?" And he said, "Tell them all the
'Bay of Pigs' stuff will come out."
John Dean didn't know what that meant and he later asked what
that meant. They asked this question of a number of people during
the Watergate hearings. One of the men they asked was Mr.
Halderman. And they said, "Mr. Haldeman, what was it that
President Nixon was talking about when he said 'All the 'Bay of
Pigs' stuff would come out'?" And Mr. Halderman said, "Oh, they
were talking about the assassination of President John Kennedy."
At which point, everyone looked at each other in the room and
said, "What the hell was that?" And they went on to a new
subject. It's a very strange issue one that has haunted us ever
since 1963.
What we face in this case is the possibility of striking up
that music, of getting back to some of those issues, of delving
into those people. I'll just say this in closing on that topic.
Richard Spraig was appointed to be the general counsel for the
Select Committee on Assassination Investigation for the House of
Representatives, and he was investigating the assassination of
President John Kennedy. He was doing some investigation that led
him to issue a subpoena to John Roselli.
John Roselli, you will remember, is one of the two men who
met with Robert Maheu in January or so of 1961 or 1960 to set up
this assassination team. In the very week that he was subpoened,
John Roselli was found wrapped in chain and sunk in a barrel in
Biscayne Bay. Because of the fear that they had, Mr. Spraig sent
three FBI agants to protect Sam Giancana, who had been the other
man in the meeting, before he issued a subpoena to him.
Mr. Spraig did issues a subpoena to him. With three FBI
agents in the house on Thursday morning before the Monday that
Sam Giancana was to testify before the Select Committee on
Assassination, one of the FBI agents left to go get a pack of
Camels, one went to the bathroom, one was out getting some fruit
for the cereal, and someone entered the house and killed Sam
Giancana in his breakfast and left without a trace. And Richard
Spraig was immediately fired as general counsel for the Select
Committee on Assassinations. G. Robert Blakey was appointed. He
said, "That's enough, no more investigations," and filed a final
report which you can read, which says: "There appears to be some
circumstantial evidence that President Kennedy may have been
assassinated by a conspiracy group. And the main suspects are
certain elements of organized crime and Cubans."
What he didn't say, which is the truth, is that the
suspected elements of organized crime were Santos Trafficante,
and that the Cubans were the Cubans who were inside the shooter
team for Operation 40!
The second question was: When did all this shadowy world
begin -- this peculiar blending between the civilians and the
military? I would say that it actually began in 1947 with the
passage of the National Security Act, the establishment of the
Central Intelligence Agency, the establishment of this entire
covert world. In the first meeting of the National Secutiry
Agency, they passed a resolution, I think, called the 54/12
Resolution. It authorized the Central Intelligence Agency to
gather intelligence data, to correlate intelligence data, and to
preform other functions from time to time as were designated by
the National Security Agency. That is the resolution pursuant to
which the CIA has taken unto itself the belief that it has the
authority to carry out covert operations, such as these
assassinations.
The major fear now, amidst the Central Intelligence Agency
officials, is that all covert action capacity will be taken away
from the Central Intelligence Agency and assigned to a Special
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations. That is
the way of a shakedown in Washington. All that that will do is
get rid of this strange blending of the civilian and military and
put it under the control of the military.
But in the final analysis, we at the Christic Institute do
not personally believe that Oliver North was a bad soldier.
Oliver North was a good soldier. Oliver North took his orders. He
followed his orders. The question is: Who did he take the orders
from? Why would he be taking the orders from a man by the name of
Theodore Shackley or Tom Clines, who are no longer in the
government? Because they used to run covert operations for the
entire Central Intelligence Agency. This is a strange identity
that they have: when they leave, they don't really leave and they
continue covert operations. We have to undertake absolutely major
surgery on the public policies relating to covert operations
before this scandal is over.
