Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Phillip Corso and the National Security Council - Part II

Expand Messages
  • Dr Michael Salla
    Aloha, here s the second round of responses concerning a dialogue I am having on the UFO Updates forum concerning Col Phillip Corso. The original posts for
    Message 1 of 1 , Aug 1, 2005
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Aloha, here's the second round of responses concerning a dialogue I
      am having on the UFO Updates forum concerning Col Phillip Corso. The
      original posts for this second round is available at:
      http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2005/aug/m01-004.shtml

      The dialogue is based on an earlier posting of mine also available
      that mentioned Col Corso and led to the exchange below:
      http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2005/jul/m25-007.shtml .
      For a summary of the first round of this dialogue, see:
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/exopolitics/message/220

      In short, you see in this dialogue resistance to the testimony of
      whistleblowers such as Col Philip Corso who have solid credentials
      but have minor inconsistencies in their testimonies highlighted by
      established UFO researchers. In this dialogue the issue at dispute
      is whether Corso served as a staff member of the National Security
      Council as he claimed, or basically served on an `independent
      agency' and therefore `lied'.

      My protagonist in this dialogue is Brad Sparks, a co-founder of
      Citizens Against UFO Secrecy. You can judge for yourself the
      complexities of the issues and whether I or Sparks are more accurate
      in our respective positions concerning Col Corso's claim of having
      served as a staff member on the National Security Council. Corso's
      credibility is important for his subsequent claims of having served
      in a covert project at the Foreign Technology Desk of Army Research
      and Development where he disseminated extaterrestrial technologies
      into private industry.

      I've inserted the abbreviations BS [Brad Sparks] and MS [Michael
      Salla] into the original so you can more easily follow the dialogue
      though for the correct sequencing of posts you will need to read the
      original which is cited above.

      In peace,

      Michael E. Salla, PhD

      **************
      Source: http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2005/aug/m01-
      004.shtml


      http://www.cia.gov/csi/kent_csi/docs/v03i4a05p_0003.htm

      [MS] Certainly, Cutler was clear about the role played by the "NSC
      Operations Coordinating Board." Cutler viewed it as integral
      part of the NSC system and part of the NSC itself.

      …

      [BS] Cutler viewed the OCB in his retrospective history as he left it
      and the NSC in 1958 when he resigned as Special Assistant to the
      President for National Security.

      By 1958 the OCB had been merged into the NSC whereas before July
      1, 1957, the OCB had functioned as an "independent agency" like
      the CIA was an "independent agency." CIA employees do not get to
      put "NSC Staff member" on their resume's!!!

      [MS] EO 10483 establishing the OCB in 1953 certainly referred to the
      OCB as an "independent agency" but functionally it was part of
      the NSC created to coordinate efforts between different
      government agencies and military departments for a coordinated
      National Security policy which was why the NSC was created in
      1947.

      [BS] The CIA was also an 'independent agency' created with the NSC in
      the same law in 1947 (National Security Act) to "coordinate
      efforts between different government agencies" for the NSC and
      it directly reported to the NSC. Yet the CIA was never a part of
      the NSC. CIA employees do not get to lie on their resume's and
      say "NSC Staff member"!

      [MS]Your 'revised' history of the CIA is wrong. Here is what the
      1947 National Security Act says about the chief functions of the
      CIA:

      [BS]Your history is "wrong" and you are misleading readers of this
      list with the current 2005 version of the National Security Act
      rather than the 1947 version that was relevant to the time period
      in the 50's under discussion. The CIA "functionally" reported to
      the NSC and functionally "coordinated" matters just like the
      OCB did, yet CIA employees and managers did not get to lie on
      their resume's like Corso and claim they worked on the prestigious
      high-level "NSC Staff."

      [MS] [I] do not see how citing the current version of the National
      Security Act somehow misleads members since amendments can be
      identified. If you have something to add to the evolution of the
      National Security Act concering the creation of the CIA that
      helps clarify your argument, then please go ahead. I find your
      style reminiscent of a high debate where there's a premium on
      scoring points to impress an audience rather than a sincere
      analysis of the topic at hand which is Col Phillip Corso's
      contention of having served as a staff member to the NSC. Since
      you demonstrate no intent to abandon your argument that Corso
      lied about being a staff member to the NSC, let me summarize the
      independent evidence that conclusively demonstrates that Corso
      was certainly not lying when associating the OCB with the NSC
      and describing himself as a staff member of the NSC.

