ASSASSINATION ARCHIVES

AND RESEARCH CENTER

  • Founder’s Page
  • AARC PRESIDENT DAN ALCORN
  • About the AARC
  • NEW AARC Lecture Series – 2024/2025
  • AARC 2014 Conference Videos
  • Analysis and Opinion
  • BILL SIMPICH ARCHIVE
  • COLD WAR CONTEXT
  • CURRENT FOIA LITIGATION
  • Dan Hardway Blog: Sapere Aude
  • Destroyed Files
  • DOCUMENTS AND DOSSIERS
  • FBI Cuba 109 Files
  • FBI ELSUR
  • Gallery
  • JFK Assassination Records – 2025 Documents Release
  • Joe Backes: ARRB Document Release Summaries, July 1995-April 1996
  • JOHN SIMKIN ARCHIVE
  • The Malcolm Blunt Archives
  • MISSING RECORDS
  • News and Views
  • Publication Spotlight
  • Public Library
  • SELECT CIA PSEUDONYMS
  • SELECT FBI CRYPTONYMS
  • CIA Records Search Tool (CREST)
  • AARC Catalog
  • AARC Board of Directors
  • AARC Membership
  • In Memoriam
  • JFK Commemoration Lecture Series – 2024

Copyright AARC

The Long, Dark History of Russia’s Murder, Inc.

Michael Weiss

Surveillance video footage showing the murder of a businessman in Moscow in 2013; Russian police identified Vadim Krasikov as the suspected attacker, seen escaping on a bicycle. Krasikov is now in prison as chief suspect in another assassination, in Berlin in August 2019, that German authorities say was commissioned either by Russia or Chechnya.

The last fortnight has seen new revelations in two separate cases of suspected Russian state murder. In one of these cases, the alleged hit squad was directly a unit of the GRU, Russia’s military intelligence service. In the other, German authorities recently concluded that there is “sufficient evidence” that the Russian state, or its federated southern republic Chechnya, is responsible for the execution-style killing of an ethnic Chechen asylum-seeker; as a result, two officers of the GRU have been expelled from the Russian embassy in Berlin. According to the newspaper Le Monde, citing French intelligence, the GRU has for several years maintained a rear base of operations in the Haute-Savoie region of the French Alps.

The GRU, also responsible for interfering in the 2016 US presidential election, is now believed to have been liquidating the enemies of President Vladimir Putin throughout Europe, including in NATO countries. The idea of a roving gang of secret-agent assassins gathering at an Alpine retreat to plot the destruction of their sinister leader’s enemies might seem like the premise for Daniel Craig’s latest outing as 007, but this plotline has historical antecedents long predating Ian Fleming.

A fine and timely new book explores the origins of Moscow’s Murder, Inc.— what is euphemistically known in Russian as mokroye delo, or “wet work.” In The Compatriots: The Brutal and Chaotic History of Russia’s Exiles, Émigrés, and Agents Abroad, authors Andrei Soldatov and Irina Borogan show that what has become the institutional practice of Moscow’s security organs was honed in the early decades of Soviet government, when it perfected its methods against members of the Russian diaspora.

A main focus of The Compatriots is one of the USSR’s most lupine spymasters, in effect one of the founding fathers of the Kremlin’s international assassination policy: Nahum Eitingon. This striking, dark-featured polyglot started out in 1917 as a member of the terrorism-inclined Socialist Revolutionaries party. He joined the Bolsheviks after Lenin’s seizure of power and, in his twenties, earned a reputation for dismantling “counterrevolutionary” networks from the Caucasus to the Far East. In Harbin, China, where he was posted in 1925, he planted a bomb that blew up a local warlord known as the Old Marshal and successfully pinned the blame on the Japanese.

By the late 1930s, Eitingon had become a top operative in Soviet foreign intelligence, and was given a three-year deployment to civil war-torn Spain. But when he returned to Moscow at the height of Purge paranoia in January 1939, he knew that he might have fallen under suspicion. His boss, foreign intelligence head Sergey Spigelglas, had been arrested for his failure to assassinate the one man who, even in remote exile, Stalin feared was a threat to his dictatorship: Leon Trotsky.

Eitingon’s sangfroid in the face of what he suspected was certain death must have impressed his superior, whom he called at the Lubyanka (headquarters of Soviet intelligence). “It’s been ten days since I arrived in Moscow,” he said. “I am sure my phone is tapped… I’m under constant surveillance. Please report to your leadership: if they want to arrest me, let them do it now. They do not need to play children’s games.”

Far from facing his own liquidation, Eitingon was about to get a new assignment—the very task his disgraced chief had failed at: killing Trotsky.

Nahum (later Leonid) Eitingon in Soviet military uniform, undated

The Soviet regime, Eitingon included, had already spent years hunting down émigrés, dissidents, and other renegade members of a far-flung Russian diaspora, many of them White Army officers who had fought in the civil war against the Red Army that Trotsky had assembled. Stalin’s Great Terror had already liquidated much of the professional officer corps of that army (a culling that would have dire repercussions when Hitler invaded Russia), as well as the cadres of Old Bolsheviks who had helped birth the very system he now ruled uncontested.

