|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Was the Secret Service Involved in the Coup D Etat? |
| Yes |
|
44% |
[ 8 ] |
| No |
|
55% |
[ 10 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 18 |
|
| Author |
Message |
regicide
Joined: 01 Sep 2006
Location: United States
|
 Posted: Tue Jan 02, 2007 7:48 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| VanIslander wrote: |
I confess. I did it.
Because he let the dogs out.
Also shot the sheriff. But not the deputy. |
Although posted on Youtube and other send in your own video sites, the fact remains this is an actual film shot at Love Field the day of the assassination. Clearly a "smoking gun" if ever there was one and for some reason it has only surfaced in the last few years, some 40 years after the murder.
An important discovery was made by a correspondent during review of the Dallas trip shot by the ABC affiliate in that city. During the start of the fatal motorcade at Love Field, Secret Service agent Henry J Rybka begins to jog alongside the presidential limousine. He is immediately called back by his shift leader and commander of the follow up car detail, Emory P Roberts. Rybka's dismay and confusion is made manifest by his unambiguous body language: He throws up his arms several times before, during and after the follow up car passes by him. He was not being allowed to do his job--and minutes later President Kennedy was dead.
For those of you who are not one of the 61,239 that have seen the Secret Service Standdown video , here is the link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XY02Qkuc_f8
Last edited by regicide on Wed Jan 03, 2007 6:53 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 02, 2007 9:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Regicide: for a guy who asserts that he has invested large amounts of time and money in professional research, you sure do cite a lot of cheesy "sources."
Youtube? What's next...? Will you link an Igotthisguitar-style Google search page?
Last edited by Gopher on Wed Jan 03, 2007 1:20 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 02, 2007 10:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Is there another hobby you can find? Maybe become a HAM radio operator or get a metal detector. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
regicide
Joined: 01 Sep 2006
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 03, 2007 12:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
Regicide: for a guy who asserts that he has invested large amounts of time and money in professional research, you sure do cite a lot of [chessy] "sources."
Youtube? What's next...? Will you link an Igotthisguitar-style Google search page? |
Clearly, Gopher's Lone Nut View and belief in the magic bullet theory of the Warren Commission is not what most Americans believe according to ABC News.
January 4, 2007
Watch the complete Peter Jennings special on the John F. Kennedy assassination.
Nov. 16� Forty years later, suspicions of a conspiracy endure: Seven in 10 Americans think the assassination of John F. Kennedy was the result of a plot, not the act of a lone killer.
Just 32 percent accept the Warren Commission's 1964 finding that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone when he shot Kennedy as his motorcade passed through downtown Dallas on Nov. 22, 1963. Fifty-one percent think there was a second gunman, and seven percent go so far as to think Oswald wasn't involved at all.
Sixty-eight percent of Americans also think there was "an official cover-up" to hide the truth about the assassination from the public. And about as many, 65 percent, think that "important unanswered questions" remain, four decades after Kennedy's death.
While such suspicions are well-documented � and well-stoked by conspiracy theorists � for many people they're guesses, not convictions. In a new follow-up question, fewer than half of Americans, four in 10, say they're "pretty sure" there was a plot; another three in 10 say it's just a hunch. Similarly, half of those who suspect a second shooter say this, too, is just their hunch.
Trend
Suspicion has been long-running; as far back as 1966, a Harris poll found that 46 percent of Americans thought there was a "broader plot" in the assassination. This jumped to 60 percent in 1967, after New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison filed charges alleging a conspiracy (the man he charged, Clay Shaw, was acquitted in 1969).
Kennedy Assasination, 40 Years Later
Time Suspect a Plot Think it Was One Man
Sep. 66 46% 34
Feb. 67 44 35
Sep. 67 60 24
Nov. 83 80 13
Dec. 91 73 11
Nov. 03 70 22
Belief in a broader plot peaked at 80 percent in a 1983 ABCNEWS poll; it's since eased a bit, to today's 70 percent. Similarly, the number of people who think there was an official cover-up has moved back from its peak, 81 percent in 1993, to 68 percent now.
The Film
The director Oliver Stone reinvigorated the debate with the December 1991 release of JFK, his film based on Garrison's investigation. The movie today is widely known � four in 10 Americans say they've seen it, and nearly as many have heard or read about it. But its impact on public opinion is debatable.
