CJHjrValid XHTML 1.0W3C: Valid CSS2

Alt+left-arrow to return from a link


U.S. State-sponsored murder:

The murder of René Schneider

by Charles Judson Harwood Jr.

This is not a “who done it.”

It’s a “so what.”  CJHjr

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 {73kb.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.),1970 PPPUS 846-847 {122kb.pdf}:

October 15 1970 was a cloudy day in Washington, D.C. Early that morning, President Richard M. Nixon took the short drive from the White House to the Great Hall at the Department of Justice Building.

In a ceremony beginning shortly after 10:00 a.m., the President signed the Organized Crime Control Act. The omnibus legislation, the President told the assemblage, would provide federal law enforcement authorities the legal tools to ‘launch a total war against organized crime’.

Handing the signed bill to the Attorney General and the Federal Bureau of Investigation director, the President proclaimed,

“Gentlemen, I give you the tools. You do the job”.

Title IX of the thirteen-title bill was named Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations, or ‘RICO’.”

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:

“Secretary Kissinger, in a written response to a Committee question, stated that he had not been able to find any ‘written instruction from the President to discontinue efforts to organize a coup. The President did, however, convey this decision to me orally in mid-October 1970’.”

Henry A. Kissinger (Aug. ? 1975), Alleged Assassination Plots, Nov. 20 1975, p.247 n.1 {67kb.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 didn’t remember it:

“I do not recall receiving information, while President, concerning plans for a military coup in Chile involving the kidnapping of General Rene Schneider or any other Chilean”.

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

Assimilative Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. § 13, codifying the Federal Crimes Act of 1825, § 3 (March 3 1825), 4 Stat. 115 {59kb.html/gif}, discussed in Lewis v. United States, 523 U.S. 155 (1998).

Note:  The general federal conspiracy statute deals with federal crimes, and thus does not conflict with the federal assimilation of a state conspiracy statute to reach federal conspiracies to commit State crimes where the criminal agreement is reached, and overt acts occur, inside federal enclaves/offices, though this issue of a conflict may never have been considered by a Court. (I haven’t checked, and it’s the policy of the U.S. Attorney-General to not prosecute the many federal conspiracies to commit State crimes). 18 U.S.C. § 371.

Long after the murder of René Schneider, Congress purported to criminalize domestic conspiracies to commit foreign kidnap/murders. This new law does conflict with State conspiracy statutes and, perversely, ‘legalizes’ what these assimilated State statutes had long criminalized, namely: properly structured violent criminal conspiracies within the U.S. Government to maim, kidnap, and murder foreigners outside the U.S., as explained below * . 18 U.S.C. § 956 (April 24 1996).

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.

Virginia, § 18.2-22 (“to commit a felony either within or without this Commonwealth”).

District of Columbia, § 22-1805a (“to engage in conduct in a jurisdiction outside the District of Columbia”).

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:

Kissinger (August 12 1975): “In my mind Track II was finished on October 15th”.

Haig (August 15 1975): “I left [the October 15th meeting {started 4:30 pm: 52kb.pdf}] with the distinct impression that there was nothing that could be done in this covert area that offered promise or hope for success. I had the distinct impression that was Dr. Kissinger’s conclusion, and that in effect these things — and I wasn’t even really familiar with what these two groups were to do and how they were to do it, but they were to cease and desist. (Haig, 8/15/75, pp.26-27)

My recollection would be that we had no hope for a viable, covert plan of action. That is the impression I got. (Ibid., p.29)”

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

Kissinger repeated his claim in his memoirs:

“When I ordered coup plotting turned off on October 15, 1970, Nixon, Haig, and I considered it the end of both Track I and Track II.”

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:

“ 6. After the decision to de-fuse the Viaux coup plot, at least temporarily, Dr. Kissinger instructed Mr. Karamessines to preserve Agency assets in Chile, working clandestinely and securely to maintain the capability for Agency operations against Allende in the future.”

CIA, Oct. 15 1970 {164kb.jpg, 219kb.pdf}

United States Code

“Sec. 373. — Solicitation to commit a crime of violence. ...

(b)  It is an affirmative defense to a prosecution under this section that, under circumstances manifesting a voluntary and complete renunciation of his criminal intent, the defendant prevented the commission of the crime solicited. A renunciation is not “voluntary and complete” if it is motivated in whole or in part by a decision to postpone the commission of the crime until another time or to substitute another victim or another but similar objective. If the defendant raises the affirmative defense at trial, the defendant has the burden of proving the defense by a preponderance of the evidence.”

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:

Okla. OCCA

OUJI-CR 2-7. — Aiding And Abetting — Defense Of Abandonment

It is a defense to the charge of aiding and abetting that a person abandoned the commission of the alleged crime. However, the responsibility of one who has aided and abetted in the commission of a crime, or engaged in a criminal undertaking, does not cease unless, within time to prevent the commission of the contemplated act, he/she has done everything practicable to prevent its consummation. It is not enough that he/she may have changed his/her mind, and tried when too late to avoid responsibility. He/she will be liable if he/she fails within time to let the other party/parties know of his/her withdrawal, and unless he/she does everything in his/her power to prevent the commission of the crime.”

And like this:

Okla. OCCA

OUJI-CR 2-22. — Conspiracy — Definitions, Committee Comments. ...

The Model Penal Code recognizes withdrawal as an affirmative defense to a conspiracy charge, but requires that the putative conspirator must have

thwarted the success of the conspiracy, under circumstances manifesting a complete and voluntary renunciation of his criminal purpose.’

Model Penal Code § 5.03(6).

The underlying premise for this stringent mandate is dual: (1) the defendant should be exonerated from criminal liability if a subsequent withdrawal is effected; but, (2) only where defendant assures by his conduct that the objective of the illicit agreement will not be further pursued, despite his withdrawal. Model Penal Code § 5.03, Comment (Tent. Draft No.10, 1960) ... .

