lbo-talk-digest V1 #2426

John Halle john.halle at yale.edu
Wed Jan 26 06:44:45 PST 2000


Sorry for resuscitating this. Can we agree to strict two posting limit on this exchange, CB?


>
> Right. And its also worth mentioning that both the CIA and the Warren
> commission made a concerted effort to cover up what Oswald's specific
> motives were known to be, namely to retaliate for Kennedy's using the CIA
> to attempt to assassinate Castro. That the CIA under Kennedy was in the
> business of running what Johnson would call "a goddamned murder
> incorporated" would not become known until the Church committee hearings
> in the seventies.
>
> Insofar as there was a conspiracy by the CIA to cover up the assassination
> it was this.
>
> &&&&&&&&&&
>
> CB: Maybe. All of these are hypotheses. The big hole in your
> hypothesis is that you make it sound like Johnson would put a stop to
> the CIA being "a goddamned murder incorporated". If anything , Johnson
> expanded CIA as murder incorporated.

I'm not sure if this is true. You're right that Johnson continued Kennedy's policy of CIA sponsored wholesale murder in SE Asia, most notably Operation Phoenix, however, the retail murder and attempted murder directed against heads of state most notably on Lumumba and Castro (and others, if I remember correctly) were a distinguishing feature of the CIA under Kennedy and was a policy not continued under Johnson. Correct me if you have evidence to the contrary. In any case, it is understandable that the policy might make Johnson nervous insofar as it sets a dangerous precedent for what would constitute legitimate retaliation. Indeed, Oswald's retaliation was precisely of this sort.

Also, your version has it
> sounding like an actual lefty , Oswald, killed Kennedy. Not very
> flattering to the Left, so it sounds more like a rightwing version of
> events.

My opinion is probably similar to that of J. Heartfelt's father. Namely, that it is entirely reasonable that major war criminals such as Kennedy should be subjected to punishment. It reflects well on Oswald (and the left in general, insofar as it would want to take credit) that they did not allow this particular mass murderer to "walk." Of course, one cannot endorse vigilante justice of the sort Oswald was meeting out. Appropriate tribunals should have been undertaken for this purpose. In fact, one was-the Russell war crimes tribunal which did in fact find Johnson and his ilk (including, I think, Kennedy-posthumously) guilty of crimes against humanity.

In the absence of a legitimate proceding such as this and appropriate mechanisms for punishment I would agree with the right that rough justice is better than no justice at all.

Do you disagree?

Was Oswald's murderer, Jack Ruby, a Lefty ? No. Why would
> Johnson and the Warren Commission be so anxious to coverup for a wild
> ,leftwing radical ( your shaky version of Oswald). Your story does not
> hang together with the other facts.
>

Based on your response, I think I must not have made myself clear. The coverup by the CIA was of Oswald's background on the Fair Play for Cuba committee which knew about and sought to publicize Kennedy's assassination attempts on Castro. There were deliberate steps taken to insure that Oswald's stated retaliatory motives would not become public knowledge, least the CIA's assassination program be subjected to public exposure and scrutiny.

Best,

John



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list