Support WhoWhatWhy
FRESH TAKES | news, content and perspective you might not find elsewhere

Someone Would Have Talked? Someone Would Be Crazy

Would covert operatives whose work involves subverting democratic governments abroad—including violent coups such as the one that brought down Chilean President Salvador Allende in 1973—hesitate when ordered to participate in comparable activities at home?

We’re constantly told that no such thing could happen in the good ole USA (certainly not in the deaths of JFK, RFK, MLK, for example), if for no other reason than that it is impossible to keep such plots secret.

Or, in the common parlance: “Someone would have talked.”

The logic goes: since no one has come forward to describe their role in such plots, therefore no plot has existed.

In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. People are coming forward all the time to provide, if not the whole story, crucial bits and pieces that together would lead us to awareness of a variety of covert doings, some clearly nefarious. For example, scores, perhaps hundreds of credible eyewitnesses have cast doubt on the official “lone kook” scenario that is a staple of every domestic assassination.

But these whistleblowers are quickly discredited, suppressed, or worse. From time to time people even come out of the national security establishment to testify to such wrongdoing, but they almost always pay a heavy price –which of course discourages others from bearing witness.

How many remember the story of Philip Agee? Phil was a loyal American who served in the Central Intelligence Agency abroad. Eventually, he could no longer stomach the ugly work he and colleagues were doing to subvert the affairs of other countries, and he became a critic and a fugitive. You can read about his hair-raising adventures as the might of the US government came down upon him wherever he went, in his book On the Run

The Waterboard Whisperer

In the years since, there have been numerous other examples of “someone” who did talk, only to suffer a variety of unpleasant circumstances. The most recent case is that of former CIA officer John Kiriakou, who faces up to 45 years in prison for statements he has made.

Kiriakou first attracted the Agency’s ire when, in 2007, the ex-agent told ABC News that while he believed that waterboarding could be effective, it was morally the wrong thing to do. He was quickly ousted from his job as a security risk analyst for the accounting firm Deloitte.

He later, the government charges, spoke to journalists who were seeking confirmation of the identity of agency personnel involved with the controversial interrogation program that used methods tantamount to torture. Kiriakou faces four counts related to leaking classified information, each carrying a penalty of ten years imprisonment.

He is also accused of having told the CIA that material in a book he was writing  would “fictionalize” a high-tech CIA scanning device known as a “magic box” while in fact he went ahead to describe it accurately. The charge of making false statements could earn him an additional five years imprisonment.

The bottom line here is that public servants can go to jail for trying to inform the public about the truth of what their government does—and, bizarrely, for lying to the government by falsely promising to lie about government secrets while actually telling the truth about what they had seen from the inside.

As for “someone would have talked”……baloney. Almost nobody talks. And for good reason. Just ask John Kiriakou.

 

 

GRAPHIC: http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51NZS29lqfL._SL500_AA300_.jpg


Comment Policy:
Keep it civil. Keep it relevant. Keep it clear. Keep it short. Identify your assertions as fact or speculation. No typing in ALL-CAPS. Read the article in its entirety before commenting.

Note: As a news site dedicated to serious inquiry, not a bulletin board, we reserve the right to remove any comment at any time, especially when it appears to be part of an effort to push a deceptive, unscientific, false or narrow ideological line. Posts that scapegoat by ethnicity, gender, religion or nationality will also be removed.
  • Anonymous Coward

    When I hear:
    “Someone would have talked by now”
    “Nobody can keep a secret that long”

    I respond:
    “Ok…so what happened to Jimmy Hoffa then?”

    Somebody would have divulged that by now right?

    • A. Benway

      I’m dumb about this, but I have the idea that Hoffa started talking about the Kennedy hit. Can anybody comment on that idea, please?

      • http://www.lordbalto.com/ Crash Override

        Why would he do that? He was one of Bobby’s main targets. At the very least, he would have kept his mouth shut like LBJ.

        • A. Benway

          RFK was gone by then, long gone. People blab for internal and sometimes obscure reasons. I’m not saying that Hoffa talked, I’m simply curious –  did he? Dead people don’t talk.

        • A. Benway

          RFK was gone by then, long gone. People blab for internal and sometimes obscure reasons. I’m not saying that Hoffa talked, I’m simply curious –  did he? Dead people don’t talk.