Once the defense of withdrawal is properly raised, the burden of proving the nonexistence of the defense should rest on the State.”

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

See, generally, Tammy Lopez ‘The Concept of Withdrawal from a Conspiracy’  {65kb.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; 34kb.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:

“[A] withdrawal and decision not to complete the crime after the parties have agreed to commit a crime has no bearing on the already completed conspiracy and cannot, therefore, be an affirmative defense”.

The Virginia Supreme Court affirmed:

“We hold the Court of Appeals did not err in ruling that, in Virginia, unlike some other jurisdictions, withdrawal is not a defense to conspiracy. As we already have stated, citing Falden and Stevens, in Virginia the crime of conspiracy is complete when the parties agree to commit an offense, and no overt act in furtherance of the underlying crime is necessary. Therefore, as the Court of Appeals stated, no action subsequent to the formation of the agreement can exonerate the conspirator of that crime.”

(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 {73kb.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.

“ The Court is not prepared to read out of the Constitution the clause granting to the Congress, and to it alone, the authority “to declare war”.”

Dellums v. Bush, 752 F.Supp. 1141, 1146 (D.D.C., Dec. 13 1990)

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?:

“This system will not hurry us into war; it is calculated to guard against it. It will not be in the power of a single man, or a single body of men, to involve us in such distress; for the important power of declaring war is vested in the legislature at large: this declaration must be made with the concurrence of the House of Representatives: from this circumstance we may draw a certain conclusion that nothing but our national interest can draw us into a war.”

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}.

“We have already given in example one effectual check to the Dog of war, by transferring the power of letting him loose from the executive to the Legislative body, from those who are to spend to those who are to pay.”

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?

“ Mr. Geneen, Chairman of the Board, ITT, and Mr, John McCone, Director and Member of the Executive Committee, ITT, ... had a series of discussions at the Department of State following which they met with Mr. Ehrlichman at The While House. Mr. Ehrlichman in turn called the DCI ... Mr. Geneen mentioned his astonishment and disappointment ...”

CIA report, Sept. 17 1970 {256kb.pdf}

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.

“ But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

Declaration of Independence, July 4 1776


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).

“ I don’t see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its own people.”

Henry Kissinger, NSC 40-Committee (June 27 1970)

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:

“1.  {Redacted: FUBELT?} policy, objectives and actions were reviewed at high USG level afternoon 15 October. Conclusions, which are to be your operational guide, follow:

2.  It is firm and continuing policy that Allende be overthrown by a coup. It would be much preferable to have this transpire prior to 24 October but efforts in this regard will continue vigorously beyond this date.”

CIA telex, Oct. 16 1970 14:08z (10:08 EDT) {109kb.html/jpg, 138kb.pdf}. This telex no doubt faithfully implements Kissinger’s orders, surely recorded in paragraph 1 (redacted) of the CIA record {164kb.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:

“Sub-machine guns and ammo being sent by regular {redacted} courier leaving Washington 0700 hours 19 October due arrive Santiago late evening 20 October or early morning 21 October. Preferred use regular {redacted} courier to avoid bringing undue attention to Op.”

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

“ The power of the United States will be used to defend freedom, never to destroy freedom.

What we seek is not a Pax Americana, not an American Century, but rather a structure of stability and progress that will enable each nation, large and small,

to chart its own course,

to make its own way

without outside interference,

without intimidation,

without domination by ourselves or any other nation. ...

We seek good relations with all the people of the world.

We respect the right of each people to choose its own way.”

Richard Milhous Nixon (U.S. President, Jan. 20 1969-1974 Aug. 9), “Address to the 25th Anniversary Session of the General Assembly of the United Nations” (New York City, Oct. 23 1970), 1970 PPPUS 926-932 {ucsb, 501kb.pdf}, Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Richard Nixon, 1970 {SuDoc: GS 4.113:970, ISSN: 0079-7626, LCCN: 58061050, DL, LFDL, WorldCat}CJHjr

Why do people hate America?

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 {93kb.html/jpg, 669kb.pdf, transcribed: 238kb.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:

“Schneider is the main barrier to all plans for the military to take over the government to prevent an Allende Government.”

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

“ 10. {Name redacted} stated that ... abduction attempt might lead to bloodshed. Schneider’s accidental death would rally Army firmly behind flag of Constitutionalism. ...

14. {Name redacted} repeatedly stressed that armed forces will preserve cohesion only as long as they can maintain constitutional stance. Once that stance abandoned, all Hell would break loose, with soldiers fighting soldiers. Was that desirable? ¶

CoS replied, U.S.G. did not really care as long as resulting chaos denied Allende the Presidency.”

Henry Hecksher (CIA Chief of Station, U.S. Embassy, Santiago Chile) to CIA Headquarters, Langley Virginia, telex, Oct. 9 1970 {374kb.pdf}CJHjr

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.

“ Let Facts be submitted to a candid world. ...

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.”

Declaration of Independence July 4 1776

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 {93kb.html/jpg, 669kb.pdf, transcribed: 238kb.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:

“I took the 12 grease guns that had the serial numbers filed off, the ammunition, the tear gas, the gas masks — went to Valparaiso, which is supposed to be the deepest harbor in that part of the world, and I dumped it all into there.”

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:

“In November 1970 a member of the Viaux group who avoided capture recontacted the Agency and requested financial assistance on behalf of the group. Although the Agency had no obligation to the group because it acted on its own, in an effort to keep the prior contact secret, maintain the good will of the group, and for humanitarian reasons, $35,000 was passed.”

“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) {109kb.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.

“ (a)  Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—

(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;

(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or

(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.”

18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)

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”.

“ (3)  the term “misleading conduct” means – ...

(B)  intentionally omitting information from a statement and thereby causing a portion of such statement to be misleading, or intentionally concealing a material fact, and thereby creating a false impression by such statement ...”

