Alt+left-arrow to return from a link

 

U.S. State-sponsored murder:

The murder of René Schneider

by Charles Judson Harwood Jr.

A New York lawyer, Richard Nixon, U.S. President (Jan. 20 1969-1974 Aug. 8), may have appreciated that the RICO act he was about to sign into law would apply to his own violent crimes.

Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968 (Oct. 15 1970 10:30 a.m.), part of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970.

And though he knew he could trust John Mitchell, his Attorney-General (Jan. 20 1969-1972 Feb. 15), to not prosecute him, Nixon could also appreciate that a future Attorney-General, and a future President, might have character.

There’s no statute-of-limitations on murder, including RICO complicity in a foreign felony-murder (eg: killing during the course of an armed kidnapping).

Nixon and Mitchell were law partners in New York City (Nixon, Mudge, Rose, Guthrie, Alexander & Mitchell). Mitchell was complicit from the start {22kb.html/jpg, transcribed: 22kb.html, 37kb.pdf, 27kb.txt}, a member of the National Security Council’s ‘40 Committee’ {eg: 34kb.pdf} which oversaw most CIA/Military covert operations, and privy to ‘Track-II’ {eg: 37kb.pdf}, concealed from the written records of that committee — and, by this device, concealed from Congress {73 kb html/gif, 277kb.html} — but not concealed from the committee members themselves (or most of them), all of whom agreed to issue threats to the Chile military (“not a nut or bolt will be allowed to reach Chile under Allende”) and promises (U.S. assistance) if they overthrew the democracy in Chile by force and imposed a military dictatorship in a coup {eg: 94kb.pdf}.

Hence, the prosecutor was himself a trustworthy member of the RICO criminal enterprise. They must have chuckled to themselves at the signing ceremony (10:14 a.m.) {122kb.pdf, 1970 PPPUS 846-847}:

Douglas E. Abrams, The Law of Civil RICO (Little, Brown and Co., 1991), quoted here.

______________________

On that very day, Nixon ordered Henry A. Kissinger, National Security Adviser (Dec. 2 1968-1975 Nov. 3), to order the CIA to stop the Track-II operation, Nixon had previously ordered, to incite and aid and abet the Chile Military and Police to overthrow the democratically-elected government in Chile and to prevent Salvador Allende from taking office as its duly elected President a week later, on October 24.

Or so Kissinger later claimed, to the Senate Committee:

Henry A. Kissinger (Aug. ? 1975), Alleged Assassination Plots, Nov. 20 1975, p.247 n.1 {67 kb html/gif}.

Nixon himself subsequently wrote the Committee that he never ordered any Track-II, or any such efforts by the CIA to incite a violent coup; never heard of any such plans; and specifically never ordered or heard of any plan to kidnap/murder René Schneider.

Or, more precisely, he couldn’t remember it:

Richard M. Nixon (March 9 1976), Book IV, April 23 1976, pp.161-163, at 163 {53 kb html/gif}.

______________________

The moment Nixon signed RICO into law, Track-II became a federal RICO criminal enterprise in addition to what it already was — a violent criminal conspiracy under the laws of Virginia and the District of Columbia (because overt acts occurred there outside federal enclaves/offices), not to mention Chile.

And, a likely a federal criminal conspiracy too (because overt acts also occurred inside federal enclaves/offices), fundamental State crimes being also federal crimes unless Congress enacts a conflicting law.

RICO amalgamates the criminal laws of all States and thus its penalties (eg: life imprisonment for felony kidnap-murder) apply to acts of complicity which may not be criminal in some States, if they are criminal in other states.

18 U.S.C. § 1961(1)(A): “(1) ‘racketeering activity’ means (A) any act or threat involving murder, kidnapping, ... which is chargeable under State law ...”.

A couple dozen U.S. States have made plain they do not wish to host the headquarters operation of Murder Incorporated, and to subject their residents to the rich temptations such wealthy hoodlums offer, and the pressures, intimidation, moral decay, and corruption of public officials they sponsor and inspire, the proliferating criminal culture they spawn, and the violent retaliations they provoke. And, they don’t want their children lured into their company with attractive jobs in their respectable front operations and legitimate ancillary activities which disguise their criminal operations.