Twenty percent of Americans say the film made them more likely to think there was a conspiracy behind the assassination. But many of them may have held that view even without the film's influence. The overall number who suspect a conspiracy is the same now as it was in a poll leading up to the movie's release, before many people had a chance to see it. And as noted, suspicions of a plot peaked in 1983, long before the film was made.
The movie in any case has attracted a conspiracy-minded crowd. Suspicion of a plot peaks at 81 percent of those who've seen it, compared to about six in 10 of those who've only heard or read about it, or don't know about it at all. Similarly, 63 percent of viewers suspect there was a second gunman; that declines to 43 percent of those who haven't seen the film. And 78 percent of viewers suspect a cover-up, compared to 61 percent of non-viewers. But this doesn't necessarily mean that seeing the movie creates suspicion; it could be instead that suspicious people have been drawn to the film.
Groups
Older Americans � those who were adults at the time of the assassination � are less likely than others to suspect a plot or cover-up, or to say important facts remain unanswered. And suspicions of a second gunman, in particular, peak among those who hadn't been born yet.
Among people aged 65 and older, 39 percent think there was a second gunman; this jumps to 53 percent of those younger than 65 (and a high of 58 percent of 18- to 34-year-olds). Fifty-nine percent of older adults suspect a broader plot, compared to 72 percent of those younger than 65; and 56 percent of those 65 and older think there was an official cover-up; among those under than 65, this rises to 70 percent.
JFK Beliefs
Age 18-64 Age 65+
Think unanswered questions remain 68% 50
Suspect a conspiracy 72 59
Suspect a second gunman 53 39
Suspect a cover-up 70 56
In another difference between groups, nonwhites are more apt than white Americans to suspect a broader plot, a second gunman and a cover-up, and to say important questions about the Kennedy assassination remain unanswered.
Methodology
This ABCNEWS poll was conducted by telephone Nov. 5-9, among a random national sample of 1,031 adults. The results have a three-point error margin. Sampling, data collection and tabulation was conducted by TNS Intersearch of Horsham, Pa.
Previous ABCNEWS polls can be found in our Poll Vault.
Search the Web and ABCNEWS.com
MORE ON THIS STORY
FULL COVERAGE
� Peter Jennings Reporting: The Kennedy Assassination: Beyond Conspiracy
Copyright � 2004 ABCNEWS Internet Ventures.
I figured Youtube was about your level. Got to start somewhere. What do you think ARRB stands for Gopher? "A rather rare beer"?
For a man who believes in magic bullets and has such a closed mind, you sure talk a good game. At least Igotthisguitar and most others say their peace and move on.
You never answered my question about what happened toyour poll , or explained why you called me an anti-semite?
Last edited by regicide on Thu Jan 04, 2007 3:04 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
regicide
Joined: 01 Sep 2006
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2007 2:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| Is there another hobby you can find? Maybe become a HAM radio operator or get a metal detector. |
"We've seen revealed one conspiracy after another. Anybody would have to be a fool, nowadays, to dismiss conspiracies. And perhaps we lived in a fool's paradise before the Kennedy assassination."
-- Robert MacNeil, The MacNeil/Lehrer News Hour, PBS
CIA Instructions to Media Assets
( take a look at instruction 3, where they would prefer that a discussion was not encouraged)
This document caused quite a stir when it was discovered in 1977. Dated 4/1/67, and marked "DESTROY WHEN NO LONGER NEEDED", this document is a stunning testimony to how concerned the CIA was over investigations into the Kennedy assassination. Emphasis has been added to facilitate scanning.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CIA Document #1035-960, marked "PSYCH" for presumably Psychological Warfare Operations, in the division "CS", the Clandestine Services, sometimes known as the "dirty tricks" department.
RE: Concerning Criticism of the Warren Report
1. Our Concern. From the day of President Kennedy's assassination on, there has been speculation about the responsibility for his murder. Although this was stemmed for a time by the Warren Commission report, (which appeared at the end of September 1964), various writers have now had time to scan the Commission's published report and documents for new pretexts for questioning, and there has been a new wave of books and articles criticizing the Commission's findings. In most cases the critics have speculated as to the existence of some kind of conspiracy, and often they have implied that the Commission itself was involved. Presumably as a result of the increasing challenge to the Warren Commission's report, a public opinion poll recently indicated that 46% of the American public did not think that Oswald acted alone, while more than half of those polled thought that the Commission had left some questions unresolved. Doubtless polls abroad would show similar, or possibly more adverse results.
