JFK Conference: Mark Lane Addressed the Secret Government’s Role in the Assassination [View all]

[Octafish]

As a Democrat, a DUer and as a citizen of the United States, I was proud to attend "Passing the Torch: An International Symposium on the 50th Anniversary of the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy" at Duquesne University in October.

One of the important speakers there I was privileged to hear is Mark Lane, whose program was entitled "The Secret Service and the Assassination of JFK." The title as printed in the program is a misnomer, as Mr. Lane referred mainly to the CIA and the related secret governmental agencies involved in national security, rather than just the Secret Service that is charged with the president’s physical protection. Mr. Lane made clear that no matter their motives, any role, or rationale -- the CIA blocked the investigations of the assassination from the Warren Commission, from which CIA withheld crucial information, including plotting with the Mafia to assassinate Fidel Castro; to that of New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison, who established many connections between the assassination and the anti-Castro CIA operations; to the House Select Committee on Assassinations, that had a CIA director George H.W. plant work to destroy the investigation; to the present day, where the CIA continues to fight FOIA requests for information they were ordered by a federal court to release to the public. This is a problem for us today, the people for whom they serve without any form of democratic accountability.



An attorney, author, and early critic of the Warren Commission, Mr. Lane said he is proud to be the only public official arrested for being a Freedom Rider during the Civil Rights movement. At the Duquesne conference, Mr. Lane stated that he believed he was the one guy in the room of about 800 people who also was personal friends with President John F. Kennedy and Attorney General and later Senator Robert F. Kennedy. He got to know them in his role as New York City for JFK campaign chair in the 1960 election, particularly RFK, who served as his brother’s national campaign manager. Speaking from his unique personal and professional perspectives, Mr. Lane discussed the role of secret government in regard to the assassination.

EXCERPT...

This is what Arthur Krock wrote, published in The New York Times on October 3, 1963: "A very high American official -- and he was talking about John Kennedy -- has said the CIA's growth was likened to a malignancy, which was, the very high official said, was not sure even the White House could control.” And this very high official, probably the president, said. And was published, as I said, in The New York Times, October 3, 1963. “If the United States ever experiences an attempt at a coup to overthrow the government, it will come from the CIA and not the Pentagon. The CIA represents a tremendous power and total unaccountability to anyone.”

That's what was said in October. And the president was killed the following month.

The Warren Commission never called Arthur Krock to ask him who the official was; How come he could predict the assassination a month before it took place? or predict something happening; and who the high official was? The high official was John Kennedy. But, that has not been said (in the media). And so we have the government issuing a statement which is untrue. And then we have the news media accepting it and allowing no dissent.

No dissent. For one year, a full year after the assassination of the president, not one question was asked of the government or published anywhere in any newspaper, radio station, television station. Not one question about the validity of the government's investigation. Not one question.

I'd like to believe that now with the internet and instant communication we have all around the the whole world, that if that happened today, it would be very hard to keep it a secret. But, you can count on the fact that people will continue to try that, if events have to be covered up from their viewpoint.

And as I said, there was -- their statement (the Warren Commission’s) was, “Our position is that we must reassure the American people.” And Earl Warren came out and when he was asked, "When will we get the truth?” He said, “You may never get it in your lifetime. Hundreds of thousands of Americans might die if the facts came out.”

And so, he was terrified. The hundreds of Americans he was talking about was World War III, which was going to break out, if they told the truth. This was what the Warren Commission was told. It took me years to get (FOIA) transcripts of the in-house meetings of the commission.

But, this is what they were told: that Lee Harvey Oswald, according to the CIA, went to Mexico City in October, 1963. He then visited the two agencies there -- he visited the Soviet embassy, he was in the Soviet Union, and the Cuban embassy. And it's clear that he was planning after he killed -- this was in October, when he was there, they said -- he was planning to go to Cuba and from Cuba -- go from Mexico City after the assassination -- Oswald was -- and go to Cuba from Mexico City and then fly on to the Soviet Union. That's the story that was told to the Warren Commission.

And the CIA went on to say, however: “We don't believe that the Russians or the Cubans were in any way involved. But, if the story gets out, people will not believe us. And that's why hundreds of thousands of Americans will die in a war which is going to take place. That's what they told Earl Warren and scared him. He really was frightened by this.

The trouble was the story was a fabrication. Oswald had not been to Mexico City.

The person who designed that whole story was a man named David Atlee Phillips, who ran the Central Intelligence Agency for the entire western hemisphere from his office in Mexico City.

Not long before he died, in the last seven years (or so) ago, he said that, I was at USC and appeared on the program with him) he said that, in fact, Oswald never was in Mexico City -- which destroyed the entire story which had been told to the Warren Commission.

When that was reported, an apologist for the Warren Commission said, “Well, it was because, yes, he said it, we can't deny that he said it.” This was well-publicized, this statement. “But the fact is that Mark Lane had subjected him to a cruel, grueling cross examination and confused him and that's why he said it.”

It was a (1977) meeting at USC (University of Southern California). I was on the panel and he was on the panel. I directed no question to him at all. And a student got up at the end and raised the subject, which I had not, that was: “Can you tell us about Mexico City, Mr. Phillips?" There was no cross examination. It was just the kid asking the question. And that's when Phillips said, "Oswald was never there."

And so the cover-up was that I had subjected him to this cross examination that wasn't. Of course, I didn't ask him anything. It was the student that said it. But that became the mantra of the Establishment to try to explain how the man who ran the Central Intelligence Agency for the United States (in the hemisphere) and elsewhere and did it from his office in Mexico City, made that statement, because of my brilliant cross-examination, although I never asked him the question.

And so here we are now, 50 years later, almost 50 years later, and there still are files which are classified. We don't even know the number, but we know there are in the tens of thousands of documents, that are classified by reasons of national security. Which obviously makes no sense, 50 years later. Never made any sense at the time because they were saying Lee Harvey Oswald did it alone. But anyway, even if made sense, then what issue of national security can possibly still be involved?

Well it's a question of CIA’s security. If the American people were told then or were even told now the truth about who killed their president, that would be the end of the CIA.

Most of the people who were involved are dead; in fact, maybe all of them. I know some names, but I don’t (name them). I'm a lawyer and I believe in our system of justice. I've never spoken out the name of any one individual who i believe is a suspect in the case because I think that our system is: Nobody is guilty in this country, each person is presumed to be innocent, even when they've been indicted, it is unfair to give up our whole judicial system in this one instance by saying yes, so-and-so probably did it. Guilt is determined by a jury or a plea of guilty or if you waive a jury, by a judge. The outcome is the result of a judicial proceeding. That is crucial to who we are, not every country has this blessing, which was handed down to us by the founders at the very beginning.

CONTINUED...

First off: The transcription above of Mr. Lane’s remarks from Oct. 18 at Duquesne above is mine. Any errors it may contain are my own.

Want to add: DU has discussed these issues: Arthur Krock on JFK, the CIA and Vietnam here; and former President Harry S Truman here.

Want to say: [font color="orange"]I’m honored to be an American and proud to be a Democrat and a DUer who stands with Mark Lane.[/font color] Since 1964 when the Warren Report was issued, Mr. Lane has made clear the problems with the government’s narrative that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. And he since has made plain what those problems with the government's story are, and from where they originate, the halls of secret government, including those of the Central Intelligence Agency, still need to be held to account.