These States explicitly criminalize all domestic acts of complicity in serious crimes (eg: murder, kidnapping) foreign to their State, namely: solicitation (alias: incitement), aiding and abetting, facilitating, and conspiracy. Virginia and the District of Columbia have done this, for example, with their conspiracy statutes.

Some States have not done this explicitly, or entirely, and so there is uncertainty whether the normal criminal laws of some States apply to all forms of domestic complicity in foreign crimes.

RICO nevertheless applies in this situation, even if a particular act of complicity (a ‘racketeering activity’) is not criminal in the particular State where it occurred, provided the criminal enterprise is multi-jurisdictional, thereby bringing this federal law into play.

18 U.S.C. § 1962(c): “any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce”.

As in the case of the murder of René Schneider.

______________________

Five years later, and now under scrutiny, Kissinger may also have been mindful of RICO, and so too his deputy Alexander Haig: They admitted they launched Track-II, but testified they abandoned hope for it on October 15 1970 — a few hours after Nixon signed RICO into law:

Alleged Assassination Plots, Nov. 20 1975, p.247 {67 kb html/gif}, [brackets] in original.

Kissinger repeated his claim in his memoirs:

Henry A. Kissinger, The White House Years (Boston: Little, Brown, 1979) {page?} {LCCN: 79090006}.

______________________

The then secret records portray a contrary reality. And, in the unlikely event a criminal court jury were to believe them, their tale would not exonerate them, as the criminal law requires a vigorous, effectual effort to extricate yourself from a criminal enterprise, including undoing and neutralizing the resources and forces you brought to the enterprise and, if this is not sufficient, warning the target of the plan.

Like this:

18 U.S.C. § 373(b). This 1984 statute postdates the murder of René Schneider, but it’s a convenient statement of the common law in effect at the time in the relevant jurisdictions (federal, Virginia, District of Columbia).

And like this:

And like this:

Oklahoma Uniform Jury Instructions, Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals).

See, generally, Tammy Lopez ‘The Concept of Withdrawal from a Conspiracy’  {65 kb pdf}, Memorandum for the Office of the Prosecutor, International Tribunal for Rwanda, May 2001 (New England School of Law, International War Crimes Project).

And see Gray v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 537 S.E.2d 862 {16kb.txt; 34 kb doc} (Va. S.C., No. 99-2566, Nov. 3 2000), affirming 519 S.E.2d 825 {20kb.txt; doc} (Va. C.A., No. 2538-98-3, Oct. 19 1999): Thomas Abram Gray made a silencer for a rifle which Dorothea Martin, his girlfriend, wanted to give to “some out of town muscle” to murder her estranged husband Jim before their divorce became final, so she could inherit Jim’s $350,000 estate, an improvement on the $67,500 property settlement she otherwise expected from their 16-year marriage. And, Gray lied at Dorothea’s divorce hearing, about her adultery, in return for $15,000, which she later refused to pay. When she also later spurned him, Gray confessed the plot to Jim to warn him of her intentions and gave him many tape recordings as proof. On appeal by Gray from a 3-year prison sentence on his conviction for conspiracy to commit murder, the Virginia Court of Appeals held:

The Virginia Supreme Court affirmed:

(So Tom should lie-low, to protect himself, and leave Jim to his fate? His warning serving merely mitigate his sentence?).

______________________

Targeting René Schneider, Commander-in-Chief of the Chile Army, would be lawful under the laws of war.

But he was murdered under the laws of peace.

Under U.S. law, the President does not have legal authority to authorize an offensive war: He cannot immunize himself, on his whim, from the criminal laws of the United States and of its constituent States.

If he wishes to kill foreigners, destroy their property, overthrow their governments, and obey his oath of office, he must first persuade Congress of the rectitude of his cause.

Congress has the exclusive authority to legalize such offensive violence. Congress is the sole voice of the United States of America on this matter.

The President has no vote.

To legalize targeting René Schneider, Congress would first have to declare war on Chile.

Such a declaration would shield the CIA and U.S. Military officers and operatives from subsequent criminal wrongdoing. But, those responsible for declaring the war (Nixon, most Members of Congress voting in favor of the war, and the liars formulating the pretext for the war) would themselves, like Nazi officials, commit the ‘crime against peace’ (an international crime), because it would have been a criminal war of aggression.

And though a subsidiary issue has not been litigated, it’s plain that Members of Congress cannot shirk their individual responsibility, by delegating to a cabal of godfathers (their intelligence committees), or to the President, their exclusive authority to approve — or reject — a secret offensive war. Just as the Founding Fathers refused to permit the President to authorize offensive war, surely too they did not contemplate the Peoples’ Representatives in Congress could lawfully abdicate their responsibility to take individual responsibility for this momentous decision.

If Congress is not willing to vote on the war, and to approve it, then the Constitution continues to block the laws of war, and the violent killings and destruction inflicted by the President and his forces are not the lawful public acts of a sovereign.

They are private crimes of a violent criminal enterprise.

But Nixon, Kissinger, and Mitchell did not risk disapproval, even by like-minded godfathers. Instead, they initiated their offensive violent plan in secret from all Members of Congress {73 kb html/gif, 277kb.html}.

And the CIA and the U.S. military were ready, willing, and able to provide the money and the muscle.

As they did many times before, in identical circumstances, and many times since.

This is the issue in the pending suit by their victims: Schneider v. Kissinger. As I see it.

Will U.S. Judges now accept their responsibility and adjudicate this legal issue?

Or instead (and as usual) duck it? As U.S. District Court Judge Rosemary M. Collyer has now done (March 30 2004).

Will the U.S. Court of Appeals also stand aside and formally license secret offensive violence by the President?

Concealed from Congress, without its consent, unlawfully, in the teeth of the Constitution?

And themselves, as Judges, thereby participate, incite, aid and abet, and facilitate future such criminal enterprises? By the U.S. military and CIA on secret orders of the President? Liberated from restraint by the rule of law? Secure in the knowledge that if they obey the orders of their dictator, they will not be answerable in any court for their violent crimes and torts?

Is a vote for offensive war a mere privilege which Members of Congress can either exercise or ignore as they wish? Which U.S. Judges will not enforce?

If they look the other way, while the President and his henchmen kill foreigners on his whim, does this indifference by some Members of Congress, or their personal cowardice, or their informal secret approval and complicity, or their ignorance, induced by the President’s conspiracy of criminal liars — Does this Congressional inaction relieve U.S. Judges of their responsibility to adjudicate the unlawfulness of the criminal cabal?

And provide a peaceable remedy to their victims?

Or instead, is a vote by the whole Congress the indispensable predicate to legalize such offensive violence?

Do We the People — and the victims of this offensive violence — have an enforceable right to the protection of the Constitution. That such political decisions be reached in Congress, as the Constitution says, not in the secret hideouts, of the President, and his criminal thugs?

If the President and his gang wish to convert their otherwise private criminal killings into lawful killings by the United States, does the Constitution require that s/he first persuade Congress that their proposed offensive violence is not criminal aggression? And that the national interest requires it?:

James Wilson (subsequently a Justice of the first U.S. Supreme Court), December 11 1787, The Debates in the Convention of the State of Pennsylvania, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, 2 Elliot's Debates 528 {text, pp.415-546: 343kb.html} {LCCN: 78325363}.

Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, letter dated Paris, September 6 1789, Thomas Jefferson Papers at the Library of Congress, Series 1, General Correspondence, 1651-1827, March 15 1789 to November 30 1789, image 912-919 of 1242, at 918 {112kb.html/gif}; transcribed: Paul Leicester Ford (editor), The Works of Thomas Jefferson (Federal Edition, 1904-05, 12 volumes) {LCCN: 06015404}.

In the sunshine of public discourse, political debate, and a vote in Congress — a safeguard imposed by the Founding Fathers to be the exclusive crucible for this political decision — I wonder how many Members of Congress would have voted for Richard Nixon’s secret offensive war to overthrow the democratically elected government of Chile (1970-1973)? And for John Kennedy’s secret offensive war on Cuba (1961-1963), provoking the Cuban Missile Crisis, and his secret offensive act of war to overthrow the U.S. puppet-dictator of the U.S.-sponsored police-state of South Vietnam (Aug. 24–Nov. 2 1963)? And for Dwight Eisenhower’s secret offensive overthrow of the democratically elected governments of Iran (1953), Guatemala (1954)? And for his secret repudiation of his 1954 promise {copy} to support the free and fair election in Vietnam agreed for July 1956 {copy}, which his intelligence officials assured him would produce an 80% vote nationwide for Ho Chi Minh, a national hero? And for Lyndon Johnson’s secret war on North Vietnam, which he concealed from Congress when tricking them into voting for war in the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution (August 7 1964) (the fictitious attack on the U.S. warship supporting the CIA/DoD secret war would have been lawful self-defense)? And for Ronald Reagan’s secret launch of offensive war on Nicaragua, and secret direct participation as a co-belligerent with the Contras (1982-1990); his secret National Command Authority order (Sept. 11 1983) to authorize U.S. military forces in Lebanon to conduct offensive war as a belligerent in the complex civil and international war in Lebanon, continuing earlier unlawful direct resupply of munitions to a co-belligerent, leading to the bombing of the U.S. Marines Corps barracks in Beirut (Oct. 23 1983), a prima facie lawful military operation and not “terrorism” as Reagan lied in cover-up of his own secret unconstitutional action; and his secret orders for the U.S. military to participate as a co-belligerent in Iraq’s criminal war of aggression against Iran (1980-1988)? And for Gerald Ford’s secret offensive war on Angola (1975-2002) and secret pursuit of that offensive war (funneled through South Africa) in violation of defunding by the U.S. Congress and to acquiesce and incite Indonesia’s offensive invasion of East Timor (1975)? (And this is but a few paragraphs of a very lengthy indictment).

Why do people hate America?

It’s hardly surprising U.S. Presidents plot in their dark chambers of secrecy to indulge their private passions, please their rich corporate backers, and pander to their fancied social and intellectual betters, no different from any monarchy in history.

And as for their iron fist: These institutions over the past 50 years, like any organism, have adapted to their environment and selected for the traits desired and praised by their master. If there be any among the leadership ranks, and their staffs, of the relevant cells, stations, and positions within the CIA, FBI, NSA, DoD, DoJ, and DoS, who have not demonstrated their willingness to commit crimes on orders, and to acquiesce, lie, and cover-up about the crimes of their co-workers, I would be surprised.

Small wonder, with complicit executive officers who sidetrack people of integrity to promote and groom their own ilk; with complicit prosecutors who won’t prosecute; with legislators, many complicit, who look the other way (the “buddy system”), won’t inquire (“a sentry asleep on duty”), and won’t legislate; and with judges, many sympathetic, who won’t judge.

________________

The failure to withdraw from a criminal enterprise is conspicuous when you yourself created the enterprise, set it in motion, and control its operation. If you actually want to change your mind and stop before any harm is done, it’s easy to do: you have chain-of-command authority to halt the enterprise. And this was the case with each of the king-pins in this violent crime: Nixon, Kissinger, and Richard Helms, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (June 28 1966-1973 Feb. 2).

But, instead of stopping on October 15 1970 (as Kissinger and Haig claimed), they thereafter intensified their efforts, dealing with two different groups of coup-plotters, urging them to cooperate with each other, paying their preferred group $100,000 for a second kidnap attempt, urging them to make a third attempt, and supplying them with untraceable weapons and ammunition for the task. And though nearly all of the formerly secret documents still contain redactions (including entire pages and paragraphs) and many entire documents are still concealed, what has been released would satisfy any reasonable criminal court jury beyond a reasonable doubt:

The next morning, following the White House afternoon meeting when Kissinger claimed he gave his order to stop, Helm’s CIA in Virginia confirmed the exact opposite, in a carefully crafted unambiguous 4-page telex to the CIA Chief of Station (CoS) in Chile — exactly 24 hours after Nixon signed RICO into law:

CIA telex, Oct. 16 1970 14:08z (10:08 EDT) {109 kb html/jpg, 138kb.pdf}. This telex no doubt faithfully implements Kissinger’s orders, surely recorded in paragraph 1 (redacted) of the CIA record {164 kb html/jpg, 219kb.pdf} of their October 15, 4:30 p.m. {52kb.pdf} afternoon meeting, proof concealed by the CIA of Kissinger’s and Haig’s criminal lies to Congress.

And, two days later, the CIA in Virginia again telexed Henry Hecksher, their station chief, at the U.S. embassy in Chile:

CIA telex, Oct. 18 1970 23:11z (19:11 EDT) {87 kb html/jpg, 91kb.pdf}.

To aid and abet the plan {289kb.pdf}: To kidnap the respected and influential General René Schneider, “Commander in Chief of the Army, who advocated strict adherence to the Constitution ... and, as long as General Schneider remained head of the Army, the Army could not be counted upon”, as the CIA explained {93 kb html/jpg, 669kb.pdf, transcribed: 238 kb html/gif} — an obstacle to a violent coup by the military which Nixon and Kissinger ordered the CIA to incite, aid and abet, and facilitate:

CIA telex, CoS Santiago to CIA Headquarters, Oct. 8 1970 {110kb.pdf}.

The CIA, from the U.S. embassy, delivered the sub-machine guns (which could not be traced) to the would-be kidnappers (Oct. 21 1970 2 am) {41kb.pdf}. The next morning, their third attempt, the kidnappers blocked Schneider’s car on his way to work, smashed his window with a sledge-hammer, and shot him three times in the chest with a pistol (Oct. 22 1970 8:20 am) {43kb.html} — later claiming Schneider reached for his pistol (at which point they murdered him, instead of retreating). Schneider died 3 days later, at the hospital (Oct. 25 1970 8:00 am) {65kb.pdf} — 10 days after Nixon signed RICO into law.

Paul M. Wimert Jr. (Colonel, U.S. Army), U.S. Embassy military attache, was ordered {16kb.html} by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Thomas H. Moorer, a member of the 40 Committee {eg: 203kb.pdf}, to obey orders of the CIA Chief of Station {93 kb html/jpg, 669kb.pdf, transcribed: 238 kb html/gif} and, by the CoS (Oct. 8 1970) {112kb.pdf}, to disobey conflicting orders of U.S. Ambassador Edward M. Korry, who was ignorant of the CIA/DoD’s coup incitement/conspiracy, though himself complicit in furthering the object of the conspiracy by inciting his own separate contacts.

A bag-man and one of the fomenters of the kidnap/murder, Wimert also received detailed orders from Donald V. Bennett (General, U.S. Army, Director, Defense Intelligence Agency) (eg: Oct. 14 1970) {112kb.pdf, 73 kb html/gif}. Acting on orders, Wimert doled-out to his co-conspirators cash, machine-guns, gas-masks, tear-gas grenades, promises, and encouragement in the name of the U.S. Government; retrieved the unused hardware; and together with Henry Hecksher — as Wimert recounted to Seymour Hersh a decade later {102kb.html}, and in a CNN interview a further decade later {18kb.html} — he dumped it all in the ocean:

A week or two after the killing, the CIA paid the killers an additional $35,000 hush-money for a job well-done, first revealed 30 years later and explained by the CIA in this understanding way:

“The Schneider Assassination” in CIA Activities in Chile {58kb.html) (CIA, Sept. 18 2000).

In their year 2000 report to Congress, CIA officers assert as fact that the killers on the morning of October 22 1970 “were acting independently of the CIA at that time”.

But CIA officers conceal from their report the CIA promise, prior to the shooting, to pay “this same group” of abductors $50,000 {289kb.pdf}; that “this same group had participated in the October 19 and 20 kidnap attempts” {73 kb html/gif} with active incitement by the CIA, including their promise of $50,000; that “this same group” contacted the CIA two days after the shooting {157kb.pdf}; and that retired Chilean General Roberto Viaux blackmailed the CIA into paying “this same group” by secreting outside Chile audio tapes documenting CIA solicitation/incitement, aiding and abetting, and conspiracy {130kb.pdf}.

CIA officers also conceal from their report evidence, and the CIA’s own belief at the time {eg: 219kb.pdf, 289kb.pdf, 255kb.pdf}, that — as Peter Kornbluh points out in his affidavit — a unified command or collaboration encompassed all actors in the abduction plan — military, police, and civilians — including Viaux, whom the CIA had urged to “join forces with other coup plotters” (October 16 1970) {109 kb html/jpg, 138kb.pdf}. The commander-in-chief of the coup-plotters (General Camilo Valenzuela, Santiago Garrison Commander), backed by the CIA, personally recounted (October 20 1970) {44kb.pdf} his active assistance to “this same group” of abductors (including Viaux’s operatives) in the October 19 kidnap attempt, and Valenzuela was himself to collect from Wimert the $50,000 to pay “this same group”, had they succeeded that night {next link}. Valenzuela himself personally explained to Wimert (October 18 1970, 10:30 pm) {289kb.pdf} the details of the plan and stated that Viaux knew these details and “has been sent to Vina” to establish an alibi for himself — Viaux being widely known in Chile as a coup-plotter and therefore dangerous to be seen associating with — and that Viaux “will be allowed to return to Santiago at end of week”, further implying Viaux (and his operatives) were under the command and control of Valenzuela. In confirmation of the fact of their collaboration, Viaux’s representative, on that very same day, separately confirmed the same plan to a CIA agent (October 18 1970) {68kb.pdf, 72 kb html/gif}. Interestingly, Wimert himself later wrote the Defense Intelligence Agency report {83kb.pdf} of the Chile Military Court decision (May 8 1971), convicting both Viaux and Valenzuela (and others). Naturally, in his report, Wimert didn’t mention his own personal complicity in the murder of René Schneider.

The CIA has carefully concealed the contemporary documents pertaining to its $35,000 payment (which it concealed from the 1975 Church Committee), and huge quantities of redacted text in released documents, and much else still, because a narrative account, selective information, and concealed information, are techniques of deception and — in addition to violent crime — that’s the business they’re in.

CIA officers decided to lie to Congress in their year 2000 report, by asserting to be unassailable fact what is nothing more than a mere wishful legal theory, contradicted by actual facts which they conceal behind their “absolute stonewall denial”. In the case of all criminal complicity in murder, the killers are always “acting independently ... at that time” from those equally guilty with them in the murder, by reason of their complicity (solicitation/incitement, aiding and abetting, facilitating, conspiring). In this inconsequential sense only, is the CIA year 2000 report to Congress truthful: that the killers “were acting independently of the CIA at that time”.

By concealing the complicity facts, the CIA officers responsible for that report willfully induced what they knew to be an erroneous — and material — inference, namely: that there’s no basis for believing that U.S. officials were complicit in the murder of René Schneider. The truth, of course (which they conceal), is a fulsome basis for concluding — and beyond reasonable doubt — precisely the opposite, namely: that U.S. officials were indeed complicit in the murder of René Schneider.

By their decision to lie to Congress, these CIA officers reaffirm yet again, in the name of the CIA, that violent crime and criminal lies is who they are. It’s what they do.

True, they have an appendage of intelligence analysts, who are undoubtedly honorable — except, of course, for those who consent to endorse their master’s lies, such as Iraq attempting to procure uranium from Niger. Or that an innocent pharmaceutical factory in Sudan is, instead, a chemical weapons facility. Clothed in secrecy, the institutional honor (if any) of the CIA’s intelligence analysts is impossible to assess. But their self-proclaimed honor well-serves the CIA’s criminal remit, as respectable bait, to lure the nation’s youngsters into their lair and to provide them, and their parents and families, with plausible deniability: that they are not the ones conducting the Company’s criminal operations.

The U.S. Attorney General has not prosecuted the CIA officers responsible for their year 2000 lie to Congress (18 U.S.C. § 1001, 18 U.S.C. § 371}, and Congress has made no statement about being lied to. Cozy.

______________________

Three years later, the violent military coup succeeded — incited, aided and abetted, conspired in, and facilitated by the U.S. Government, with promised and delivered inducements and likely direct participation by the CIA and U.S. Military — and the violent criminal military dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet was installed in power, courtesy of the U.S. Government, and “less than eight hours after the initiation of the coup, Allende was dead” (Sept. 11 1973), as Patrick J. Ryan (Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Marine Corps) bragged in his ‘mission accomplished’ report {119 kb html/jpg} from the scene of the crime.

Why do people hate America?

Allende’s violent death, in his office, his head blown to pieces with a sub-machine gun, was labeled a suicide by Ryan {117 kb html/jpg}, the standard cover story for a cold-blooded murder in a coup.

Like this:

CIA Siagon, telex, Nov. 2 1963, 0410z {120kb.html}.

Alleged Assassination Plots, “Diem”, pp.217-223, at 223 n.1 {66 kb html/gif}, referring to the U.S. incited military coup, secret from Congress, to overthrow the U.S. backed dictator of South Vietnam (who wouldn’t obey U.S. orders). See also John Prados, JFK and the Diem Coup (National Security Archive, Nov. 5, 2003)

Why do people hate America?

______________________

Such criminal activities and acts of war by CIA, NSA, and U.S. Military command-and-control personnel, co-located in U.S. embassies all over the world, illustrate the decision by the U.S. Government to designate most of its U.S. embassies lawful military targets — and all of them presumptively so.