2. This trend of opinion is a matter of concern to the U.S. government, including our organization. The members of the Warren Commission were naturally chosen for their integrity, experience and prominence. They represented both major parties, and they and their staff were deliberately drawn from all sections of the country. Just because of the standing of the Commissioners, efforts to impugn their rectitude and wisdom tend to cast doubt on the whole leadership of American society. Moreover, there seems to be an increasing tendency to hint that President Johnson himself, as the one person who might be said to have benefited, was in some way responsible for the assassination. Innuendo of such seriousness affects not only the individual concerned, but also the whole reputation of the American government. Our organization itself is directly involved: among other facts, we contributed information to the investigation. Conspiracy theories have frequently thrown suspicion on our organization, for example by falsely alleging that Lee Harvey Oswald worked for us. The aim of this dispatch is to provide material countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit the circulation of such claims in other countries. Background information is supplied in a classified section and in a number of unclassified attachments.
3. Action. We do not recommend that discussion of the assassination question be initiated where it is not already taking place. . |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2007 5:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
It's a fine hobby. Gets you out of the house. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2007 6:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| CIA Document #1035-960, marked "PSYCH" for presumably Psychological Warfare Operations, in the division "CS", the Clandestine Services, sometimes known as the "dirty tricks" department. |
Regicide: you are less than an amateur with respect to research.
Professional researchers do not discuss or cite "CIA documents." They do not cite "CIA Document Number [insert number here]." The Clandestine Service is the Directorate of Operations's (before 1973 called "the Directorate of Plans") informal name -- just as some sometimes call State "the Foreign Service" or the armed forces just "the Service" -- as in "my father was in the Service." In any case, we do not resort to informal jargon in our citations. Lacks clarity. Future readers may not understand.
And this "sometimes-known-as-'the-dirty-tricks-department'" sneer (and the other one on the use of the word "psychological," which many used and abused in the 1950s through early 1970s, by the way, in the United States and elsewhere in the West) is so completely typical of the antiEstablishment, far left's unprofessional discourse that I can easily predict such commentary. Those who resort to such obvious politicization in presenting evidence may indeed get their readers shaking their heads in disgust or outrage before they even read whatever evidence you are about to present. Good for you. Mission accomplished. You have manipulated your readers' emotions.
But do not mistake yourself for a professional, Regicide. The adjective you are looking for is "propagandist" or "partisan" and not "professional" then. And if you call yourself "reasearcher" in the future, please remember to place this noun in quotation marks -- as in "so-called."
In any case, Regicide, for future reference, here is how we professionals cite CIA and other govt documents...
This is an operational cable: headquarters to the field. Latin American and Caribbean operations director William Broe -- "Chief of Western Hemisphere Division" in CIA lingo.
http://foia.state.gov/documents/PCIA3/00009C35.pdf
Therefore, start with this...
Broe to Santiago Station, 23 September 1969.
...and then tell us the document's location...
Chile Declassification Project, Tranche III, available at http://www.state.gov, accessed 4 January 2007.
The complete cite should look something like this, then...
Broe to Santiago Station, 23 September 1969. Chile Declassification Project, Tranche III, available at http://www.state.gov, accessed 4 January 2007.
Do try, will you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
regicide
Joined: 01 Sep 2006
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2007 10:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Quote: |
| CIA Document #1035-960, marked "PSYCH" for presumably Psychological Warfare Operations, in the division "CS", the Clandestine Services, sometimes known as the "dirty tricks" department. |
And this "sometimes-known-as-'the-dirty-tricks-department'" sneer (and the other one on the use of the word "psychological," which many used and abused in the 1950s through early 1970s, by the way, in the United States and elsewhere in the West) is so completely typical of the antiEstablishment, far left's unprofessional discourse that I can easily predict such commentary. Those who resort to such obvious politicization in presenting evidence may indeed get their readers shaking their heads in disgust or outrage before they even read whatever evidence you are about to present. Good for you. Mission accomplished.
|
Gopher is beginning to reveal himself. On the Education forum, our resident Lone Nutter is a Thomas H Purvis, who states he is a former Green Beret, specializing in special operations. Thomas is a friendly fellow and we enjoy his company on the forum. There are some unfriendly exchanges on the forum , but they are usually between members with similar views, not Lone Nut versus Conspiracy Theorist arguments.