Trotsky, however, had been expelled from the Soviet Union more than a decade earlier, rather than devoured by its then-incipient Thermidor. Brilliant, charismatic, and relentless, the Old Man, as he was known to friend and foe, still commanded an enormous international following which included, as Soldatov and Borogan note, officers of the Soviet security services, a fact that contributed to Stalin’s paranoia.

Not wanting to share his predecessor’s fate, Eitingon planned two simultaneous operations with separate squads, one codenamed “The Horse,” the other “The Mother.” The two teams trained first in Paris within blocks of each other, yet neither was aware of the other’s existence. Both planned to infiltrate Trotsky’s retinue in Mexico by seconding agents masquerading as loyalists, and both enlisted veterans of the Spanish Civil War as assassins. After the initial phase, Eitingon moved his operational headquarters to the United States, using an office in Brooklyn rented under cover of an import-export company. He also drafted officials based in a Communist Party-owned building in Union Square, New York, to recruit other agents for the assassination plot, which included a scheme to seduce Trotsky’s personal secretary, Sylvia Ageloff.

Posing as a Belgian businessman named Jacques Mornard, a Spaniard—real name Ramon Mercader—wooed Ageloff and succeeded in insinuating himself into Trotsky’s circle in Mexico. The Horse plot had failed ignominiously when a machine-gun unit, led by the famous Mexican artist David Alfaro Siqueiros, assaulted Trotsky’s fortified compound in Coyoacán but failed to eliminate its target. Eitingon selected Mercader to carry out his second attempt: a more carefully planned killing. After gaining access to Trotsky’s inner sanctum—Mercader shrewdly charmed Trotsky’s grandson Seva, earning the family’s trust—he sought the legendary polemicist’s editorial guidance on a political essay he had written. While Trotsky critiqued Mercader’s unpolished prose, the Stalinist agent plunged an ice-pick into the Old Man’s skull. This political murder was distinguished by its boldness and savagery, not to mention its konspiratsiya, a term that connotes the art and science of clandestine operations. For a generation of anti-Stalinist Marxists, it also constituted the crime of the century.

The Mother was so named because it involved Mercader’s own mother, Caridad. The Cuban-born wife of a wealthy Spanish bourgeois, she was radicalized by opposition to Franco and eventually recruited by Eitingon, who also became her lover. The couple were, in fact, waiting outside Trotsky’s compound in a separate automobile from the Buick that was meant to serve as Ramon’s getaway car. Although her son was captured and imprisoned in Mexico, Caridad drove off with Eitingon and they made their way back to the USSR. They were both awarded the Order of Lenin, Moscow’s highest civilian decoration.

Enrique Diaz/Galerie Bilderwelt/Getty Images

Leon Trotsky, dead in hospital in Mexico City, the day after he was attacked by NKVD agent Ramon Mercader, Mexico City, Mexico, August 20, 1940

Trotsky’s slaying made front-page headlines around the world, accompanied by the image of the grizzled revolutionary lying lifeless in his hospital bed, his head still bandaged. Eitingon went on to establish a new department for Russian state assassinations. His specialty was poisoning, and he brought under his command Professor Grigory Mairanovsky, who’d run the infamous Laboratory X for the OGPU (the forerunner of the NKVD and later the KGB), cooking up biochemical toxins— many of which were first tested on Soviet political prisoners. Eitingon’s victims subsequently included Ukrainian clergymen and activists, a Polish engineer, and an American Comintern agent imprisoned in the Gulag whom Stalin wanted gone for good because demands for his release were creating an international scandal.

The purge Eitingon had once feared finally came in 1951. As a senior Jew in the party apparatus, he fell prey to the episode of Stalin’s anti-Semitic paranoia known as the Doctors’ Plot—an imagined conspiracy of Jewish doctors’ trying to poison the Soviet leadership, including the Party Secretary himself. Eitingon was briefly rehabilitated after the dictator’s death in 1953, only to be arrested again and this time convicted for the very task he’d been commissioned by Stalin to undertake: poisoning people. Amazingly, for a disgraced security chief, he survived his incarceration and was released in 1965. In his final years, he became a translator of foreign books—easy work for a man fluent in multiple languages and familiar with exotic settings.

But the assassination program that Eitingon had masterminded lived on, surviving his departure and ultimately the cold war itself. Among its most notorious operations were the 1978 murder of the Bulgarian dissident playwright and journalist Georgi Markov, injected with a ricin pellet shot out of the tip of an umbrella in London. The poison was supplied to the Bulgarian secret service from Department K, a counterintelligence unit of the KGB, with the approval of its chairman, Yuri Andropov, who became briefly, a few years later, the USSR’s leader. And in 2006, Alexander Litvinenko, a former officer of the FSB, Russia’s post-Soviet domestic security service, was poisoned with polonium-210, a radioactive isotope slipped into his tea at the Millennium Hotel in London. Litvinenko had worked for exiled Russian oligarch Boris Berezovsky, the former Kremlin insider most responsible for enabling the rise of a little-known KGB case officer, one Vladimir Putin, to the Russian presidency. (Later, Berezovsky became an outspoken and resourceful critic of Putin; he was found dead at his home west of London in 2013, in circumstances a coroner recorded as an “open verdict.”)

