Last Word: My Indictment of the CIA in the Murder of JFK

by Mark Lane

  The Times now states that it was aware of the fact that Davis worked for the CIA but had withheld that information from its readers at the request of the United States government. That call was a difficult one to make with the possible life of an American prisoner in a foreign land at stake. However, as the facts now reveal, the local authorities had strongly suspected that Davis was CIA. The American government should not have asked the Times and other media outlets to suppress that aspect of the story.

  Since the United States is not at war with Pakistan and prevented from carrying out operations in that country, the CIA has been granted authority by the United States to operate armed drones that kill presumed militants in Pakistan and carry out other covert operations of an undisclosed sort without the knowledge of the Pakistan authorities.

  The exposure of these public actions and the four deaths of local civilians have placed the government of Pakistan in a difficult and tenuous position. The CIA, through its spokesman, George Little, refused to discuss the matter but issued a statement claiming that their “security personnel” provide security for American officials, but “they do not conduct foreign intelligence collection or covert operations.” Those blatantly misleading words placed the authorities in Pakistan in a more difficult position. Again the CIA was making policy, conducting operations and issuing transparently false information.

  On May 2, 2011, President Obama, declaring “justice has been done,” announced that Osama bin Laden had been killed in Pakistan by military forces of the United States. For many months the president had reviewed intelligence reports by the CIA and others before deciding that the evidence that the person who had been located was in fact bin Laden. He resisted the premature urgings of the CIA to begin the operation until he was quite sure that the gathered intelligence was dispositive.

  The CIA’s efforts to have its own team, already in place in Pakistan, participate in the planned operation were rejected by Obama. Instead he relied upon a highly trained Navy SEALs unit flown in from a base in the United States. The well-planned incursion was successful. Finally, a president had determined and insisted upon the proper role for the CIA as envisioned by President Harry Truman when he formed the organization. The chief executive alone set the policy and was solely responsible for the operation. The CIA, along with other similar organizations, was relegated to the restrictions of their charter to conduct investigations outside of the United States and offer advice to the president.

  Since Obama had not, for reasons of security, shared his plans with the leaders of Pakistan, the relationship between the two countries began to further deteriorate. However, Pakistan’s leaders, who had previously been extremely critical of the actions of the CIA in Pakistan, were reassured that its operational activities had been limited. On June 2, 2011, for the first time in many years, the two countries formed a joint anti-terror squad. Pakistan also allowed CIA agents to collect information by examining the bin Laden compound.

  The Indictment

  The People of the United States

  v.

  the Central Intelligence Agency

  In preparing an indictment, prosecutors examine the criminal statutes to determine if every element of the crime has been established beyond a reasonable doubt. Those who have learned about the law from television programs or mystery novels tend to believe that “motive, means and opportunity” are the sine qua non for a criminal case. In fact none of those considerations has ever been a requirement in a criminal case, although recent “hate crime” legislation has edged a bit closer to motivation by enlarging the concept of intent.

  Allegations of previous crimes are often prohibited to prove the character of the defendant. However, the exceptions to that general rule are well-settled law and permit assertions about “other crimes” in many instances. That rule, 404(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, also permits evidence, testimony and documents, which establish the defendant’s intent, preparation, plan, or knowledge. Many states have adopted the federal rule regarding local prosecutions, and some have admitted evidence if it is similar to the present offense so that it can be said that the acts constitute the “imprint” of the defendant.

  Therefore, it is appropriate to inquire, as a prosecutor would be constrained to do, into the “imprint” of the CIA and its officers and agents. For example, had the CIA ever planned, prepared, or demonstrated intent or even knowledge of the assassination of heads of state? The answer to that question is clear. Had it engaged in planning and carrying out specific and selected assassinations of community leaders who were not heads of state? There too, the answer is obvious.

  The information set forth below is based upon statements made by former officers of the CIA, including Ralph McGehee, who had been an officer with the agency for a quarter of a century and has since written important books and articles critical of that organization, and K. Barton Osborn, a former Operation Phoenix officer in his testimony before a committee of Congress. It also relies upon the testimony and statements of numerous other eyewitnesses and scholars before committees of the United States Senate chaired by Sen. Frank Church and later by Sen. Edward Kennedy and by admissions made by the CIA in seeking to both minimize and explain the reasons for their criminal actions.

  As in any indictment the assertions, while consistent and credible based upon government documents, including some surviving CIA documents, are not proven. The CIA has admitted that it deliberately destroyed numerous documents so that they could not be seen by members of congressional committees charged with the responsibility of oversight. Therefore, their explanations must be considered in that light. If the documents supported their subsequently adopted positions, it is likely that they would have been retained and produced. Those actions may be considered as admissions against interest.

  It is well documented that the CIA was responsible for the planning and attempted implementation of numerous attempts to assassinate Fidel Castro. Testimony and documents supporting that conclusion have been available for many years. In addition I have interviewed witnesses and survivors to those bungled efforts. Not as well known are the efforts by the CIA to murder other heads of state.

