Someone Would Have Talked? Someone Would Be Crazy

By on Apr 10, 2012

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.

Full Story:

It´s more like

no one would have listened.

Comment from Russ Baker's blog...

"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.


OCT requires belief that secrets CAN be kept

Isn't it remarkable how during the nearly three years that the 2nd version of the OCT was the official story, that no one in the military "squealed" the fact that the military really hadn't been notified about the last three airliners as the NORAD timeline specified?

According to Bonner's 2006 Vanity Fair article, one of the NORAD generals at the 9/11 hearings even stated that "The real story is actually better than the one we told."

No doubt! The 3rd story completely exonerates the military! Yet no one "leaked" anything, even though it would certainly have been in the military's best interest.

Conclusion: If you believe the OCT, you have to believe that the govt/military can indeed keep secrets.

Secret Service

In view of the heavy media coverage of the scandal in Cartagena it is interesting to note the sparse reference in the media (has anyone seen any at all?) of the far more troubling incident of 48-plus years ago when the on-duty Secret Service agents guarding John F. Kennedy at the Hotel Texas in Fort Worth were taken drinking for several hours by several staff members of the Fort Worth Star Telegram. Left to protect him were a city policeman and fireman. The incident was completely covered up for several months, until Jack Anderson exposed it in his column. and then generally suppressed afterward. Among the reporters involved were the now famous Bob Schieffer, who wrote about it in his autobiography. He and at least two other of the journalists were interviewed by the Warren Commission and their testimony is in the 26 volumes.
Oh, yes, it happened on the night of Nov. 21, 1963. The next day the Secret Service agents appeared slow and confused and did little if anything to prevent what happened. There were no recriminations or punishments of any of those involved, as far as I have ever heard.