“Eitingon’s old tricks,” Soldatov and Borogan dryly observe, were “reliably effective in the right situation.”

They still are. Bellingcat’s open-source investigations identified the would-be killers in 2018 of Sergey Skripal, a former GRU officer turned double agent for Britain. Both assassins had false passports, cover names, and fictitious back stories—konspiratsiya redolent of The Mother. The plot to poison Skripal in Salisbury, England, using the Russian military nerve agent Novichok has since been attributed by Western governments to a GRU unit known only by its numerical designation 29155. Its purpose, reported The New York Times, is to mount “a coordinated and ongoing campaign to destabilize Europe,” executed by trained operatives “skilled in subversion, sabotage, and assassination.”

Metropolitan Police via Getty Images

The two suspected GRU operatives in the attempted murder of former Russian spy Sergei Skripal, caught on surveillance cameras in Salisbury, England, September 5, 2018

Which brings us to last week, when Germany’s federal prosecutor concluded that Zelimkhan Khangosvhili, an ethnic Chechen veteran of the second Chechen War—and, as I discovered on a recent trip to Tbilisi, a long-time spy for the Georgian Interior Ministry’s counterterrorism division—had been fatally shot in Berlin’s Kleiner Tiergarten park in August by a hitman working either for the Russian government or its Chechen proxy. According to his handler, whom I interviewed, Khangosvhili had not only infiltrated and disrupted Islamist cells from among the ethnic Chechen community in Georgia, he’d also flipped agents the FSB had recruited from that community, making him a formidable counterintelligence threat to the Russian security service. At least one person whom Khangoshvili talent-spotted in Georgia ended up being run by the CIA, his former handler told me.

His accused killer, Vadim Krasikov, was a suspect in two prior murders, the most recent of a businessman in the North Caucasus. Moscow had initially issued domestic and international arrest warrants for Krasikov, but, in what is very unlikely to have been mere coincidence, revoked those warrants in 2015. That same year, it granted Krasikov a passport in the name of Vadim Sokolov. This was the identity he was using at the time of his alleged hit on Khangoshvili, who was shot several times at point-blank range with a Glock semi-automatic pistol. Krasikov, who attempted his getaway on a bicycle, was caught by German police and now sits in a prison cell as the German investigation is underway.

Whether Krasikov was connected to the GRU or another organ of Putin’s ever-expanding security state is yet to be determined. The FSB, it’s worth noting, has a history of contracting hitmen from organized crime syndicates, Chechens in particular, to eliminate targets abroad. (Khangoshvili’s position as an agent for a US-allied intelligence service no doubt made him a higher-value target than an ordinary survivor from the separatist wars of the late 1990s and early 2000s.) We also have yet to learn how Krasikov stalked Khangoshvili through a European capital, and chose the time and place of his murder, or who else might have helped him. But the execution echoes the grim tradecraft that Nahum Eitingon pioneered eighty years ago.

December 18, 2019, 12:05 pm

READ MORE AT THE NEW YORK REVIEW OF BOOKS

Filed Under: News and Views

Courtesy of Jefferson Morley’s The Deep State Blog: On JFK, Tulsi Gabbard Keeps Respectable Company

Jefferson Morley | February 21, 2020

Tulsi Gabbard speaking in Fairfax, Virginia, February 17, 2020.

On February 17 in Fairfax Virginia, Donald Jeffries, an author and talk radio host, asked Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard about a book she had been seen carrying, “JFK and the Unspeakable.” Published in 2009, the book is a Catholic philosopher’s meditation, driven by ethics and facts, about the assassination of a liberal president John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963, one of the great historical crimes of American politics,

Gabbard replied she had not finished the book, adding “from what I have read,

Gabbard replied she had not finished the book, “but from what I have read, it uncovers a lot things that speak to what happened [on November 22] in a way that I haven’t seen anywhere else.”.

It was a cautious statement but custodians of the conventional wisdom pounced, nonetheless. Before Jeffries posted the video on Facebook, Olivia Nuzzi, Washington correspondent for New York Magazine tweeted about Gabbard’s comment. University of Virginia historian and pundit Larry Sabato responded dismissively.

 

Sir Anthony @tbooth_98
 · Feb 17, 2020
Replying to @Olivianuzzi

@LarrySabato scary.

Larry Sabato

✔ @LarrySabato

It explains everything only if you possess a conspiratorial mind and choose to discount available evidence to the contrary.

33

8:02 PM – Feb 17, 2020

This lazy tweet is not only unfair to Gabbard, it scants “JFK and the Unspeakable,” among the best books on JFK’s assassination published in the last twenty years. Author James Douglass not only recounts the latest research about the national security power struggles that wracked Kennedy’s administration up to the day of his death. Douglass also grapples with why we, as a society, have such a difficult time talking about the meaning of JFK’s murder. To confront JFK’s death, he concludes, is to confront an act of evil that we find unspeakable.