This is an example of Purv's postings. Purv has posted 1935 times on the Lone Nut side of the case. Maybe he should take up a new hobby. We would welcome Gopher onto the forum as we can always use another Lone Nutter.
Purv's recent post:
"Position "A" as well as Position "C" were merely another version of the old "Shell/Pea" game in which the WC utilized what was absolutely unknown positions in which to generate distance measurements and thus completely "lose" exactly where stationing 4+96 (aka impact point of shot#3 as determined by the US Secret Service) actually was located.
Therefore, one can "chase" the "double blind" of Position's "A" & "C" if they so desire, and they will still come up with an empty shell.
Their purpose was to mask, mis-direct, confuse, and obscure.
Good job, huh??????
No doubt, Mr. West truly defecated in their Post Tosties when he went back and utilized stationing numbers which were associated with what he had established during the U.S. Secret Service work, which was in fact the only true survey of Dealy Plaza.
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol17_0449a.htm
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol17_0464b.htm
Z313 impact point: Stationing 4+65.3 (which is the same exact point whether dealing with the US Secret Service work which established the stationing along Elm St., or whether dealing with the WC slight/sleight-of-hand.
Since Mr. West was not a party to the obfuscation, he utilized the accurate survey data which he had gained from the US Secret Service work and thus made the larger WC Survey plat, complete with the Secret Service stationing numbers and Elm St. elevation contour lines.
Thus, anything gained from the SS work is easily transferable to the WC Survey Plat, and since Mr. West referenced the SS Survey Station numbers during the WC work, the exact same is also true of transfering any survey data from the WC work to the SS Survey Plat/work.
Provided of course that one has Mr. West's survey notes!
As for myself, I stay lost adequately enough without following all of the WC's mis-directive activities, and thus have no intent of chasing the "smoke" of "Position "A"", since it is merely another of the empty rabbit holes. "
What the heck did Tom just say?
And by the way, I never thought your buddy was "on my side" , you were the only one who said that." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
regicide
Joined: 01 Sep 2006
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 06, 2007 6:22 am Post subject: What does Tom mean? |
|
|
| regicide wrote: |
| Gopher wrote: |
| Quote: |
| CIA Document #1035-960, marked "PSYCH" for presumably Psychological Warfare Operations, in the division "CS", the Clandestine Services, sometimes known as the "dirty tricks" department. |
And this "sometimes-known-as-'the-dirty-tricks-department'" sneer (and the other one on the use of the word "psychological," which many used and abused in the 1950s through early 1970s, by the way, in the United States and elsewhere in the West) is so completely typical of the antiEstablishment, far left's unprofessional discourse that I can easily predict such commentary. Those who resort to such obvious politicization in presenting evidence may indeed get their readers shaking their heads in disgust or outrage before they even read whatever evidence you are about to present. Good for you. Mission accomplished.
|
Gopher is beginning to reveal himself. On the Education forum, our resident Lone Nutter is a Thomas H Purvis, who states he is a former Green Beret, specializing in special operations. Thomas is a friendly fellow and we enjoy his company on the forum. There are some unfriendly exchanges on the forum , but they are usually between members with similar views, not Lone Nut versus Conspiracy Theorist arguments.
This is an example of Purv's postings. Purv has posted 1935 times on the Lone Nut side of the case. Maybe he should take up a new hobby. We would welcome Gopher onto the forum as we can always use another Lone Nutter.
Purv's recent post:
"Position "A" as well as Position "C" were merely another version of the old "Shell/Pea" game in which the WC utilized what was absolutely unknown positions in which to generate distance measurements and thus completely "lose" exactly where stationing 4+96 (aka impact point of shot#3 as determined by the US Secret Service) actually was located.
Therefore, one can "chase" the "double blind" of Position's "A" & "C" if they so desire, and they will still come up with an empty shell.
Their purpose was to mask, mis-direct, confuse, and obscure.
