Operation Northwoods?

caseyann

Code named Operation Northwoods, the plan, which had the written approval of the Chairman and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called for innocent people to be shot on American streets; for boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas; for a wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington, D.C., Miami, and elsewhere. People would be framed for bombings they did not commit; planes would be hijacked. Using phony evidence, all of it would be blamed on Castro, thus giving Lemnitzer and his cabal the excuse, as well as the public and international backing, they needed to launch their war.

Then, with time growing short, Eisenhower floated an idea. If Castro failed to provide that excuse, perhaps, he said, the United States "could think of manufacturing something that would be generally acceptable." What he was suggesting was a pretext a bombing, an attack, an act of sabotage carried out secretly against the United States by the United States. Its purpose would be to justify the launching of a war. It was a dangerous suggestion by a desperate president.

Then, with time growing short, Eisenhower floated an idea. If Castro failed to provide that excuse, perhaps, he said, the United States "could think of manufacturing something that would be generally acceptable." What he was suggesting was a pretext a bombing, an attack, an act of sabotage carried out secretly against the United States by the United States. Its purpose would be to justify the launching of a war. It was a dangerous suggestion by a desperate president.

The suggested operations grew progressively more outrageous. Another called for an action similar to the infamous incident in February 1898 when an explosion aboard the battleship Maine in Havana harbor killed 266 U.S. sailors. Although the exact cause of the explosion remained undetermined, it sparked the Spanish-American War with Cuba. Incited by the deadly blast, more than one million men volunteered for duty. Lemnitzer and his generals came up with a similar plan. "We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," they proposed; "casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation."


I was watching this last night on the presidents secret book.I found it very eye opening and proof that all powers for their own ends are capable of hanging you or i or their own president or imf chairman or whom ever to get the job done.etc...
Anyone done any research on this one?
If they are capable of this what else are they capable of? And why do people still bury their heads in the sand to the facts put in front of them.

Not sure if anyone covered this one on here,sorry if yous have it already.
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/northwoods.html

Di0genes

The fact that the plan was never acted on and the person who proposed it was sidelined afterwards is very telling.

RGDATA!

caseyann wrote: »

And why do people still bury their heads in the sand to the facts put in front of them.

i've always wondered about that

My name is URL

Di0genes wrote: »

The fact that the plan was never acted on and the person who proposed it was sidelined afterwards is very telling.

Sidelined is a bit much. He was sent off to Europe as commander of all U.S. Forces here, and supreme commander of NATO. And he didn't propose the plan.. he approved it after it had being proposed to him.

stevejazzx

Di0genes wrote: »

The fact that the plan was never acted on and the person who proposed it was sidelined afterwards is very telling.

That's a strange comment? More telling is that that person in that position of power at that time came up with such a plan.

stuar

Di0genes wrote: »

The fact that the plan was never acted on and the person who proposed it was sidelined afterwards is very telling.

Richard Nixon
Remarks on Presenting the Distinguished Service Medals of the Army, Navy, and Air Force to General Lyman L. Lemnitzer.
July 11, 1969
Mr. Secretary, General and Mrs. Lemnitzer, all of the distinguished guests here in the Rose Garden this morning:
This is a very historic occasion, as are many of the occasions in the White House, historic because we honor a man today who completes over 50 years of service to his country in the Armed Forces of the United States, and historic because at this time General Lemnitzer will receive the Distinguished Service Medal of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force.
Now, others have received all three of those awards, but for the first time in history, a man who has served the Nation so well in so many different capacities will receive all three at the same time, and finally, because it allows an opportunity for me, not only as President of the United States, but also as an individual who has worked with General Lemnitzer, going back over 15 years, to speak of his work and to say what it means.
He is a distinguished, professional soldier, and I say that as a compliment. He is a professional soldier in the great tradition of the American Armed Forces, a man who is proud of wearing the uniform of his country, but a man who respects the civilian authority.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/print.php?pid=2122

Smashing man, really respects civilian authority.