18 U.S.C. § 1515(a)(3)(B)

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 {119kb.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 {117kb.html/jpg}, the standard cover story for a cold-blooded murder in a coup.

Like this:

“Radio announcement reports they committed suicide by poison.”

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

“Conein stated, Minh said that they were behind the General Staff Headquarters, but professed that they had died by their own hand. ...

The Inspector General’s Report states that on November 16, 1963, a field-grade officer of unknown reliability gave the CIA two photographs of the bodles of Diem and Nhu in which it appeared their hands were tied behind their backs. (I.G. Report, C, pp. 43-44). The source reported that Diem and Nhu had been shot and stabbed while being conveyed to the Joint General Staff headquarters.”

Alleged Assassination Plots, “Diem”, pp.217-223, at 223 n.1 {66kb.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.




Chile and the United States (National Security Archive, George Washington University, Washington DC)

Chile Declassification Documents (several agencies) (U.S. State Department, Freedom of Information Act, Electronic Reading Room). Released June 30 1999, Oct. 8 1999, Nov. 13 2000.

‘The Schneider Assassination’ in CIA Activities in Chile {58kb.html) (CIA, Sept. 18 2000), Report to Congress required by the Hinchey amendment {56kb.html/gif} to the 2000 Intelligence Authorization Act; also via State Department {77kb.html} and National Security Archive {html/gif}.

Schneider{2456kb.pdf}, in Alleged Assassination Plots Involving Foreign Leaders, pages 225-254 (U.S. Congress 94-1, Senate Report No. 94-465, Nov. 20 1975, Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, 13+349 pages) {SuDoc: 94-1:S.RP.465, Serial Set: 13098-8, CIS: 75 S963-1, LCCN: 75603538, DL, WorldCat}, one of the 14-volumes comprising the published hearings and reports of the Frank ‘Church Committee’. Peter Kornbluh, Affidavit (detailing some deficiencies in this report), Dec. 17 2001, Appendix to Plaintiffs’ Opposition (Dec. 17 2001) to U.S. initial Motion to Dismiss (Nov. 9 2001), Schneider v. Kissinger (D.D.C., No. 01-CV-01902, filed Sept. 10 2001).

Covert Action in Chile 1963-1973 {277kb.html, 5997kb.pdf} (U.S. Congress 94-1, Committee Print, Dec. 18 1975, Staff Report of the Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, 5+62 pages, U.S. GPO 1975) {SuDoc: Y 4.IN 8/17:C 43/963-73, CIS: 75 S962-6, LCCN: 76602625}, published separately and, in addition, as Appendix A of Covert Action, being volume 7 of the published hearings (next item).

Covert Action (U.S. Congress 94-1, Hearings, Volume 7: Dec. 4-5 1975, Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, U.S. GPO 1976) {SuDoc: Y 4.IN 8/17:IN 8/v.7, CIS: 76 S961-7, LCCN: 76601277}, one of the 7 volumes of hearings published to accompany the Church Committee’s Final Report (cited next).

I. Schneider Case,” in “Addenda to the Interim Report on Alleged Assassination Plots” {3152kb.pdf}, in Supplementary Detailed Staff Reports on Foreign and Military Intelligence, pages 121-128 (U.S. Congress 94-2, Senate Report No. 94-755 (Book IV), April 23 1976, Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities) {SuDoc: 94-2:S.RP.755/PT.4, Serial Set: 13133-6, CIS: 76 S963-5}, one of the 6 volumes comprising the Final Report of the Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities (the “Church Committee”) (U.S. Congress 94-1, Senate Report No. 94-755, April 14 1976, 6 volumes) {SuDoc: 94-2:S.RP.755, Serial Set: 13133-3,4,5,6,7,8, CIS: 76 S963-1,2,3,5,6,7, LCCN: 76601758, OCLC: 2347318, DL, WorldCat}.

‘Appendix: Select Committee Interrogatories for Former President Richard M. Nixon{2053kb.pdf}, in Book IV (previous item), pp.143-172, at 161-163 .

Paul M. Wimert (Colonel, U.S. Army), U.S. Embassy military attaché in 1970, Santiago Chile, detailed to the CIA, CNN interview transcript, Cold War, Episode 18: Backyard.

Thomas Powers ‘Inside the Department of Dirty Tricks’ (The Atlantic Monthly, vol.244 no.2 pp.33-64, Aug. 1979).

Seymour M. Hersh ‘The Price of Power: Kissinger, Nixon, and Chile’ (The Atlantic Monthly, vol.250 no.6 pp.31-58, Dec. 1982)

Christopher Hitchens ‘The Case Against Henry Kissinger’ (Harper’s Magazine, Part-1: ‘The making of a war criminal’, Feb. 2001 pp.33-58; Part-2: ‘Crimes against humanity’, March 2001 pp.49-74)

Forum (Scott Armstrong, Christopher Hitchens, Stanley I. Kutler, Roger Morris, Alfred P. Rubin), National Press Club, Washington DC, Feb. 22 2001 ‘Regarding Henry Kissinger: A panel discussion on the making of a war criminal’ (Harper’s Magazine On-Line Forum).

“ In a situation report to Dr. Kissinger and Assistant Secretary Charles Meyer on September 21, Ambassador Korry indicated that in order to make the Frei gambit work,

“if necessary, General Schneider would have to be neutralized, by displacement if necessary.”

In this same situation report, Ambassador Korry related a message that he had sent to President Frei through his Defense Minister indicating the economic pressures that would be brought to bear on Chile should Allende assume office:

“Frei should know that not a nut or bolt will be allowed to reach Chile under Allende. Once Allende comes to power we shall do all within our power to condemn Chile and the Chileans to utmost deprivation and poverty, a policy designed for a long time to come to accelerate the hard features of a Communist society in Chile. Hence, for Frei to believe that there will be much of an alternative to utter misery, such as seeing Chile muddle through, would be strictly illusory.”

