from
TheRoundTable Website
The CFR and the
Church Committee Investigation
A recent e-mail contained a news release about Steven Emerson. It
said,
" Mr. Emerson is an investigative
journalist and noted authority on radical Islamic extremist
groups and the policies and operations of Middle Eastern
terrorist groups. He is the award- winning producer of "Jihad in
America" and regularly provides expert testimony to Congress.
Mr. Emerson has authored or co-authored four books."
The e-mail contained the following
request:
"According to the following news
release, Steven Emerson will speak at a Capitol Hill briefing on
Monday, August 31. Anyone who is able to attend should call the
contact number listed below to reserve a space. Use the attached
materials on Emerson’s history of Muslim bashing to ask FIRM but
POLITE questions at the conclusion of the event."
The e-mail didn’t mention Steven Emerson is a
Council on Foreign
Relations member.
In 1994 CFR member William Clinton’s Council on Foreign
Relations run administration began using the terrorist threat as
an excuse to keep America in a state of perpetual National
Security.
The Council on Foreign Relations is the same group
that planed and directed a psycho-political operation (psyop)
called Mutually ASSured Destruction (MAD).
Latest warnings
include the scenario of some rogue nation terrorizing the United
States with a thermonuclear device or biological weapons.
On September 21st, Reuter’s reporter Steve Holland, wrote,
"UNITED NATIONS (Reuters)
As his grand jury testimony drowned
out his message Monday, President Clinton soldiered on with a
U.N. speech urging a united international effort against
terrorism, which he called a "threat to all humankind."
Looking
haggard and tired, Clinton received sustained applause from
standing world leaders and other delegates to the packed U.N.
General Assembly as he walked out."
Steve Holland and President Clinton are
deceiving their audiences.
Clinton’s grand jury testimony was the
testimony of an accomplished liar. A liar who lied to his wife about
his adultery, and then lied to the nation about the lie to his wife.
A liar who is not worried or ashamed to lie to anyone about
anything. Clinton’s lie about adultery and his sex scandals are one
lie in a history filled with lies.
Clinton’s UN terrorism message got out loud and clear. Clinton, a
Council on Foreign Relations member, is bearing false witness to his
audience. Clinton’s terrorism speech is another lie that enhances
the terrorism.
The speech conceals the group sponsoring the
terrorism - the Council on Foreign Relations. By concealing the
sponsor the terrorism becomes impossible to stop. By making it
impossible to stop the terrorism the terrorists targets are made to
feel helpless increasing their fear.
Steven Emerson is part of the Council on Foreign Relations secret
team. Steven Emerson is playing a role in the CFR’s terrorist psyop.
The Council on Foreign Relations works by targeting different groups
and creating tension and hate between them. The Council on Foreign
Relations works be creating an Enemy the American people will hate,
loath, fear, and be willing to fight.
Emerson’s job is to create hate between Muslims and Christians.
Emerson’s job is to keep the Council on Foreign Relations
sponsorship of this hate a secret. The terrorist psycho-political
operation is particularly nasty because target groups are being
worked up to murder innocent civilians. The CFR is setting in motion
a situation that will bring an enemy to American soil to kill
innocent men, women, and children.
If something isn’t done to stop
the Council on Foreign Relations it is only a matter of time, until
you or someone you love is injured or killed by an act of terrorism
resulting from the CFR covert psycho-political operation.
In 1978 CFR member Emerson served on the staff of Frank Church’s
Senate subcommittee investigating Aramco and Saudi oil production.
Subpoena power persuaded SoCal and Exxon, to produce some
information. The investigation failed to uncover the links between Aramco, Saudi oil production and the Council on Foreign Relations.
This was not the first Church run Senate committee investigation,
staffed by Council on Foreign Relations members that failed to link
the Council on Foreign Relations to wrong-doings. This was not the
first Senate Committee that was mislead and lied to by Council on
Foreign Relations members.
In 1975 during its first session the 94th Congress passed
Senate
Resolution 21. The resolution created a Senate Committee, chaired by
Senator Frank Church, tasked with investigating intelligence
activities of the CIA, FBI, and NSA. The Senate Committee’s charter
was to find out who was responsible for numerous civil liberty
violations.
The committee successfully established that the civil liberties of
American citizens were violated.
The committee discovered that a
group called the "40 committee played a key role in coordinating the
wrong-doings abroad." What the committee did not discover was that
the "40 committee" evolved from the Council on Foreign Relations
designed Psychological Strategy Board; was staffed and run by
Council on Foreign Relations members; and coordinated
psycho-political covert operations focused at American citizens
violating their civil rights.
The civil liberty violations that existed in 1975 exist today. The
following information provides evidence that Council on Foreign
Relations members on the committee and who testified before the
committee worked together to obstruct justice and keep CFR
sponsorship of the psycho-political operations a secret. The sources
of the information are contained in the footnotes.
The sources are
in the public domain and can be found by visiting your Federal
Depository and Public Libraries.
The Church Committee’s real name is the US Senate Select Committee
To Study Governmental Operations With Respect to Intelligence
Activities.
On Tuesday, September 23, 1975 Senator
Frank Church of
Idaho called the committee to order.
Senator Church said,
"The end of our involvement in
Vietnam brought to a close a tragic and turbulent chapter in
American history. In Southeast Asia, well over 50,000 American
soldiers lost their lives.
Here at home, massive antiwar demonstrations filled the streets.
At Kent State and Jackson State, college students were shot down
as they protested the policies of their Government.
Just as the country was obsessed by Vietnam, so too the White
House became transfixed by the wave of domestic protest that
swept the country. On June 5, 1970, President Nixon called in J.
Edgar Hoover of the FBI, Richard Helms of the CIA, and others
from military intelligence agencies. He charged them with
getting better information on domestic dissenters, and directed
them to determine whether they were subject to foreign
influence.
After a series of meetings throughout June 1970, a special
report was prepared for the President. It set forth several
options which ranged from the innocuous to the extreme, from
doing nothing to violating the civil liberties of American
citizens. In a memorandum, White House aide Tom Charles Huston
recommended the extreme options to the President. These
recommendations have become known as the Huston plan. The
President approved the plan, and it was sent to the FBI, CIA,
and the military intelligence agencies for implementation.
Some provisions of the plan were clearly unconstitutional;
others violated Federal statutes. As the distinguished American
journalist Theodore White has observed, the Huston plan would
have permitted Federal authorities to reach "all the way to
every mailbox, every college campus, every telephone, every
home."
Five days after the President approved the plan, he revoked it
at the insistence of the FBI Director and Attorney General - to
the dismay of those CIA, NSA, and FBI representatives who helped
Huston develop it.
All this is a part of the public record, thanks to Senator Sam
Ervin’s hearings on Watergate. Yet, the matter does not rest
here. Our investigations have revealed that the Huston plan
itself was only an episode in the lawlessness which preceded and
followed its brief existence.
First we have discovered that unlawful mail openings were being
conducted long before the President was asked to authorize them
in June 1970. The President and Mr. Huston, it appears, were
deceived by the intelligence officials.
Second, even though the President revoked his approval of the
Huston plan, the intelligence agencies paid no heed to the
revocation. Instead, they continued the very practices for which
they had sought presidential authority, expanding some of them
and reinstating others which had been abolished years before. As
in the case of the shellfish toxin, the decision of the
President seemed to matter little.
Finally, the Huston plan, as we know know, must be viewed as but
one episode in a continuous effort by the intelligence agencies
to secure the sanction of higher authority for expanded
surveillance at home and abroad.
As these hearings will reveal, the leaders of the CIA and
individuals within the FBI continued to seek official blessing
for the very wrongs envisaged in the Huston plan.
We open this public inquiry to reveal these dangers, and to
begin the task of countering the erosion of our freedoms as
American citizens." 1
While the hearings successfully pointed
out many wrong-doings, they didn’t identify the true sponsor of the
wrong-doings - the Council on Foreign Relations.
It was The Council
on Foreign Relations not the US Government who was responsible for
the 50,000 American soldiers lost in Vietnam, and the policies
protested against by the students at Kent State and Jackson State.