Sabato’s sniping overlooks the fact that Gabbard’s doubts are hardly unknown in the American political elite. If the former Hawaii Congresswoman has a “conspiratorial mind,” then so do former Democratic presidential nominees John Kerry and Al Gore, and maybe even Bill Clinton.

In 2013 Kerry said he thought Kennedy had been killed by a conspiracy, possibly emanating from Cuba, but declined to elaborate. At a joint campaign appearance in 1992, Clinton and Gore were asked if they thought JFK had been killed by a conspiracy. Oliver Stone’s “JFK” was a box office sensation at the time with its all-too-believable depiction of the assassination as a coup by the CIA and Pentagon. The ever-slippery Clinton deflected the question to Gore, who said yes, he thought there was a conspiracy. Clinton then agreed with Gore.

Once in office, Clinton changed his mind and said there was no conspiracy. He also appointed a civilian panel in 1994, the Assassination Records Review Board, that began declassifying millions of pages of long-secret JFK files, a process that is still not yet complete.

‘Felled by Domestic Opponents’

Now you could counter that candidates on the stump (or a retired Secretary of State) will say anything to please a crowd or attract attention. In 2016 Donald Trump smeared rival Ted Cruz with an unfounded claim that his father was involved in JFK”s assassination. But Trump’s mendacity should not obscure the record.

Robert F Kennedy on his brother’s death.

Numerous power players of the 1960s also had “conspiratorial minds.” JFK’s successor, Lyndon Johnson, his brother Robert Kennedy, and his widow Jackie Kennedy all privately spurned the Warren Commission’s conclusion that JFK had been killed by a man with no discernible motive. None actually shared Sabato’s blithe belief that the Warren Commission’s account of Kennedy’s assassination is irrefutable.

According to historians Tim Naftali and Aleksander Fursenko, Robert and Jackie Kennedy told their painter friend William Walton just a week after the ambush in Dallas that they suspected JFK had been “felled by domestic opponents.” As recounted in David Talbot’s “Brothers,” RFK discretely investigated the possible involvement of CIA-funded Cubans and organized crime bosses in his brother’s death for the rest of his life.

Jackie Kennedy, in a 1964 conversation with William Manchester, demurred on the Warren Commission’s controversial theory that a single bullet had wounded both her husband and Texas governor John Connally. (The so-called “single bullet theory” is the forensic keystone on which the lone assassin theory depends.) Biographer Barabara Leaming wrote, “That’s certainly not how Jackie remembered it.”

Publicly, Lyndon Johnson endorsed the Warren Commission’s lone gunman conclusion. Privately, he scoffed at it, first to a CBS camera crew and then to Leo Janos, a writer for the Atlantic.

Other senior U.S. officials had the same reaction. Winston Scott, the chief of the CIA’s Mexico City station, suspected a conspiracy and wrote as much in an unpublished memoir. Former cabinet Secretary Joseph Califano wrote in his memoir that he thought JFK was the victim of a Cuba-related plot. Col. Fletcher Prouty, chief of Pentagon Special Operations in 1963 and later an adviser to Oliver Stone, was sure there was a plot. “The reason for the assassination,” he wrote, “was to control the power of the presidency.”

‘Law of Silence’

JFK and Jackie Kennedy arrive in Dallas,
Jackie Kennedy doubted the official story of her husband’s murder.

Foreign leaders too, concluded there had been a conspiracy.

French president Charles DeGaulle, canny conservative and survivor of a right-wing assassination attempt in 1962, said Kennedy’s enemies had gotten away with the crime. He predicted a “law of silence” would quash those who disagreed.

Fidel Castro, canny communist and survivor of dozens of CIA assassination conspiracies, concluded Kennedy had been killed by reactionary foes at home. “There were people in the American government who thought Kennedy was a traitor because he didn’t invade Cuba when he had the chance, when they were asking him,” the Cuban leader told Atlantic editor Jeffrey Goldberg in 2013. “He was never forgiven for that.”

“So that’s what you think might have happened? Goldberg asked.

“No doubt about it,” Castro answered.

On the question of who killed JFK some of us find LBJ, RFK, Jackie, and Castro more credible than J. Edgar Hoover, Gerald Ford, Richard Helms, and Chris Matthews. Feel free to disagree but please don’t say we’re irrational.

Last of the JFK Files

Not only is Tulsi Gabbard in good company when she doubts the official JFK story, she is also talking about an issue that will confront the next president

In October 2017, President Trump broke a campaign promise to release all the JFK files. He quietly issued a White House order saying he had “no choice” but to permit the CIA and FBI to keep secret thousands of JFK documents until at least 2021. According to the latest figures from the National Archives, 15,834 JFK files remain wholly or partially classified. In other words, it would be a crime to disclose their contents or talk about these JFK files publicly in 2020.

And why, you might ask, are the government’s JFK assassination secrets still unspeakable in 2020? That’s a vexing question. Tulsi Gabbard offended conventional wisdom by seeking the answer.

READ MORE AT DEEP STATE BLOG


Filed Under: News and Views Tagged With: Donald Jeffries, JFK, JFK and the Unspeakable, Kennedy assassination, Tulsi Gabbard

Jean Daniel, Leading French Journalist and Humanist, Dies at 99

In France, where news and opinion are blurred, Mr. Daniel, a self-described non-Communist leftist, used journalism as a means of advocacy.

