|
Stephen M. St. John
Post Office Box 449
New York, NY 10185
29 July 2005
Mr. Mahathir Mohammad
Emergency Committee for Iraq
c/o Mission of Malaysia to the United Nations
New York, NY 10017
Dear Mr. Mohammad,
I write as a concerned citizen of the USA who deeply appreciates your effort to ensure fair treatment of deposed Iraqi
President Saddam Hussein. News media reports here in the USA are not encouraging, which is hardly surprising, but I nevertheless
express my wish that you succeed and hope that you will receive the following cautionary information in this spirit.
First, is that really Saddam Hussein in captivity? Last year Pravda carried a report that on meeting the captive
in Qatar last year, the wife of Saddam Hussein, Sajida Heiralla Tuffah, insisted he is not her husband. Married to Saddam
for well over 25 years, this woman would surely know!
Moreover, there are two differing versions of the capture of Saddam Hussein, one in a hole in the ground and another in
a house, but both are doubtful in that they purportedly occurred in the month of December when orange-yellow dates no longer
hang in clusters on the date palm trees as they do in the background of photos taken at the publicized scene of capture. I
never met a date tree that tells lies. Have you?
Also, photographic analysis by the late, great Australian investigator and internet journalist Joe Vialls indicates that
the prisoner has a pronounced underbite with crooked lower frontal teeth whereas undisputed photos of Saddam show an overbite
and beautiful, perfectly aligned frontal teeth. Of course Saddam was known to have employed doubles, which would easily confuse
anybody who has never met the real Saddam in person.
Quite frankly, I have no idea what is going on and am skeptical of the reports I have been reading in the mainstream news
media here in the United States. The bias is overwhelming and disheartening and, indeed, murderous. But I believe it is fair
to say this: Only a meeting with the prisoner and family members in the presence of proper legal authorities as well as witnesses
trusted by the family members would dispel any doubt about the true identity of the captive. Establishing the identity of
the prisoner is a reasonable demand. Refusing to do so would be revelatory as well. But the demand must be made. Short of
compliance, the demand must be made openly.
Second, I ask you to carefully weigh and consider the following information about your colleague on the Emergency Committee
for Iraq, Ramsey Clark. As Attorney General in the administration of Lyndon Johnson, Ramsey Clark helped to sabotage New Orleans
District Attorney Jim Garrison’s prosecution of Clay Shaw for conspiracy to assassinate President John F. Kennedy.
Let me quote at length Jim Garrison’s own words from his book On the Trail of the Assassins, which became
the basis of Oliver Stone’s 1991 movie JFK:
"When we arrested Shaw, the United States Government awakened like an angry lion. Whoever in my office was the government’s
contact had been caught napping by our unheralded apprehension of the man. There followed roars of outrage from Washington,
D. C. and shrill echoes from the news media.
From Ramsey Clark, the attorney general of the United States, there came the pronouncement that the federal government
already had exonerated Shaw from any involvement in President Kennedy’s assassination. This high-level revelation, and
the attorney general’s subsequent friendly colloquy with Washington reporters, seemed to leave no doubt that the Federal
Bureau of Investigation had investigated Clay Shaw and given him a clear bill of health. One newsman asked Clark directly
if Shaw was "checked out and found clear?" "Yes, that’s right," replied the attorney general. Needless to say, this
tableau did not exactly make me look like District Attorney of the Year.
However, the statement that Shaw, whose name appears nowhere in the 26 volumes of the Warren Commission, had been investigated
by the federal government was intriguing. If Shaw had no connection with the assassination, I wondered, why had he been investigated?
The implications of Clark’s statement apparently raised similar questions in Washington, and Clark soon beat a strategic
retreat. "The attorney general," a Justice Department spokesman announced, "has since determined that this was erroneous.
Nothing arose indicating a need to investigate Mr. Shaw."
Shortly after Clark’s pronouncement, however, an unnamed Justice Department official announced that the department
had been well aware that Clay Shaw and Clay Bertrand were one and the same individual and that the F.B.I. had indeed investigated
Clay Bertrand. This confirmed the facts as we had found them. Nonetheless, despite the backpedaling by the Justice Department,
the attorney general’s initial pronouncement was the one that got all the headlines. It had struck a serious blow at
the integrity of our investigation." (Pages 173-174)
To clarify the last paragraph of the passage above, I add that during the trial of Clay Shaw, the judge, Edward Aloysius
Haggerty, changed the law and refused to allow as evidence Shaw’s admitted use of the alias Bertrand as evinced in the
record of his booking at police headquarters after his arrest. As you can guess, the "unnamed Justice Department official"
was unavailable to give testimony so as to bypass the judge’s obstruction of justice.
And another passage by Garrison, which shows the hand of Attorney General Ramsey Clark at work through a subordinate, follows:
"Later I felt it was time for the Grand Jury to hear from Allen Dulles. I wanted to know many things from him, specifically
whether or not Clay Shaw, Lee Oswald, David Ferrie, Gordon Novel, and Guy Banister had been associated with the C.I.A., and
why his former deputy, General Cabell, had not been questioned by the Warren Commission.
I sent off a subpoena to our nation’s capital. A brisk letter from the United States Attorney in Washington, D.C.
came back shortly. It informed me that he "declined" to serve the subpoena on Mr. Dulles." (Pages 211-212)
These two passages clearly indicate unprofessional and unethical conduct on the part of Ramsey Clark when he was Attorney
General under Lyndon Johnson. They show a pattern of obstruction of justice. This pattern of obstruction of justice was consistent
with a CIA strategy to subvert Garrison’s prosecution. We know about this CIA strategy from the testimony of an insider
and eyewitness, former high-ranking CIA staff member Victor Marchetti, whom Garrison also cites in his book On the Trail
of the Assassins.
Please bear in mind that I am not saying that Ramsey Clark is an undercover CIA operative; for a citizen of the USA to
do so would be illegal and besides, the fact is I really do not know. But the public record is clear that as Attorney General
in the Johnson Administration Ramsey Clark had common cause with the CIA in one of the more nefarious episodes of its history.
To the best of my knowledge and belief, and despite my efforts to probe in this direction, Ramsey Clark has never addressed
the foregoing facts let alone offered an apology or explanation for his actions to subvert the New Orleans District Attorney’s
prosecution of Clay Shaw for conspiracy to murder JFK.
If I have misfired in my assessment of Ramsey Clark, your colleague on the Emergency Committee for Iraq, I offer my apology
up front. But the fact remains that at the very least he owes the American people an explanation for his behavior with respect
to the Garrison investigation and prosecution of Clay Shaw. In general, I would endorse and support many of Ramsey Clark’s
pronouncements on important Middle East issues, but hesitate to do so because of my doubts about his true intentions which
are based upon what appears to be direct participation in the coverup of the plot to assassinate JFK.
My doubts about Ramsey Clark's true intentions are directly relevant to current events in the Middle East. Had Jim
Garrison been able to proceed unmolested in his investigation and prosecution of Clay Shaw, Shaw's connection with the CIA
would have come to light. Such discovery might have led to documents revealing one George H. W. Bush "of the CIA" acting
as a conduit of disinformation in support of the false "pro Castro" public persona of the falsely accused Lee Harvey Oswald.
(Please see my 31 January 2005 letter to Chief Justice Rehnquist on this subject at my fledgling website http://mysite.verizon.net/vze4wbps.) Likewise, lawful discovery of CIA involvement would have smoked out one James Jesus Angleton, head of conterintelligence
as well as the "Israel desk" at the CIA. An aficionado of the Zionist state and a supporter of its policies
including its nuclear weapons program, Angleton under interrogation would very likely have uncovered his and Clay Shaw's connections
with our Zionist buddies, especially through the Centro Mondiale Commerciale. The international web of conspiracy, involving
the Jewish Meyer Lansky Organized Crime Syndicate, which may fairly be described as the other side of the coin of the Italian
Mafia, is described in great detail in Michael Collins Piper's "underground bestseller" book Final Judgment: The
Missing Link in the JFK Assassination Conspiracy.
Unbeknownst to Garrison during his investigation and prosecution of Clay Shaw, JFK had been locked in a bitter, behind-the-scenes
dispute with David Ben Gurion over the Zionist state's nuclear weapons program at Dimona in the Negev desert. JFK wanted
to stop this program because he wisely foresaw that it would only result in a regional arms race for countervailing weapons
of mass destruction and ever increasing instability in the region. JFK's opposition to the Zionist state's nuclear weapons
program ended with his assassination in Dallas on 22 November 1963.
Though Garrison could not at the time clearly see how the Zionist state would benefit by the assassination of JFK so as
to maintain its nuclear weapons programs, others certainly did. Among them, I cannot rule out Lyndon Johnson and members
of his administration, including Ramsey Clark. If Ramsey Clark knowingly and unethically acted once on behalf of Zionist
interests, could he be doing it again? Is he playing a role so as to be the eyes and ears of a government obsessed with
dominance and secrecy and totally unhinged from international law and its very own constitution?
If Ramsey Clark is acting on behalf of Saddam Hussein purely from his own well expressed convictions, then may the Almighty
bless him and protect him. But even so, his lapse in behavior with respect to the Garrison investigation deserves close
and immediate scrutiny, because the JFK assassination was all about maintaining the Zionist state's nuclear weapons program,
a legitimate concern of Saddam Hussein when he held power, for which the government of the USA did absolutely nothing to address
as an even-handed broker of peace. My government just sold him arms while the Zionists sold arms to the Iranians.
That was their brilliant strategy of the 1980s; nothing more, nothing less. A wiser course would have been to promote
a region from the Nile to the Euphrates rivers free from weapons of mass destruction as an integral part of a truly just and
comprehensive peace on all fronts of the Arab-Zionist dispute. But that, sad to say, was not my government's intention.
Sadder still, it is not my government's intention.
Very Truly Yours,
Stephen M. St. John
|