        • http://www.lordbalto.com/ Crash Override

          I don’t know where you even get this from. What’s the connection? Hoffa consorted with gansters, therefore he knew the particular gangsters who were involved on a secondary level with the murder of JFK?

    • Cbrown

      A lot of people had reasons to kill Hoffa. It could have very well been a single acquaintance who is probably still alive and who would be charged with murder if that person divulged details. Most people see that the magnitude of a 9/11 conspiracy makes it an impossibility. The number of people who would be involved defies any logic to begin with. The eyewitness accounts of passengers on the Pennsylvania jet, the claims of success by Bin Laden and AlQaeda, the videos of the jets hitting the Twin Towers are obvious. Contrary to an above comment it is human nature to talk and very hard for most people to keep a secret; think of all the jailhouse confessions to fellow inmates which are used to convict someone. There have been no substantiated, credible smoking gun confessions regarding any of the popular “conspiracies.” A small segment of the population are “believers” in the strictest sense and a good portion of these people seem to believe all the conspiracy theories. The claim that people don’t talk is just a rationalization for “believers” to keep their delusions alive.

      • http://www.lordbalto.com/ Crash Override

        1) Webster Tarpley destroys your argument fairly concisely by pointing out that there were multiple exercises taking place on 9/11, each one of which mimicked some aspect of the “attack.” Hence, most of the planning was done under cover of planning for these exercises.

        2) The “eyewitness accounts” in Pennsylvania, via cell phones that couldn’t possibly operate at those altitudes and speeds? Sorry, wrong again.

        3) Bin Laden specifically denied responsibility for the attacks. The video in which he supposedly takes credit features a gentleman who doesn’t even resemble Bin Laden beyond a long beard and a turban.

        4) Confessions? How about E Howard Hunt confessing to his son that he was involved in the Kennedy assassination? You’re batting zero today.

        5) A “small segment of the population,” generally hovering around 80%? You just can’t win for losing, can you?

        Here’s a hint. Do a little reading about the subject before you embarrass yourself even more.

        • Cbrown

          Webster Tarpley never met a situation that wasn’t
          a conspiracy . He is a big bag of wind and a typical gadfly who has made a lot of money and fed his enormous ego by selling his contrived fiction. His association with Lyndon LaRouche says a lot. David Aaronovich takes twisted sociopaths like Tarpley to task in “Voodoo Histories.” Cell phones work fine on jets; the phone conversations are documented and verified by the family members who answered them. Oh, I forgot, those folks are in on the fix. There is more than ample evidence that Al-Qaeda operatives planned, carried and took credit for the 911 plot. The purported motives for a 9/11 conspiracy are as many as you can imagine which makes none of them very credible. The US government was guilty of negligence in allowing the hijackers the opportunity to carry out their plot. Hunt has no more credibility than the 1000-2000 or so authors of Kennedy assassination theory books( many with different theories). Hunt had zero integrity and would say anything. A large percentage of 9/11 believers also harbored anger at the government and less educated people were also more likely to believe in a government role. Funny about 35% believe in 9/11 silliness which is the same as Kennedy conspiracy  and UFO believers. The paranoid caveman survival  gene is definitely alive and well. Take your Haldol before you embarrass yourself next time.

        • http://www.lordbalto.com/ Crash Override

          Thanks for the straw men. I can use them in my tomato patch to keep the crows away.

        • ND52′, Oklahoma City

          Weak.

  • http://www.911Blogger.com/ Orangutan.
  • http://www.911Blogger.com/ Orangutan.
  • Anonymous

    bradley manning anyone?

  • Benfrank99

    The Catholic Church as a matter of policy, would use the whole “surely, someone would have talked” thing to dismiss out of hand allegations that abuse was being covered up.  And a huge price was paid by those brave enough to speak up anyway – they were branded kooks and pretty much shunned.  Same here.

  • Lhodges75

    They do talk – family members, friends, insiders, coworkers – try talking and see what happens – I was married to a senior brass at the NSA who totally lied and faked his polygraph – and I talked – and I got targeted by these cronies – NSA is nothing but a bunch of phony translators with fake clearances –

  • Pingback: April 11, 2012 « Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes?

  • Russ Baker

    Here’s another person they went after: ex NSA guy Thomas Drake :

    http://www.democracynow.org/2012/3/26/part_2_former_nsa_employee_thomas

    • Lhodges75

      Drake is impossible to locate – so is James Bamford – I tried to contact both – the problem is the lack of organization among NSA dissenters – I never worked there, I don’t have a clearance, they don’t dictate my life – but I’m still a threat because my ex husband is one of their cronies – and I know a lot about him and his friends – and they did not want me talking or showing up in DC –  If Bamford wasn’t such a woos, we might get somewhere – as long as everybody is scared – this is going nowhere – I’m not intimidated by the NSA or anybody who works there – I was going to show up in their lobby – but my ex put a stop to that –

  • Capt. America

    “Someone would have talked”: On Believers and Questioners

    Person #1: [States a plausible theory concerning how the government may have conducted a nefarious operation and then lied to the public about it.]
    Person #2: That’s impossible.  There would have to have been so many people involved.  Someone would have talked.    

    Who is right: Person #1 or Person #2? 

    No matter how much research Person #1 does, he can never attain absolute certainty about his theory.  Absolute certainty about empirical matters is impossible.  See Rene Descartes, Meditations I.  However, the difference between Person #1 and Person #2 is not in the truth-value of their respective beliefs, but rather their orientation towards truth itself.  

    Person #2 is a Believer whereas Person #1 is a Questioner.  Most Questioners used to be Believers;  it is rare to find a Believer who used to be a Questioner.  

    Questioners are a tortured lot.  On one hand, they are constantly attempting to save Believers from their certainty in the “consensus opinion.”   On the other hand, Questioners are constantly attempting to test those few beliefs that they have attained, which they acknowledge to have been imperfectly established.  This is a never-ending task and the Questioners are never satisfied.  

    Believers, by contrast, spend most of their time in blissful ignorance.  They see the world as “given” and spend their time worrying about things like sports, interpersonal relationships or career advancement.  While some Believers get their worldview from watching or reading the News, most get it by osmosis, by referring to what “most people think” as a guide.   

    Believers and Questioners are fundamentally at odds.  Questioners either view Believers as simpletons or (as stated above) as naive souls to be saved. While many Questioners find Believers boring or pathetic, Questioners do not usually hate Believers.  However, Believers invariably detest Questioners.  See Plato, The Trial of Socrates.  

    The reason for Believer’s hate of the Questioner is based on the fact that the Questioner, simply by posing the question, succeeds in momentarily jolting the Believer out of his blissful ignorance.  This momentary jolt is painful, of course, which causes the Believer to recoil at whatever idea the Questioner had momentarily created in his mind.   The Believer’s salve is to reject that idea outright as preposterous.  He will rely on any handy method to do so.  

    The “someone would have talked” argument is a handy method that Believers use to get rid of an uncomfortable idea.  If the “someone would have talked” phenomenon is as true as the law of gravity, then why, the Questioner asks,  does the government go to the pains of conducting background checks?  Why did no one talk about Operation Northwoods before it became declassified?  Why does barely anyone talk about it now?  

    The Questioner is relentless.  If he goes to too far, though, the Believer is going to have to rely on other means to get back to the blissful state to which he has become attached.  When he fails to refute the Believer on his own, he will resort to others.  He will turn to other Believers and say “Look at this guy! How crazy is he!?”  The other Believers will be quick to rally around the irked Believer-cum-leader.  Before you know it, the Questioner has become an outcast. Or worse.   

    When the Believers are done with him, the Questioner will eventually become “no one.”

    This is the reason why the “someone would have talked” argument fails: because whoever talks is no longer someone worth being listed to, at least as far as the Believer is concerned.  

    But I wouldn’t try to explain this to a Believer, if I were you. 

    • Benfrank99

      This is about the most well thought out and useful comment I’ve ever read on the subject.  Thank you.

      • Rob

        Agreed, nicely done!

        We can at least be encouraged that Questioners are much more highly thought of with the benefit of hindsight.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_3R7RQKPSBD3SGZ7OY7EHV72ILY Anonymous

      Awesome!

    • Anthony Mirabito

      Very nice.  Thank you.

    • The Kicker

      Very excelent work Capt.

    • Optigon

      Terrific post! I’m sharing this article with specific instructions to read your comment Capt.  You nailed it.

  • Mark Gobell

    David Shayler and Annie Machon, ex MI5 whistleblowers.

    Peter Wright ex MI5 – Spycatcher – Thatcher banned the book.

  • Pingback: Someone Would Have Talked? Someone Would Be Crazy | 9/11 - A Cheap Magic Trick

  • Anonymous

    “Someone would have talked” has been the nonsensical mantra of former Warren Commission attorney Arlen “Magic Bullet” Specter, who now teaches at the University of Pennsylvania Law School and continues to defend the 1964 coverup he helped engineer.