Good job, huh??????
No doubt, Mr. West truly defecated in their Post Tosties when he went back and utilized stationing numbers which were associated with what he had established during the U.S. Secret Service work, which was in fact the only true survey of Dealy Plaza.
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol17_0449a.htm
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol17_0464b.htm
Z313 impact point: Stationing 4+65.3 (which is the same exact point whether dealing with the US Secret Service work which established the stationing along Elm St., or whether dealing with the WC slight/sleight-of-hand.
Since Mr. West was not a party to the obfuscation, he utilized the accurate survey data which he had gained from the US Secret Service work and thus made the larger WC Survey plat, complete with the Secret Service stationing numbers and Elm St. elevation contour lines.
Thus, anything gained from the SS work is easily transferable to the WC Survey Plat, and since Mr. West referenced the SS Survey Station numbers during the WC work, the exact same is also true of transfering any survey data from the WC work to the SS Survey Plat/work.
Provided of course that one has Mr. West's survey notes!
As for myself, I stay lost adequately enough without following all of the WC's mis-directive activities, and thus have no intent of chasing the "smoke" of "Position "A"", since it is merely another of the empty rabbit holes. "
What the heck did Tom just say?
And by the way, I never thought your buddy was "on my side" , you were the only one who said that." |
Thomas Purvis is a "Lone Nutter" and Disinformation Agent who causes confusion all over the internet "discussion boards" . He is an intelligent man, who uses that skill to overcome the fact that his is bogus. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 06, 2007 10:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| regicide wrote: |
| Thomas Purvis is a "Lone Nutter" and Disinformation Agent who causes confusion all over the internet "discussion boards." He is an intelligent man, who uses that skill to overcome the fact that his is bogus. |
Regicide: you have just shown the lie in your previous statements that but for others' continuing commentary these threads would disappear.
You bump these threads to keep them active.
Moreover, you are here arguing against someone named "Thomas Purvis" who posts on another forum you have repeatedly referenced. You are on a mission, then, not only aimed to discredit the Warren Commission and to slander its members like Gerry Ford. But you are also attacking this "Thomas Purvis" and his views on the JFK assassination as expressed on this other forum you refer to -- and who I am sure means nothing to any of us here.
| Conspiracy Theory wrote: |
Jerry Fletcher: David Berkowitz, Ted Bundy, Richard Speck...
Alice Sutton: What about them?
Jerry: Serial killers. Serial killers only have two names. You ever notice that? But lone gunmen assassins, they always have three names. John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, Mark David Chapman...
Alice: John Hinckley. He shot Reagan. He only has two names.
Jerry: Yeah, but he only just shot Reagan. Reagan didn't die. If Reagan had died, I'm pretty sure we probably would all know what John Hinckley's middle name was...
Jerry: I just thought of another one: James Earl Ray, the guy who got Luther King. Then of course, there's Sirhan Sirhan. I still haven't figured that one out. Maybe it's Sirhan Sirhan Sirhan, I don't know. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
regicide
Joined: 01 Sep 2006
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 06, 2007 2:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Gopher"]
| regicide wrote: |
| Gopher is a "Lone Nutter" and Disinformation Agent who causes confusion all over the internet "discussion boards." He is an intelligent man, who uses that skill to overcome the fact that his is bogus. |
Here is a full transcript of the speech to the Amercian Newspaper Publishers Association.
The President and the Press: Address before the American Newspaper Publishers Association
President John F. Kennedy
Waldorf-Astoria Hotel
New York City, April 27, 1961
Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen:
I appreciate very much your generous invitation to be here tonight.
You bear heavy responsibilities these days and an article I read some time ago reminded me of how particularly heavily the burdens of present day events bear upon your profession.
You may remember that in 1851 the New York Herald Tribune under the sponsorship and publishing of Horace Greeley, employed as its London correspondent an obscure journalist by the name of Karl Marx.
We are told that foreign correspondent Marx, stone broke, and with a family ill and undernourished, constantly appealed to Greeley and managing editor Charles Dana for an increase in his munificent salary of $5 per installment, a salary which he and Engels ungratefully labeled as the "lousiest petty bourgeois cheating."
