Letter to The Nation

Mark Lane
Washington DC

February 10, 2006

Ms. Katrina vanden Heuvel
Editor and Publisher
The Nation
33 Irving Place
New York, NY 10003

Ms. Katrina vanden Heuvel:

It began with a CIA document classified “Top Secret.” How do I know that? A decade after the assassination of President Kennedy, with the assistance of the ACLU, I won a precedent-setting lawsuit in the United States District Court in Washington, DC. brought pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act. The court ordered the police and spy organizations to provide to me many long-suppressed documents.

The CIA document stated that it was deeply troubled by my work in questioning the conclusions of the Warren Commission. The CIA had concluded that my book, Rush to Judgment, was difficult to answer; indeed, after a careful and thorough analysis of that work by CIA experts, the CIA was unable to find and cite a single error in the book. The CIA complained that almost half of the American people agreed with me and that “Doubtless polls abroad would show similar, or possibly more adverse, results.” This, “trend of opinion,” the CIA stated, “is a matter of concern” to “our organization.” Therefore, the CIA concluded, steps must be taken. The CIA directed that methods of attacking me should be discussed with “liaison and friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors),” instructing them that “further speculative discussion only plays into the hands of the opposition.” The CIA stressed that their assets in the media should “Point out also that parts of the conspiracy talk appear to be deliberately generated by Communist propagandists.” Further, their media contacts should “use their influence to discourage” what the CIA referred to as “unfounded and irresponsible speculation.” Rush to Judgment, then the New York Times number one best selling book, contained no speculation.

The CIA in its report instructed book reviewers and magazines that contained feature articles how to deal with me and others who raised doubts about the validity of the Warren Report. Magazines should, the CIA stated, “employ propaganda assets to answer and refute the attacks of the critics,” adding that “feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose.” The CIA instructed its media assets that “because of the standing of the members of the Warren Commission, efforts to impugn their rectitude and wisdom tend to cast doubt on the whole leadership of American society.” The CIA was referring to such distinguished gentlemen as Allen Dulles, the former director of the CIA; President Kennedy had fired Dulles from that position for having lied to him about the Bay of Pigs tragedy. Dulles was then appointed by Lyndon Johnson to the Warren Commission to tell the American people the truth about the assassination.

The purpose of the CIA was not in doubt. The CIA stated: ”The aim of this dispatch is to provide material for countering and discrediting the claims” of those who doubted the Warren Report. The CIA stated that “background information” about me and others “is supplied in a classified section and in a number of unclassified attachments.”

With this background we now turn to the article by Max Holland published by The Nation in its February 20, 2006 issue. It states that there was a “JFK Lawyers’ Conspiracy” among four lawyers, Sen. Gary Hart, Professor Robert Blakey, Jim Garrison the former District Attorney of New Orleans and later a state judge in Louisiana, and me.

Before I wrote Rush to Judgment I had never met any of the other three “co-conspirators.” I still have not had the pleasure of meeting Sen. Hart and I know of no work that he has done in this area. I met Prof. Blakey only once; he had been appointed chief counsel for the House Select Committee on Assassinations and at that meeting I told him that I was disappointed in his approach and methods. Not much of a lawyer’s conspiracy.

Each of the other statements as to alleged fact are false and defamatory. Mr. Holland states that I am not scrupulous, that I am dishonest and that I spread innuendo about the sinister delay in the Warren Commission investigation, an assertion not made by me but fabricated in its entirety by Mr. Holland. As a silent echo of his CIA associates, Mr. Holland does not point to one assertion as to fact, of the thousands I have made about the facts surrounding the death of our president that he claims is inaccurate.

Finally, Mr. Holland strikes pay dirt. He uncovers, are you ready for this, the fact that I had asserted that “the government was indifferent to the truth.” I confess. Is that now a crime under the Patriot Act? Isn’t that what The Nation is supposed to be asserting and proving?

Mr. Holland states that the KGB was secretly funding my work with a payment of “$12,500 (in 2005 dollars).” It was a secret all right. It never happened. Mr. Holland’s statement is an outright lie. Neither the KGB nor any person or organization associated with it ever made any contribution to my work. No one ever made a sizable contribution with the exception of Corliss Lamont who contributed enough for me to fly one time from New York to Dallas to interview eye-witnesses. The second largest contribution was $50.00 given to me by Woody Allen. Have Corliss and Woody now joined Mr. Holland’s fanciful conspiracy?

Funds for the work of the Citizens Committee of Inquiry were raised by me. I lectured each night for more than a year in a Manhattan theatre. The New York Times referred to the very well-attended talks as one of the longest running performances off Broadway. That was not a secret. I am surprised that Mr. Holland never came across that information, especially since he refers to what he calls “The Speech” in his diatribe.

Apparently, Mr. Holland did not fabricate the KGB story; his associates at the CIA did. There is proof available for that assertion, but I fear that I have taken too much space already.

Am I being unfair when I suggest a connection between Mr. Holland and the CIA? Here is the “CIA game plan:” Fabricate a disinformation story. Hand it to a reporter with some liberal credentials; for example, a contributing editor to The Nation. If the reporter cannot find a publication then have the CIA carry it on its own website under the byline of the reporter. Then the CIA can quote the reporter and state, “ according to…..”

Mr. Holland writes regularly for the official CIA website. He publishes information there that he has been given by the CIA. The CIA, on its official website, then states “According to Holland…” If you would like to look into this matter of disinformation laundering enter into your computer -- “CIA.gov + Max Holland”. You will find on the first page alone numerous articles by Mr. Holland supporting and defending the CIA and attacking those who dare to disagree as well as CIA statements attributing the information to Mr. Holland.

A question for The Nation. When Mr. Holland writes an article for you defending the CIA and attacking its critics, why do you describe him only as “a Nation contributing editor” and author. Is it not relevant to inform your readers that he also is a contributor to the official CIA website and then is quoted by the CIA regarding information that the agency gave to him?

An old associate of mine, Adlai Stevenson, once stated to his political opponent, a man known as a stranger to the truth, -- if you stop telling lies about me I will stop telling the truth about you. I was prepared to adopt that attitude here. But I cannot. Your publication has defamed a good friend, Jim Garrison, after he had died and could not defend himself against demonstrably false charges.

You have not served your readers by refusing to disclose Mr. Holland’s CIA association. The Nation and Mr. Holland have engaged in the type of attack journalism that recalls the bad old days. If I fought McCarthyism in the 1950s as a young lawyer, how can I avoid it now when it appears in a magazine that has sullied its own history. The article is filled with ad hominem attacks, name calling, fabrications and it has done much mischief. I will hold you and Mr. Holland accountable for your misconduct. I can honorably adopt no other course.

To mitigate damages I require that you repudiate the article and apologize for publishing it. That you publish this letter as an unedited article in your next issue. That you do not publish a reply by Mr. Holland in which he adds to the defamation and the damage he has done, a method you have employed in the past. That you provide to me the mailing addresses of your contributing editors and members of your editorial board so that I may send this letter to them. I am confident that Gore Vidal and Bob Borosage, Tom Hayden and Marcus Raskin, all of whom I know, and many others such as Molly Ivins, John Leonard and Lani Guinier who I do not know but who I respect and admire, would be interested in the practices of The Nation. In addition, I suggest that ethical journalism requires that in the future you fully identify your writers so that your readers may make an informed judgment about their potential bias.

If you have a genuine interest in the facts regarding the assassination you should know that the House Select Committee on Assassinations (the United States Congress) concluded that probably a conspiracy was responsible for the murder and that, therefore, the Warren Report that Mr. Holland defends so aggressively, is probably wrong. In addition, the only jury to consider this question decided in a trial held in the United States District Court in a defamation case that the newspaper did not defame E. Howard Hunt when it suggested that Hunt and the CIA had killed the president. The forewoman of the jury stated that the evidence proved that the CIA had been responsible for the assassination.

I have earned many friends in this long effort. Those who have supported my work include Lord Bertrand Russell, Arnold Toynbee, Prof. Hugh Trevor-Roper, Dr. Linus Pauling, Sen. Richard Schweicker, Paul McCartney, Norman Mailer, Richard Sprague, Robert Tannenbaum; also Members of the House of Representatives, including Don Edwards, Henry B. Gonzales, Andrew Young, Bella Abzug, Richardson Preyer, Christopher Dodd, Herman Badillo, Mervyn Dymally, Mario Biaggi and, above all, according to every national poll, the overwhelming majority of the American people. I have apparently earned a few adversaries along the way. Too bad that they operate from the shadows; that tends to remove the possibility of an open debate.

Very truly,

Mark Lane