QUESTION: Dan, as one lawyer to another, I want to compliment you
for the skill and the finesse with which you carried on that
campaign against the racketeers down there. I think we have a
rather immediate problem before Dan can get all of his facts in
deposition form and in documentary form, preparatory to courtroom
use. That is: What can we do in this Congress about monies for
the contras?
We need, it seems to me, to look at this in a number of
ways, and I'd like to get Dan's reaction to this. One of them is
this: What's going on down there is conducted by the U.S.
President through his agents, the contras. It consists of acts of
war against another nation. By international law, the use of
force against another nation is an act of war. By the
Constitution of the United States, nobody can wage war in the
name of the United States without the declaration of war by the
Congress. So, isn't it an important element in the months to come
that we emphasize this unconstitutional conduct by our President
as the basis for denying aid to the contras?
SHEEHAN: Absolutely. The fact of the matter is that here, in
February [1987], there's going to be a vote taken in the U.S.
Congress. The vote has a lot of peculiar technicalities to it. It
is a caveat on the resolution that was passed by the 99th
Congress to authorize the expenditure of $100 million for the
contras for military equipment. Only $60 million was given to
them originally. There is a certification vote that has to be
taken here in mid-February to determine whether or not Congress
will affirmatively certify to allow the last $40 million given to
the contras to be used for heavy military equipment.
Now, they did not want to allow the Congress to vote on
whether they get the $40 million at all. So, some people, usually
in the Democratic Party, are saying: "Let's really show them.
Let's vote to let them get the $40 million only without using it
for heavy equipment." There are others who argue, "Let's alter
the resolution, after all, we are the government of the United
States. We aren't helpless in the face of the executive branch.
All we have to do is say that on the basis of newly discovered
evidence, we're going to alter the vote here in February to
eliminate the last $40 million and make them give back the
original $60 million."
Now, at base, what we have here is a lack of resolution on
the part of the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party doesn't
know whether it's going to have Governor Cuomo as its nominee, or
Joe Biden as its nominee, or a number of other people as its
nominee ... Gary Hart. But the American people have to speak
out, they have to be determined. In fact, the Republican Party
has stood behind the funding of the contras, insisted upon the
funding of the contras in a vote that went down on the last day
of the 99th Congress to give money to the contras with a straight
party vote. And the Democratic Party, now, wants to take
advantage, to take the credit for all of this. Let them take it.
But make them earn it. Insist that they cut off the remaining
$40 million, have them stand up to this program and pass a
resolution condemning the contras, cutting off all military
equipment and stopping the war, stopping the invasion.
Now, the fact of the matter is that the Congress of the
United States is capable of doing anything it wants to do. But it
doesn't want to do this. And you have to insist that they do
this, you and your friends, and your family, and your neighbors,
all of the people you went to school with. We can't do it out of
just an office at the Christic Institute with 15 people in
Washington, D.C. It has to be magnified all across the country.
We now have 35 national organizations that have joined with us --
church and synagogue groups, and labor groups and women's groups
-- all across the country, to get this word out to their
constituents to make Congress stand up and face this issue, cut
off this money and once again, return our country to operating
under democratic legal processes.
QUESTION: It was said that during the Karen Silkwood case, a few
years ago, that your staff uncovered a private training academy
in Florida that was involved in the killing of Karen Silkwood.
Does this have any connection to this case?
SHEEHAN: That particular place was called the National
Intelligence Academy, down in Fort Lauderdale, Fla. It is where,
in fact, the people were trained and equipped who were behind
Karen Silkwood that night on the road. We can tell you now, there
was a man by the name of Harold Barron, a man by the name of
Larry O'Brian, and a man by the name of David McBride. These were
the people who were trained in a group called the Law Enforcement
Intelligence Unit, a private fraternity of law-enforcement
officers who are secretly trained and equipped at the place
called the National Intelligence Academy down in Fort Lauderdale.
This is the same place they trained the DINA (the secret
political police from Chile), the same place where they trained
the Bureau of Special Services from South Africa, the same place
where they trained and equipped the SAVAK, the secret political
police of the Shah of Iran. But this place has been engaged in
this type of training for many years.
I will tell you this: The fact is that the equipment that
was used to kill Chilean Ambassador Orlando Letelier on the
streets of Washington, D.C., came from the National Intelligence
Academy in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., from Audio Intelligence
Devices, which shares their building with them. They made the
"hound dog" bumper beeper that was used to detonate the
explosives in the car. When Jose Posada Carriles, back in 1973,
blew up the Venezuelan airliner that killed 73 Cuban nationals,
the equipment came from the National Intelligence Academy's Audio
Intelligence Devices in Fort Lauderdale.
This place is a veritable ethical cesspool in our nation,
and it has been funded with grants from the Law Enforcement
Assistance Administration, which have been used to purchase
equipment there. I
It's funded by profits from GEICO, the Government Employee
Insurance Company.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: My God! I'm insured by them!
SHEEHAN: That's right. And the man by the name of Leo Goodwin,
Jr., is the man who runs it. He is the heir to the GEICO estate,
which finances that place. There are so many things that are
known that have never had anything done about them. One of the
extraordinary things about this case is that it has them all up
in front of us now. They're now in front of us, these people,
and they can be brought to justice.
QUESTION: What is the real reason the press has been protecting
Ronald Reagan?
SHEEHAN: It's an extremely interesting question, actually, that
has been discussed a lot of late. How could it be possible for
him to have been so much like he is and for them not to be
talking about it and writing about it all the time. Now, I knew
it during the very first Super Bowl, when President Reagan was
President and he came on at half time, I remember, and he was
interviewed by the fellow from NBC. And he said, "Mr. President,
you used to be an announcer, didn't you?" And he said, "Well,
yes. Yes, I was."
"In fact," he continued, "When I had my audition, I had to
sit there and recall a game and see how well I did. So, what I
did," he said, "I went back to a game in which I had actually
played. And I was given all the names of how we made these blocks
and we ran for a touchdown and made it." He said, "Of course, in
real life, we didn't run for a touchdown." The NBC man and
everybody went: Ha, Ha, Ha. Isn't that strange that he would have
told a story like that?
And Reagan followed it up with another story, saying he
recalled one time that how he learned to do this audition was
that he used to broadcast baseball games. He used to get the
ticker tape, and he used to broadcast as though he was right
there. And all they really had was that the ball went from
Number One to Number Three to Number Four (or whatever it was,
however they number the players). T hat's all he knew about the
play. And he used to go, "Well, it's a hot grounder -- there it
goes to the shortstop -- it goes to the second base -- it'll be a
double play -- it goes to first base. You've go a double play!"
And he said, "One time, I was doing this and the ticker tape
stopped. And so, I just went right along and kept on making up
things and never missed a beat." At which point, the NBC man
laughed and said, "Oh, good for you, Mr. President."
And now we're living with it, you see.
One of the major problems is that so much of the media is
involved in what we call "infotainment" that it's not really the
news anymore. It's all the news that's fit to print. And I
discovered it the other day. I was riding along with a New York
Times reporter and a man from the Washington Post and I was
giving them a ride through the snow in Washington, and they were
sort of comparing their sources. And one of them says: "My
sources are better than your sources."
As it turns out, the Washington Post has the very best
inside-the-White-House sources. The New York Times has the very
best inside-the-intelligence-community sources.
And the intelligence community tells the New York Times what
they're doing. And the New York Times, therefore, can't burn
their source and tell what they know or else they'll lose their
access to the story. And the Washington Post can't burn their
sources in the White House. So they can't tell the story. If
that tells you anything, it's something that I couldn't
understand because I kept thinking: I thought you were supposed
to be telling the American people. And that isn't what really
happens most of the time. But there is this interesting in-crowd
community at the highest levels of the media. B ut now they're
beginning to suspect the American people insist upon knowing and
want to know. Therefore, they're caught in the situation of
having to tell them. And the sources! you can smell them burning
all over Washington. They're going to continue to burn until
this story gets out.
QUESTION: I have a question: Dan, could you explain Israel's
participation in the Iran affair?
SHEEHAN: As far as we can tell, at this stage, the Israeli
government was merely doing what they were asked by an ally. The
highest levels of the U.S. government, once they decided that
they were going to undertake this exchange of arms with Iran,
contacted Israel, discussed this with them and initially utilized
a covert method of moving arms to Iran. What they would do is
have the Israeli government move a bunch of the American arms
that had been given to Israel up to Iran with the assurance that
the United States would resupply Israel with an equal number of
those arms. The U.S. government did that to conceal the direct
participation of the United States in the activity.
You'll recall that embarrassing November press conference in
which President Reagan had specifically stated that there were no
other countries involved in this. This story held up for, I
think, 20 minutes. At which point he had to send a little memo
out to all the media people saying: "Excuse me, there was one
country. It was Israel."
And then they tried as a trial balloon that, well, Israel
did it -- and we didn't -- which lasted, I think, even less time
because the Foreign Minister for Israel then decided to resign so
that he could talk about it.
He got up before international cameras, told them what had
been done, and said that the U.S. government had specifically
asked them as an ally to do this. And they had done it. So far
as we can tell, that's all that really was involved, they were
doing something that an ally had asked them to do. And as far as
they knew, there was nothing illegal about it for them to
participate.
QUESTION: There are a couple of the questions that ask for
sources. Could you please cite your sources to substantiate the
Buckley angle as the key explanation of the Reagan-Iran
initiative exchange.
SHEEHAN: The fact of the matter is that we are in the process
right now of obtaining certain tapes and direct documentary proof
of these details. We have talked to people who have listened to
the tapes, have taken notes on the tapes, and have assured us
that we can have them. I have discussed those with them. We, in
fact, have shared this information with the special prosecutor's
office and are awaiting those very specific pieces of
information. Obviously, it would not be appropriate to tell you
who the source was for fear I'd never see that person again.
But, the minute we get those things, and have given them to the
special prosecutor, you can rest assured we'll make them
available to the public.
QUESTION: There was a number of questions that rather tie in
together, Dan, can we expect a military invasion before the dry
season is out in Nicaragua?
SHEEHAN: There is a great deal of concern about this issue. The
moderate forces in Washington, D.C., seem to be sanguine about
this. They don't really believe the administration could have
the audacity to undertake such an invasion. They end their
observations by saying, well, that would be an act of desperate
men. At which point, I asked them if they've got an hour or two
when I can explain to them exactly how desperate these people
must be right now, in light of what we know.
So, we believe that based on direct information that we've
got, there are plenty of special forces, men being trained right
now for a jump into Nicaragua. They've been given Nicaraguan
maps. They've been trained on Nicaraguan terrain. They're
planning, specifically, to invade Nicaragua.
The real question is whether or not they dare to go through
with it. The degree of courage that they have to do this is
dependent soley upon how emphatically the people in the United
States demand that they refrain from it. Because there is no
doubt that they do not feel bound by the majority demands of the
people. So, I would say that there is very detailed information
indicating that they intend to undertake the invasion sometime by
the end of March [1987]. We're talking about a very serious plan
here. And you have to communicate with your Congresspeople and
your senators and demand that they confront the administration,
call them before Congress, and insist that they renounce any
plans to undertake such an invasion.
The fact is that such an invasion would be preceeded by
some major provocative action. So that is where we are focusing
our intelligence data, to ascertain what type of provocation they
would be trying to MANUFACTURE to get everybody cranked up to
authorize an attack of that sort. So do write your
Congresspeople, confront them, and insist that this be prohibited.
DATE: 1986
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