But when all his financial appeals were refused, Marx looked around for other means of livelihood and fame, eventually terminating his relationship with the Tribune and devoting his talents full time to the cause that would bequeath the world the seeds of Leninism, Stalinism, revolution and the cold war.
If only this capitalistic New York newspaper had treated him more kindly; if only Marx had remained a foreign correspondent, history might have been different. And I hope all publishers will bear this lesson in mind the next time they receive a poverty-stricken appeal for a small increase in the expense account from an obscure newspaper man.
I have selected as the title of my remarks tonight "The President and the Press." Some may suggest that this would be more naturally worded "The President Versus the Press." But those are not my sentiments tonight.
It is true, however, that when a well-known diplomat from another country demanded recently that our State Department repudiate certain newspaper attacks on his colleague it was unnecessary for us to reply that this Administration was not responsible for the press, for the press had already made it clear that it was not responsible for this Administration.
Nevertheless, my purpose here tonight is not to deliver the usual assault on the so-called one party press. On the contrary, in recent months I have rarely heard any complaints about political bias in the press except from a few Republicans. Nor is it my purpose tonight to discuss or defend the televising of Presidential press conferences. I think it is highly beneficial to have some 20,000,000 Americans regularly sit in on these conferences to observe, if I may say so, the incisive, the intelligent and the courteous qualities displayed by your Washington correspondents.
Nor, finally, are these remarks intended to examine the proper degree of privacy which the press should allow to any President and his family.
If in the last few months your White House reporters and photographers have been attending church services with regularity, that has surely done them no harm.
On the other hand, I realize that your staff and wire service photographers may be complaining that they do not enjoy the same green privileges at the local golf courses that they once did.
It is true that my predecessor did not object as I do to pictures of one's golfing skill in action. But neither on the other hand did he ever bean a Secret Service man.
My topic tonight is a more sober one of concern to publishers as well as editors.
I want to talk about our common responsibilities in the face of a common danger. The events of recent weeks may have helped to illuminate that challenge for some; but the dimensions of its threat have loomed large on the horizon for many years. Whatever our hopes may be for the future--for reducing this threat or living with it--there is no escaping either the gravity or the totality of its challenge to our survival and to our security--a challenge that confronts us in unaccustomed ways in every sphere of human activity.
This deadly challenge imposes upon our society two requirements of direct concern both to the press and to the President--two requirements that may seem almost contradictory in tone, but which must be reconciled and fulfilled if we are to meet this national peril. I refer, first, to the need for a far greater public information; and, second, to the need for far greater official secrecy.
I
The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.
But I do ask every publisher, every editor, and every newsman in the nation to reexamine his own standards, and to recognize the nature of our country's peril. In time of war, the government and the press have customarily joined in an effort based largely on self-discipline, to prevent unauthorized disclosures to the enemy. In time of "clear and present danger," the courts have held that even the privileged rights of the First Amendment must yield to the public's need for national security.
Today no war has been declared--and however fierce the struggle may be, it may never be declared in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe. The survival of our friends is in danger. And yet no war has been declared, no borders have been crossed by marching troops, no missiles have been fired.
If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of combat conditions, then I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of "clear and present danger," then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent.
It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions--by the government, by the people, by every businessman or labor leader, and by every newspaper. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.
Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.
Nevertheless, every democracy recognizes the necessary restraints of national security--and the question remains whether those restraints need to be more strictly observed if we are to oppose this kind of attack as well as outright invasion.
For the facts of the matter are that this nation's foes have openly boasted of acquiring through our newspapers information they would otherwise hire agents to acquire through theft, bribery or espionage; that details of this nation's covert preparations to counter the enemy's covert operations have been available to every newspaper reader, friend and foe alike; that the size, the strength, the location and the nature of our forces and weapons, and our plans and strategy for their use, have all been pinpointed in the press and other news media to a degree sufficient to satisfy any foreign power; and that, in at least in one case, the publication of details concerning a secret mechanism whereby satellites were followed required its alteration at the expense of considerable time and money.
The newspapers which printed these stories were loyal, patriotic, responsible and well-meaning. Had we been engaged in open warfare, they undoubtedly would not have published such items. But in the absence of open warfare, they recognized only the tests of journalism and not the tests of national security. And my question tonight is whether additional tests should not now be adopted.
The question is for you alone to answer. No public official should answer it for you. No governmental plan should impose its restraints against your will. But I would be failing in my duty to the nation, in considering all of the responsibilities that we now bear and all of the means at hand to meet those responsibilities, if I did not commend this problem to your attention, and urge its thoughtful consideration.
On many earlier occasions, I have said--and your newspapers have constantly said--that these are times that appeal to every citizen's sense of sacrifice and self-discipline. They call out to every citizen to weigh his rights and comforts against his obligations to the common good. I cannot now believe that those citizens who serve in the newspaper business consider themselves exempt from that appeal.
I have no intention of establishing a new Office of War Information to govern the flow of news. I am not suggesting any new forms of censorship or any new types of security classifications. I have no easy answer to the dilemma that I have posed, and would not seek to impose it if I had one. But I am asking the members of the newspaper profession and the industry in this country to reexamine their own responsibilities, to consider the degree and the nature of the present danger, and to heed the duty of self-restraint which that danger imposes upon us all.
Every newspaper now asks itself, with respect to every story: "Is it news?" All I suggest is that you add the question: "Is it in the interest of the national security?" And I hope that every group in America--unions and businessmen and public officials at every level-- will ask the same question of their endeavors, and subject their actions to the same exacting tests.
And should the press of America consider and recommend the voluntary assumption of specific new steps or machinery, I can assure you that we will cooperate whole-heartedly with those recommendations.
Perhaps there will be no recommendations. Perhaps there is no answer to the dilemma faced by a free and open society in a cold and secret war. In times of peace, any discussion of this subject, and any action that results, are both painful and without precedent. But this is a time of peace and peril which knows no precedent in history.
II
It is the unprecedented nature of this challenge that also gives rise to your second obligation--an obligation which I share. And that is our obligation to inform and alert the American people--to make certain that they possess all the facts that they need, and understand them as well--the perils, the prospects, the purposes of our program and the choices that we face.
No President should fear public scrutiny of his program. For from that scrutiny comes understanding; and from that understanding comes support or opposition. And both are necessary. I am not asking your newspapers to support the Administration, but I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people. For I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed.
I not only could not stifle controversy among your readers--I welcome it. This Administration intends to be candid about its errors; for as a wise man once said: "An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it." We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors; and we expect you to point them out when we miss them.
Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed--and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment-- the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution- -not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply "give the public what it wants"--but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion.
This means greater coverage and analysis of international news--for it is no longer far away and foreign but close at hand and local. It means greater attention to improved understanding of the news as well as improved transmission. And it means, finally, that government at all levels, must meet its obligation to provide you with the fullest possible information outside the narrowest limits of national security--and we intend to do it.
III
It was early in the Seventeenth Century that Francis Bacon remarked on three recent inventions already transforming the world: the compass, gunpowder and the printing press. Now the links between the nations first forged by the compass have made us all citizens of the world, the hopes and threats of one becoming the hopes and threats of us all. In that one world's efforts to live together, the evolution of gunpowder to its ultimate limit has warned mankind of the terrible consequences of failure.
And so it is to the printing press--to the recorder of man's deeds, the keeper of his conscience, the courier of his news--that we look for strength and assistance, confident that with your help man will be what he was born to be: free and independent.
( Go to the JFK Presidential Library and Museum, Historical Resources, for audio)
On April 27, 1961, Kennedy gave a speech to the American Newspaper Publishers Association.
The entire speech is quite interesting, in my opinion, and I am interested to see if there are any opinions on what Kennedy really meant in this speech. The speech is largely about the responsibility of the press regarding information pertaining to the threat of foreign enemies; Kennedy notes that this threat requires both greater secrecy for national security, but that there is also a "very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment."
There is one particular passage I would like to cite:
QUOTE
For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.
Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.
For those who believe Kennedy was killed because he was willing to stand up to the intelligence agencies/military industrial complex/bankers desire for war, it seems like this passage could be interpreted as a warning from Kennedy regarding that force. To me this seems even more likely in light of the timing of the speech -- shortly after the Bay of Pigs Invasion.
Are there alternative interpretations of what Kennedy was talking about here? I've been studying the Kennedy assassination fairly intensively for the past few months, and I don't see this speech mentioned very often. It seems like a speech packed with meaning, but I don't see it discussed much.
� |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