The use of economic instruments as levers on Frei and the Chilean military was a persistent subject of White House/CIA discussions and of instructions to the field.”

Alleged Assassination Plots, Nov. 20 1975, page 231 n.2 {80kb.html/gif}. And seeAddenda”, Book IV, April 23 1976, pages 127-128 {160kb.html/gif}


The CIA and State Department concealed this telex from their Chile Declassification Documents. Of this 2-section telex, they disclosed only section-1, in which Korry reported what he told a meeting of Chile Government Ministers:

“ If confronted with a choice to ease Chile’s plight under an Allende regime, or hasten economic collapse thereby forcing Allende to adopt the harsh measures of a police state earlier than planned, the Ambassador would not hesitate to opt for it and see to it that, economically speaking, Chile would go to Hell faster.”

Korry to Kissinger and Meyer, Sept. 21 1970, telex, section 1 of 2 {503kb.pdf}


 *  State conspiracy statutes, which criminalize the violent crimes of U.S. Presidents and their henchmen, do not require that both the agreement and an overt act occur within their States, only one or the other. These State laws either don’t require an overt act (Virginia) or don’t require one within the jurisdiction (District of Columbia). If the conspiracy agreement is foreign (entered into on federal territory, eg: the White House), these State conspiracy statutes nevertheless apply if an overt act occurs within their State (eg: conveying machine-guns to the airport).

When assimilated into federal law, these State statutes would, and previously did, criminalize all violent criminal conspiracies by U.S. Presidents, CIA, and U.S. Military.

In 1996, Congress repealed the assimilation of these State statutes into federal law (as to foreign maiming, kidnapping, murder) by requiring that both an overt act and the conspiracy agreement occur “within the jurisdiction of the United States”. Thereby Congress enables the violent criminal activities of U.S. officials to continue, without fear of a federal prosecution by a future honest U.S. Attorney-General, if the activities implementing the conspiracy are moved outside “the jurisdiction of the United States”.

I don’t know what the quoted phrase means, and can’t find a ready answer to it, but this language is from the original 1917 statute, and therefore probably refers to the United States in a territorial sense (to include the States), plus its special maritime and territorial jurisdiction (eg: on board U.S.-flagged ships and planes), and probably does not refer to a distinction between the jurisdictions of the federal government and the State governments.

If I’m mistaken, then the U.S. Government can simply move it’s criminal operations out of its federal enclaves/offices (eg: the Department of Justice, CIA, and Pentagon) and into federally owned/leased safe houses in U.S. States (eg: Virginia, District of Columbia) which are under State jurisdiction (i.e.: not ceded by the State to the federal government).

And if I’m right, then they have to move them offshore, so that the conspiracy agreement is entered into in the United States but all acts in furtherance of the conspiracy are not. This is troublesome, but not impossible, though I suppose they’ll continue as before with no regard to U.S. criminal law, on the basis, as before, that if the President says to do it, it’s legal, as successive CIA General Counsels have long asserted (to keep their job). This is the law of chain-of-command (dictatorship), the anthesis of the rule-of-law. In any event, U.S. Attorneys-General (trusted cronies of the U.S. President) can always be trusted to not prosecute violent criminal enterprises of U.S. officials masterminded in the U.S. and committed overseas.

These activities remain State crimes, however. But State officials never prosecute federal officials, for reasons I know not. Secrecy is not the only explanation, because Virginia and the District of Columbia have never prosecuted any U.S. officials for their many violent crimes which later became public knowledge.

Query:  Is departing from a federal enclave (eg: the White House, CIA, Pentagon) en route to a safe-house (eg: in Virginia or overseas), for the purpose of conveying instructions, an overt act? (I haven’t researched this topic). Departing the CIA offices for the airport in Virginia, with a ‘diplomatic pouch’ containing machine-guns and ammunition to kidnap/murder René Schneider, is surely an overt act both in the State of Virginia and in the federal enclave too (CIA headquarters in Virginia).

United States Code

“Sec. 956. — Conspiracy to kill, kidnap, maim, or injure persons or damage property in a foreign country

(a)(1)  Whoever, within the jurisdiction of the United States, conspires with one or more other persons, regardless of where such other person or persons are located, to commit at any place outside the United States an act that would constitute the offense of murder, kidnapping, or maiming if committed in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States shall, if any of the conspirators commits an act within the jurisdiction of the United States to effect any object of the conspiracy, be punished as provided in subsection (a)(2).

(2)  The punishment for an offense under subsection (a)(1) of this section is –

(A)  imprisonment for any term of years or for life if the offense is conspiracy to murder or kidnap; and

(B)  imprisonment for not more than 35 years if the offense is conspiracy to maim.

(b)  Whoever, within the jurisdiction of the United States, conspires with one or more persons, regardless of where such other person or persons are located, to damage or destroy specific property situated within a foreign country and belonging to a foreign government or to any political subdivision thereof with which the United States is at peace, or any railroad, canal, bridge, airport, airfield, or other public utility, public conveyance, or public structure, or any religious, educational, or cultural property so situated, shall, if any of the conspirators commits an act within the jurisdiction of the United States to effect any object of the conspiracy, be imprisoned not more than 25 years.”

18 U.S.C. § 956 (as amended April 24 1996).

Subsection (a) is new law; subsection (b) was in effect from 1917, with a 3-year prison sentence.

Hence, Robert Kennedy, U.S. Attorney-General (Jan. 20 1961-1964 Sept. 3), committed the previous crime by actively managing {eg: 116kb.pdf, 8kb.html, 276kb.html} Operation Mongoose {53kb.html}, before and after the Cuban missile crisis (Oct.-Nov. 1962), to destroy property in Cuba, including, for example, this (Nov. 12 1963) {65kb.html}:

“sabotage operations against a power plant, oil storage facilities, a sawmill, and an underwater demolition operation against a floating crane {last week and, planned for next week:} against a large oil refinery and storage facilities, a large electric plant, sugar refineries, railroad bridges, harbor facilities, and underwater demolition of docks and ships”,

burning sugar cane fields, biological warfare (turkey virus and swine fever), and sinking a ship in the Thames River near London containing British Leyland school buses en route to Cuba (Oct. 27 1964).