Lemnitzer approved the plans known as Operation Northwoods in 1962, a proposed plan to discredit the Castro regime and create support for military action against Cuba by staging false flag genuine acts of terrorism and developing "a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington". Lemnitzer presented the plans to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara on March 13, 1962. It is unclear how McNamara reacted, but three days later President Kennedy told the general that there was no chance that America would take military action against Cuba. Within a few months, after the denial of Operation Northwoods, Lemnitzer was denied another term as JCS chairman.[1]
In November 1962, Lemnitzer was appointed as Commander of U.S. Forces in Europe, and as Supreme Allied Commander of NATO (the US European Command is the crown jewel of regional commands) in January 1963.[2] This period encompassed the Cyprus crisis of 1963-1964 and the withdrawal of NATO forces from France in 1966
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyman_Lemnitzer

On 13th March, 1962, General Lemnitzer presented Robert McNamara with a top-secret memo, urging President Kennedy to order a variety of shocking incidents to create a rationale for invading Cuba.
Code named Operation Northwoods, the memo suggested that the administration should arrange a terror campaign in Miami and Washington that would create international revulsion against the government of Fidel Castro.
President [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]John F. Kennedy[/FONT] summoned Lemnitzer to the Oval Office on 16th March, 1962, where they discussed Operation Northwoods. Kennedy rejected the idea and three months later he told Lemnitzer that he was being moved from the Pentagon to become Commander of U.S. Forces in Europe.
Lemnitzer took up the appointment in November 1962. He became Supreme Allied Commander of NATO in January 1963 and held the post until 1969.
After retiring from the army he was a member of the [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]American Security Council (ASC), the lobby for the military-industrial complex.[/FONT]
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKlemnitzer.htm

Lemnitzer retired from the military in July 1969. In 1975, President Ford appointed Lemnitzer to the Commission on CIA Activities within the United States (aka the Rockefeller Commission) to investigate whether the Central Intelligence Agency had committed acts that violated American laws.
http://www.bookrags.com/wiki/Lyman_Lemnitzer#Retirement

Brilliant choice of a man to investigate CIA crimes in USA.

Yes he really was sidelined.

Di0genes

And yet it never happened.

It's a bit like convicting America of a thought crime.

Brown Bomber

Di0genes wrote: »

And yet it never happened.

It's a bit like convicting America of a thought crime.

No. It's not at all like that. It's exactly like convicting the US of the actual crime of conspiracy.

conspiracy

n. when people work together by agreement to commit an illegal act. A conspiracy may exist when the parties use legal means to accomplish an illegal result, or to use illegal means to achieve something that in itself is lawful. To prove a conspiracy those involved must have agreed to the plan before all the actions have been taken, or it is just a series of independent illegal acts. A conspiracy can be criminal for planning and carrying out illegal activities, or give rise to a civil lawsuit for damages by someone injured by the conspiracy. Thus, a scheme by a group of salesmen to sell used automobiles as new, could be prosecuted as a crime of fraud and conspiracy, and also allow a purchaser of an auto to sue for damages for the fraud and conspiracy.
http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=310

EDIT - More appropriate defintion

CONSPIRACY
18 U.S.C. 371 makes it a separate Federal crime or offense for anyone to conspire or agree with someone else to do something which, if actually carried out, would amount to another Federal crime or offense.
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/c103.htm

stuar

Di0genes wrote: »

And yet it never happened.

It's a bit like convicting America of a thought crime.

No a bit like this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_transatlantic_aircraft_plot

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article6824884.ece

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/brooklyn/jury_convicts_brooklyn_terror_wannabe_eMfOZd6bf6ydMkG4Jai6TP

Maybe start a campaign to get these thought criminals aquitted?

robtri

Brown Bomber wrote: »

No. It's not at all like that. It's exactly like convicting the US of the actual crime of conspiracy.



EDIT - More appropriate defintion

CONSPIRACY
18 U.S.C. 371 makes it a separate Federal crime or offense for anyone to conspire or agree with someone else to do something which, if actually carried out, would amount to another Federal crime or offense.
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/c103.htm

the question then is, is it illegal for the US president to order the death of some american citizens....
considering that they can order the army into battle , knowing there will be americans deaths based on there orders...

if it is not illegal then it is not a conspiracy

stuar

robtri wrote: »

the question then is, is it illegal for the US president to order the death of some american citizens....
considering that they can order the army into battle , knowing there will be americans deaths based on there orders...

if it is not illegal then it is not a conspiracy

That's almost as silly as the last guys assumption and is it a question at all?

Lawful and legal are not the same, and a conspiracy need's neither to be a conspiracy, like if I conspired with somebody to play a practical joke on a third party.

That sillieness aside, a plot or plan to terrorise, harm or kill the civilian population of the country your supposed to be protecting is a conspiracy, no matter how you'd like to jumble words around.

Whether or not the act is carried out the conspirators are guilty.

Section 1(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977 provides:
"...if a person agrees with any other person or persons that a course of conduct shall be pursued which, if the agreement is carried out in accordance with their intentions, either - (a) will necessarily amount to or involve the commission of any offence or offences by one or more of the parties to the agreement, or(b) would do so but for the existence of facts which render the commission of the offence or any of the offences impossible, [added by S.5 Criminal Attempts Act 1981]he is guilty of conspiracy to commit the offence or offences in question."


 

the question then is, is it illegal for the US president to order the death of some american citizens....

the answer is yes, quite simple really, same way as it's illegal for you or I to order somebodies death(s)

Di0genes

Brown Bomber wrote: »

No. It's not at all like that. It's exactly like convicting the US of the actual crime of conspiracy.



EDIT - More appropriate defintion

CONSPIRACY
18 U.S.C. 371 makes it a separate Federal crime or offense for anyone to conspire or agree with someone else to do something which, if actually carried out, would amount to another Federal crime or offense.
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/c103.htm

I'm fairly certain then the entire CIA could be arrested for conspiracy.

It's a slightly implausible statute to apply.

Di0genes

robtri wrote: »

the question then is, is it illegal for the US president to order the death of some american citizens....
considering that they can order the army into battle , knowing there will be americans deaths based on there orders...

if it is not illegal then it is not a conspiracy

Actually if you check the plan no US civilians would have been injured in Northwoods, the whole thing was to be faked as US soldiers would pretend to be wounded civilians.

So it's a bit silly to suggest this was a plan to attack US civilians. It was a plan for a fake attack with fake civilians.

stuar

Di0genes wrote: »

I'm fairly certain then the entire CIA could be arrested for conspiracy.

It's a slightly implausible statute to apply.

Well if every US government get away with mass murder, their underlings mostly acting on order have nothing to fear.

Because someone in autorithy orders killings, still doesnn't make it not a crime and right

Let's get this straight, NORTHWOODS is a conspiracy, an official out in the open conspiracy.

If you read it correctly, you would notice real or simulated, simulated is not real, but real is and always will be real.

I like ostriches, just not the human variety.

Di0genes

stuar wrote: »

Well if every US government get away with mass murder, their underlings mostly acting on order have nothing to fear.

But no one got away with mass murder, because it never happened.

And if Northwoods was carried out no civilians were going to be killed.

a. An aircraft at Eglin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the Miami area. At a designated time the duplicate would be substituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone.
b. Take off times of the drone aircraft and the actual aircraft will be scheduled to allow a rendezvous south of Florida. From the rendezvous point the passenger-carrying aircraft will descend to minimum altitude and go directly into an auxiliary field at Eglin AFB where arrangements will have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the aircraft to its original status. The drone aircraft meanwhile will continue to fly the filed flight plan. When over Cuba the drone will begin transmitting on the international distress frequency a "MAY DAY" message stating he is under attack by Cuban MIG aircraft. The transmission will be interrupted by destruction of the aircraft which will be triggered by radio signal. This will allow ICAO radio[16] stations in the Western Hemisphere to tell the US what has happened to the aircraft instead of the US trying to "sell" the incident.

. We could blow up a drone (unmanned) vessel anywhere in the Cuban waters. We could arrange to cause such incident in the vicinity of Havana or Santiago as a spectacular result of Cuban attack from the air or sea, or both. The presence of Cuban planes or ships merely investigating the intent of the vessel could be fairly compelling evidence that the ship was taken under attack. The nearness to Havana or Santiago would add credibility especially to those people that might have heard the blast or have seen the fire. The US could follow up with an air/sea rescue operation covered by US fighters to "evacuate" remaining members of the non-existent crew. Casualty lists in US newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation.

There are enough genuine genocides in the world to get outraged by, without resorting to imaginary ones.

Because someone in autorithy orders killings, still doesnn't make it not a crime and right

In operations Northwoods no civilians were going to be killed.

Operations Northwoods wasn't carried out.

I really find it hard to draw up outrage for a plan that wasn't carried out, and if carried out wasn't going to kill anyone. Call me apathetic.

Let's get this straight, NORTHWOODS is a conspiracy, an official out in the open conspiracy.

It was a hypothetical plan that wasn't carried out. .

If you read it correctly, you would notice real or simulated, simulated is not real, but real is and always will be real.

Yes, and?

I like ostriches, just not the human variety.

I like puppies.

Di0genes

stuar wrote: »

No a bit like this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_transatlantic_aircraft_plot

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article6824884.ece

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/brooklyn/jury_convicts_brooklyn_terror_wannabe_eMfOZd6bf6ydMkG4Jai6TP

Maybe start a campaign to get these thought criminals aquitted?

If you look at the plans of Operation Northwoods, the planning went so far as to say "We could" or "we might"

The people in question above had reached a point of "we're going to" or "we're actively achieving The Liquid bombers had actively reached the point where they were assembling components of several bombs. I think that goes beyond simply idly speculating.

I have more sympathy for Betim Kazu, I think lumping him in with Operations Northwoods and the Liquid Bombers is a bit idiosyncratic. All three of them are completely different concepts. He wasn't arrested for conspiracy for a start.

stuar

Di0genes wrote: »

If you look at the plans of Operation Northwoods, the planning went so far as to say "We could" or "we might"

The people in question above had reached a point of "we're going to" or "we're actively achieving The Liquid bombers had actively reached the point where they were assembling components of several bombs. I think that goes beyond simply idly speculating.

I have more sympathy for Betim Kazu, I think lumping him in with Operations Northwoods and the Liquid Bombers is a bit idiosyncratic. All three of them are completely different concepts. He wasn't arrested for conspiracy for a start.

Did they say that, or the prosecutors?, they had peroxide, maybe they were planning on going blonde?, and the previous attempt with said bombs resulted in nothing more harmful than a balloon popping.

They were aquitted, then retrialed and found guilty, not a whole lot of evidence was there?.

Northwoods would have caused many, many more lives that a baloon popping if JFK gave the green light and is an evil conspiracy.

robtri

stuar wrote: »

Section 1(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977 provides:
"...if a person agrees with any other person or persons that a course of conduct shall be pursued which, if the agreement is carried out in accordance with their intentions, either - (a) will necessarily amount to or involve the commission of any offence or offences by one or more of the parties to the agreement, or(b) would do so but for the existence of facts which render the commission of the offence or any of the offences impossible, [added by S.5 Criminal Attempts Act 1981]he is guilty of conspiracy to commit the offence or offences in question."


 

the question then is, is it illegal for the US president to order the death of some american citizens....

the answer is yes, quite simple really, same way as it's illegal for you or I to order somebodies death(s)

Interesting, so how come the president can order marines to their death.. or even a few steps down from a president .. a judge can in certain states order the death penalty ...

Di0genes

stuar wrote: »

Did they say that, or the prosecutors?, they had peroxide, maybe they were planning on going blonde?,

On his arrest, he was found to be carrying an elaborate and damning blueprint for the plot scrawled in a battered pocket diary. Airport security arrangements and details of flights, including the seven highlighted services, were discovered on a computer memory stick in another pocket.

Interesting trip to a hairdresser.

and the previous attempt with said bombs resulted in nothing more harmful than a balloon popping.

It was the main explosive in the 7/7 bombings.

They were aquitted, then retrialed and found guilty, not a whole lot of evidence was there?.

No they were not acquitted a jury failed to reach a verdict in the first trial.

A very important distinction.

Northwoods would have caused many,

The plan itself would not have involved the death of any civilians.

many more lives that a baloon popping if JFK gave the green light and is an evil conspiracy.

IF JFK had given a green light to it. IF JFK had fully supported the bay of pigs many more lives would have been lost. IF JFK had attacked Cuban during the missile crisis.

None of them came to pass. Northwoods was rejected on the drawing board, and therefore cannot be considered a massive conspiracy theory.

Hoffmans

was'nt it used twice already oklahoma and manhattan?

hooradiation

Di0genes wrote: »

I like puppies.

Huzzah! Puppies!
I am glad this is taking off.

But, seriously, I believe that Northwoods is an extraordinary product of an extraordinary time before anything else.

Firstly, before we can effectively speak on Northwoods we need to be aware of it's contemporary surroundings. Cuba was a hot topic for many people within Eisenhower's administration. And with good reason. It was a communist stronghold less than 94 Miles from American soil. Given the cold wars nature of wars by proxy, having a sympathetic communist state that close to American soil made a lot of people nervous.

This then follows that more hawkish elements of that administration dreamed up of operation northwoods, a plan that would give legitimacy to the invasion of Cuba - thus denying the soviet union of a nuclear proxy.
Indeed when the events of October 1962 kicked off I imagine several members of the then JFK cabinet wished they'd gone with northwoods - JFK himself included.

But what is most important about northwoods, is not that it was conceived. Mans inhumanity to man is a not a new observation, but that given the climate of the time, given the enormous threat that communist Cuba posed during that period that in spite of all those understandable, nay, even forgivable, reasons to carry operation northwoods out that it never graduated from the realm of idea.

I think it's often the case that northwoods is used as an example, as the OP put it, that "all powers for their own ends are capable of hanging you or i" but, personally, i think it's actually an example of the opposite. Given a scenario that would have allowed for a strategically advantageous Cuban conquest - with minimal negative repercussions, publicly at least, that the JFK administration chose to sideline it totally in place of diplomacy is a frankly unimaginable turn of events, given the circumstances.

And, as an addendum - The fact that Northwoods had, at it's height the support of the joint chiefs while, by comparison, that during the Clinton administration a similar plan to purposefully fly a plane low and slow enough that the Iraqi forces could shoot it down, thus precipitating a war was met with, as describe by the then chairman of the Joint chiefs of staff Hugh Shelton with "Why, of course we can, - Just as soon as we get your ass qualified to fly it, I will have it flown just as low and slow as you want to go" shows that, to me at least, the concept of sacrificing American lives to achieve politically expedient goals is, more that ever, not an option regardless of how many shifty shadowy figures it may make inconceivably rich.

Now that this is all done, for my part, I'd like to offer this caveat - all this is simply an observation, brought about by the OP mentioning Northwoods which I'd never really investigated before.
A lot of this is simply opinion - but if people would like to point out where the basic premises are wrong I'd be happy to listen.

Torakx

Maybe it depends who is proposing the plan.
I mean there is ALOT of bluffing and posing on the world political stage.
Who is to say they didn't have that plan released during the Clinton era to ingratiate that administration as ..i dont know more sensible? while getting away with other things on the financial front.
I always try to remember when those guys point one way its more sensible to look the other.
Rememeber the current downturn in the world economy didnt just take a year or two to organise.
From what i remember Clinton was renowned for helping America progress financially in some respects(iirc unemployment issues).
The war machine was probably just setting up for Bush in the next few years to have a proper go with 9/11 and 7/7 along with Blairs administration.Those two tag teamed the middle east pretty damn good.
Raped and pillaged, made tons of profit and contracts,one of them even wrote a book about it! etc etc
Propoganda never had it so good.

Di0genes

Torakx wrote: »

Maybe it depends who is proposing the plan.
I mean there is ALOT of bluffing and posing on the world political stage.
Who is to say they didn't have that plan released during the Clinton era to ingratiate that administration as ..i dont know more sensible? while getting away with other things on the financial front.
I always try to remember when those guys point one way its more sensible to look the other.
Rememeber the current downturn in the world economy didnt just take a year or two to organise.
From what i remember Clinton was renowned for helping America progress financially in some respects(iirc unemployment issues).
The war machine was probably just setting up for Bush in the next few years to have a proper go with 9/11 and 7/7 along with Blairs administration.Those two tag teamed the middle east pretty damn good.
Raped and pillaged, made tons of profit and contracts,one of them even wrote a book about it! etc etc
Propoganda never had it so good.

I've read this three times and have no idea what it has to do with this thread.

ed2hands

Torakx wrote: »

Propoganda never had it so good.

Aint that the truth! Edward Bernays would be thrilled with the way things have gone.

Di0genes

ed2hands wrote: »

Aint that the truth! Edward Bernays would be thrilled with the way things have gone.

If we've learnt anything in the past two weeks it's that a massive media conglomerate cannot control the spin and leaking of it's own dirty laundry.

I think propaganda has never had it so bad.