    What a genius. What a steel-trap mind. I guess this is what passes for legal brilliance in Ivy League schools nowadays.

    Aside from the fact that people have, in fact, talked, this argument doesn’t stand up to Logic 101 testing.  It rests on two faulty premises: 1)  some conspirators would necessarily talk, and 2) nobody with any credibility (as defined by the national-security state and its propagandists for the “lone nut” theory)  has  talked.

    The first assertion  is an unproven generalization, an opinion, and not an established fact of human behavior.  The second premise also cannot be accepted at face value.  We don’t know who might have talked. There could  have been death-bed confessions and other revelations that were suppressed by those who heard them, out of fear for their personal safety and the safety and reputations of their families. 

    For a reminder of what happened to people who knew too much about the JFK assassination, search online for the 1984 article “Disappearing Witnesses” by Penn Jones, Jr., from a magazine called The Rebel.  The story of Lee Bowers, the railroad tower worker who observed suspicious activity behind the picket fence along the motorcade route, is just one  chilling example of  what was (and perhaps still is) a ruthless terror campaign of witness intimidation and elimination.

    • Realist

      Don’t forget the heroic Dallas PD det. Roger Craig. Not only did he talk but he kept talking (as many mysterious accudents befell him) until he was found with a rifle bullet in his chest. Ruled a suicide of course.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Simon-Bolivar/1711920054 Simon Bolivar

    Someone did talk, and it was Sam “Moony” Giancana and he said it was a joint effort by the mob and the CIA to take out JFK & RFK.  Payback for Papa Kennedy not keeping his sons in line when the hit on Papa K was called off. 

  • Anonymous
  • Pingback: Someone Would Have Talked? Someone Would Be Crazy : Deadline Live With Jack Blood

  • Drbrea

    Add Gary Webb to the list of those that talked.   After describing CIA involvement in drug-trafficing, he lost his job and ultimately his life,  in what was labeled a suicide.

    • NewWorldDISorder

      Love Gary Webb but I’d like to add:

      Danny Casolaro
      Reps Larry McDonald and Sonny Bono
      US special forces colonels Rowe, Baker, Cutolo
      ex-FBI Darlene Novingers father and husband
      USMC colonel Sabow
      the two kids murdered on the railroad track near Mena, Arkansas
      Barry Seal (even though he was in on it)
      ex-CIA Dois Gene “Chip” Tatum

      I’m sure there are many more unknown.

  • Pensivesteve

    So, there is really no need to investigate ANY criminal conspiracy, is there? All we need to do is wait long enough, and eventually someone will talk. 

    Let’s take a hands off approach to crime, and simply wait for the consciences of those involved to drive them to come clean.

    The naivete of this argument is astounding.

  • eddieleaks

    Barry Jennings, a key 9/11 eyewitness who was an emergency
    coordinator for the New York Housing Authority, passed away last August
    2008 at age 53 from undisclosed circumstances. Mr. Jennings was an
    eyewitness to the devastation of the World Trade center towers on
    September 11th 2001.

    On the morning of 911 Barry Jennings with Michael Hess, (one of Rudy
    Giuliani’s highest ranking appointed officials, New York city’s
    corporation counsel), entered the famed Building 7.http://eddieleaks.org/2009/04/17/new-information-on-the-death-of-911-eyewitness-barry-jennings/
     

  • Sherry

    And then there was Mary Meyer who would have talked about what she knew about JFK and the Warren Report if the CIA hadn’t killed her first in 1964. ” Mary’s Mosaic” is a new book by Peter Janney that documents her assassination.

  • Fbecke

    Also, the plight of Abraham Bolden. He reported negligence and was prosecuted!

  • Montana Mule Gal

    I have a friend, in her late 80s, who lived in DC during the late ’50s thru the mid ’70s, and she knew Martha Mitchell on a social basis. She saw Martha at a function a couple of weeks before Martha was “committed” by a White House psychiatrist, and says that “there was nothing wrong with Martha. She talked; they didn’t like it and they found a way to permanently shut her up.”

    • Dinophile

      Yes, that is lousy what they did to Martha.  They also ridiculed her endlessly on “Laugh-In” for the phone calls she made to the press talking about the illegal activities of the Committee to Re-Elect the President.  Those phone calls were dead on.  Martha’s only fault was that she was in love with a crook.

      • Daisee

        Gawd that is sad.

  • John J. Loftus

    I am a whistle blower. I won Mike Wallace an Emmy, testified before congress and paid a sharp price, but in all my time in the classified files I never saw anything to contravene the “lone nut” killers of RFK and JFK.  However, I believe the murder of MLK is still unsolved.  Ru7ss does great work.  I do not always agree, but always admire his courage,

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_KHGKOMIJLZIYGQGA3K6ORLSZMQ George

      Congressman Stokes from Ohio whom I met said that there definitely was a conspiracy to murder all three but they just couldn’t figure out who to pin it on.

    • Banks2020

      WOW REALLY? You never saw ANYTHING that would make you question the lone gunman theory about JKF? Either you are ignorant and dont need to be speaking publicly on the matter or you are dumb as a rock and no one should be listening to you

      • http://www.lordbalto.com/ Crash Override

        I think he meant, in the classified files. The readily available evidence is pretty obvious, starting with the unwillingness of the “lone nut” to shoot Kennedy between the eyes as he came down Houston St. (credit Jim Fetzer). This, however, is not surprising. No one in their right mind is going to leave a paper trail regarding the murder of the president. Why this would surprise the “whistle blower” is beyond me.

    • Banks2020

      WOW REALLY? You never saw ANYTHING that would make you question the lone gunman theory about JKF? Either you are ignorant and dont need to be speaking publicly on the matter or you are dumb as a rock and no one should be listening to you

  • Pingback: Someone Would Have Talked? Someone Would Be Crazy « Investment Watch Blog

  • KPat

    I am suprised no one added ex FBI Director Ted Gunderson to the list. Famous for exposing child sex slave/pediphile ring using military personel, planes and bases. And later life…Chemtrails

    And….Capt America….absolutely great comment…worthy of repost…

    “Someone would have talked”: On Believers and Questioners

    Person #1: [States a plausible theory concerning how the government may have conducted a nefarious operation and then lied to the public about it.] Person #2: That’s impossible. There would have to have been so many people involved. Someone would have talked.

    Who is right: Person #1 or Person #2?

    No matter how much research Person #1 does, he can never attain absolute certainty about his theory. Absolute certainty about empirical matters is impossible. See Rene Descartes, Meditations I. However, the difference between Person #1 and Person #2 is not in the truth-value of their respective beliefs, but rather their orientation towards truth itself.

    Person #2 is a Believer whereas Person #1 is a Questioner. Most Questioners used to be Believers; it is rare to find a Believer who used to be a Questioner.

    Questioners are a tortured lot. On one hand, they are constantly attempting to save Believers from their certainty in the “consensus opinion.”

    are constantly attempting to test those few beliefs that they have attained, which they acknowledge to have been imperfectly established. This is a never-ending task and the Questioners are never satisfied.

    Believers, by contrast, spend most of their time in blissful ignorance. They see the world as “given” and spend their time worrying about things like sports, interpersonal relationships or career advancement. While some Believers get their worldview from watching or reading the News, most get it by osmosis, by referring to what “most people think” as a guide.

    Believers and Questioners are fundamentally at odds. Questioners either view Believers as simpletons or (as stated above) as naive souls to be saved. While many Questioners find Believers boring or pathetic, Questioners do not usually hate Believers. However, Believers invariably detest Questioners. See Plato, The Trial of Socrates.

    The reason for Believer’s hate of the Questioner is based on the fact that the Questioner, simply by posing the question, succeeds in momentarily jolting the Believer out of his blissful ignorance. This momentary jolt is painful, of course, which causes the Believer to recoil at whatever idea the Questioner had momentarily created in his mind.

    Believer’s salve is to reject that idea outright as preposterous. He will rely on any handy method to do so.

    The “someone would have talked” argument is a handy method that Believers use to get rid of an uncomfortable idea. If the “someone would have talked” phenomenon is as true as the law of gravity, then why, the Questioner asks, does the government go to the pains of conducting background checks? Why did no one talk about Operation Northwoods before it became declassified? Why does barely anyone talk about it now?

    The Questioner is relentless. If he goes to too far, though, the Believer is going to have to rely on other means to get back to the blissful state to which he has become attached. When he fails to refute the Believer on his own, he will resort to others. He will turn to other Believers and say “Look at this guy! How crazy is he!?” The other Believers will be quick to rally around the irked Believer-cum-leader. Before you know it, the Questioner has become an outcast. Or worse.

    When the Believers are done with him, the Questioner will eventually become “no one.”

    This is the reason why the “someone would have talked” argument fails: because whoever talks is no longer someone worth being listed to, at least as far as the Believer is concerned.

    But I wouldn’t try to explain this to a Believer, if I were you.

    • Optigon

       What a fantastic post KPat! It would be great if you were to publish this piece somewhere so that I (and others) could link to it. Outstanding assessment, my friend.

    • Optigon

       Oops. I see you were reposting a comment by Capt America. Well thanks for reposting because I would have missed it otherwise. You’re still outstanding ;)

  • Anonymous

    An honest, ethical government would welcome whistleblowers, indeed would reward them.  A gangster government shrouded in secret, will persecute whistleblowers.  What’s sickening is a Congress, supposedly elected by the people, they don’t aid the whistleblower.  They take their cue from the govt.  Secrecy covers many sins.  If this was an honest constitutional govt, an honest congress, there would be no need for secrecy.  The CIA is the enforcement branch of the gangsters.  JFK was going to tear the CIA apart, they showed him who is the boss.  Then, they bumped off his brother a short time later.  Incredibly, the American people didn’t do a damn thing about this outrage.  The gangsters in govt exist because they have figured us out, we’re too cowardly to challenge them.

  • http://twitter.com/JohannanBaptist Johannan Baptiste

    I CAN keep a secret. It’s the people I tell that can’t keep them.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Wendell-Sting/1186964864 Wendell Sting

    Reading the comments here it would appear that Mr. Baker has assembled quite the knowledgeable commentariat, a veritable Mr.X’s of Sisyphusian boulder pushers.

    Good luck. 

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jimbo-Limbo/100001077841771 Jimbo Limbo

    People tend to drop dead in unison, via heart ailments, when secrets leave the nest.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_6E4PQM6X6W5FUXSQRLX4IWBLJM Dusty

    Remember Andrew Breitbart! Never forget!!!

    • http://twitter.com/salo99 Robert Elliot

       I did my best to forget about him when he was alive. No reason to change horses now.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/WJZGSQN26S55FWVULWTG52SGOY Iron Jam

      “Stop raping people, you freaks!!”

      He is definitely a man that is not easy to forget, no matter how hard one tries.

  • Pingback: Someone Would Have Talked? Someone Would Be Crazy

  • Pingback: Someone Would Have Talked? Someone Would Be Crazy | Pakalert Press

  • Pingback: Someone Would Have Talked? Someone Would Be Crazy – WhoWhatWhy | WhoWhatWhy « Delusions of an imprisoned mind

  • Anonymous

    Russ Baker wrote  “Would covert operatives whose work involves subverting democratic
    governments abroad—including violent coups such as the one that brought
    down Chilean President Salvador Allende in 1973—hesitate when ordered to
    participate in comparable activities at home?”

    Were foreign covert operatives involved in the Chile coup in
    1973 ?

    Apart from the argument that
    consists in reviewing US-led regime changes in other Latin American countries,
    and concluding that such an intervention must have happened in Chile too – there is scant evidence for a CIA involvement
    in bringing Allende down. 

     

    The US foreign policy is strongly attacked by the economist Paul Craig Roberts, among
    others. Here is what he says about the Chile coup:

     

    “The left needs to make
    up its mind.  Did the CIA and or
    Kissinger overthrow Allende or did Pinochet do it? My colleague and I studied it
    for years and talked to everyone involved. The book by my colleague and myself
    was favorably reviewed by the progressive establishment in Chile after Pinochet was out of
    power. My colleague spent two years in Chile researching the book,
    researching newspaper files, interviewing the generals, Pinochet, housewives, businessmen,
    members of the successor government, civilian members of the Pinochet
    government, surviving terrorists.  I
    myself interviewed Pinochet, and a former “most wanted” terrorist who
    ended up president of the Spanish-owned telephone
    company and a number of others who experienced the era.”