See, eg William Blum {50kb.html) ‘Cuba 1959 to 1980s: The unforgivable revolution’ in Killing Hope: U.S. Interventions in the Third World (Common Courage Press, 1995).

But not by his many attempts to murder Fidel Castro. Likewise, his complicity with his brother John Kennedy, U.S. President (Jan. 20 1961-1963 Nov. 22), in the felony-murder of the Diem brothers in Vietnam (Nov. 2 1963) — a secret act of war to overthrow the disobedient U.S. puppet-dictator of the U.S.-sponsored police-state of South Vietnam — three weeks before his own brother received swift justice in Dallas (Nov. 22 1963) and four years, seven months before he too finally received his justice in Los Angeles (June 5 1968).

Robert Kennedy’s violent crimes of felony murder, attempted murder, and conspiracy to murder were federal crimes only via the assimilation of the District of Columbia’s conspiracy statute into federal law, though he never prosecuted himself, nor his co-conspirator Richard Helms, the CIA officer responsible for implementing their successful criminal conspiracy to incite, aid and abet, and facilitate a violent military coup to overthrow their own puppet government in South Vietnam, and as CIA officer responsible for Operation Mongoose and their many attempts to murder Fidel Castro.

As in the case of the J. Edgar Hoover Building (FBI Headquarters), the Robert F. Kennedy Building is a fitting name for the headquarters of the U.S. Department of Justice. It’s gratifying to see the United States Government openly declare the principle for which it stands, namely: violent crime is a tool of U.S. Government foreign policy.

Where were all the good Germans?


The House Judiciary Committee of the U.S. Congress adopted articles of impeachment (July 27-30 1974) to remove U.S. President Richard Milhous Nixon from office, and Nixon resigned (August 8 1974). Gerald R. Ford, U.S. President (Aug. 9 1974-1977 Jan. 19), pardoned Nixon (Sept. 8 1974). He cited the suffering of Richard Nixon and his loved ones (regarding a looming Watergate prosecution).

Ford didn’t mention the murder of René Schneider, Schneider’s suffering, and the suffering of Schneider’s loved ones:

White House

“ I, Gerald R. Ford, President of the United States, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974.”

Gerald R. Ford (U.S. President, Aug. 9 1974-1977 Jan. 20), “Proclamation 4311, Granting Pardon to Richard Nixon” and “Remarks on Signing a Proclamation Granting Pardon to Richard Nixon” (White House, Oval Office, September 8 1974, 11:05 a.m.), 1974 PPPUS 103-104 {ucsb, grf}, 101-103 {ucsb, grf} Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Gerald R. Ford, 1974 {SuDoc: AE 2.114:974 (GS 4.113:974), ISSN: 0079-7626, LCCN: 58061050, DL, LFDL, WorldCat}.

I don’t suppose “I, Gerald R. Ford” has authority to pardon Richard Nixon for his crimes against the Commonwealth of Virginia, and query the District of Columbia, which is a ‘State’ for some purposes, including criminal law. It matters not that Richard Nixon may never have talked on the telephone to anyone in Virginia (CIA or Pentagon), or visited Virginia, in connection with his solicitation (incitement), aiding and abetting, facilitating, and conspiracy to murder René Schneider: He was criminally complicit in both the Virginia and District of Columbia conspiracies to kidnap/murder because his co-conspirators acted in Virginia and the District (outside federal enclaves) to further their criminal conspiracies.

But, these details are now academic. Richard Nixon died of a stroke April 22 1994, aged 81.

Yet, it’s a live issue for the future, because United States officials in all three branches of government (collectively: the U.S. “regime”) are hardened advocates and supporters of violent crime as an indispensable tool of United States foreign policy. And, so too, large segments of the intellectual and media elites, operatives in both political parties, and many voters in the United States, doubtless most, though few have probably given the subject any thought and fewer still, discussed it openly, content in their willful blindness for their leaders to do as they wish, exactly like the citizens of Nazi Germany.

Unlike the citizens of Nazi Germany, however, the adult citizens of the United States are part of the U.S. “regime”, because they have the opportunity to vote every 2-years (for U.S. Representatives and one-third of the U.S. Senators) and every 4-years (for U.S. President). And while this gives them no control individually, it gives them absolute control collectively over the criminal and other unlawful enterprises of their government.

And this collective control is the basis for the opinion prevalent in much of the Islamic world that Americans are responsible for the unlawful activities of their government. They agree with Thomas Jefferson (its author), and the rest of the U.S. Founding Fathers who adopted the U.S. Declaration of Independence. And because U.S. citizens stubbornly neglect their duty to correct “a long train of abuses and usurpations”, for more than half a century, they accept as reality that U.S. citizens prefer instead to appoint a small percentage of their number, selected by chance, to serve as lawful targets for violent countermeasures to unlawful U.S. violence against innocent citizens of other countries, which the United States will not admit and remedy or else litigate peaceably in a courtroom, subject only to the eye-for-an-eye limitation of that legal remedy.

As in Nazi Germany, there’s no shortage of violent criminals in the U.S. Military and CIA ready, willing, and eager for the thrill of undertaking criminal assignments free of any risk of prosecution (as they suppose). As events before and after Richard Nixon’s Presidency amply demonstrate.


The United States indicted, prosecuted, and convicted Richard McGarrah Helms, OSS/CIA espionage operations in Eastern Europe (1943-1952), CIA Chief of (covert) Operations (1952-1962), Deputy Director for Plans (director of covert operations) (Feb. 17 1962-1965 April 28), CIA Deputy Director (April 28 1965-1966 June 30), CIA Director (June 30 1966-1973 Feb. 2).

But not for his complicity in the murder of René Schneider. Merely for lying about it:

U.S. Senate seal

“ Senator J.W. Fulbright, Chairman:  I think, Mr Helms, in view of the nature of these questions, it would be appropriate that you be sworn as a witness, which is customary when we have investigative questions. Would you raise you hand and swear.

Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Mr. Helms:  I do, sir. ...

Senator Stuart Symington:  Did you try in the Central Intelligence Agency to overthrow the government of Chile?

“ Absolute denial will be the order of the day, even with ambassador and other embassy colleagues. ... Absolute stonewall denial will also be the practice at HQS.”

CIA telex to CIA CoS Chile, Oct. 28 1970 {256kb.pdf}

Mr. Helms:  No, sir.

Senator Symington:  Did you have any money passed to the opponents of Allende?

Mr. Helms:  No, sir.

Senator Symington:  So the stories you were involved in that war are wrong?

Mr. Helms:  Yes, sir. I said to Senator Fulbright many months ago that if the Agency had really gotten in behind the other candidates and spent a lot of money and so forth the election might have come out differently.”

Nomination of Richard Helms to be Ambassador to Iran and CIA International and Domestic Activities {pp.1-51, 1.83kb.pdf; pp.52-109, 2.02kb.pdf}, February 7 1973, secret executive session, declassified and published March 5 1974, pages 20, 47 (U.S. Congress 93-1, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Hearings, February 5, 7, May 21, 1973 3+109 pages) {SuDoc: Y 4.F 76/2:H 36, CIS: 74 S381-9, LCCN: 74601042, DL, WorldCat}.

Richard Helms also lied to Senator Frank Church’s Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Multinationals (March 6 1973) about the CIA’s attempt to influence the 1970 elections in Chile, and to bribe members of the Chile Congress.

“Senator Church asked Mr. Helms if the CIA attempted at any time to prevent Mr. Allende from being elected President of Chile in 1970, and Helms said no.”

(Walter Mondale, Dec. 4 1975):

U.S. Senate seal

“ Senator John Sparkman, Chairman:  In order that we get the whole thing tied together, in 1973 before Senator Church’s Multinational Corporations Subcommittee, Senator Church said ... {p.15:} on March 6 1973, during the executive session of the Multinational Corporation Subcommittee ... :

Senator Frank Church:  Now, following the election, and up to the time that the Congress of Chile cast its vote installing Allende as the new President, did the CIA attempt in any way to influence that vote?

Mr. Helms:  Which vote?

Senator Church:  The vote of the Congress.

Mr. Helms:  No sir.

A few pages later, in the same transcript, the same subject recurs. Senator Church asked you:

Senator Church:  Did the 40 Committee approve the commitment of funds for use in Chile for the purpose of influencing the outcome of the Chilean Presidential election of September 4, 1970?

Mr. Helms:  Which funds are these?

Senator Church:  Any funds.

Mr. Helms:  Well, the 40 Committee I know approved some funds for activities in Chile but that they were directed against the influence of the election, put that way, is not my recollection of it.

Senator Church:  What were the funds used for?

Mr. Helms:  I frankly don’t remember very precisely any more.

Then you later say:

Mr. Helms:  ... there seems to be a feeling that the Agency put money into the political process, in other words, to back other, the other candidates in this election to defeat Allende, and this is about the only way know that you influence elections. Maybe there are other ways, but I simply wanted to clear up the point that we did not back Alessandri, I forget the name of the other fellow, Tomic. We put no money in their campaign whatever and this has been haunting me that there seems to be a sensation that in saying we had not done this, that I have not been leveling. I mean we did not do it.

That is all I care to read. ...

Mr. Helms:  As far as the earlier statement is concerned, whether the agency tried to overthrow the Government of Chile, I answered, “No.” I believe that is true. If it has been alleged differently by someone else, I would appreciate having it.

I know the Nixon administration wanted it overthrown but there was no way to do it that anybody knew of and any probes that were made in Chile to ascertain whether there was any force there that was likely to bring this about produced no evidence that there was any such force.

The Agency, therefore, never tried. I believe that is true.”

CIA Foreign and Domestic Activities, pages 4-6, 15 (U.S. Congress 94-1, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Hearing, January 22 1975, secret executive session, declassified and published February 10 1975, 3+39 pages) {SuDoc: Y 4.F 76/2:C 33, CIS: 75 S381-9, LCCN: 75601217, DL, WorldCat}.

To protect Helms from the Judge, and to protect his pension, Griffin Bell, U.S. Attorney-General (Jan. 26 1977-1979 Aug. 15), with the approval of Jimmy Carter, U.S. President (Jan. 20 1977-1981 Jan. 19), allowed Helms to plead no contest (Oct. 31 1977) to two misdemeanor offenses Helms did not commit (2 U.S.C. § 192), withdrew the felony charges for the offenses he did commit (18 U.S.C. § 1001), and urged the Judge to spare Helms from jail:

The Washington Post

“Helms could have received up to two years in prison for his plea of ‘no contest’ to charges that he failed to testify fully and accurately to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

However, the Justice Department joined Williams in urging that Helms be kept out of jail as part of its plea-bargaining arrangement. Assistant Attorney General Benjamin R. Civiletti said he was making the request on behalf of Helms ‘with all the strength and conviction which I can muster on behalf of the Attorney General and the Department of Justice’. Civiletti repeated the government’s position that a conviction was enough to ‘uphold the principle of the rule of law and the paramount duty compelled by oath-taking’ and that a jail term would serve no useful purpose.

The Justice Department had maintained, from the moment that it filed secret criminal charges against Helms on Monday, that he should be spared any jailed term, saying {WP scanning error} had been approved by the Attorney General and the President of the United States.”

Judge Barrington Daniels Parker cooperated, fined Helms $2,000, and suspended a two year jail sentence (Nov. 4 1977). That evening, 400 of his CIA colleagues donated money at a celebration dinner at the Kenwood Country Club. Helms made a profit from the episode.

Timothy S. Robinson ‘Helms Pleads ‘No Contest’ in Testimony Case’  (Washington Post, Nov. 1 1977, p.A1, archive); Timothy S. Robinson ‘Helms Fined $2,000, Term Suspended’ (Washington Post, Nov. 5 1977, p.A1, archive); Laurence Stern ‘Helms Fined $2,000, Term Suspended’ (Washington Post, Nov. 5 1977, p.A1, archive); ‘$2,000 Helms Fine Paid by CIA Ex-Employees’ (Washington Post, Nov. 6 1977, p.A4, archive); Bob Woodward Veil: The Secret Wars of the CIA 1981-1987, p.253 (Simon & Schuster, New York and London, 1987); Thomas Powers The Man Who Kept the Secrets: Richard Helms and the CIA, pp.304-306 (Alfred A. Knopf, New York City, 1979); Thomas Powers ‘Inside the Department of Dirty Tricks’ (The Atlantic Monthly, vol.244 no.2 pp.33-64, Aug. 1979).

Richard Helms died October 22 2002, aged 89.


The lynch-pin of the many RICO criminal enterprises which operate continuously within the U.S. Government is the U.S. Attorney-General, head of the U.S. Department of Justice. S/he’s a prosecutor who won’t prosecute (like the Nazi Minister of Justice), and thereby an ‘accessory after the fact’ to the past crimes of the other RICO officers which s/he knows about, and an ‘accessory before the fact’ to ensuing crimes by those watching closely what s/he’s not doing.

The United States indicted, prosecuted, convicted, and imprisoned John Newton Mitchell (U.S. Attorney-General, Jan. 20 1969-1972 Feb. 15).

But not for his complicity in the murder of René Schneider. For Watergate.

Mitchell was indicted (March 1 1974), tried (Oct. 1-Dec. 30 1974), convicted (Jan. 1 1975), sentenced (Feb. 21 1975), and imprisoned (June 22 1977) following appeals, for conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and lies to the Senate and the Grand-Jury. Mitchell served 19 months in pleasant comfort, at liberty on Maxwell Air Force base at Montgomery Alabama, of his sentence — 2 1/2 to 8 years, reduced (Oct. 4 1977) to 1 to 4 years.

Mitchell was paroled (Jan. 20 1979), moved back to Georgetown in Washington DC, and died of a heart attack (Nov. 9 1988), aged 75.

U.S. eagle seal

See, United States v. Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Mitchell, 559 F.2d 31 (D.C. Cir., No.75-1381, Oct. 12 1976, en banc panel:  David L. Bazelon, James Skelly Wright, Carl E. McGowan, Harold Leventhal, Aubrey Eugene Robinson Jr., George Edward MacKinnon (dissenting in part)) (affirming convictions), 407 pages, 1976 U.S.App. Lexis 6741 {1219 kb), also via Westlaw, certiorari denied 431 U.S. 933 (May 23 1977), rehearing denied 433 U.S. 916 (June 27 1977), reported, Haynes Johnson ”One Last Flash for Mitchell, Haldeman” (The Washington Post, June 7 1977, p.A1) (chargeable archive), Lawrence Meyer “John N. Mitchell, Principal in Watergate, Dies at 75” (The Washington Post, Nov. 10 1988, p.A1) (free).


State-sponsored murder of foreigners doesn’t warrant criminal prosecution by the United States of its own officials, or even judicial inquiry by its own Courts in suits for damages.

But, state-sponsored murder of Americans by other nations does. In stark contrast to its own state-sponsored murder of thousands of foreigners, in the decades to come, the United States prosecuted, convicted, and imprisoned an assistant attorney-general of the Nazi Government for willfully refusing to prosecute those accused of beating and murdering Allied airmen, captured after they parachuted from downed aircraft. Of at least 66 receiving this treatment, mostly Americans, about 46 were murdered in this way by German civilians, incited to do so by their leaders.

‘Terror-flyers’, Josef Göbbels termed them, in a lengthy newspaper article detailing Allied targeting of civilian residential areas and town centers in their ‘area’ bombing campaign, and escorting U.S. fighter-pilots, machine-gunning civilian ‘targets of opportunity’ on their return legs to base.

A Word on the Enemy Air Terror, by Reich Minister Dr. Goebbels,” Minister of Information and Propaganda (Völkischer Beobachter, Nazi party newspaper, Berlin May 27 1944, Munich May 28-29 1944), quoted, The High Command Case, 11 N.M.T. 166-169 (U.S. Military Tribunal 5, Nürnberg Germany, October 28 1948), rhe 66 airmen (pages 181-182), Affidavit (November 2 1945), Thomas R. Sealy, U.S. Army Judge Advocate’s office. (The best propaganda is the truth).

Seal: Nuernberg Military Tribunals

The High Command Case (U.S. Military Tribunal 5, Nürnberg Germany, trial, 5 February-August 13, judgment, October 27-28, 1948), volumes 10-11, Trials of War Criminals before the Nuernberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law No. 10 (“Nuernberg, October 1946–April 1949”) (15 volumes, U.S. GPO, Washington D.C., 1949-1953) (“the green series”) {SuDoc: D 102.8, ditto, LCCNs: 49045929, 97071903, OCLC: 12799641, UC, WorldCat}, volume 10 (1951, 31+1308 pages) {55.9mb.pdf, source}, volume 11 (1951, 31+755 pages) {58.5mb.pdf}, opinion, 11 N.M.T. 462-697, also reported, Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals {html ess.uwe.ac.uk, ess.uwe.ac.uk} (“Selected and Prepared by the United Nations War Crimes Commission”), volume 12 {6.68mb.pdf, source} (15 volumes, U.K. HMSO, London, 1947-1949) {LCCNs: 47022747, 97080284, OCLC: 45912266, UC, WorldCat}.

Inside the U.S., the United States has likewise prosecuted, convicted, and imprisoned police, for what they too willfully didn’t do.

Such as John William Lynch (Sheriff), and William M. Hartline (Deputy Sheriff), what they didn’t do, on the night of April 3 1949, at Mamie Clay’s house, near Hooker, Dade County, Georgia {189 F.2d 476, 478}:

Seal: U.S. 5th Circuit

“ The indictment alleges that the appellants {the sheriff and his deputy} arrested, detained, and held under their custody and control, certain named negroes, while the other named defendants, and many unknown persons who were hooded, robed, and disguised, in Ku Klux Klan regalia, and were acting in concert with the named defendants, caused a cross to be burned; that they handed over the named negroes to the other non-officer defendants and to the unknown hooded and robed persons, all of whom detained and carried away the named negroes and beat them without a trial or due process of law; that the appellants, acting under color of the law and authority aforesaid, willfully and knowingly failed and refused to afford equal protection of the law to the named negroes, and failed and refused to afford them any protection of the law whatsoever. * * * {189 F.2d 476, 479}

We are of the opinion that ‘equal protection of the law’ relates, not only to the right of protection from the officer himself, but also relates to the right of protection due the prisoner by the arresting officers against injury by third persons. There was a time when the denial of equal protection of the laws was confined to affirmative acts, but the law now is that culpable official inaction may also constitute a denial of equal protection. * * * {189 F.2d 476, 480}

The jury rendered a verdict of guilty against only Lynch and Hartline. There is substantial evidence to support the verdict, and from the evidence the jury could properly have found the following:

There was an organizational drive being conducted in northeast Georgia by the Ku Klux Klan in 1948. Sheriff Lynch and his deputies attended various meetings of the Klan. At one meeting, some remarks were made about some negroes creating a disturbance on Hooker Hill. Plans were then made for the burning of some crosses.

Notices of one or more of these meetings were sent to defendants Lynch and Hartline. The latter personally aided in the building of one of the crosses, and in its transportation to Hooker, where it was erected and burned near the residence of Mamie Clay, a negro woman, on the night of April 2, 1949.

On this same night, Sheriff Lynch and his deputies arrived at Hooker at about the same time as the Klansmen arrived. While good cause existed for the arrest of one negro, who was drunk on the highway, no grounds were shown for the arrest of the others who were called out from Mamie Clay’s house.

At the time of their arrest, one of the men appealed to Sheriff Lynch for protection, but the Sheriff only walked {189 F.2d 476, 481} away.

The officers consented to these negroes being placed in cars and carried for a short distance from Mamie Clay’s house, where they were taken from the cars, one at a time, and beaten.

Following this, the Klansmen returned to Trenton, as did also these officers, where they mixed and mingled together. No arrests were made at that time, nor attempted to be made. While several witnesses testified that they were approached by the Sheriff as to becoming members of a posse, none of them ever received any definite instructions, and no posse was formed. After ceremonies at the public meeting in Trenton, the Klansmen proceeded to Signal Mountain for a second cross-burning, and the appellants followed them to that point. Again no arrests were made, no persons in disguise were identified by them, and no license numbers of automobiles were obtained.

These facts and circumstances presented a clear picture of complete cooperation between the appellants and the Klansmen, which amply justified the jury in finding that the prisoners were not taken from the appellants by threat or intimidation, but were voluntarily surrendered to the Klansmen to be beaten by them. It was evidently inconceivable to the jury that the officers in this rural community did not at least recognize some of these disguised men and condone their acts.

It was clearly a question for the jury whether or not appellants were acting under color of law within the meaning of said Section 242, and whether these officers knew that a person arrested for an offense had the constitutional right to a trial under the law.

The jury were warranted in finding from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that appellants willfully failed to accord these victims the opportunity for such a trial, and in fact turned them over to this mob to suffer trial by ordeal, with the conscious purpose and willful intent of depriving them of their constitutional right to a legal trial. The appellants were charged with, and tried for, willful and intentional deprivation of the victims’ constitutional rights. The evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict, and the judgment appealed from should be affirmed.” {189 F.2d 476, 478}

“[A]ppellants Lynch and Hartline, sheriff and deputy sheriff, respectively, of Dade County, Georgia, each of whom was sentenced to imprisonment of one year and to pay a fine of $1,000.”

Lynch v. United States, 189 F.2d 476 (5th Cir. Ga., No.13171, May 25 1951,  panel: Edwin Ruthven Holmes, Joseph Chappell Hutcheson Jr., Wayne G. Borah), via 1951 U.S.App. Lexis 3189 {53 kb} also via Westlaw {44 kb}, affirming 94 F.Supp. 1011 (N.D.Ga. Rome, No. 1950-CRIM-3876, Feb. 16 1950, Judge: Frank Arthur Hooper), via 1950 U.S.Dist. Lexis 2257 {47 kb}, certiorari denied 342 U.S. 831 (1951), links, text {in braces}, highlighting added.

So too, some U.S. State prosecutors have been prosecuted for willfully not prosecuting.


This case: Schneider v. Kissinger, complaint filed, Sept. 10 2001, refused to adjudicate, 310 F. Supp. 2d 251 (D.D.C., No. 01-CV-01902, March 30 2004), affirmed refusal to adjudicate, 412 F.3d 190 {justia, 64kb.pdf, 64kb.pdf} (D.C. Cir., No. 04-5199, June 28 2005), refused to review refusal to adjudicate, certiorari denied, 547 U.S. __ (U.S., No. 05-743, April 17 2006).

Paragraphing added to quoted text (for ease of reading) marked with this trailing paragraph symbol: ¶ .

U.S. Government documents are not copyrighted.

This document may be freely copied.


Charles Judson Harwood Jr.

Posted Oct. 1 2002. Updated May 18 2008.


Visitors (all pages, from Feb. 10 2008):