It was the Council on Foreign Relations who sponsored the reports,
plans, and legislation that encouraged government agencies to
violate the civil liberties of American citizens. Since CFR
sponsorship was not disclosed the Council on Foreign Relations
continues the erosion of our freedoms as America citizens to this
day.
The Senate Select Committee members were:
-
Frank Church, Idaho, Chairman
-
John G. Tower,Texas, Vice
Chairman
-
Philip A. Hart, Michigan
-
Council on Foreign Relations
member Walter Mondale, Minnesota
-
Walter D. Huddleston, Kentucky
-
Robert Morgan, North Carolina
-
Gary Hart, Colorado
-
Council on Foreign Relations
member Howard H. Baker, Jr., Tennessee
-
Barry Goldwater, Arizona
-
Council on Foreign Relations
member Charles McC. Mathais, Jr. Maryland
-
Richard Schweiker, Pennsylvania
-
Council on Foreign Relations
member William G. Miller, Staff Director
-
Council on Foreign Relations
member Frederick A. O. Schwarz, Jr. Chief Counsel
-
Curtis R. Smothers, Counsel to
the Minority
-
Audrey Hatry, Clerk of the
Committee
Church Committee Staff members included:
-
Council on Foreign Relations member
Karl Inderfurth, Council on Foreign Relations member Zbigniew
Brzezinski special assistant
-
Council on Foreign Relations member
David L. Aaron, deputy to Council on Foreign Relations member
Zbigniew Brzezinski, and CFR member Walter Mondale’s personal
designee to the Church committee.
-
Council on Foreign Relations member
Gregory Treverton, a staff specialist on Western Europe.
-
Council on Foreign Relations member
Richard K. Betts, NSC consultant.
-
Council on Foreign Relations member
Lynn Etheridge Davis, who authored the initial draft of the
Church Committee’s report dealing with the National Security
Council.2
-
Council on Foreign Relations member
William B. Bader, professional staff member.
All of the Church Committee Council on
Foreign Relations Staff members would be chosen to work in Council
on Foreign Relations member Jimmy Carter’s presidential
administration. At least two, Karl Inderfurth and Lynn Etheridge
Davis work in Council on Foreign Relations member Bill Clinton’s
administration.
Senate Resolution 21 resulted in seven hearings before the Church
Committee. The subjects of the Hearings included:
-
Hearing 1
September 16,17, and 18 1975 -
Unauthorized Storage of Toxic Agents. The CIA’s Involvement in
the development of bacteriological warfare materials.3
-
Hearing 2
September 23, 24 and 25 1975 - The
Huston Plan. A plan to permit Federal Authorities, including the
FBI, CIA, NSA, and military intelligence agencies to use
unconstitutional methods of gathering information about people
labeled as domestic dissenters.4
-
Hearing 3
October 2, 1975 - The Internal
Revenue Service. The FBI’s use of IRS tax information to disrupt
political activists and to harass citizens for political
reasons.5
-
Hearing 4
October 21, 22, and 24, 1975 - Mail
Opening. Why the Federal Government had been opening the mail of
American citizens for over two decades.6
-
Hearing 5
October 29 and November 6, 1975 -
The National Security Agency and Fourth Amendment Rights. The
fourth amendment is,
-
"The right of the people to be
secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,
against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
tolerated, and no Warrants shall be issued, but upon
probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and
particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
persons or things to be seized."
The committee investigated the NSA’s
capacity to monitor the private communications of American
citizens by using technology for intercepting international
communications signals sent through the air to monitor domestic
communications. Like the CIA, and IRS the NSA had a "watch list"
containing the names of US citizens.
The dominate concern of the
committee was the intrusion by the Federal Government into the
inalienable rights guaranteed Americans by the Constitution.
The
hearing revealed the NSA did not escape the temptation to have
its operations expanded into provinces protected by the law.7
-
Hearing 6
November 18, 19, December 2,3,9, 10,
and 11, 1975 - The Federal Bureau of Investigation. The
investigation of the domestic intelligence activities of the
FBI, concentrating on domestic surveillance programs, and an
inquiry into FBI intelligence activities relating to foreign
espionage and national defense.8
-
Hearing 7
December 4, and 5 1975- Covert
Action. The committee investigated the involvement of the United
States in covert activities in Chile from 1963 through 1973.
For more on The Church Committee
Report go
HERE.
The Council on
Foreign Relations Forty-Committee
In his opening remarks at the Church Committee’s 7th hearing, on
December 4, Senator Frank Church said,
"The nature and extent of the
American role in the overthrow of a democratically-elected
Chilean Government are matters for deep and continuing public
concern. While much of this sad story had been revealed already,
the public record remains a jumble of allegations, distortions,
and half-truths. This record must be set straight.
[CFR member] President Ford has defended covert US activities in
Chile during 1970-73 as "in the best interest of the Chilean
people and certainly in our best interest." Why is that so? What
was there about the situation in Chile and the threat it posed
to our national security which made covert intervention into
political affairs of another democratic country either good for
Chile or necessary for the United States? These questions must
be answered. The committee’s purpose is less to pass judgment on
what has been done than to understand, so that it may frame
appropriate legislation and recommendations to govern what will
be done in the future.
Given the President’s statement, it is particularly unfortunate
in my opinion that the administration has refused to testify and
has planned to boycott the committee’s hearings. The American
people deserve to know the reason why the United States first
undertook extensive, if not massive, covert operations within a
democratic state in this hemisphere. They deserve to know why
their Government sought, in 1970, to overthrow a popularly
elected government.
The administrations [there were over
100 CFR members in Nixon’s administration] prohibition on
testifying in a public forum on this subject has extended to the
point of preventing CIA employees, both past and present, from
coming before this committee. I find this particularly ironic
since I spent the whole morning at the Pacxem in Terris [Peace
on Earth] conference at the Sheraton Park Hotel here in
Washington, publicly debating with [CFR member] Mr. Colby the
covert operations that occurred in Chile during the period under
investigation.
And so it is not denied to him to discuss such
matters publicly and before the assembled press at the Sheraton
Park Hotel. It is denied him that he should come and testify
here at the Capitol before this committee.
I believe the position of the [Council on Foreign Relations run]
administration is completely unjustified. [CFR member] Secretary Kissinger has argued that it would be inappropriate to
appear before Congress and the American people to discuss covert
action operations in which he was involved, yet only last week
he gave a speech defending covert action. If the Secretary can
give speeches on covert action, I believe he should be prepared
to answer questions before Congress and the people of the
country..." 9
The Church Committee would never learn,
"the reason why the United States first undertook extensive, if not
massive, covert operations within a democratic state in this
hemisphere, [or] why their Government sought, in 1970, to overthrow
a popularly elected government."
The reason was that a small group
of selfish greedy men who belonged to the Council on Foreign
Relations, had taken control of the United States government, and
used massive covert operations to create tension and hate between
different groups of people throughout the world.
By creating tension
and hate the Council on Foreign Relations kept the world in a state
of perpetual warfare. While countless millions of people suffered
from this condition Council on Foreign Relations medicine,
munitions, media, food and energy industries at home and abroad
reaped obscene profits. Today CFR members control more than 3/4ths
of our nations wealth.
President Ford, CIA director William Colby and Secretary of State
Henry Kissinger were all Council on Foreign Relations members. Over
100 CFR members served in the administration that refused to testify
(see list at end of article).
At the hearing Council on Foreign
Relations member Karl F. Inderfurth, Professional Staff Member of
the Senate Select Committee stated,
"The United States was involved
in the 1964 election on a massive scale. The Special Group, which
was the predecessor of today’s 40 Committee, authorized over $3
million between 1962 and 1964 to prevent the election of a Socialist
or Communist candidate. In all, a total of nearly $4 million was
spent by the CIA on some 15 covert action projects. These projects
ranged from organizing slum dwellers to passing funds to political
parties."10
CFR member Karl F. Inderfurth is misinforming and deceiving the
Church committee by understating the power of the "Special-Group,"
failing to trace the history of the "Special Group," back through
the Operations Coordinating Board, to the Psychological Strategy
board;11 and failing to inform the committee that all these groups
were designed and staffed by members of the Council on Foreign
Relations.
It was Council on Foreign Relations members that planned
and coordinated the Chile psycho-political operation.
CFR member Inderfurth served in several government positions. From
1975 - 1976 he was a Professional Staff Member of the Senate
Intelligence Committee.
From 1977 to 1979 he served on the staff of
the National Security Council at the White House, as Special
Assistant to CFR member Zbigniew Brzezinski, CFR member President
Carter’s National Security Adviser. And from 1979 to 1981, Mr.
Inderfurth was the Deputy Staff Director for the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee.
Following the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee, Inderfurth joined ABC News, first as a National Security
Correspondent with a special focus on arms control.
Inderfurth was Moscow Correspondent for
ABC News from February, 1989 to August 1991. In this capacity he
reported on the historic transformation of the Soviet Union. During
his two and a half year assignment, Mr. Inderfurth traveled to 12 of
the then 15 Soviet republics and broadcast more than 400 reports for
ABC News.12 Was Inderfurth an intelligence operative doubling as a
news correspondent?
Between 1963 and 1974 thirteen million dollars were spent on covert
operations in Chile. Congress received some kind of briefing
(sometimes before, sometimes after the fact) on projects totaling
about 7.1 million dollars.13
The Church Committee Staff report on
covert action in Chile contains a section on the 40 committee. The
section leaves out key facts that connect the Council on Foreign
Relations to the 40 committee. The number of Council on Foreign
Relations members on the Church Committee and Church Committee staff
provide compelling evidence that this information is missing by
design.
Conspicuously absent from the section is
the mention of the Psychological Strategy Board; the Operations
Coordinating board; the CFR’s role in establishing these groups; and
CFR 40 committee membership.
The section follows:
"1. 40 Committee Functions and
Procedures
Throughout its history, the 40 Committee and its direct
predecessors the 303 Committee and the Special Group - have had
one overriding purpose to exercise Political control over covert
operations abroad. The 40 Committee is charged with considering
the objectives of any proposed activity, whether or not it would
accomplish these aims, and in general whether or not it would be
"proper" and in the American interest. Minutes and summaries of
40 Committee meetings on Chile indicate that, by and large,
these considerations were discussed and occasionally debated by
40 Committee members.
In addition to exercising political control, the 40 Committee
has been responsible for framing covert operations in such a way
that they could later be "disavowed" or "plausibly denied" by
the United States government - or at least by the President. In
the case of Chile, of course, this proved to be an Impossible
task. Not only was CIA involvement in Chile "blown," but in
September 1974, [CFR member] President Ford publicly
acknowledged at a press conference U.S. covert involvement in
Chile.
Before covert action proposals are presented to the Director for
submission to the 40 Committee an internal CIA instruction
states that they should be coordinated with the Department of
State and that, ordinarily, concurrence by the ambassador to the
country concerned is required. "Should," and "ordinarily" were
underscored for an important reason--major covert action
proposals are not always coordinated among the various agencies.
Nor, for that matter, are they always discussed and/or approved
by the 40 Committee. The Chile case, demonstrates that in at
least one instance, the so-called Track II activity, the
President instructed the CIA not to inform nor coordinate this
activity with the Departments of State or Defense or the
ambassador in the field. Nor was the 40 Committee ever informed.
Not all covert activities are approved by the 40 Committee.
Projects not deemed politically risky or involving large sums of
money can be approved within the CIA. By CIA statistics, only
about one-fourth of all covert action projects are considered by
the 40 Committee. The Committee has not been able to determine
what percentage of covert action projects conducted by the CIA
in Chile were approved within the CIA or required 40 Committee
authorization.
Despite this fact, the Committee has
found evidence of projects not considered by the 40 Committee, thus
conforming to this general authorization rule.
This is not to imply
that the CIA undertook activities in Chile behind the back of the 40
Committee or without its approval. The Agency was simply following
the authorization procedures for covert projects that then existed.
These same procedures exist today.
There have been numerous criticisms of the 40 Committee procedures,
some of which follow:
The criteria by which covert
operation are brought before the 40 Committee appear to be
fuzzy. The real degree of accountability for covert actions
remains to be determined.
There is a basic conflict between sufficient consultation to
insure accountability and sound decision on the one hand, and
secure operations on the other. The risk of inadequate
consultation may be aggravated by the more informal procedure of
telephone clearances which has been used by the 40 Committee for
the last few years.
The review of covert actions by the 40 Committee does not appear
to be searching or thorough. There still appear to be serious
risk that operations will end only when they come to grief."14
The Joint Chiefs of Staff DoD Publication 1 (1987) Glossary of
Department of Defense Military Associated Terms defines:
"COVERT
OPERATIONS: (DoD, Interpol, Inter-American Defense Board)
Operations which are so planned and executed as to conceal the
identity of or permit plausible denial by the sponsor. They
differ from clandestine operations in that emphasis is placed on
concealment of identity of sponsor rather than on concealment of
the operation."
The Senate Committee Report section on
the 40 Committee is misleading.
The statement holds the CIA
accountable for sponsorship of the covert operations. The Council on
Foreign Relations, not the CIA was the party responsible for
planning and coordinating the covert operations under investigation.
The Director of the CIA, usually a Council on Foreign Relations
member, was also a member of the 40 Committee.
Other 40 Committee
members included the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense,
who were also Council on Foreign Relations members. Many Department
of State Ambassadors are also CFR members.
The members of the 40
committee are much closer than the Senate committee report
indicates. These men planed covert operations that would benefit the
members of the Council on Foreign Relations and members of CFR
branch organizations in other nations.
The 40 Committee was not only responsible for covert actions abroad
but for covert actions focused at the American people. The CFR
sponsored covert actions included fixing American presidential
elections. The elections were rigged in such a way as to insure an
administration, whether Democrat or Republican, packed with 100 or
more Council on Foreign Relations members in key administrative
positions.
In at least five instances the President was a Council on
Foreign Relations member (Eisenhower, Ford, Carter, Bush, Clinton).
Lists of Council on Foreign Relations members in the Nixon and
Clinton administrations are at the end of this article. Similar
lists can be made for every presidential administration from Woodrow
Wilson on.
The CFR members on the Church committee’s failure to link the
Council on Foreign Relations to the matters under investigation were
playing a part in a covert operation. CFR member testimony before
the committee and CFR members on the committee’s reaction to the
testimony concealed Council on Foreign Relations sponsorship to the
wrong-doings being investigated by design.
The accountability for the covert actions lies with the
Council on
Foreign Relations and their counterparts in other nations such as
Britain’s Royal Institute of International Affairs. Besides
membership in the Council on Foreign Relations President Ford was a
member of the Council on Foreign Relations international
organization
the Bilderbergers.
The foreign nationals in the Bilderberger group have more influence on America then the American
people’s Congressional representatives. President Clinton, and
Britain’s Prime Minister Tony Blair are also Bilderberger
members 15
CFR
Coordination of Psycho-political Operations
The Psychological Strategy
Board aka The Operations -
Coordinating Board aka The Special Group aka The Forty Committee
The Council on Foreign Relations propaganda machine manipulates
American Citizens to accept the particular climate of opinion the
Council on Foreign Relations seeks to achieve in the world.
Council
on Foreign Relations members working in an ad hoc committee called
the "Special Group" and through a vast intragovernmental undercover
infrastructure called the "Secret Team" formulate this opinion in
the US. The Council on Foreign Relations, has methodically taken
over the Department of State,
The Federal Reserve, and the CIA.
The dominant Council on Foreign Relations members belong to an inner
circle that plan and co-ordinate the psycho-political operations
used to manipulate the American public. These are the Council on
Foreign Relations members in the "Special Group."
The rest of the Council on Foreign Relations members, past and
present, inside and outside of the government, are part of a "Secret
Team" that play key parts in carrying out the psycho-political
operations. The "Secret Team" is set up as circles within circles.
Not every Council member knows exactly what psycho-political
operations are being planed or what their exact role in the
operation is. This allows them to deny responsibility and deny
Council sponsorship of the operation.
Secret Team circles include Council on Foreign Relations
members in
top positions in:
-
the legislative, executive, and judicial branches
of government
-
who control television, radio, and newspaper
corporations
-
who head the largest law firms
-
who run the largest
and most prestigious universities
-
who direct the largest private
foundations
-
who direct the largest public corporations
-
who direct
and staff the major think tanks and University Institutes
-
who
hold top commands in the military
Up to 1961 every Secretary of State except Cordell Hull, and James
Byrnes, were members of the Council on Foreign Relations.
The
undersecretaries, almost to a man, were also Council on Foreign
Relations members. Secretaries of state have frequently been
foundation officers. CFR member Dean Rusk went from the State
Department after the war, to the presidency of the Rockefeller
Foundation from 1952-60, and then back to State for eight years as
secretary. 16
CFR member John Foster Dulles was a trustee at
Rockefeller while chairman at Carnegie.17 Other secretaries of state
from the foundations included Edward R. Stettinius, Jr., Henry L.
Stimson, Frank B. Kellogg, and Charles Evans Hughes.
18
In the 1950’s Psychological operations, were coordinated by a
Governmental agency called the Psychological Strategy Board. The
architect of the Psychological Strategy Board was Gordon Gray. Gray
had a consultant named Henry Kissinger. Kissinger was the paid
political consultant to the Rockefeller family. Gordon Gray, Henry
Kissinger, and many members of the Rockefeller family belonged the
Council on Foreign Relations.
On Thursday 26 July 1951, President
Truman would tell the press that the Psychological Strategy board
was a part of the Central Intelligence Agency.
19
As head of the Office of Policy Coordination Council on Foreign
Relations member, OSS veteran Frank Wisner ran most of the early
peacetime covert operations. the The Office of Policy Coordination
was funded by the CIA and integrated into the CIA’s Directorate of
Plans in 1952, under Council on Foreign Relations member Allen
Dulles.
Both Wisner and Dulles were enthusiastic about covert
operations. By mid-1953 the department was operating with 7,200
personnel and 74 percent of the CIA’s total budget.20
In the book 1984 Big Brother controlled the people by invading their
privacy and using psychological manipulation to control and change
reality through conscious deception, deliberate lying, and an
official ideology that abounded in contradictions. The Council on
Foreign Relations and its British counterpart the Royal Institute of
International Affairs employ the same techniques to control people - including their fellow countrymen.
Hadley Cantril and Lloyd Free were Princeton University Social
Psychologists; researchers; and members of the intelligence
community. Council on Foreign Relations Member Nelson Rockefeller
funded them to develop psycho-political policy strategies and
techniques.
Council on Foreign Relations Member Edward R. Murrow,
would, with Rockefeller Foundation Funding conduct a research
project to perform a systematic analysis of Nazi radio propaganda
techniques and the political use of radio. This study would result
in a world wide monitoring and broadcasting Government agency called
the Foreign Broadcast Intelligence Service (FBIS).
The FBIS would become the United States Information Agency (USIA).
The USIA was established to achieve US foreign policy by influencing
public attitude at home and abroad using psycho-political policy
strategies.
The USIA Office of Research and reference service
prepares data on psychological factors and propaganda problems
considered by the Policy Planning Board in formulating
psycho-political information policies for the National Security
Council.
The Psychological Strategy Board became the renamed super-powered
Operations Coordinating Board (OCB). The OCB had a vague ambiguous
name that didn’t provoke curiosity. It had more members than the
Psychological Strategy board. It had the same mission, to use
psychological strategy, propaganda, and mass media, to manipulate
huge groups of individuals. It had a psychological warfare machine - the United States Information Agency at its disposal. The USIA
would be responsible for foreign policy propaganda for the NSC.
The National Security Council is responsible for recommending
national security policy. The President for having the policy
approved. The Operations Coordinating Board for coordinating
interdepartmental aspects of operational policy plans to insure
their timely and coordinated execution.
The National Security Council’s recommended national security policy
is the de facto foreign policy of the United States. The Department
of State’s Policy Planning Board scripted the policy for the NSC.
The USIA Office of Research and Reference service prepared data on
psychological factors and propaganda problems.
The Policy Planning
Board used the data in formulating psycho-political information
policies for the NSC.
In 1955 the Director of the USIA became a
voting member of the Operations Coordinating board; USIA
representatives were invited to attend meetings of the NSC Planning
Board; and the USIA Director was invited to Cabinet meetings.21
From 1950-1953 CFR member Paul Nitze directed the Department of
State Policy Planning Board. Nitze and crew scripted
psycho-political operations for the National Security Council.
22
The Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS),
Johns Hopkins University, is the nation’s second oldest graduate
school of international relations.
It was founded by Council on
Foreign Relations members Paul Nitze and Christian Herter in 1943.23
SAIS Resident Faculty includes 36 professors. At least 20 are CFR
members, two are CFR fellows.
SAIS Chairman and Dean CFR member Paul Wolfowitz, also directed the
Department of State Policy Planning Board. Wolfowitz was
undersecretary of defense during CFR member George Bush’s
administration and served as assistant secretary of state for East
Asian and Pacific affairs. He authored PRESERVING PEACE IN THE
NUCLEAR AGE (1983) and numerous articles on political science,
economics and defense issues.
Are the books, documentaries, and
articles produced by SAIS faculty and alumni Department of State
propaganda meant to trick, manipulate, and brainwash Americans into
accepting Council on Foreign Relations doctrine?
On 19 February 1961, President John F. Kennedy issued a Statement
abolishing the Operations Coordinating Board:
"I am today issuing an Executive
Order abolishing the Operations Coordinating Board. This Board
was used in the last Administration for work which we now plan
to do in other ways. This action is part of our program for
strengthening the responsibility of the individual departments.
First, we will center responsibility for much of the Board’s
work in the Secretary of State. He expects to rely particularly
on the Assistant Secretaries in charge of regional bureaus, and
they in turn will consult closely with other departments and
agencies. This will be our ordinary rule of continuing
coordination of our work in relation to a country or area."
Second, insofar as the Operations
Coordinating Board - as a descendent of the old Psychological
Strategy Board - was concerned with the impact of our actions on
foreign opinion - our "image" abroad - we expect its work to be done
in a number of ways; in my own office, in the State Department,
under Mr. Murrow of USIA, and by all who are concerned with the
spirit and meaning of our actions in foreign policy. We believe that
appropriate coordination can be assured here without extensive
formal machinery.
Third, insofar as the Operations Coordinating Board served as an
instrument for ensuring action at the President’s direction, we plan
to continue its work by maintaining direct communication with the
responsible agencies, so that everyone will know what I have
decided, while I in turn keep fully informed of the actions taken to
carry out decisions.
We of course expect that the policy of the
White House will be the policy of the Executive Branch as a whole,
and we shall take such steps as are needed to ensure this result.
I expect the senior officials who served as formal members of the
Operations Coordinating Board will still keep in close and informal
touch with each other on problems of common interest.
Mr. Bromley
Smith, who has been the Executive Officer of the Operations
Coordinating Board, will continue to work with my Special Assistant, Mr. McGeorge Bundy [Bundy was a member of the Council on
Foreign Relations ], in following up on White House decisions in
the area of national security.
In these varied ways we intend
that the net result shall be a strengthening of the process by
which our policies are effectively coordinated and carried out,
throughout the Executive Branch."24
Kennedy’s executive order didn’t dissolve the Operations
Coordinating Board, it made it invisible. The OCB became an ad hoc
committee called the "Special Group."
In The CIA File, author
David
Wise writes,
"In The Invisible Government, published in 1964,
Thomas
B. Ross and I disclosed for the first time the existence of the
"Special Group," the interagency government committee customarily
cited by intelligence officials as the principal mechanism for
control of covert operations.
The special Group was also known during
the Eisenhower years as the 54/12 Group and has been periodically
renamed as the 303 committee - after a room number in the Executive
Office Buildings - and during the Nixon administration, it acquired
the name "Forty Committee. "...
It was this committee to which [CFR
member] Allen Dulles was referring when he wrote in a now famous
statement, ’The facts are that the CIA has never carried out any
action of a political nature, given any support of any nature to any
persons, potentates or movements, political or otherwise, without
appropriate approval at high political level in our government
outside the CIA. ’" 25
Wise fails to connect the "Special Group" to
the Operations Coordinating Board, or the Psychological Strategy
Board, or the Council on Foreign Relations.
In 1975, Philip Agee, in the CIA DIARY, links the "Special Group" to
the Operations Coordinating Board.
A box on an organization chart
writes,
"Operations Co-ordination Board (OCB) (later renamed the
54-12 Group, The Special Group, the 303 group and the 40 Committee)
Director of Central Intelligence, Under Secretary of State, Deputy
Secretary of Defense are ad hoc members. "
26
Agee fails to connect
the Operations Coordinating board to the Psychological Strategy
Board, or the Council on Foreign Relations.
Air Force Intelligence Officer L. Fletcher Prouty writes,
"During the Eisenhower years the NSC,
which at times was a large and unwieldy body, was reduced for
special functions and responsibilities to smaller staffs. For
purposes of administering the CIA among others, the NSC Planning
Board was established. The men who actually sat as working
members of this smaller group were not the Secretaries
themselves.
These men are heads of vast organizations and have
many demands upon their time. This means that even if they could
attend most meetings, the essential criteria for leadership and
continuity of the decision making-process simply could not be
guaranteed.
Thus the sub-committee or special
group idea was born, and these groups were made up of men
especially designated for the task. In the case of the Special
Group, called by many codes during the years, such as "Special
Group 5412/2," it consists of a designated representative of the
President, of the Secretary of State, of the Secretary of
Defense, and the Director of The Central Intelligence Agency in
person. This dilution of the level of responsibility made it
possible for the CIA to assume more and more power as the years
went by, as new administrations established their own operating
procedures, and the control intended by the law became
changed."27
Prouty is understating what "this
dilution did" - it made it impossible to dissolve the Special
Group. Prouty fails to connect the "Special Group" to the
Psychological Strategy board, the Operations Coordinating Board or
the Council on Foreign Relations.
In an article titled Journalism and the CIA: The Mighty Wurlitzer,
published on the Public Information Research (PIR -
http://www.pir.org/) website NameBase NewsLine, No. 17, April-June 1997 we learn:
"The final months of 1977 produced three significant pieces of
journalism on the CIA and the media, just before the issue was
abandoned altogether. The first, by Joe Trento and Dave Roman,
reported the connections between Copley Press and the CIA. Owner
James S. Copley cooperated with the CIA for three decades.
A
subsidiary, Copley News Service, was used as a CIA front in Latin
America, while reporters at the Copley-owned San Diego Union and
Evening News were instructed to spy on antiwar protesters for the
FBI. No less than 23 news service employees were simultaneously
working for the CIA. James Copley, who died in 1973, was also a
leading figure behind the CIA-funded Inter-American Press
Association.28
The next article was by Carl Bernstein of Watergate fame. In a long
piece in Rolling Stone, he came up with the figure of 400 American
journalists over the past 25 years, based primarily on interviews
with Church committee staffers.
This figure included stringers and
freelancers who had an understanding that they were expected to help
the CIA, as well as a small number of full-time CIA employees using
journalism as a cover.
It did not include foreigners, nor did it
include numerous Americans who traded favors with the CIA in the
normal give-and-take between a journalist and his sources. In
addition to some of the names already mentioned above, Bernstein
supplied details on Stewart and Joseph Alsop, Henry Luce, Barry
Bingham Sr. of the Louisville Courier-Journal, Hal Hendrix of the
Miami News, columnist C.L. Sulzberger, Richard Salant of CBS, and
Philip Graham and John Hayes of the Washington Post.
Bernstein concentrated more on the owners, executives, and editors
of news organizations than on individual reporters.
"Let's not pick
on some poor reporters, for God’s sake," William Colby said at one
point to the Church committee’s investigators. "Let’s go to the
management. They were witting."
Bernstein noted that Colby had
specific definitions for words such as "contract employee," "agent,"
"asset," "accredited correspondent," "editorial employee,"
"freelance," "stringer," and even "reporter," and through careful
use of these words, the CIA,
"managed to obscure the most
elemental fact about the relationships detailed in its files:
i.e., that there was recognition by all parties involved that
the cooperating journalists were working for the CIA - whether
or not they were paid or had signed employment contracts."29
The reaction to Bernstein’s piece among
mainstream media was to ignore it, or to suggest that it was sloppy
and exaggerated.
Then two months later, the New York Times published
the results of their "three-month inquiry by a team of Times
reporters and researchers." This three-part series not only
confirmed Bernstein, but added a wealth of far-ranging details and
contained twice as many names. Now almost everyone pretended not to
notice.
The Times reported that over the last twenty years, the CIA owned or
subsidized more than fifty newspapers, news services, radio
stations, periodicals and other communications facilities, most of
them overseas. These were used for propaganda efforts, or even as
cover for operations. Another dozen foreign news organizations were
infiltrated by paid CIA agents.
At least 22 American news
organizations had employed American journalists who were also
working for the CIA, and nearly a dozen American publishing houses
printed some of the more than 1,000 books that had been produced or
subsidized by the CIA. When asked in a 1976 interview whether the
CIA had ever told its media agents what to write, William Colby
replied, "Oh, sure, all the time."
Since domestic propaganda was a violation of the their charter, the
CIA defined the predictable effects of their foreign publications as
"blowback" or "domestic fallout," which they considered to be
"inevitable and consequently permissible." But former CIA employees
told the Times that apart from this unintended blowback, "some CIA
propaganda efforts, especially during the Vietnam War, had been
carried out with a view toward their eventual impact in the United
States." The Times series concluded that at its peak, the CIA’s
network "embraced more than 800 news and public information
organizations and individuals."30
Conspicuously absent from the CIA and the media articles are links
to the Council on Foreign Relations. How many of the journalists,
owners, executives and editors that the reporters concentrated on
were also members of the Council on Foreign Relations.
Are Joe Trento, Dave Roman, Carl Bernstein and the New York Times reporters
near-sighted, poorly informed investigative journalists, or , CFR
insiders or CIA operatives participating in keeping CFR sponsorship
of covert operations a secret? Why haven’t they connected "The
Special Group" (aka the 40-committee, aka the operations
coordinating board, aka the psychological strategy board) to the
Council on Foreign Relations?
Was deep throat the Council on Foreign
Relations "Special Group?"
The
House Committee Fails To Uncover
Council on Foreign
Relations Sponsorship of Covert Activities Too
In 1975 the House also established a committee to look into
constitutional violations committed by various intelligence
agencies. The House committee was chaired by Otis PIke.
Under
pressure from the executive branch, which contained over 100 Council
on Foreign Relations members, the House voted not to release its
report. The report was leaked to the Village Voice. The Voice
printed the report. Arron Latham wrote an introduction summarizing
the second section, "The Select Committee’s Investigative Record."
Latham’s introduction talks about the 40-committee. Like the Senate,
the House concluded the 40-committee coordinated covert operations
focused at various nations including our own. In his introduction
Latham writes,
"One of the most important
conclusions reached by the Pike committee’s report is that the
CIA is not a "rogue elephant" - as Senator Church, the chairman
of the Senate select committee on intelligence, once called it.
The Pike report says "All evidence in hand suggests that the
CIA, far from being out of control. has been utterly responsive
to the instructions of the president and the the Assistant to
the President for National Security Affairs."
The committee came to this conclusion
after an unprecedented study of all operations approved by the
Forty-Committee over the past ten years.
The Forty-Committee, which
is chaired by the president’s foreign polity adviser, is supposed to
pass on all sensitive covert activities undertaken by the CIA.
The
Pike committee categorized different types of covert operations and
looked for patterns.
It may surprise some to discover that the largest single category of
covert activity concerned tampering with free elections around the
world. These election operations make up a full 32 per-cent of the
covert action projects approved by the Forty-Committee since 1961.
The report says the operations usually mean "providing some form of
financial election support to foreign parties and individuals.
Such
support could :be negative as well ;as positive." Most of the money
has gone to developing countries and generally "to incumbent
moderate party leaders and heads of state." One "Third World leader"
received $960,000 over a 14-year period.
The second largest covert action category is "media and propaganda."
The committee found that 29 percent of the covert projects approved
by the Forty-Committee fell under this heading. The report says:
"Activities have included support of friendly media, major
propaganda efforts, insertion of articles into the local press, and
distribution of books and leaflets. By far the largest single
recipient has been a European publishing house funded since 1951.
About 25 percent of the program has been directed at the Soviet
Bloc, in the publication and clandestine import and export of
Western and Soviet dissident literature."
The third largest category; is "Paramilitary/Arms Transfers." These
make up 23 percent of the total Forty-Committee approved covert
action projects. Although these rank third in total numbers. They
rank first in expense.
The committee report states:
"By far the most interesting, and
important fact to emerge was the recognition that the great
majority of these covert action projects were proposed by
parties outside CIA.
Many of these programs were summarily
ordered over CIA objections. CIA misgivings, however, were at
times weakly expressed, as the CIA is afflicted with a ’can do’
attitude." 30
Latham writes,
"As a part of its investigation of
covert action, the Pike committee examined three recent
operations: our funding of pro-U.S. elements during the 1972
Italian election; our funding of the Kurdish rebellion in Iraq;
and our assistance to one of the contending factions in Angola.
The committee report says that we Spent $I0 million in the 1972
Italian general election "perhaps needlessly." The election
produced not only a bitter struggle between Italy’s Christian
Democratic party - it also produced an even more bitter struggle
between our CIA station chief in Rome and our ambassador in
Rome."
If the Pike Committee had been more
thorough they would have discovered that the first fully sanctioned
and funded CIA covert operation resulted in the outcome of the
Italian election of 1948, and that the Council on Foreign Relations
played a significant part in carrying out the covert operation.
In
"How Nations See Each Other." (1953) Hadley Cantril writes about a
tool, developed prior to 1939, to investigate people’s perception of
their nationality and other nationalities. The tool became known as
the Buchanan-Cantril "Adjective Check List."
32
The "Adjective Check List", contained twelve adjectives:
Hard-working; Intelligent; Practical; Generous; Brave; Progressive;
Self-Controlled; Peace-Loving; Conceited; Cruel; Domineering;
Backward. It was based on the observation people tend to ascribe to
their group a set of characteristics different from the character
traits ascribed to other groups.
The resulting self-image is
predominantly flattering, while their picture of "others" is
strongly influenced by how much they perceive those others to be
like themselves. The relative "similarity" or dissimilarity" between
group stereotypes is a useful indicator of the degree of like or
dislike between groups or nations. 33
The adjective check-list is used to help script and test the
effectiveness of psycho-political operations focused at entire
nations. Groups are tested to determine the degree of like/dislike
between them. The Information is used to script the PSYOP. The PSYOP
is carried out without the groups knowledge. The groups are tested
again.
The increase or decrease of like/dislike indicates the PSYOP’s effectiveness.
The adjective check list was used to gather information Council on
Foreign relations George Kennan used to script the 1948 Italian
Election PSYOP. Lloyd Free broadcasted the script over the radio.
Hadley Cantril evaluated the effectiveness of the broadcasts in
influencing public opinion. The Italian public was manipulated into
electing CFR insider Luigi Einaudi the President of Italy.
In 1948 Einaudi’s son Mario, was a professor at Cornell University.
Among other projects Mario was a contributor to a book titled
Foreign Government - The Dynamics of Politics Abroad.
Mario’s bio
reads,
"Mairo Einaudi, a research fellow of the Rockefeller
Foundation 1927-29, professor of government at Cornell University.
He has been a faculty member of the University of Messina (Italy),
Harvard University, and Fordham University. His principal fields of
teaching are comparative government and political theory.
His books
include a study of the political thought of Edmund Burke (1930) and Pysiocratic Doctrine of Judicial Control (1938). He is a frequent
contributor to such journals as Foreign Affairs, Review of Politics,
Social Research, and American Political Science Review. He has
recently returned from an extended field investigation of Western
Europe."
Foreign Affairs magazine is published by the CFR. Today, Mario Einaudi and his son Luigi Einaudi ( President Einaudi’s
grandson) are both CFR members.34
35
At the end of his introduction, Latham writes,
"in many ways the
moral of the Pike papers seems to be: controlling the intelligence
community must begin with controlling Henry Kissinger."
36
Controlling the intelligence community must begin with controlling
the Council on Foreign Relations. Both the Church Committee, and the
Pike Committee investigated the 40-committee, finding it responsible
for covert operations, and constitutional violations at home and
abroad.
Neither Committee tied the Council on Foreign Relations to
the 40-committee nor even mentioned the organization in their
report. The 40-committee evolved from The Psychological Strategy
Board.
The Psychological Strategy board was designed by Council on
Foreign Relations members Gordon Gray and Henry Kissinger, and
created by an Executive Order written by Harry Truman.
At the fifth hearing about the National Security Agency, Senator
Church commented that,
"Actually the [National Security] Agency name
is unknown to most Americans, either by its acronym or its full
name. In contrast to the CIA, one has to search far and wide to find
someone who has ever heard of the NSA. This is peculiar, because the
National Security Agency is an immense installing..."
37
If most
Americans were unfamiliar with the NSA even more Americans, then and
now are unfamiliar with the "Special Group" and the "Council on
Foreign Relations."
When CFR member Inderfurth testified, before the Church Committee
about the 40-committee and special group he was misinforming the
Senate Select committee. The 40 committee, can be traced to the
Special Group, which can be traced to the Operation’s Coordinating
Board which can be traced to the Psychological Strategy Board. All
these groups were established and run by members of the Council on
Foreign Relations.
Isn’t it illegal to misinform a Senate Committee? If any of the
Council on Foreign Relations members sitting on the committee were
not willing participants in a conspiracy to hide the Council on
Foreign Relations sponsorship of covert activities, why didn’t any
of them point out the links to the Council on Foreign Relations?
Were Council on Foreign Relations members on the Committee and who
testified before the committee participating in a covert operation
designed to cover up links of Governmental wrong doings,
illegalities and abuse? Isn’t that treason?
The Pike Committee, discovered that America was mislead in such a
way as to bring our country to the brink of war. In the Village
Voice article, Latham wrote,
"Moving to the Holy Land, the committee reported, "The Mid-East war
gave the intelligence community a real test of how it can perform
when all its best technology and human skills are focused on a known
world ’hot spot.’ It failed."
The failure of our intelligence before the Arab assault has been
generally recognized for some time, but the Pike Papers maintain
that there may have been an even more serious intelligence failure
after the attack.
Since we had not anticipated trouble in the Middle
East. our spy satellites were caught out of position. We were
therefore unable to monitor adequately the progress of the fighting
and wound up relying "almost unquestioningly" on Israeli
battle-field reports. We therefore believed the Israelis when they
said they had not violated the cease-fire.
The Pike committee concluded:
"Thus misled. the U.S. clashed with
the better-informed Soviets on the latter’s strong reaction to
Israeli cease-fire violations. Soviet threats to intervene
militarily were met with worldwide U.S. troop alert. Poor
intelligence had brought America to the brink of war."
Moving on to Portugal. the committee asked:
"Do our intelligence
services know what-is going on beneath the surface in allied nations
that are not making headlines."
The answer on April 25, 1974, turned
out to be no.
We failed equally to predict the first nuclear test in the Third
World. It happened in India on May 18, 1974. A Defense Intelligence
Analysis report issued shortly before the test carried this title:
"India: A nuclear weapons program will not likely be pursued in the
near term."
A CIA post-mortem report said of our intelligence blindspot:
"This
failure denied the U.S. Government the option of considering
diplomatic or other initiative to try to prevent this significant
step in nuclear proliferation." 38
Our nation is still being deceived.
On June 11, 1997, CFR member
President Clinton nominated CFR member Inderfurth to serve as the
Assistant Secretary of State for South Asian Affairs . He was
confirmed by the Senate on July 31 and took office on August 4.
Inderfurth has responsibility for the countries of India, Pakistan,
Afghanistan, Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and Maldives. In
addition to being a member of the Council on Foreign Relations in
New York, Inderfurth is also a member of the International Institute
for Strategic Studies in London.39
With the help of CFR member Ambassador Inderfurth and his fellow CFR
members, the world was recently brought to the brink of Nuclear War
between India and Pakistan. Like 1974, the CIA was blamed for
failing to anticipate nuclear tests in India. The tests were
conducted on May 11, and 13th, 1998.
On September 14, CNN news
reported a subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations committee
held the first of several expected Congressional hearings on the
issue of the testing. "I am astonished that the Indian government
was able to catch the U.S. intelligence capability so sound asleep
at the switch," said Committee Chairman Jesse Helms, R-North
Carolina.
On May 13th, the day of the second test, Dorian Benkoil, ABCNEWS.com,
reported, "India’s first nuclear blasts caught President Clinton by
surprise. "Before this round of tests started, I did not know it was
going to start," Clinton said today. The president said he has
ordered CIA Director George Tenet to launch a "thorough review" of
U.S. intelligence in the matter.
Tenet on Tuesday appointed retired
Adm. David Jeremiah to lead a review team that is to report in 10
days...
Today’s tests, apparently, were less of a surprise. A White
House official told ABCNEWS’ Ann Compton that Undersecretary of
State Thomas Pickering was not given assurances he sought after
Monday’s explosions that no more tests would be conducted." Thomas
Pickering and Bill Clinton are Council on Foreign Relations members.
On May 17th in,
"India nuke test fiasco leaves U.S.
seeking answers," John Diamond, Associated Press reported, "U.S.
intelligence officials, lawmakers who oversee the CIA and
outside experts point to a wide range of flaws - technical,
organizational and human - that contributed to what Senate
Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Shelby, R-Ala., called a
"colossal failure" by the CIA."
Tuesday, August 18, the British
Broadcasting Company (BBC) reported,
"The CIA did not spot Indian nuclear
test preparations With the failure of US intelligence to detect
both the East Africa bombings and India’s recent nuclear tests,
Defense Correspondent Jonathan Marcus investigates whether the
CIA is losing its edge.
The bombings in Nairobi and Dar es
Salaam came from out of the blue. America’s huge and
sophisticated intelligence gathering machine seemingly provided
no warnings of the attack....
Gone is the existential Soviet threat - replaced by a world more
like the 1920s, where future threats are harder to define. New
issues are forcing themselves onto the security agenda. Earlier
this year, for instance, the CIA established an Environment
Centre.
The CIA must also learn to work more closely with US law
enforcement agencies like the FBI. The investigation of the bomb
attacks against the US embassies in Tanzania and Kenya will
provide an important test of this new inter-agency cooperation.
"
What neither the Pike or Church
committees discovered was that it was the Council on Foreign
Relations, not the CIA, that was responsible for deceiving the
country.
While the CIA may have planned and conducted some covert
operations without the express approval of the CFR run "Special
Group [aka 40-Committee]", Council on Foreign Relations members in
the CIA and State Department made sure the "Special Group" was aware
of all covert operations run by the CIA. If a covert operation would
adversely effect a CFR plan, that covert operation would be
sabotaged.
If the covert operation would help achieve CFR goals, the
operation would be allowed to go forward, as if the "Special Group"
had no knowledge of the operation. The "Special Group" has, and is
using the CIA, to distract the Countries attention from the group
that is responsible for the sponsorship and coordination of covert
operations at home and abroad - The Council on Foreign Relations.
Shouldn’t the Church and Pike Committee Committee hearings be
reopened, and revisited? Shouldn’t those Council on Foreign
Relations members under investigation, who testified before the
committees, and who served on the Committees be called before
congress and made to explain their actions?
Shouldn’t the Council on
Foreign Relations members in the "Special Group" [aka
Psychological
Strategy Board] and The Secret Team, who served during the Nixon
Administration and participated in the Covert actions against Chile
be indicted?
Shouldn’t Council on Foreign Relations links to the transfer of
sensitive military technology to China be investigated? Council on
Foreign Relations member Presidents Ford, Carter, Bush, and Clinton;
the Council on Foreign Relations members who served in their
administrations; and the Council on Foreign Relations members who
served in non-CFR member Presidential administrations; should be
called before Congress and made to acknowledge and explain the
Council on Foreign Relations role in designing and coordinating
covert operations at home and abroad.
The British Parliament should
do the same with Bilderberger Prime Minister Tony Blair, and any
other Prime Minister, and member of Parliament linked to Britain’s
Royal Institute of International Affairs.
The Canadian Parliament
should do the same with any Canadian Prime Minister, or Canadian
member of Parliament linked to the Canadian Institute of
International Affairs.
Title-50 War and National Defense § 783 states -
"It shall be
unlawful for any person knowingly to combine, conspire, or agree
with any other person to perform any act which would substantially
contribute to the establishment within the United States of a
totalitarian dictatorship, the direction and control of which is to
be vested in, or exercised by or under the domination of control of,
any foreign government."
The Council on Foreign Relations are in violation of
Title-50 War
and National Defense § 783.
The Council on Foreign Relations has
unlawfully and knowingly combined, conspired, and agreed to
substantially contribute to the establishment of one world order
under the totalitarian dictatorship, the direction and the control
of members of Council on Foreign Relations, the Royal Institute of
International Affairs, and members of their branch organizations in
various nations throughout the world.
That is totalitarianism on a
global scale.
Nixon Council
on Foreign Relations appointees - The Secret Team 30
Key players in the Council on Foreign Relations Clinton
administration "Secret Team"
-
US Government Printing Office,
Hearings Before the Select Committee to Study Governmental
Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities of the United
States Senate, Ninety-Fourth Congress, Volume 2 (401 pages),
Huston Plan, September 23, 24, and 25, 1975, For Sale by the
Superintendent of Documents, US Government Prining
Office, Washington DC, 20402 -$4.00, 1976 pg 1-2
-
John Prodos, Keepers of The Keys, A History of the National
Security Council from Truman to Bush, William Morrow and Company,
Inc., New York 1991
-
US Government Printing Office, Hearings Before the Select
Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to
Intelligence Activities of the United States Senate,
Ninety-Fourth Congress, Volume 1 (245 pages), Unauthorized
Storage of Toxic Agents, September 16, 17, and 18, 1975, For
Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, US Government Prining
Office, Washington DC, 20402 -$2.45, 1976
-
US Government Printing Office, Hearings Before the Select
Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to
Intelligence Activities of the United States Senate,
Ninety-Fourth Congress, Volume 2 (401 pages), Huston Plan,
September 23, 24, and 25, 1975, For Sale by the Superintendent
of Documents, US Government Prining Office, Washington DC, 20402
-$4.00, 1976
-
US Government Printing Office, Hearings Before the Select
Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to
Intelligence Activities of the United States Senate,
Ninety-Fourth Congress, Volume 3 (116 pages), Internal Revenue
Service, October 2 1975, For Sale by the Superintendent of
Documents, US Government Prining Office, Washington DC, 20402
-$2.00, 1976
-
US Government Printing Office, Hearings Before the Select
Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to
Intelligence Activities of the United States Senate,
Ninety-Fourth Congress, Volume 4 (259 pages), Mail Opening,
October 21, 22, and 24 1975, For Sale by the Superintendent of
Documents, US Government Prining Office, Washington DC, 20402
-$2.40, 1976
-
US Government Printing Office, Hearings Before the Select
Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to
Intelligence Activities of the United States Senate,
Ninety-Fourth Congress, Volume 5 (164 pages), The National
Security Agency and Fourth Amendment Rights, October 29 and
November 61975, For Sale by the Superintendent of Douments, US
Government Printing Office, Washington DC, 20402 -$2.30, 1976
-
US Government Printing Office, Hearings Before the Select
Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to
Intelligence Activities of the United States Senate,
Ninety-Fourth Congress, Volume 6 (992 pages), The Federal Burea
of Investigation, November 18, 19, December 2,3,9,10, and 11
1975, For Sale by the Superintendent of Douments, US Government
Prining Office,Washington DC, 20402, 1976
-
US Government Printing Office, Hearings Before the Select
Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to
Intelligence Activities of the United States Senate,
Ninety-Fourth Congress, Volume 6 (992 pages), The Federal Burea
of Investigation, November 18, 19, December 2,3,9,10, and 11
1975, For Sale by the Superintendent of Douments, US Government
Prining Office,Washington DC, 20402, 1976
-
ibid pg 11
-
Harry S. Truman, Public Papers of Harry S. Truman 1951, US
Government Printing Office 1963, [128] Directive Establishing
the Psychological Strategy Board, pg 341
-
Biography, Karl Frederick Inderfurth Assistant Secretary of
State for South Asian Affairs, U.S. Department of State Foreign
Affairs Network,
http://www.state.gov/www/about_state/biography/inderfurth.html,
09/15/98
-
-------
-
US Government Printing Office, Hearings Before the Select
Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to
Intelligence Activities of the United States Senate,
Ninety-Fourth Congress, Volume 7 (230 pages), The Federal Burea
of Investigation, November 18, 19, December 2,3,9,10, and 11
1975, For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, US Government
Prining Office, Washington DC, 20402, 1976 pg 197
-
ibid pg 188-189
-
Who’s Who in America, 43rd edition, 1984-85.
-
Who’s Who in America, 26th edition, 1950-51.
-
Ferdinand Lundberg, The Rich and the Super-Rich (New York:
Bantam Books, 1969). Chapter 10, titled "Philanthropic Vistas:
The Tax-Exempt Foundations" (pp. 465-530), describes the Patman
investigations pg. 482-483
-
Harry S. Truman, Public Papers of Harry S. Truman, US
Government Printing Office 1963, 1951 July 27 [172] pg. 427.
-
Philip Agee, Inside the Company: CIA Diary (Harmondsworth,
Middlesex,England: Penguin Books, 1975), pp. 70-71 from
http://www.pir.org/.newslin.html
Essays from NameBase NewsLine Apr 97 . . Journalism and the CIA:
The Mighty Wurlitzer footnote 14
-
Henderson, John W.,The United States Information Agency,
1966, pg. 52-53 Frederick A. Praeger, Publishers, New York,
Washington, London, Book 14 in the Praeger Library of US
Government Departments and Agencies series, consulting editors
Ernest S. Griffith, former Dean and Professor Emeritus, School
Of International Service, American University. Hugh Langdon
Elsbree, former Chairmen, Department of Political Science,
Dartmouth College. Both editors are formed directors,
Legislative Reference Service, Library of Congress.
-
Who’s Who 1994, pg 3076
-
Commencement Address by Mrs. Sadako Ogata, United Nations
High Commissioner for Refugees, The Johns Hopkins University,
Baltimore, 22 May 1996,
http://www.jhu.edu/news_info/commence96/ogata.html
(the prepared text of Mrs. Ogata’s speech and has not been
checked against delivery.)
-
John F. Kennedy, The Public Papers of the Presidents of the
United States, 1961
-
Robert L. Borosage and John Marks, The CIA File, Grossman
Publishers A Division of Viking Press, 1976 pgs. 12-13.
-
Philip Agee, Inside the Company CIA Diary, Stonehill
Publishing Co., 38 East 57 Street, New York, NY, 1975 pg 632
-
Prouty, L. Fletcher Col., US Air Force Retired, The Secret
Team, The CIA and Its Allies in Control of the United States and
the World, copyright 1973 by L. Fletcher Prouty, Ballantine
Books, Inc., 201 East 50th Street, New York, NY, First Printing
1974 pg 3-5
-
Joe Trento and Dave Roman, "The Spies Who Came In From the
Newsroom," Penthouse, August 1977, pp. 44-46, 50.
http://www.pir.org/.newslin.html
Essays from NameBase NewsLine Apr 97 . . Journalism and the CIA:
The Mighty Wurlitzer footnote 13
-
Carl Bernstein, "The CIA and the Media," Rolling Stone, 20
October1977, pp. 58.
http://www.pir.org/.newslin.html Essays
from NameBase NewsLine Apr 97 . . Journalism and the CIA: The
Mighty Wurlitzer footnote 14
-
John M. Crewdson and Joseph B. Treaster, "The CIA’s
3-Decade Effort to Mold the World’s Views," New York Times, 25
December 1977, pp. 1, 12; Terrence Smith, "CIA Contacts With
Reporters," New York Times, p. 13; Crewdson and Treaster,
"Worldwide Propaganda Network Built by the CIA," New York Times,
26 December 1977, pp. 1, 37; Crewdson and Treaster, "CIA
Established Many Links to Journalists in U.S. and Abroad," New
York Times, 27 December 1977, pp. 1, 40-41. Essays from NameBase
NewsLine Apr 97,Journalism and the CIA: The Mighty Wurlitzer
footnote 15
-
Arron Latham, "The CIA Report the President Doesn’t Want
You to Read, A 24 page special supplement", Village Voice, 16
February 1976, "The Pike Papers: an Introduction" pg. 71
-
Pollock, Daniel C Project Director & Editors De Mclaurin,Ronald, Rosenthal, Carl F., Skillings, Sarah A., The
Art and Science of Psychological Operations: Case Studies of
Military Application Volume One, Pamphlet No. 725-7-2, DA Pam
525-7-2, Headquarters Department of the Army Washington, DC, 1
April 1976 Vol 2 pg 806 - The Hungarian Self-Image And The
Hungarian Image of Americans and Russians by Radio Free Europe,
Audience and Public Opinion Research Department, February 1970
Excerpts from "The Hungarian Self-Image and the Hungarian Image
of Americans, Russian, Germans, Rumanians, and Chinese";
Buchanan, W. Cantril, H. "How Nations See Each Other,"
University of Illinois Press, Urbana 1953; Cantril H. and Strunk
M.: "Public Opinion 1935-1946" Princeton University Press
-
IBID
-
FOREIGN GOVERNMENT, The Dynamics of Politics Abroad, by
Mario Einaudi, Andrew Gyorgy, John N. Hazard, Henry P. Jordan,
Paul M. A. Linebarger, John Brown Mason, Frizt Morstein Marx, W.
Hardy Wickwar, Edited by Fritz Morstein Mark, New York, Prentice
Hall, 1949, pg ix
-
A co-contributor to FOREIGN GOVERNMENT was Paul Linebarger.
Linebarger worked for Army Intelligence during World War II,
serving under General’s Stillwell and Wedemeyer. At the end of
the war he was chief of the Army Far Eastern Section, Propaganda
Branch, G-2, General Staff. In 1948 Linebarger authored a book
titled PSYCHOLOGICAL WARFARE. The book contained a chapter
hopefully called "Psychological Warfare and Disarmament." The
Book was revised and reissued in 1954. The chapter on
"Psychological Warfare and Disarmament" was removed from the
revised edition. [PSYCHOLOGICAL WARFARE, Paul Myron Anthony
Linebarger, School of Advanced International Studies, Combat
Forces Press, 1529 18th Street, N.W. Washington 6 D.C., Second
Edition 1954 pg xii]
-
IBID
-
US Government Printing Office, Hearings Before the Select
Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to
Intelligence Activities of the United States Senate,
Ninety-Fourth Congress, Volume 5 (164 pages), The National
Security Agency and Fourth Amendment Rights, October 29 and
November 61975, For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, US
Government Printing Office, Washington DC, 20402 -$2.30, 1976 pg
1
-
Arron Latham, "The CIA Report the President Doesn’t Want
You to Read, A 24 page special supplement", Village Voice, 16
February 1976, "The Pike Papers: an Introduction" pg. 71
-
IBID
-
Gary Allen, Larry Abraham, None Dare Call it Conspiracy,
Concord Press, Rossmoor, CA, 1971 pgs 139-40
|