Jean Daniel in 2004. He used journalism as a means of advocacy and also had influence in high circles of the French government.Credit…Jean-Luc Luyssen/Gamma-Rapho, via Getty Images

By Robert D. McFadden

  • Feb. 20, 2020

 

 

A half-century before President Barack Obama ordered a restoration of full diplomatic relations with Cuba in 2014, Jean Daniel, a French journalist on a secret mission to Havana in the autumn of 1963, delivered a proposal by President John F. Kennedy to Fidel Castro.

It was an offer to explore a rapprochement.

Despite the distrust and raw feelings of the Cuban missile crisis, which had nearly plunged the world into nuclear war a year earlier, Mr. Daniel, a confidant of political leaders in many capitals during the Cold War, found Castro surprisingly, if cautiously, receptive to Kennedy’s overture.

Three days later — it was Nov. 22, 1963 — over lunch at Castro’s seafront retreat on Varadero Beach, they were still discussing the offer when the phone rang with urgent news. Castro, the Cuban leader since 1959, picked up the receiver.

“Herido?” he said. “Muy gravemente?” (“Wounded? Very seriously?”)

Mr. Daniel — who died on Wednesday at 99 at his home in Paris, according to L’Obs, the left-leaning weekly newsmagazine he co-founded — recalled the dramatic scene with Castro in an article in The New Republic days after it happened.

“He came back, sat down and repeated three times the words: ‘Es una mala noticia.’ (‘This is bad news.’)” They tuned into a Miami radio station as the reports trickled out of Dallas. Mr. Daniel paraphrased them: “Kennedy wounded in the head; pursuit of the assassin; murder of a policeman; finally the fatal announcement: President Kennedy is dead.”

Both knew instantly that rapprochement had died with the president. “Then Fidel stood up,” Mr. Daniel related, “and said to me: ‘Everything is changed. Everything is going to change.’”

In the swirl of investigations and conspiracy theories that followed the assassination — many of them linking the assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, to Castro — Kennedy’s offer became a footnote to history, and Mr. Daniel moved on to other crises in a career that touched major conflicts of an era: the French-Algerian war, Israeli-Palestinian clashes, Indochina, the Cold War and, more recently, terrorism

Mr. Daniel in 1979. He was the author of numerous books on nationalism, communism, religion, the press and other subjects.Credit…Georges Bendrihem/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

Mr. Daniel, a self-described Jewish humanist and non-Communist leftist, was one of France’s leading intellectual journalists, a friend and colleague of the philosopher-writers Jean-Paul Sartre, who rejected his 1964 Nobel Prize in Literature, and Albert Camus, who accepted his 1957 Nobel Prize in Literature. Like Camus, Mr. Daniel was born in Algeria.

In France, where news and opinion are blurred and journals typically report and interpret events with a political or cultural bias, Mr. Daniel used journalism as a means of advocacy. He also had influence in high government circles. He was a friend of David Ben-Gurion, the Zionist who became Israel’s founding prime minister in 1948, and for 60 years he supported Israeli interests.

But Mr. Daniel also defended Palestinian and Arab rights. He condemned the Arab-Israeli War in 1967 as an unwarranted expansion by Israel. In lightning airstrikes and ground assaults, Israel inflicted heavy losses on the Arabs and seized the Sinai Peninsula, East Jerusalem and cities and territory on the West Bank.

From 1954 to 1964, he was a correspondent and editor of the leftist weekly newsmagazine L’Express, which opposed French colonialism in Indochina and Algeria. He was also a confidant of Pierre Mendès-France, the French premier who withdrew French forces from Indochina after their defeat by Vietnamese Communists at Dien Bien Phu in 1954.

As a correspondent in Algiers, Mr. Daniel supported Algeria’s war of independence from French colonialism. But he also deplored torture and atrocities on both sides, which continued for decades after the brutal six-year war formally ended in independence for Algeria in 1962. Mr. Daniel was close to Ahmed Ben Bella, the revolutionary who became Algeria’s first president, in 1963.

In 1964, Mr. Daniel quit L’Express and co-founded Le Nouvel Observateur, a reincarnation of the left-wing newsmagazine France Observateur. Le Nouvel Observateur was later sold and renamed L’Obs. Under his direction for 50 years, Le Nouvel Observateur became France’s leading weekly journal of political, economic and cultural news and commentary. His editorials opposed colonialism and dictatorships, and ranged over politics, literature, theology and philosophy.

Mr. Daniel, who was also a correspondent for The New Republic in the late 1950s and early ’60s, wrote for The New York Times and other publications for decades. He was the author of many books on nationalism, communism, religion, the press and other subjects, as well as novels and a well-received 1973 memoir, “Le Temps Qui Reste” (“The Time That Remains”).

His book “The Jewish Prison: A Rebellious Meditation on the State of Judaism” (2005, translated by Charlotte Mandell) suggested that prosperous, assimilated Western Jews had been enclosed by three self-imposed ideological walls — the concept of the Chosen People, Holocaust remembrance and support for Israel.

“Having trapped themselves inside these walls,” Adam Shatz wrote in The London Review of Books, “they were less able to see themselves clearly, or to appreciate the suffering of others — particularly the Palestinians living behind the ‘separation fence.’”

Mr. Daniel was awarded the title Grand Officer of the Legion of Honor by President François Hollande of France in 2013.Credit…Pool photo by Etienne Laurent

Jean Daniel Bensaïd was born in Blida, Algeria, on July 21, 1920. His father, Jules, was a flour miller. As a young man, Jean moved to France, studied philosophy at the Sorbonne and enlisted in the Free French Forces during World War II. He fought at Normandy, in Paris and in Alsace.

In 1947, he founded the literary review Caliban, adopted the pen name Jean Daniel and was the editor until 1951. In 1948, with permission, he republished essays by Sartre, Camus and other intellectuals that had first appeared in the polemical journal Esprit. Camus wrote an introduction to Mr. Daniel’s first novel, “L’Erreur” (1953).

Mr. Daniel married Michèle Bancilhon in 1966. She survives him, as does a daughter, Sara Daniel, a reporter at L’Obs.

In the late 1950s, Benjamin C. Bradlee, a future executive editor of The Washington Post who was then a correspondent in France for Newsweek, became acquainted with Mr. Daniel through mutual contacts in the Algerian guerrilla group FLN. It was Mr. Bradlee, a longtime friend of Kennedy’s, who suggested Mr. Daniel when the president needed a private go-between to carry his proposal to Castro in 1963.

In a meeting at the White House, Kennedy asked Mr. Daniel to convey his view that improved relations were possible, and that the president was willing to authorize exploratory talks. Mr. Daniel met Castro in Havana on Nov. 19. He said that Castro had listened with “devouring and passionate interest” and expressed cautious approval of such talks.

Three days later, after learning that the president had been slain, Castro told Mr. Daniel, “They will have to find the assassin quickly, but very quickly; otherwise, you watch and see, I know them, they will try to put the blame on us for this thing.”

After the announcement of Oswald’s arrest, Mr. Daniel recalled, “The word came through, in effect, that the assassin was a young man who was a member of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, that he was an admirer of Fidel Castro.”

The Warren Commission’s investigation of the assassination concluded in 1964 that Oswald had acted alone in killing Kennedy and that Jack Ruby had acted alone in killing Oswald two days later. Its report has been challenged and defended over the years.

The stalemate between Cuba and the United States, meanwhile, was continued by eight American presidents until Mr. Obama and President Raúl Castro, Fidel’s brother and successor, agreed on Dec. 17, 2014, to establish diplomatic relations, sweeping aside one of the last vestiges of the Cold War.

It lasted until President Trump announced in 2017 that he would keep a campaign promise and roll back the policy of engagement begun by Mr. Obama. He later reversed key portions of what he called a “terrible and misguided deal.”

Constant Mehéut contributed reporting from Paris.

Robert D. McFadden is a senior writer on the Obituaries desk and the winner of the 1996 Pulitzer Prize for spot news reporting. He joined The Times in May 1961 and is also the co-author of two books.

READ MORE at The New York Times

A version of this article appears in print on Feb. 21, 2020, Section A, Page 24 of the New York edition with the headline: Jean Daniel, Journalist And Friend to Leaders Worldwide, Dies at 99.

Filed Under: News and Views Tagged With: Assassination, Castro, Cold War, Cuba, Jean Daniel, JFK, Kennedy

Publication Spotlight: American Values: Lessons I Learned from My Family by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

Participating in the political destiny of our nation

Reviewed by Alan Dale | 9 January, 2020

There are moments when complementary facets of our lives come together and find expression in the form of a favorite song, a movie, a particular book.  I’m referring to what we’ve all experienced when the right something comes along at the right time. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s deeply personal memoir, American Values: Lessons I Learned from My Family is, for me, such a book.

American Values is an authoritative introduction to America’s preeminent political family. It offers candid revelations from the perspective of our guide who lives the meaning of his family’s name, and it conveys, directly and convincingly, how one may choose to respond to the complex forms of adversity befalling our nation and our world. It also informs us quite a lot about the way real power is exercised in the modern world and the formidable forces against which John and Robert Kennedy were pitted during the 1960s. Ultimately, we are allowed to accompany the author as he courageously follows a path of illumination while exploring the dark places and true circumstances by which his family’s influence and much of the world’s hope was disrupted by gunfire.

Beginning with Chapter One, “Grandpa,” readers of a certain age will be challenged to rethink whatever they have accepted as probably true about the people whose lives and careers are relevant to the telling of this story. Younger readers, who come to this work as an introduction, without having to divest themselves from decades of character assassination, mythology and misrepresentation, will benefit from this portrait of the author’s patriarchal grandfather, Joseph Patrick Kennedy whose “integrity and horse sense” established foundational principles which would be passed down through successive Kennedy generations. Readers young and old may be startled by the author’s brief but informative remedial history lesson as he examines important dynamics of social and political power structures of the 1920s and ’30s through which his grandparents lived and which stand as starkly relevant to understanding much of what confronts us today.

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., President, Waterkeeper Alliance, author of American Values: Lessons I Learned from My Family

Recollections of youthful encounters with colossal figures such as LBJ, J. Edgar Hoover, memorable conversational sketches of Allen Dulles and others by Kennedy family friends and relatives, all kinds of interesting observations, amusing anecdotes and perceptions abound across many pages, but astute readers will recognize very early on, there’s more being offered than charming reminiscences.  It is the backdrop, the context against which the array of privileged experiences being presented is told that distinguishes this narrative as particularly informed and noteworthy.  RFK, Jr. has committed himself to examining various manifestations of the national security state as it responded, adversely, to President Kennedy, Senator Robert Kennedy and the reforms which they sought to ensure that our children’s children would be born into a world where reasonable men would value peace over war, justice over inequality, opportunity over exclusion, and freedom over the many different forms of tyranny and enslavement.

There is great joy and much color throughout this reading experience. There’s also the inevitable poignancy and heartbreak that we know. Above all, there is the ineluctable presence of unconditional love. Three people who receive special attention by the author are Lem Billings, Ena Bernard, and Ethel Kennedy. Their stories, and the very personal manner by which their stories are told, are among the most affecting of all that the author has shared.

American Values is an inspiring journey through one man’s life whose story is an astounding record of the people and events that shaped our nation during a period of unprecedented danger and opportunity. It is also an affirmation of all that we may see as what is best about our collective efforts as a nation, our collective aspirations to determine our destiny through the work of our own hands, to persevere through cruelties and obstacles, addictions, disappointment and profound loss, battling against complacency, facing our fears, while maintaining our faith, our conviction, and our willingness to dream things that never were, and say, “Why not?”

Five stars. Highest recommendation.

 

CLICK TO PURCHASE AMERICAN VALUES: LESSONS I LEARNED FROM MY FAMILY

Filed Under: News and Views Tagged With: American Values, JFK, John F. Kennedy, Jr., PRESIDENT KENNEDY, RFK, Robert F. Kennedy

Raven Rock by author Garrett Graff Reviewed by AARC President Dan Alcorn

In Making of the President 1964, author Theodore White wrote–

Of all things Kennedy did for Johnson none, however, was perhaps more instantly important on the weekend of November 22 than a minor decision Kennedy had made months before. He had decided that in the secret emergency planning for continuity of American government in the happenstance of a nuclear attack, Johnson should be given a major role. Through Clifton, who acted as White House liaison to the Department of Defense, all emergency operational planning was made available to the Vice-President in duplicate. These plans, envisioning all things from the destruction of all major cities to the bodily transfer of governing officers to an underground capital, included, of course, detailed forethought of the event of the sudden death of the President. [Pages 42-43 of the 1965 edition.]

Garrett Graff has written a revelatory work describing the history and function of such federal government emergency preparedness activities during the Cold War and after, or as many as he could uncover (called Continuity of Government activities). This reader was favorably surprised by the number of formerly secret activities and procedures that were revealed in the book. Anyone interested in these subjects should read Graff’s book and will be well rewarded for the effort. (Raven Rock is the location of the Pentagon’s bunker complex located on the Maryland-Pennsylvania border near Gettysburg).

Serious students of the assassination of President Kennedy have noticed unexplained events in the storyline that appear related to the government’s secret Continuity of Government activities. Larry Haapanan and Alan Rogers wrote an article titled “A Call Out of the Blue” that describes a mysterious phone call received at Ft. Sam Houston minutes before the assassination. The Army officer who received the call felt it was so unusual, and in light of its timing minutes before the assassination, that it should be investigated. An Army intelligence investigation ultimately penetrated the secrecy surrounding the phone call and the mystery call was discovered to be the Air Force airborne command post, the National Emergency Airborne Command Post (NEACP). Haapanan and Rogers’ article can be viewed at https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=4275#relPageId=13

The NEACP plane was attempting to establish communications with Ft. Sam Houston, which was the headquarters for the US Army in the southwest. NEACP planes were airborne during the Cold War as an alternative national command center in the event of outbreak of nuclear war. They were one feature of an elaborate and very secret system set up by the government to try to assure survival of government and its leaders in a nuclear war, described by Graff in Raven Rock.

Several years ago while listening closely to the Air Force One tape from November 22, 1963, at a point after the President had been shot, I heard amidst the static a rapid fire voice announcing “Take over this frequency immediately with Presidential Emergency Traffic.” 8:30 on the tape at this web address: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Radio_Traffic_involving_AF1_in_flight_from_Dallas,_Texas_to_Andrews_AFB_on_November_22,_1963__reel_1_-_NARA.ogg

What follows this terse announcement is an effort by the State Department to contact Secretary of State Dean Rusk on the cabinet plane high over the Pacific and inform him of the attack on the President. In what Graff finds to be a pattern in real world emergency response, Secretary Rusk already was aware of the shooting via a news ticker on the cabinet plane.

When I heard the phrase “Presidential Emergency Traffic” I assumed this was a term of art meaning that a Presidential Emergency was in effect and that communications were prioritized for the emergency. Raven Rock details such communications systems as a consistent top government priority in the Cold War and after.

With the assistance of archivists at the JFK Presidential Library, I located some of the historical record of the Kennedy administration related to Continuity of Government planning. Garrett Graff writes that emergency planning was a priority for JFK, and this is borne out by the quantity of National Security Action memoranda on this topic during the Kennedy years.

Perhaps most informative to the events of November 22, 1963 was a report to the President on the status of emergency planning in June 1962. This report identified a key problem in government leadership, namely Presidential succession during a nuclear war. The Vice President is the designated constitutional successor and beyond the VP a statute names the Speaker of the House, then the President Pro Tem of the Senate, followed by the then twelve cabinet officers. The June 1962 report identified a weakness in the system of government in the event of nuclear war resulting in the death of most or all of the designated successors to the Presidency, and suggested a possible unspecified legislative change.

The June 1962 report further recommends that Presidential successors be included in the National Military Command Authority in order to facilitate rapid transfer of power in the event of emergency. Garrett Graff explains in Raven Rock that US nuclear war simulations consistently resulted in the death of the President in the first minutes of nuclear war. This was due in part to the fact that two competing urgencies conflicted, first the need to obtain immediate decisions by the President for use of nuclear weapons, and second the need for the President to evacuate on an emergency basis to bunker facilities. Communications did not permit the President to remain in command while evacuating. Graff explains that US nuclear war planning scenarios in almost all cases resulted in the President deciding to remain in command and make the decisions rather than flee and relinquish control. In the simulations, this decision to remain in command resulted in the death of the President in the opening minutes of a nuclear exchange. Thus US nuclear war planning predicted Presidential succession would occur during early stages of nuclear war and the military system would seek its successor commander-in-chief.

The oft-noted protocol of keeping the President and Vice President in separate locations is due to this consideration, and in light of the scenario planning, the Vice President is considered most likely to succeed to the office of President at the outbreak of nuclear war.

Applying this new knowledge to the events of November 22, 1963, one must assume that there was a global system of thousands of nuclear weapons aimed at our enemies. This system was required to find its designated commander-in-chief to give orders as to use. When President Kennedy was shot in Dallas, our nuclear weapons system would have needed urgently to know who was in command, and when word of the President’s death came, the system would immediately switch command to the Vice President, now the successor commander-in-chief. The swearing-in ceremony is a mere formality– power would have passed when word of the President’s death was first received. Standby authority for military officers to use nuclear weapons existed if the President or designated successor could not be reached. This might explain LBJ’s reported remark on the flight back to Washington from Dallas that he wondered if the missiles were flying. (LBJ adopted as his governing theme after the assassination, “Let Us Continue”, which may have derived from the phrase Continuity of Government).

Despite Garrett Graff’s extensive efforts, gaps remain in our knowledge. A 1963 follow-up report to JFK on emergency planning is still classified for national security reasons, along with other Kennedy-era documents. Graff was only able to piece together a skeletal understanding of the most secret government plans, some of which apparently are in effect today. Graff believes that plans exist that describe a successor government to our constitutional republic after disaster strikes. This new form of government is called Enduring Constitutional Government (ECG), and as described is primarily an executive branch activity. Congress is currently unable to reconstitute the House of Representative in less than approximately two months, so ECG might operate without a Congress. Graff reports that there are plans to replace Congress’ role with a “gang of four”- the Majority and Minority leaders of the two houses of Congress, assuming they survive disaster. They might speak for the Congress during ECG. The courts are given little priority in the planning other than to have some judicial body, perhaps surviving federal appeals court judges, available to approve ECG’s emergency decrees. We can rest assured knowing that ECG has established an emergency website on which to publish the Federal Register online. This would provide a way to attempt to meet legal requirements for publication of emergency decrees.

You will find much more high quality food for thought in Raven Rock. The threat of nuclear war quite obviously changed the thinking of the government and resulted in much effort on its part to think and plan for the unthinkable. We as citizens must always vigilantly guard against loss of our constitutional freedoms. The only solace to be taken from considering these disturbing plans is that as bad as our present political situation may be, things could get very much worse in the case of national emergency.

Reviewed by AARC President Dan Alcorn.

Raven Rock may be purchased from Amazon by clicking HERE.

Filed Under: News and Views

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 34
  • 35
  • 36
  • 37
  • 38
  • …
  • 63
  • Next Page »
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Donate your preferred amount to support the work of the AARC.

cards
Powered by paypal

Menu

  • Contact Us
  • Warren Commission
  • Garrison Investigation
  • House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA)
  • Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB)
  • Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
  • Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
  • LBJ Library
  • Other Agencies and Commissions
  • Church Committee Reports

Recent Posts

  • RFK Jr. asked Obama to probe ‘two gunmen’ theory, called for reexamination of his father’s assassination: new files
  • PRESIDENT’S PAGE
  • Planned Attack on Lady Gaga Concert in Brazil Is Foiled, Police Say
  • JOHN SIMKIN ARCHIVE
  • NEW: Records Related to the Assassination of Senator Robert F. Kennedy
Copyright 2014 AARC
  • Privacy Policy
  • Privacy Tools