THE PAVILION ANNEX

General discussions of interest to readers and fans of Harlan Ellison.

Moderator: Moderator

User avatar
FrankChurch
Posts: 16283
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 2:19 pm

Re: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby FrankChurch » Mon Aug 12, 2013 3:47 pm

Yes, Barber, I know about the Hughes-Ryan amendment. There are many conspiracy theories that say that the CIA was doing rogue stuff before that, but to my knowledge, Presidents sign off on what the CIA does, ever since the CIA was created.

The evidence about Carter comes from an interview with Zbigniev Brezinski and in Robert Gate's book from 1996. Brezinski favored what Carter did, to give Russia their own vietnam. To get them to be in a quagmire so that they would spend their money, which the CIA always got wrong.

The CIA were acting like keystone cops, another reason to amend the finding, but it didn't stop the CIA from bungling and doing horrible stuff, as central American policy layed bare.

Chalmers Johnson was an expert on the empire, no contest.

User avatar
Lori Koonce
Posts: 3538
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2007 12:10 pm
Location: San Francisco California
Contact:

Re: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby Lori Koonce » Mon Aug 12, 2013 3:49 pm

Barber: Would you be upset if I gave Frank a good place to start, it is amazing what a quick Google search will pull up if you structure it right.

User avatar
FrankChurch
Posts: 16283
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 2:19 pm

Re: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby FrankChurch » Mon Aug 12, 2013 3:51 pm

Lori, Dismantling The Empire, by Chalmers Johnson. Read and have fun.

User avatar
FrankChurch
Posts: 16283
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 2:19 pm

Re: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby FrankChurch » Mon Aug 12, 2013 4:15 pm


User avatar
FrankChurch
Posts: 16283
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 2:19 pm

Re: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby FrankChurch » Mon Aug 12, 2013 5:15 pm

Castro and Mandela--you guys won't diss Nelson Mandela will you? Could they stoop that low? Hope not.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tNF0YkRQjM

Angola was one of the few humanitarian uses of violence.

User avatar
Moderator
Site Admin
Posts: 10607
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2006 12:17 pm
Contact:

Re: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby Moderator » Mon Aug 12, 2013 6:43 pm

Frank. Trust me with this. A gentleman named Stan Turner was a very good friend of the family. He helped my mother get to the hospital during my birth.

I have no special knowledge above what is very publicly known. None. But if you check into Turner's tenure, and read his book, it will give you significant insight into my point. Even you must recognize Turner as a reformer. Failed, perhaps, but intentionally driven.
- I love to find adventure. All I need is a change of clothes, my Nikon, an open mind and a strong cup of coffee.

User avatar
Moderator
Site Admin
Posts: 10607
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2006 12:17 pm
Contact:

Re: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby Moderator » Mon Aug 12, 2013 6:45 pm

Gee. Castro and Mandela meet each other.

Would it prove anything if I posted the photograph of Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt and assert that Stalin must be an okey dokey guy? Or remind you Hitler painted roses?

Heck, Nixon went to China. Must've been a Commie.

(My point, of course, is that photo ops and videos are misleading. You yourself aggressively criticize people who believe the media.)
- I love to find adventure. All I need is a change of clothes, my Nikon, an open mind and a strong cup of coffee.

User avatar
FrankChurch
Posts: 16283
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 2:19 pm

Re: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby FrankChurch » Tue Aug 13, 2013 9:43 am

Chomsky's CIA file was destroyed and you guys say I'm paranoid. Hell, I'm sane.

You all need to say sorry. lol

User avatar
Ezra Lb.
Posts: 4547
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 8:02 am
Location: Washington, DC

Re: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby Ezra Lb. » Tue Aug 13, 2013 1:34 pm

You're right Frank. I am sorry you're so paranoid.

pssssstt... who do think the CIA plant is here at this website? I suspect Barber. He knows just a little too much to be regular folk. :wink: Shhhhhh...said to much already, the ears have eyes ya know. :|
“We must not always talk in the marketplace,” Hester Prynne said, “of what happens to us in the forest.”
-Nathaniel Hawthorne, The Scarlet Letter

User avatar
Lori Koonce
Posts: 3538
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2007 12:10 pm
Location: San Francisco California
Contact:

Re: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby Lori Koonce » Tue Aug 13, 2013 1:38 pm

FrankChurch wrote:Chomsky's CIA file was destroyed and you guys say I'm paranoid. Hell, I'm sane.

You all need to say sorry. lol


What do I have to apologize for? I haven't said a word pro or con about the man for quite some time.

User avatar
Moderator
Site Admin
Posts: 10607
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2006 12:17 pm
Contact:

Re: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby Moderator » Tue Aug 13, 2013 4:50 pm

FrankChurch wrote:Chomsky's CIA file was destroyed and you guys say I'm paranoid. Hell, I'm sane.

You all need to say sorry. lol


I'm sorry you say you're sane.

(Oh come on, too easy to not have taken the shot.)

Ezra, shhhh, I told you the Company won't take kindly to falsehoods and innuendo. Unless ts from our PR department, that is.
- I love to find adventure. All I need is a change of clothes, my Nikon, an open mind and a strong cup of coffee.

User avatar
FinderDoug
Posts: 1530
Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Contact:

Re: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby FinderDoug » Tue Aug 13, 2013 6:41 pm

Frank -

Not the best journalistic exercise - certainly doesn't strike me as John Hudson's finest work, from the title on down:
"After Multiple Denials, CIA Admits to Snooping on Noam Chomsky"
- um, no. No they didn't. In fact, Hudson tweets that the CIA has, predictably, declined to comment. If you have to lie in a sensational title, you're already behind on points.

The article fails at reading comprehension. For example:

What Hudson says the memo says:
The memo's author, a CIA official, says the trip has the "ENDORSEMENT OF NOAM CHOMSKY" and requests "ANY INFORMATION" about the people associated with the trip.

What the memo ACTUALLY says:
With the endorsement of Noam Chomsky and Cora Weiss, Meacham Proposed to the North Vietnamese that Petashney [sic] make the trip [with Kirkpatrick and Pfeiffer].

The trip didn't have the endorsement of Chomsky. Chomsky endorsed to Stewart Meacham the proposing Mark Ptashne to the North Vietnamese to join the trip. Totally different thing than proposing a trip be undertaken.

Also, the memo doesn't ask for any blanket information "about the people associated with the trip" - it asks for information to "help identify the participants". These are two different things. Under the former definition, Chomsky might be of interest; but since the memo clearly identifies he's not a participant in the trip (but just suggested to someone that someone else be proposed to take part), he's of tertiary interest at best.

It's one man's opinion that the memo indicates a file was destroyed, not a fact that a file was destroyed, so paragraph 2 -
The disclosure also reveals that Chomsky's entire CIA file was scrubbed from Langley's archives, raising questions as to when the file was destroyed and under what authority.
- is a reportage overreach. There's no revelation. There's a presumption.

But THIS gem is the Hope Diamond of the bunch:
Dated June 8, 1970, the memo discusses Chomsky's anti-war activities.
Um - where? Chomsky is name-checked once in two pages and NOTHING is said ABOUT him or any of his "anti-war activities". Nor any anti-war activities of ANYONE named in the memo. Not only are we inventing CIA admissions, now we're putting words in their mouths THAT AREN'T EVEN IN THE DOCUMENT to push the assertion they spied on Chomsky because he was anti-war.

Maybe fabrication doesn't matter to you, Frank, but as a reporter, if you have to MAKE SHIT UP, you're a poor journalist. Ask Stephen Glass how that plays out. (Hint: the key word is "unethical".)

Athan Theoharis may be an expert, but his talk of the "report on Chomsky that the FBI prepared in response to this request" is speculation. He has no report. The FBI - which released the memo where Chomsky is name-checked - apparently doesn't have a report - or chose to not release it, which is funny, since it should have been in the same FBI file as the CIA request. Theoharis overlooks this glaring omission - it's just his assumption there's an FBI report on Chomsky, which he uses to support his assumption that there must have been a CIA file on Chomsky that the CIA is lying about and which was 'illegally' destroyed.

As for the destruction of the CIA file, Hudson glosses over Title 33 activity, under which the destruction of a file on Chomsky could easily have happened:

-The head of an agency submits to the Archivist lists of records photographed/microphotographed; records "not needed by it in the transaction of its current business and that do not appear to have sufficient administrative, legal, research, or other value to warrant their further preservation by the Government"; and schedules for disposal of records after certain identified elapsed times.
- The Archivist reviews the lists.
- The Archivist promulgates said schedules and approves/effects destruction of said records in his legal custody; and
- The Archivist makes an annual report to Congress concerning the disposal of records.

But as a special added bonus, the Title also specifies:
When it appears to the Archivist that an agency has in its custody, or is accumulating, records of the same form or character as those of the same agency previously authorized to be disposed of, he may empower the head of the agency to dispose of the records, after they have been in existence a specified period of time, in accordance with regulations promulgated under section 3302 of this title and without listing or scheduling them.
So if the CIA previously got the Archivist to sign off on pallet of boxes of old research on people of interest at a particular time for a particular reason that are no longer relevant to be destroyed, because said records were "not needed by it in the transaction of its current business", then the Archivist can simply say the next time, "Oh, okay, more of those, okay, just dump 'em."

Look Frank - another law you can be annoyed about!

How many background inquiries do you think the CIA makes in a year in the course of its business? Hundreds? Thousands? And how many of those have value (as defined above) after the fact? Let's say this trip went down as planned and nothing of interest happened - how long is the CIA going to keep that paperwork?

"But, but, but," you cry, "it's a report on Noam Chomsky! And all the spying! Vast historical significance!"

Sure - if there was anything significant in any alleged report, summary or file. The CIA may have had a handful of pages on him that meant nothing to them after Vietnam. There's no evidence the CIA put him under the microscope. There's the belief that because they did it to others, they simply MUST have done it to ALL. And YOU have a presumption of Chomsky's value (or threat level) that may be completely different than the CIA's. You project that on them at your own risk of disappointment or corresponding level of paranoia.

If it makes you happy to believe there's a hidden 600+ page file, that they bugged Chomsky and photographed him and have kept tabs on him for over 40 years and shook down people who went to his lectures for information, then have fun with that.

But if this article is an example you would hold up as "good" journalism, I'd encourage you to raise your standards.

User avatar
FrankChurch
Posts: 16283
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 2:19 pm

Re: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby FrankChurch » Wed Aug 14, 2013 11:44 am

Somebody try to get into the Foreign Policy site. When I try to read it it takes me to a page saying I have to pay.

Doug, email the reporter and tell us what he says. Foreign Policy magazine is the leading journal of elites on that issue. They are certainly no leftists and probably loath Noam Chomsky politically.

Noam himself has been fairly blase about the whole thing.

User avatar
FrankChurch
Posts: 16283
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 2:19 pm

Re: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby FrankChurch » Wed Aug 14, 2013 11:45 am

The other files on Chomsky could have been destroyed.

diane bartels
Posts: 1255
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 7:29 pm
Location: CHICAGO IL

Re: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby diane bartels » Wed Aug 14, 2013 1:20 pm

It is a spy organization. It has files. Do you know how many files the Kremlin has? Why are you so biased, Frank? And why do you persist in embarrassing your self by not actually reading what you quote? Just curious. Don't really expect an answer.


Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests