Choose Search Type
Search
 
 

Display results as :
 


Rechercher Advanced Search

Latest topics
» ROKC Lampoon
Today at 6:08 am by Jake Sykes

» The Facts about Connally's Wounds
Yesterday at 10:01 pm by Vinny

»  How Jack Ruby's Entry Could Have Been Coordinated
Yesterday at 9:59 pm by Vinny

» JFK Conference
Yesterday at 9:55 pm by Vinny

» What strange affidavits these are!
Sat 03 Dec 2016, 7:38 pm by Ed. Ledoux

» Kennedys and King website
Sat 03 Dec 2016, 6:05 pm by Paul Francisco Paso

» Kent Courtney
Fri 02 Dec 2016, 11:47 pm by Hasan Yusuf

» a ramble in and around Pine St, NO
Fri 02 Dec 2016, 11:45 pm by Hasan Yusuf

» Anatomy Of A Second Floor Encounter
Fri 02 Dec 2016, 11:01 pm by barto

Log in

I forgot my password

Social bookmarking

Social bookmarking Digg  Social bookmarking Delicious  Social bookmarking Reddit  Social bookmarking Stumbleupon  Social bookmarking Slashdot  Social bookmarking Furl  Social bookmarking Yahoo  Social bookmarking Google  Social bookmarking Blinklist  Social bookmarking Blogmarks  Social bookmarking Technorati  

Bookmark and share the address of REOPENKENNEDYCASE on your social bookmarking website

Bookmark and share the address of REOPENKENNEDYCASE on your social bookmarking website

RSS feeds


Yahoo! 
MSN 
AOL 
Netvibes 
Bloglines 


Affiliates
free forum
 



A Public Review of the Secret Service

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

A Public Review of the Secret Service

Post by Guest on Thu 03 Apr 2014, 2:38 pm

The Secret Service of the United States is shrouded in legend and discerning its past often involves separating the untenable claims of officials and detractors. Many officials and critics of conspiracy seek to mold these men as unimpeachable. Conversely, some conspiracy advocates have often predetermined most had a nefarious role in President Kennedy's death. Unconsidered by these groups are incompetence and repeated disregard of protocols. Yet it does not require elevating or denouncing these men based on speculation, the primary evidence offers insights that speculations cannot.

Regarding the Kennedy assassination repeated allusions of Secret Service agents drinking occur. Additionally they were likely subject to exhaustion from chasing strippers the morning of the Kennedy motorcade.(i) A few Agents were drinking according to Mr. Rowley the Chief of the Secret Service.(ii) Witnesses also corroborated their exploits with strippers. This blatant disregard for duty and protocol infer possible corruption and incompetence. These factors indeed would subsequently weigh upon Secret Service agents during security measures in Dealey Plaza. 

However, these repeated failings do not substantiate Secret Service complicity in the feasible plot. To include the Secret Service in such as plot is beyond the verified evidence. It is highly improbable that every guard assigned to the President would all simultaneously betray him. Also problematic is the idea that so many would be included in a plot without actual reasoning to its goal. The Secret Service had already compromised itself; they required no orders to do so.

Complicity fails to account for Agent Henry Rybka's blatant confusion at changes to the motorcade. If Rybka and others were aware of the plot, why are they seemingly confused? The Secret Service's later removal of the President's body without jurisdiction would seem to be a more substantial action to back nefarious intent. It was not the Secret Service but men who ordered these actions to occur that should bear the blame. Yet we cannot allow some critics to ignore the serious mistakes that continue to occur. These proven mistakes compromise the Secret Service's purpose.

The Secret Service problems were not merely contained to the Kennedy assassination. Secret Service problems have continued with alarming regularity. Among the most widely known problems was the Colombian prostitution scandal. This includes heavy drinking and solicitation according to a Department of Homeland Security investigation. (iii) One agent admitted prior misconduct.

Despite the circumstances, the Secret Service Director Mark Sullivan assured officials "This is not a cultural issue; this is not a systemic issue..." Senator Susan Collins subsequently replied to Sullivan "I continue to believe that the problem is broader than you believe it to be". (iv) Secret Service, military personnel, and Drug Enforcement Agency members were embroiled in a prostitution and scandal in Columbia. Senator Susan Collins commented, "It's disturbing that we may be uncovering a troubling culture that spans more than one law enforcement agency." (v) However, the recent scandals have been ongoing.

Despite the Secret Service Director's claim, the next alleged scandal occurred in El Salvador. Shortly after Homeland Security Secretary Janet Reno stated the problems were isolated; a report on El Salvador emerged.(vi) The report states Secret Service agents were involved in excessive drinking and prostitution. A dozen Secret Service employees and officers were implicated in the scandal. Eight Secret Service officers have reportedly been "forced out" and others face administrative discipline (vii)

Some Secret Service agents stated that similar behavior occurred on other official trips (viii) Between 2007 and 2012, the official received 64 complaints of sexual misconduct.(ix) Yet between 2004 and 2013, the Secret Service was cited for 824 cases of misconduct for various reasons.(x) The Secret Service issued new guidelines to curb these feasibly corrupt practices. Among the new initiated protocols was a ban on drinking within 10 hours of duty. (xi) Most officials dismissed any inference of these activities being a possible long-term behavior of the Secret Service agents. One Secret Service agent found innocent of the charges stated "Of course it has happened before...It really only blew up in this case..."(xii)

Secret Service agents referred to a prior trip with President Bill Clinton to Buenos Aires. Some member agents allegedly went out for evening strip club parties. Secret Service agents, the media, and the official record in many cases repeatedly affirmed these activities. Despite attempts to curb such behavior more scandal was to come. It seems a handful in this agency place more importance on their personal activities.  
Days ago, the Secret Service had a problem with three agents excessively drinking in the Netherlands. (xiii) These agents were sent home from the Presidential visit. This was subsequent to a prior scandal involving agents sending unwanted sexual emails to a co-worker. (xiv) After considering the evidence, a substantial problem feasibly exists. The Secret Service in my view needs serious reform far beyond that currently offered by the Obama administration. 

The culture of the Secret Service has allowed some agents to ignore normal protocols. Not the entire Secret Service, but a significant minority has created enduring problems that compromise national security. These could be agents from decades ago to recent personnel dismissed for misconduct. The repetition of history and scandal needs to be addressed. If the President's defenses are so easily compromised, America is not as secure as officials imagine.


Sincerely,

C. A. A. Savastano
facebook/NeapMG
neamg.com


i. Hearings of the Pres. Comm., Vol. XVIII, Ex. 1019, United States Secret Service memo to General Counsel Rankin of President’s Commission, May 5, 1964, p. 666.
ii. Hearings of the Pres. Comm., Volume 5, Testimony of James J. Rowley and Robert Carswell, (June 18, 1964), pp. 451, 454, 458, 459.
iii. Investigation revisits Secret Service prostitution scandal, Greg Seaby, October 20,2012, CNN News, cnn.com
iv. Secret Service scandal: Systemic problem or aberration?, Tom Cohen, May 24,2012, CNN News,  cnn.com
v. Columbia Secret Service Prostitution Scandal Spreads to the DEA, Pierre Thomas and Jason Ryan via World News, ABC NEWS, (May 21,2012), abcnews.go.com
vi. New Secret Service scandal focuses on strippers and prostitutes in El Salvador, The Daily Mail, April 26,2012, dailymail.co.uk
vii. Report: Secret Service agents partied with strippers ahead of Obama El Salvador visit, CBS News, April 26, 2012, cbsnews.com
viii. New Allegations Surface of Secret Service Misbehavior in El Salvador, Korva Coleman, April 26,2012, npr.org
ix. U.S. Secret Service received 64 complaints of misconduct - US Election 2012, May 23, 2012, BBC News, bbc.co.uk
x. Questions raised again about the Secret Service culture, Aamer Madihani and Kevin Johnson, March 27, 2014, USA Today, usatoday.com
xi. Secret Service Columbia scandal prompts new rules, April 27,2012, BBC News,  bbc.co.uk
xii. Confidants: Secret Service agents contend misbehavior on trips not unprecedented, Carol D. Leonnig and David Nakamura, April 24,2012, washingtonpost.com
xiii. 3 high-profile Secret Service scandals in 3 years, Jessica Durando, March 26,2014, USA Today, usatoday.com
xiv. Obama backs Secret Service head after second sex scandal, Dave Boyer, November 15, 2013, The Washington Times, washingtontimes.com


Last edited by Carmine Savastano on Thu 03 Apr 2014, 2:43 pm; edited 2 times in total (Reason for editing : formatting text)

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: A Public Review of the Secret Service

Post by gerrrycam on Sun 06 Apr 2014, 3:37 am

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eP6jDM6sXhA

JFK Conspiracy: Did Secret Service Stand Down

gerrrycam

Posts : 227
Join date : 2014-03-25

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: A Public Review of the Secret Service

Post by Guest on Mon 07 Apr 2014, 10:41 am

May I ask what exactly your response is? I have seen the video that identifies two Secret Service men both Laughton and Rybka being called off by Emory Roberts. However, I imagine the contention is that Roberts was complicit. I am willing to consider any evidence you might have to corroborate your video interpretation. If your correct, it does not implicate the whole Secret Service, but Roberts and potentially anyone who gave the order to him. I would agree suspicion is warranted but should not be cast upon the entire Secret Service for the potential nefarious activity of a single agent.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: A Public Review of the Secret Service

Post by gerrrycam on Tue 08 Apr 2014, 12:51 am

http://www.tyronetimes.co.uk/news/tyrone-news/did-stewartstown-native-kill-jfk-1-1747006

gerrrycam

Posts : 227
Join date : 2014-03-25

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: A Public Review of the Secret Service

Post by Albert Rossi on Tue 08 Apr 2014, 3:55 am

Just a couple of quick comments. 

First of all, it seems to me at least that arguments which refute the involvement of an agency such as "The CIA" or "The Secret Service" by asserting that most couldn't have been part of such a conspiracy are usually straw-man arguments, since I know of no serious critic who has ever proposed such a thing (the argument that the existence of clandestine agencies should be reexamined because by their very nature they are posited on these kinds of anti-democratic abuses is quite another thing from stating that a conspiracy involved all the operational personnel of an agency).  Discussions within the community of critics usually (I'm thinking more in terms of CIA here) have to do with how high up the plot went.  But even those who propose a high-level plot usually believe that only a few key players were knowingly involved, and that compartmentalization and bureaucratic cover stories took care of the rest.

Be that as it may, I would highly recommend reading Vince Palamara's book.  While I do not agree with everything that is in it, I think it is pretty clear that Dallas was exceptional from a number of different standpoints, not just Roberts calling off Rybka and Lawton.  Vince has his own ideas about how many of the agents could have been made to do what they did without them being directly involved in any conspiracy.  I won't detail Vince's arguments here, but will mention that his prime suspects are Roberts, Boring and Greer (I have problems with the last one), and that certainly Lawson was in the middle of the security stripping, though he probably was not the origin of such decisions.  I believe Jim DiEugenio will be posting his review of his book soon.

Another author whom I greatly respect, Philip Melanson, has suggested there is a link between the USSS and CIA which bears investigation in terms of possible penetration (I believe the book was called The Politics of Protection, written in the 80s).


Last edited by Albert Rossi on Tue 08 Apr 2014, 4:17 am; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : SS-->USSS, just to avoid confusion. Of course there was also a link between the Nazi SS and CIA.)

Albert Rossi

Posts : 417
Join date : 2013-08-29
Age : 61
Location : Naperville, IL USA

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: A Public Review of the Secret Service

Post by Terry W. Martin on Tue 08 Apr 2014, 6:25 am

Talking off the top of my head here...

I agree with Al that Palamara's volume is an excellent read for the Kennedy Secret Service - far better than Gerald Blaine's historical revisionist tome on the Detail.

If the problem with the Secret Service that day had only been their drinking 'til all hours or the apparent confusion of Roberts calling Rybka and Laughton back. Apparently from what Abraham Bolden has reported the drinking and partying was not new and neither was the occasional confusion of assignments this created.

But these were not the only two elements that coincided for the perfect storm in Dallas. First, the dogleg in front of the TSBD was prohibited by the tenets of the Service and yet they included it in the route plan.

The advance team what not given a list of potential threats in the Dallas area. The fellow in charge of that duty claimed there were no threats in Dallas.

Then there was the confusion at Love Field, vehicles were numbered but then rearranged in sequence creating a lot of confusion for the passengers. JFK's physician was forced into a vehicle far away from the President while the Vice President was a mere two cars behind JFK. The press photographers usually preceded the Presidential car but they were not allowed their usual position.

Also, the agents were told to stay off the rear of the President's car - an order Clint Hill ignored several times during the motorcade - apparently at the request of the President himself (but this was refuted by evidence gathered by V. Palamara). When the shooting started it seemed none of the agents knew what gunfire was. When they began to react, Emory Roberts reportedly told them to stay put - again Hill raced forward anyway.

Greer's driving was also a little odd. Slowing down when the President is in danger is the opposite of their training. Kellerman had the lead because the usual Agent in Charge of the Presidential motorcade, Behn, just happened to take his first vacation in three years at the time if the Texas trip.

The Secret Service did not conspire to kill Kennedy but it certainly seems some members of the Detail failed their due diligence in regard to the President's safety in multiple areas for the first time in the history of the USSS.

I don't know what sort of odds one could get on such an occurrence but I would think all those things happening at one time just when there happened to be an assassination attempt is far more than a long shot, IMO.

Terry W. Martin

Posts : 690
Join date : 2013-11-30
Age : 65
Location : Middleburg, VA, USA

View user profile http://martianpublishing.com

Back to top Go down

Re: A Public Review of the Secret Service

Post by Guest on Tue 08 Apr 2014, 8:11 am

Albert,

          I would agree with your analysis if indeed my view was based on a fallacy as all straw man arguments are. This article is not definitive but does not misrepresent the facts, nor qualify for the straw man label. However, it seems reasonable in my view, to expect the success of a conspiracy would in fact depend on a minimal amount of those in the know. The problem with some assigning blanket guilt to the entire Secret Service is that some were clearly surprised and disturbed. As you stated "only a few key players would be involved". The idea that dozens of people all conspired without detection, nor anyone betraying the plan is unfeasible. I do not seek to make excuses or false arguments for the official story, I consistently have stated its various and frequent evidentiary problems. However, I also would not seek to exclude evidence or the reasoned opinions of others based on the arguments I have already heard. You may disagree with my assessment, yet I have offered various sources that would infer most Secret Service, just as most officials present were not knowingly part of a conspiracy. In my opinion only the most vital people would be aware to protect the success of the feasible conspiracy.


Last edited by Carmine Savastano on Tue 08 Apr 2014, 8:50 am; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : changed improper grammar)

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: A Public Review of the Secret Service

Post by Terry W. Martin on Tue 08 Apr 2014, 9:04 am

Carmine,

I can agree with that assessment.
Only those in on the fix would have to know and it may have been only three or four of the Agency. Which three or four, I do know know.
But, as you say, it was obvious many in the detail were surprised, and saddened, by the events of the day.

Just as in blaming the CIA or the FBI for collusion, there were quite a few who were doing their best to do the right thing. Only a handful were actively screwing up the investigation.

But that's just my opinion.

Terry W. Martin

Posts : 690
Join date : 2013-11-30
Age : 65
Location : Middleburg, VA, USA

View user profile http://martianpublishing.com

Back to top Go down

Re: A Public Review of the Secret Service

Post by Albert Rossi on Tue 08 Apr 2014, 9:06 am

Carmine,

Sorry if you misinterpreted what I was saying.  I don't think we disagree on the idea that most of the agents in Dallas were not part of the plot.  All I was wondering was who, in fact, you were arguing against.  I've never seen arguments to the effect, for instance, that the agents who stayed in their places (like the recently deceased Ready) were conspirators.  They were told to stay off the limo.  They were even told (at least some of them say so) that Kennedy wanted them off the back of the car. 

There are a few agents whose actions are a little more suspicious than others, but even there, it is hard to tell what their "state of mind" was.  Did Glen Bennett testify about a bullet he never could have seen hit Kennedy in the back (he was looking the other way) because he was a conscious conspirator?  Or was he just a willing soldier, like many of the DPD?  Admittedly, since the Newcomb book (Murder From Within), Greer and Kellerman have come under suspicion, but it seems to me that few would argue that every agent who misbehaved on 11/22 did so because he was part of a conspiracy.  At least I've never seen such an argument.

To be quite honest, though, what I am also reacting to here are arguments which seek to defend an agency's integrity by claiming that in order for one to blame the agency as an institution, you have to prove the guilt of every single individual (OK, that's hyperbole ... let's say "a lot") working for that agency.  That, for me, is specious reasoning (an institution is not just the sum of its employees). For instance, people who say that "the CIA as a whole" was not involved in the assassination misconstrue -- perhaps purposefully -- what people who say "the CIA" mean, as if the latter actually were implying there were signed orders from Angleton or Helms to take out JFK, passed down the rank and file of all the various sectors -- like, "we're doing Kennedy next Friday ... did you get the memo? ... but make sure you don't leak it." 

The case of the Secret Service of course is not really analogous with the CIA octopus, but the fact is the Secret Service as an institution at that time was being threatened by RFK and Hoover both.  But I think when one says that "the Secret Service" was involved, what is meant is people in key positions of authority who were capable of issuing directives and having them followed.  In any case I don't think anybody really believes these people initiated the plot.  Several of these people have curious links to other agencies, were right-wingers and also racists.

As for Palamara, Terlin has summarized some of the other stuff he discusses.  There is more.  It is difficult to explain all of it innocently.

----
For me, the simple bottom line is this:  if I were a conspirator and wanted to guarantee the success of an ambush of the President, would I not want some assurance that his protection has been relaxed?  I don't think I'd want to bank the success of the plot on the fact that those guys carouse or aren't always vigilant.  I'd need more assurances than that.  The palace guard has to be penetrated for a coup to be successful.  I know that's not "proof".  But it makes sense in my book at least.


Last edited by Albert Rossi on Tue 08 Apr 2014, 9:48 am; edited 2 times in total (Reason for editing : Additional remark)

Albert Rossi

Posts : 417
Join date : 2013-08-29
Age : 61
Location : Naperville, IL USA

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: A Public Review of the Secret Service

Post by Guest on Tue 08 Apr 2014, 12:11 pm

Albert,

           I appreciate the additional consideration. To be more specific, my argument is in this article is that corruption indeed has accompanied the Secret Service during much of its history. I would just state the corruption for most members was a disregard of duty concerning protocol and responsibility. They drank, cavorted with strippers, and in modern times prostitutes. In my view based on most corroborating evidence most Secret Service actions were not nefarious but incompetent. I would agree that it is feasible that someone in a leadership position might have been complicit but I would not paint them all with the brush of guilt as some have. I am not saying the position of anyone in a film will divulge innocence and guilt but the repeated inspection of their actions, and consideration of motive, means, and opportunity. I would by no means declare the innocence of every Secret Service agent, especially with the obvious corruptions they have displayed. However, I personally would require verified primary evidence that reasonably offers support of their intentional participation in a conspiracy. To address the argument you have faced, I could never support or profess that any government agency based on its duration or service is not corrupt or incompetent. The Secret Service for example in most cases performed their duty admirably, yet their actions support a minority were also corrupt. I agree with you that many officials actions were all but innocent oversight. Yet I have reserved the inferred guilt for those the evidence repeatedly offer were in fact actively deceptive, and those who attempted to suppress and destroy information.

Terlin, thanks for reading and I'm glad the assessment is fitting.


Last edited by Carmine Savastano on Tue 08 Apr 2014, 12:18 pm; edited 2 times in total (Reason for editing : missing word in a sentence)

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: A Public Review of the Secret Service

Post by Vinny on Tue 08 Apr 2014, 6:49 pm

One reason why Agent Greer might have slowed the limo is because he perhaps felt that the shots came from the front.He might have been worried that they were driving into an ambush so to speak.

Vinny

Posts : 232
Join date : 2013-08-27

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: A Public Review of the Secret Service

Post by Terry W. Martin on Tue 08 Apr 2014, 7:43 pm

JFK Student wrote:One reason why Agent Greer might have slowed the limo is because he perhaps felt that the shots came from the front.He might have been worried that they were driving into an ambush so to speak.

Yes, perhaps the bullet coming through the windshield caused him pause.

And he did say that there was a "flurry of shots" just before he got the word from Kellerman, "Go! Go!"

It might be difficult for anyone to decide exactly which direction safety might lie.

Terry W. Martin

Posts : 690
Join date : 2013-11-30
Age : 65
Location : Middleburg, VA, USA

View user profile http://martianpublishing.com

Back to top Go down

Re: A Public Review of the Secret Service

Post by gerrrycam on Tue 08 Apr 2014, 8:08 pm

IF Greer was told  not to move no further then 15 or 20 feet in front of car in his rear he would have to slow down as cars executed the dog leg onto Elm.Either way he was driving into ambush from front and rear.
 It was irresponsible to have North Ireland Orange Man as JFK driver.

gerrrycam

Posts : 227
Join date : 2014-03-25

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: A Public Review of the Secret Service

Post by Terry W. Martin on Tue 08 Apr 2014, 8:28 pm

gerrrycam wrote:IF Greer was told  not to move no further then 15 or 20 feet in front of car in his rear he would have to slow down as cars executed the dog leg onto Elm.Either way he was driving into ambush from front and rear.
 It was irresponsible to have North Ireland Orange Man as JFK driver.

Tru dat.

Some allegiances - such as creed and race - go a bit deeper than politics and employment connections.

Terry W. Martin

Posts : 690
Join date : 2013-11-30
Age : 65
Location : Middleburg, VA, USA

View user profile http://martianpublishing.com

Back to top Go down

Re: A Public Review of the Secret Service

Post by Albert Rossi on Tue 08 Apr 2014, 10:58 pm

To add to the mix on Greer, there is some debate about whether the presence of people on the overpass contributed to his hesitation (Palamara goes over all this material in detail).

What is perhaps a bit more problematic is his turning around twice before reacting.  That behavior was questionable, though it is not necessarily sinister.  (Those who invest this with a darker significance point out that the second time he stares at JFK right up until he is hit in the head.)

In any case, even if the limo did not come to a full stop, I believe the Muchmore film does indicate he had his foot on the brakes (the brake lights are visibly on).

Albert Rossi

Posts : 417
Join date : 2013-08-29
Age : 61
Location : Naperville, IL USA

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: A Public Review of the Secret Service

Post by Hasan Yusuf on Wed 09 Apr 2014, 7:20 am

Terlin,

It was actually Roy Kellerman who heard the flurry of shells coming into the limo:

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=38&relPageId=82

Hasan.

Hasan Yusuf

Posts : 1779
Join date : 2013-03-13
Age : 28
Location : Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

View user profile http://jfkthelonegunmanmyth.blogspot.com.au/

Back to top Go down

Re: A Public Review of the Secret Service

Post by Guest on Wed 09 Apr 2014, 8:00 am

Greetings Again,

                    I would agree with your current assessments. Based on the drinking, strippers, and other various deficiencies may explain most of the Secret Service problems. A hangover and exhaustion from lack of sleep would likely account for nearly all the issues. However, I would agree a possibly nefarious action is the order to remove the two agents. I have read and listened to portions of Palamara's interviews, based on those interviews how far back can we trace the order to remove the jogging agents? Palamara stated Roberts acted on Flyod Boring's order, but did anyone influence Boring or direct his actions? I do not presume this just based on the order itself, but also the timing. The removal feasibly allows the sniper to establish a firing line. Had they been removed earlier I would imagine it was just a formation change, yet less than a minute before the shooting starts? The timing is quite noteworthy in my view.


Last edited by Carmine Savastano on Thu 10 Apr 2014, 11:04 am; edited 2 times in total (Reason for editing : edited mistyped words)

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: A Public Review of the Secret Service

Post by Terry W. Martin on Wed 09 Apr 2014, 8:03 am

Hasan Yusuf wrote:Terlin,

It was actually Roy Kellerman who heard the flurry of shells coming into the limo:

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=38&relPageId=82

Hasan.

My bad! Yes, you're right. It seems I cannot keep the two men straight in my mind.

Terry W. Martin

Posts : 690
Join date : 2013-11-30
Age : 65
Location : Middleburg, VA, USA

View user profile http://martianpublishing.com

Back to top Go down

Re: A Public Review of the Secret Service

Post by Albert Rossi on Wed 09 Apr 2014, 8:48 am

Carmine,

One of the more astounding revelations of Palamara's book is that Boring himself denies that Kennedy issued any orders during or after the Tampa trip (11/18) that the Secret Service agents get off the limo; this runs counter to what some agents were being told subsequent to that trip, and to the story that circulated just after the assassination. No agent today remembers any such directives coming from the President himself. But the emergence of this rationalization was late November.**  There were no agents, other than Clint Hill, who was actually guarding Jackie, who set foot on the limo during the entire parade route through Dallas.  This, in contradistinction to the San Antonio and Ft Worth motorcades just preceding.

The SS was also responsible for other things that were protection-related.  The positioning of the motorcycles, for instance.  Most of this fell on the shoulders of Winston Lawson.

Anyway, however one judges the individual behavior of the agents on the ground, the responsibilities exercised by this agency were shirked in numerous ways quite apart from the late-night drinking on the part of some of the President's entourage.

P.S., yes, the famous "flurry of shots" statement is Kellerman's.

**It is not entirely clear whether the JFK-wanted-it cover story was actually used to justify orders to the agents themselves or whether it was totally fabricated after the fact (it may very well be the latter).


Last edited by Albert Rossi on Thu 10 Apr 2014, 5:40 am; edited 3 times in total

Albert Rossi

Posts : 417
Join date : 2013-08-29
Age : 61
Location : Naperville, IL USA

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: A Public Review of the Secret Service

Post by Guest on Wed 09 Apr 2014, 12:38 pm

Regarding official failures we are in total agreement Albert. The Secret Service did and has continued to ignore multiple incidents that would lead most infer the a large minority were incompetent, and failed to protect President Kennedy in any substantial manner in Dallas.  Some issues of corruption have never been publicly addressed. The current scandals are just the historic reminder that corruption no matter its origin can become a systemic problem if ignored long enough.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: A Public Review of the Secret Service

Post by gerrrycam on Wed 09 Apr 2014, 12:44 pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQMIrHMgFlE
► 2:15► 2:15
www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQMIrHMgFlE‎


  • Similar

Jul 4, 2012 - Uploaded by Saintly Oswald
When I made this video, I didn't realize that Greer had actually fired a shot while Kellerman's hand was up to ...stuff his ear.


Last edited by gerrrycam on Wed 09 Apr 2014, 12:48 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : more info)

gerrrycam

Posts : 227
Join date : 2014-03-25

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: A Public Review of the Secret Service

Post by gerrrycam on Thu 10 Apr 2014, 12:36 am

Sorrels, Forrest V.WC Testimony 1, 2, affidavitAgent, U.S. Secret Service
Mr. SORRELS - I felt it was, because it was too sharp for a backfire of an automobile. And, to me, it appeared a little bit too loud for a firecracker.
I just said, "What's that?" And turned around to look up on this terrace part there, because the sound sounded like it came from the back and up in that direction.
At that time, I did not look back up to the building, because it was way back in the back.
Within about 3 seconds, there were two more similar reports. And I said, "Let's get out of here" and looked back, all the way back, then, to where the President's car was, and I saw some confusion, movement there, and the car just seemed to lunch forward.
And, in the meantime, a motorcycle officer had run up on the right-hand side and the chief yelled to him, "Anybody hurt?"
He said, "Yes."
He said, "Lead us to the hospital."
And the chief took his microphone and told them to alert the hospital, and said, "Surround the building." He didn't say what building. He just said, "Surround the building." And by that time we had gotten almost in under the underpass, and the President's car had come up and was almost abreast of us.

gerrrycam

Posts : 227
Join date : 2014-03-25

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: A Public Review of the Secret Service

Post by Albert Rossi on Thu 10 Apr 2014, 4:59 am

For those interested, the CTKA review of Palamara I mentioned Jim was writing is now up.

http://ctka.net/2014_reviews/survivors_guilt.html

Albert Rossi

Posts : 417
Join date : 2013-08-29
Age : 61
Location : Naperville, IL USA

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: A Public Review of the Secret Service

Post by Terry W. Martin on Thu 10 Apr 2014, 10:16 am

Albert Rossi wrote:For those interested, the CTKA review of Palamara I mentioned Jim was writing is now up.

http://ctka.net/2014_reviews/survivors_guilt.html

Thanks, Al.

Another excellent review by Jim. Like him, I found the first part of the volume gripping but, after some time in the second part, I was skimming the material.

Palamara made mention of a test of some sort or an exercise in Dallas in regard to pressure being brought to bear to remove the Executive Protection to another agency. The purpose of this exercise eluded me but I wonder why with the monumental fiasco they had in Dallas why wasn't the job taken away from the USSS and given to another agency?

It is not as if they had "proven their worth" at the task.

Terry W. Martin

Posts : 690
Join date : 2013-11-30
Age : 65
Location : Middleburg, VA, USA

View user profile http://martianpublishing.com

Back to top Go down

Re: A Public Review of the Secret Service

Post by Albert Rossi on Thu 10 Apr 2014, 1:28 pm

Terlin,

This is something I feel was weak and needed more elaboration/support in the book.  I think the basic idea here is that agents were told that a fake attempt was to be staged that day in order to demonstrate that the Secret Service was necessary and needed more support, but that this also served as a cover for relaxing the protection so the shooters could do the deed.  Sort of like the military running exercises on 9/11 which confused drill with reality in order to avert protective response.  It would also seem Palamara is insinuating that the stepped up involvement and monitoring by the Protective Research Section during this period (the period coincident precisely with all the documents which the Secret Service destroyed in the wake of the ARRB) was to be able to control more tightly any information regarding threats (and there seems to be an underdeveloped link here with CIA that Palamara hints at).

I agree with Jim that when he sticks to uncovering the trail of security stripping in all its facets, Palamara is excellent.  I personally think he ruins this good work by relying as much as he does on questionable sources, like Gus Russo, Sy Hersh, Newcomb's Murder From Within, and James Hepburn's Farewell America -- a book which was probably a CIA-sponsored effort at misdirection and disinformation (whose sponsor Weisberg discovered to be Philippe de Vosjoli, a double agent who worked for Angleton).

Albert Rossi

Posts : 417
Join date : 2013-08-29
Age : 61
Location : Naperville, IL USA

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: A Public Review of the Secret Service

Post by Sponsored content Today at 11:26 am


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum