Blog powered by Typepad

« Why I keep 'schtum' about Trump | Main | LBJ: Hero or Villain? »

Wednesday, 18 October 2017


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Government agencies hardly ever want to release information. I think they are worried that if we have genuine transparency, they will get caught out on some important issue in the future. It's better for them to resist everything, as it creates a culture of secrecy in which the "experts" know better. If the CIA didn't screw up over Kennedy and Oswald, they certainly did elsewhere.

Some documents relating to highly sensitive matters are never released and some just cease to exist having been for whatever reason destroyed. The records of one particular unit of the Australian Army in WW2 are an example. How do I know? I have been after them for years as my father was part of it and he went to his grave keeping schtum and try as I might, even with good contacts, I still cannot even get an acknowledgement of whether they still exist or whether for whatever reason they won't be released.

Personally I think they no longer exist and would be happy to have that confirmed and let the matter rest.

The Kennedy assassination is another matter. It is time they were released and even if they are an embarrassment to the CIA et al then, to use a phrase used by Shrillary, "what difference does it now make"?

Besides we all want to know who did it.

The CIA getting embarrassed should be familiar for them.

If prominent sources like Newsmax, The Gateway Pundit, and Gerald Posner say so, there must be a vast, intelligence agency conspiracy. Roger Stone, who's been specializing in conspiracy theories since the 1960's, just lends his own, special credibility.

No, Bob, the 'credibility' is aided and abetted by the reluctance of the CIA to "tell truth and shame the devil"!

David, so the lack of evidence proves the case. I can't argue with logic like that.

I'm with whyaxye. No Government body ever wants to release any information at all, just for fear they might release something embarrassing.


"So what's to hide?"
You ask the wrong question. The appropriate question is, "Who benefits from knowing?"

Assuming you are not an enemy of the United States Government (which, sadly, is not the case for everyone who comments here) then one should support the needs of the integral agencies of the Executive Branch of our Federal Government. Because the CIA and FBI are two of the very important agencies of our Government, it seems to me that their requirements for secrecy have a higher priority than any individual's need to satisfy his curiosity.

No, Bob, I have no idea what information is contained in those old, not to say, ancient files. However, the obdurate refusal of the Agency to release them when none of the participants are living strikes me as being more of reputational defence than any risk to intelligence sources.

Henry, you surprise and disappoint me! This info is well over 50 years old! These agencies and the people who work in them are public *servants* and their history should always and forever be open to scrutiny in any nation pretending to democracy.

David, that's exactly what they want you to think:

Most Texans believe that LBJ benefited from the assassination, so, he might have been involved. (Not necessarily so) People in Texas had the same low opinion of LBJ as Arkansans did, later, of Clinton. "Would not put it past him" then silence. It was known that young Kennedy had a mistress during the early days of WWII who was a NAZI spy, and that he was similarly indiscreet in the White House, so the FBI wanted him under dirt.

He was shot from the front, small (entrance) wound in front, huge (exit) one out the back. This is not, ahem, brain surgery. He had already passed the School Book Depository, so, since he must have been hit from in front, other locations come to mind. The shooter could have been aiming from the grassy knoll, or maybe from the viaduct, or possibly from a man hole. Oswald's statement, "I'm a patsy," fits altogether all too well with this scenario, that someone recruited him to "shoot the President," only he did not do it, he just provided cover for the guy or guys who did. ("A patsy.")

In Texas, we now have a Republican power elite, not beholden to the Democrats, and the actual possible perpetrators are all dead, so , we are just comfortable with the idea. They can't hurt us, or ours, now.


That is complete and utter bullocks. The FBI and the CIA are not public servants. They serve the needs of the Federal Government of the United States. Both these agencies are engaged in covert operations -- the FBI for criminal investigations within the United States, and the CIA for intelligence gathering against America's enemies outside the United States. They are neither obliged nor is it in the interest of the United States for them to tell the public anything.


As I understand it a CIA and FBI agent take their oath to defend the Constitution of the USA. Does that make them a public servant in the eyes of legislation in the USofA? So long as there is nothing in the files which would endanger any living person [innocent of the crime] or national security then the files should be opened.

Some years ago I had the privilege of attending the swearing in of US naval recruits. They also took an oath to defend the Constitution and to obey the President. Service personnel certainly do not regard themselves as "public servants" in the generally accepted interpretation down here.

I still want to know who shot JFK

Shalom AD,

The FBI Director reports to the Attorney General, who in turn reports to the President (the AG is a member of the President's Cabinet). In the same manner, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (the most senior military commander) reports to the Secretary of Defense, who is also a Cabinet Member. The Director of the CIA reports directly to the President, such that he is on the same level as (but not strictly) a Cabinet Member.

Neither of the Directors (CIA or FBI) nor the Chairman of the JCS takes orders from "the public". I presume that the President can order the AG, the SecDef, and the CIA Director to reveal information to himself, but the President can always invoke Executive Privilege and is not obliged to tell the public anything.

If there is any suspicion of wrongdoing on the part of either directorate (the FBI is actually a Bureau within the Department of Justice), then Congressional committees (both in the House and in the Senate) have oversight for both directorates and can conduct hearings under oath.

The fact that you (or anyone else) want to know who shot JFK is of no consequence to either the CIA or the FBI.

BTW, have you ever tried to get any information from Britain's Mi5 or Mi6? How did that work out for you?

Shalom TBH

Thank you for the explanation.

Never had much to do with the Brit agencies but I suspect they are much like our own and they are unlikely to tell you anything and I have not much time for the local mob. Our own, ASIO, was penetrated by the Soviets way back and is probably now a branch of the PRC Intelligence System.

A colleague of mine once had to take one of the super-spooks to a particular location and land him as part of an exercise involving the Army, Navy, Police and Int people but was informed that he couldn't be told where it was until they got there. I kid you not.

The stupidity is strong in some and it can cost the lives of uniformed people.

I appreciate your acknowledgment of my explanation, AD. It would be nice if other people did so as well.

I am not unfamiliar with having access to classified information (before I retired), and I can confirm for you there is an important need for it in certain environments.

To my knowledge, classification is neither whimsical nor stupid. In many cases, classification of information protects the lives of the good guys. This is why it is a felony to disclose classified information to anyone who is not authorized to receive it (i.e., does not have a clearance and a need to know). Needless to say, the public's curiosity is neither de facto clearance nor a valid need to know.

The comments to this entry are closed.