     

    ” I am sure that Pinochet
    refused to act until he had reassuring word of the US position on Allende, but
    Pinochet was pushed into action by the Chilean people and Chilean Congress, not
    by the CIA.  The Chilean Congress passed
    a resolution denouncing Allende for destroying the Constitution and for
    allowing armed para-military units to terrorize the people and called on the
    military to oust Allende. ”

     

    Article on the topic:
    http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts189.html

     

    Review of the said book:
    http://www.policyofliberty.net/HPdA/RobertsAraujo.html

     

    Above quotes from
    http://www.opednews.com/a/135325?show=votes#allcomments

    • werdy

       Yeah, the CIA isn’t involved in South America. Nor Chile. That’s why they have bases down there (in Chile). How’s life in the dream world, che? Meet anyone from the “Libyan” “National Transition Council” there?

      • Anonymous

        You created a straw man.  I didn’t deny CIA’s involvement in S. America. What you said is worthless, as an argument.

        • Just the Facts Man

          Okay, but can you really blame werdy for thinking that, considering the fact that you wrote, “[T]here is scant evidence for a CIA involvement in the Chilean dramatic events.”  This is just patently wrong, as can be discovered by Googling Pinochet and CIA and consulting reputable sources such as this: 

          http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20000919/index.html

          Why don’t you take you’re intellectual curiosity and start doing some actual factual research before you start going around talking about “interesting provocative” facts.  

      • Anonymous

        My second reply to werdy: Are we coming from the same basic position in regard to the global mafia?  My basic influence is the Enlightenment. I feel I have a basic obligation to fairness and truthfulness. It may be said that through fairness to truth, I seek social fairness. That’s enough for me, I don’t need to be impressed on daily basis with ‘epochal’ insinuations. 

        For all I know, CIA may have been involved in the overthrow of Allende. I do know that in human affairs there are virtually always exceptions. If I say, these twenty ‘regime changes’ are bad so it must be the twenty-first, I might have gotten it wrong, and in consequence  some people may be unjustly convicted, and virtually crucified, in advance of a fair trial… All of that because of my and others’ intellectual laziness!

        So, in my view intellectual curiosity and justice are intimately linked.

        I’ve given you some new, interesting, provocative facts. How come you seem completely disinterested in  them? You don’t know me. So why do you stigmatise me?
        What’s behind this impatience? What principles do *you* stand for?

        If I said, this person has written a book detailing how CIA overthrew Allende, I’d have probably been “liked.” If so, it’s about prejudice. The former Questioners have become Believers. The Truth has changed, but people’s attitudes may have remained the same.

      • Anonymous

        My second reply to werdy: Are we coming from the same basic position in regard to the global mafia?  My basic influence is the Enlightenment. I feel I have a basic obligation to fairness and truthfulness. It may be said that through fairness to truth, I seek social fairness. That’s enough for me, I don’t need to be impressed on daily basis with ‘epochal’ insinuations. 

        For all I know, CIA may have been involved in the overthrow of Allende. I do know that in human affairs there are virtually always exceptions. If I say, these twenty ‘regime changes’ are bad so it must be the twenty-first, I might have gotten it wrong, and in consequence  some people may be unjustly convicted, and virtually crucified, in advance of a fair trial… All of that because of my and others’ intellectual laziness!

        So, in my view intellectual curiosity and justice are intimately linked.

        I’ve given you some new, interesting, provocative facts. How come you seem completely disinterested in  them? You don’t know me. So why do you stigmatise me?
        What’s behind this impatience? What principles do *you* stand for?

        If I said, this person has written a book detailing how CIA overthrew Allende, I’d have probably been “liked.” If so, it’s about prejudice. The former Questioners have become Believers. The Truth has changed, but people’s attitudes may have remained the same.

    • Anonymous

      Why even use Chile as an example? maybe, could have. why use an inconclusive example? Is he trying to weaken his own credibility?Ex operatives have openly claimed credit for places like Guatemala. The failed Cuban operation is in the history books. When questionable events with security implications occur, the default position should be, just how involved are we, not if we’re involved?

  • Anonymous

    another good example is “confessions of an economic hit-man” describes how people are contracted to go in to other countries and either corrupt the people in power to the advantage of the US government or destabilise the country.

  • Pingback: The Price of Talk… | Battlefield USA

  • Howard Beale
  • Terry Hansen

    The real problem is that when someone talks, the major media will ask the government for confirmation. Once government officials deny the leaks, the story almost always dies. Most of the media are in bed with the U.S. intelligence community. Study the history of wartime propaganda and you will be forced to this conclusion. And the U.S. is now permanently at war, so the propaganda never ends.

    Ever see the movie, ‘Three Days of the Condor?’ At the end, Robert Redford’s character tells the CIA officer that he has just given his story to ‘The New York Times.’ Cliff Robertson’s character replies, “How do you know they’ll print it?”

    Very perceptive.

  • Terry Hansen

    The real problem is that when someone talks, the major media will ask the government for confirmation. Once government officials deny the leaks, the story almost always dies. Most of the media are in bed with the U.S. intelligence community. Study the history of wartime propaganda and you will be forced to this conclusion. And the U.S. is now permanently at war, so the propaganda never ends.

    Ever see the movie, ‘Three Days of the Condor?’ At the end, Robert Redford’s character tells the CIA officer that he has just given his story to ‘The New York Times.’ Cliff Robertson’s character replies, “How do you know they’ll print it?”

    Very perceptive.

  • Artuvwar

    would “fictionalize” a high-tech CIA scanning device known as a “magic box” while in fact he went ahead to describe it accurately. 
    **the link has been waterboarded**

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_KXNBECF5KTIXKLSB4PDRQY4UOE Reezy

       Damn, i wanted to check it out

      • raoulleraoulle

        I did check it out.
        it’s there in googles cache… 

        paste
        ex-cia-official-indicted-leaking-secrets
        into google and look at the cached pgs, first 2 are from yahoo and available.

  • Guest

    The only people that will read the book are people that already understand whats going on.  Try telling this to the people who need to know ( because they dont read much ) and you’ll be met with anything from an open mouthed blank stare, to a torrent of bluff bluster and vitriolic outrage, followed as they spin on their heels to walk away with a triumphul flourish of self congratatulation with, “anyway… if that was all true, someone would’ve talked!”

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1108792564 Antonio Lucca

     https://www.facebook.com/notes/antonio-lucca/rfk-killed-after-jfk-why-/10150552915502212

    • genomega

       This content is currently unavailable

  • http://sugamari.wordpress.com/ sugamari

    Just ask John O’Neill or William Colby. Or just ask Mike Rupert, Vincent Foster or  Sibel Edmonds. Or just ask Dr. David Kelly or Jane Burgermeister.  Or ask Gary Webb or Jim Keith.
    And Breitbart.
    I have videos, this election we’re going to vet him. We are going to
    vet him from his college days to show you why racial division and
    class warfare are central to what hope and change was sold in 2008.
    – Breitbart said February 2012

  • BrianApocalypse

     What a strange and confused bit of writing this is.

    First of all it states that nobody would talk because of the consequences. Then it goes on to say that actually, many insiders DO talk, and some of them even write books about it…. and then finishes by saying almost nobody talks!

    Uhh… What?!?

    • Russ Baker

      Everyone else seems to be able to follow this, but let me help you out. The phrase “someone would have talked” is meaningless because, (a) very few insiders DO talk, and (b) those who do are attacked or marginalized, creating a situation where even more people play it safe by staying in category (a).

      • BrianApocalypse

         I have no problem understanding your premise, but your own article seems to contradict it.

        “People are coming forward all the time to provide, if not the whole
        story, crucial bits and pieces that together would lead us to awareness
        of a variety of covert doings, some clearly nefarious.”

        • russbaker

          OK, once more: real insiders who directly participated in highly controversial operations tend to keep their mouths shut. However, those who have knowledge, perhaps secondary, of bits and pieces, do sometimes come forward, and are usually ignored. So, the insiders do not talk, and the others who do are ignored. Hence, as far as the mainstream media’s audience goes, it rarely hears any revelations on these topics.

        • https://sites.google.com/site/themattprather Matt Prather

          “Those that know don’t talk — and those that talk don’t know…”
          :)

  • Pingback: Questioners Vs. Believers « Liberating Memes

  • Pingback: Someone Would Have Talked? Someone Would Be Crazy

  • Pingback: Crystal Clear: Washington’s War on Whistleblowing is Un-American

  • Pingback: The Progressive Mind » Crystal Clear: Washington’s War on Whistleblowing is Un-American

  • Pingback: The Progressive Mind » Someone Would Have Talked? Someone Would Be Crazy – WhoWhatWhy

  • Pingback: Crystal Clear: Washington’s War on Whistleblowing is Un-American | Conspiracy This Week | What Team Are You On?

  • Pingback: Crystal Clear: Washington’s War on Whistleblowing is Un-American « wchildblog

  • Pingback: JFK-RFK-MLK??? The Questions Remain | WhoWhatWhy