  The CIA plotted the assassination of the first legally elected president of the Republic of the Congo, Patrice Lumumba. The Church committee stated that two CIA officials were asked to assassinate President Lumumba and that Allen Dulles, the director of the CIA, had ordered that assassination as “an urgent and prime objective.” Sidney Gottlieb, the director of a then-secret CIA group, designed a poison that he personally smuggled into the Republic of the Congo to murder President Lumumba. Later a Belgian commission stated that there had been both Belgian and United States plans to kill Lumumba. A CIA station chief participated in the capture of Lumumba and his delivery to his enemies in Katanga, where he was murdered. Later a CIA officer admitted that Lumumba’s body was in the trunk of his car and that he was involved in an effort to dispose of the body. Today President Lumumba, who had opposed imported ideologies from the West or from the Soviet Union, is considered a prophet in his nation.

  The CIA, displeased with the democratic election of Salvador Allende as president of Chile, urged Rene Schneider Chereau, commander in chief of the Chilean army, to lead a coup d’etat to prevent Allende’s inauguration. Commander Schneider was a strict constitutionalist who had stated that he intended to continue the Chilean military’s history of noninvolvement in political matters. The CIA devised a plan to kidnap him just after he left an official dinner meeting in an official vehicle on October 19, 1970. Schneider, instead, quietly exited in a private car and the kidnappers armed with tear-gas grenades were unable to carry out their mission. The next day a CIA cable was sent from its headquarters in Langley to the local CIA station in Chile calling for urgent action since “headquarters must respond during morning 20 October to queries from high levels.” Another effort was made after the CIA had authorized additional payments; that too failed.

  On October 22, a third attempt
led to the murder of Schneider. He had attempted to defend himself and was shot several times at point-blank range. He was taken to a military hospital where he died on October 25, 1970. The CIA had provided the “sterile weapons” to carry out the operation and the strategy to blame it upon Allende supporters and thereby cause an immediate military takeover. The military investigated and determined that two groups, each armed and paid by the CIA, were responsible for the murder. The groups had been established by the CIA as a “two-track” effort. Henry Kissinger later claimed that he had little confidence in the groups and that he and President Nixon discussed withholding further support since they believed that the attempted coup might fail. Nevertheless, the murder took place. Some of the relevant documents have been classified while others were apparently destroyed. One can fairly assume that the documents destroyed by the CIA or those still classified would not be useful in the defense of the agency, or they would still exist and be available for examination.

  The death of Schneider was a major factor leading to the overthrow of the Allende government by members in the military in 1973. The CIA had led efforts to destabilize the Chilean government after President Nixon told the agency that an Allende government would not be acceptable. Ten million dollars were made available for the planned coup, and CIA officers sought to convince and bribe Chilean military officers to participate in that effort. Funds from the United States funneled into political parties opposing Allende, were used to foment and support strikes in major industries. Nixon directed the CIA to “put pressure” on the Allende government.

  As the crisis in Chile deepened Allende considered calling for a plebiscite and decided to make that formal request on September 11, 1973. However, the military attacked the presidential palace, La Moneda, that day before the call could be made. Allende’s farewell address was broadcast live by radio and was accompanied by sounds of exploding bombs and gunfire. He refused an offer to safely leave the country and indicated that he intended to remain and fight. His body was discovered later that day, and it was officially ruled that he had committed suicide. In 2008, a competition was organized by National Public Television in Chile to determine the Greatest Chilean in History. Salvador Allende was chosen.

  The CIA was involved in devising schemes and supporting efforts to assassinate President Trujillo, the leader of the Dominican Republic. The agency had established an assassination training area in Venezuela and transported Dominican exiles to that location. The CIA was not repulsed by Trujillo’s dictatorial and oppressive rule—rather it was concerned that Trujillo had no basis of support and that a revolt led by the left might replace him. On May 30, 1961, a group of men assassinated him by automatic weapon. Ultimately Juan Bosch was elected president. However, Bosch stated that he would institute land reform and low-rent housing and consider nationalizing some businesses. The Miami News asserted that Bosch represented “Communist penetration.” The CIA then decided to utilize its contacts and influence in the Dominican military to overthrow the democratically elected president. In September 1963, the military launched a coup to remove the Bosch government. Newsweek stated that “Democracy was being saved from Communism by getting rid of democracy.”

  Unlike some others who found themselves in the crosshairs of the CIA, Mohammad Mossadegh was relatively fortunate. He was the democratically elected prime minister of Iran in 1951. He had received both his BA and Masters in International Law at Sorbonne, the University of Paris, and a Doctorate of Law in Switzerland.

  Prime Minister Mossadegh nationalized the oil industry of his country stating the reasons for his actions on June 21, 1951:

  Our long years of negotiation, with foreign countries … have yielded no results thus far. With oil revenues we could meet our entire budget and combat poverty, disease, and backwardness among our people. Another important consideration is that by the elimination of the power of the British company, we would also eliminate corruption and intrigue, by means of which the internal affairs of our country have been influenced. Once this tutelage has ceased, Iran will have achieved its economic and political independence.

  The Iranian state prefers to take over the production of petroleum itself. The company should do nothing else but return its property to the rightful owners. The nationalization law provides that 25% of the net profits on oil be set aside to meet all legitimate claims of the company for compensation.

  It has been asserted abroad that Iran intends to expel foreign oil experts from the country and then shut down oil installations. Not only is this allegation absurd; it is an utter invention.

  The United Kingdom refused to accept that decision and prevented Iran from selling oil through the establishment of an illegal naval blockade. Mossadegh severed relations with Britain. Secretary of State of the United States John Foster Dulles and his brother, director of the CIA, Allen Dulles, arranged a coup to overthrow the elected leader of Iran. CIA Director Dulles arranged for $1 million to be utilized “in any way that would bring about the fall of Mossadegh.” The CIA then implemented its plan, and Mossadegh was removed from office in a coup and imprisoned in solitary confinement for three years. He was then placed under house arrest until his death many years later. The CIA flew the Shah to Tehran in clearly identified CIA aircraft to demonstrate its victory. Later, the Shah, a brutal and corrupt dictator, was overthrown by Ayatollah Khomeini, and an Islamic government was installed.

  The CIA’s mischief in Iran represents a microcosm of its impact during the last half of the twentieth century. Through the use of internationally banned methods it deposed a democratically elected leader and installed a brutal puppet, who was then rejected by his own people, resulting in the establishment of a religious regime hostile to the interests of the United States, one now likely on the verge of becoming a nuclear power. Mossadegh remains today one of the most popular figures in Iran’s history although he is not celebrated by the present Islamic government because he was secular, supported democratic reforms, and was open to relations with the United States. Today that history still echoes as relations between the United States and Iran, poisoned by the CIA, remain volatile and a threat to world peace.

  Mossadegh was named the TIME magazine Man of the Year in 1951 due to his international popularity and his personally tragic struggle for democracy, thus defeating other finalists for that title, the Americans who had destroyed his government, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Secretary of State Dean Acheson as well as General Douglas MacArthur.

  Eisenhower, who played a major role in the coup by unleashing the CIA for the destruction of the government of an independent and democratic foreign nation, falsely denied that he had done so and publicly took no responsibility for his actions. However, in April 2000, The New York Times published a fact-specific article about the origins of the CIA misconduct. That article was based upon then recently declassified CIA documents.

  In March 2000, the United States secretary of state said that she regretted that Mossadegh had been thrown out of office, after having been democratically elected, and then imprisoned until his death. She said that “the coup was clearly a setback for Iran’s political development and it is easy to see now why so many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America.”

  It had become clear that the CIA, created by President Truman as an intelligence-gathering source, had become an unlawful policy-making and operational unit that functioned as an international murder incorporated. Nowhere was that more pronounced than in Southeast Asia. In Vietnam the CIA planned, organized and carried out more than 25,000 specifically planned assassinations against civilians who allegedly supported the policies of the National Liberation Front and who opposed foreign domination and occupation of their country. An official at the Defense Department stated that 26,369 South Vietnamese civilians had been killed while the Phoenix Program was openly under the control of the CIA. Later the CIA operated the program in a clandestine manner. A former agent for the Phoenix adventure stated that on occasion orders were given to kill A
merican military personnel who were considered security risks.

  Scholars who studied the program stated that between August 1968 and June 1971, the CIA killed 40,000 civilians. Others who read the firsthand reports stated that the program was aimed at civilians, not army personnel, and that those who appeared on the lists utilized by the CIA were tortured, imprisoned without trial, or killed without trial.

  K. Barton Osborn, a former Phoenix operation case officer, testified before a congressional committee, “I never knew an individual to be detained as a suspect who ever lived through an interrogation.” Osborn had witnessed interrogations for one and one half years. Osborn added that the program was a “sterile, depersonalized murder program.”

  I have read the accounts described above but I have not been able to locate an eyewitness to the events. However, I discovered in unrelated research that a prominent doctor in New York State, Paul Hoch, had engaged in similar activities as a consultant for the CIA in connection with its MKULTRA program. The Church Committee published as “Appendix C, Documents Referring to Subprojects,” a two-page CIA memorandum, severely redacted, which is almost certainly related to the Hoch experimentation. It was signed and approved by the “Chief, Chemical Division/TSD,” Sidney Gottlieb. He was the chief of the Technical Services Division, a secret group operating within the CIA.

  William E. Colby, who had participated in drafting the program and directing it, testified that in less then three and one half years, 21,587 Vietnamese civilians had been killed and that he would not say that Phoenix was never involved in the premeditated killing of a civilian in a non-combat situation. He testified. “No, I could not say that.” He added, “I certainly would not say that.”