      There are a number of independent sources supporting Corso's
      contention of having served as a staff member to the NSC. First
      there's the FBI report on Corso. In a Nov 2, 1965 letter to Mr
      Deloach (Hoover's Special Assistant) by M.A. Jones, describes
      Corso's background as follows: "Operations Coordinating Board
      (OCB), National Security Council." You have consistenly refused
      to acknowledge the significance of this FBI report which is
      independent confirmation that Corso's service on the OCB during
      the years 1953-56 was well understood by his contemporaries as
      part of the NSC. Your attempts at historical revisionism based
      on a rigid reading of the EO that formally put it in the NSC (EO
      10700) does not negate this reference which clearly shows that
      service on the OCB prior to EO 10700 was widely understood to
      have been part of the NSC. As I have said before, the political
      culture of Corso's contemporaries understood that the OCB was
      part of the NSC and that Corso was not out of line in claiming
      to be an NSC staff member.

      Second there is the Senate Select Committee on POWs that refers
      to Corso as having served as a staff member to the NSC. This is
      what it says: "Lt. Col. Phillip Corso (USA, Ret.), of the
      National Security Council staff under President Eisenhower."
      While you and others contend that the Senate Committee simply
      accepted the bio handed to them by Corso, it serves as another
      clear reminder that Corso's service on the OCB was understood by
      his contemporaries as an agency strongly associated with the
      NSC. While the nature of this association evolved up to EO
      10700, the association was always clear and accepted by Corso's
      contemporaries. Why would a prestigious serviceman such as Corso
      go before a Senate Select Committee and state a bold faced lie
      if it could be easily demonstrated that the OCB was never part
      of the NSC as you contend? No one challenged Corso's claim to
      having served on the NSC simply because it was accepted by his
      peers that service on the OCB qualified as service to the NSC
      regardless of its legal evolution from 1953-1957.

      Finally, we have Robert Cutler description of the OCB over the
      years 1953-58 in which it served on it as Eisenhower's Special
      Advisor where he clearly stated how it was (first functionally
      and then by EO) part of the NSC. This is what Cutler said:

      "Under President Eisenhower, the normal procedure for operating
      the policy-making aspects of the NSC mechanism has involved
      three main steps. ... Finally, the President approves, modifies,
      or rejects the Council's recommendations, transmits those
      policies which he approves to the departments and agencies
      responsible for planning their execution, and-as a rule where
      international affairs are concerned-requests the NSC Operations
      Coordinating Board to assist these departments and agencies in
      coordinating their respective planning for action under the
      approved policies.... During the period 1953-1958, with which I
      am familiar, the great bulk of national security policy
      determinations were made by the President through the operations
      of the NSC mechanism just described."
      http://www.cia.gov/csi/kent_csi/docs/v03i4a05p_0003.htm

      The first thing to note is Cutler's description of the "NSC
      Operations Coordinating Board". Earlier in this thread you claim
      that Cutler was giving a retrospective history. That is a
      fallacious argument since Cutler clearly is describing the NSC
      mechanism from 1953-58 and clearly identifies the OCB role in
      that. That period includes Corso's service and clearly points
      out that the OCB was informally part of the NSC prior to its
      formal incorporation in 1957.

      That's three strikes against your rigid argument that the OCB
      was not part of the NSC during Corso's service, and therefore
      Corso was lying. Rather than seek to distract mine and the
      list's attention to red herrings such as whether CIA members
      could equally claim to be NSC staff members, I assert that each
      of these three sources offers independent corroboration of
      Corso's claim of being a staff member of the NSC by virtue of
      his assignment to the OCB. You have offerred no example of an
      independent official or record claiming that Corso lied with
      regard to his claim of being a staff member of the NSC by virtue
      of his assignment to the OCB. Even the FBI which clearly was
      seeking to prevent Corso from being appointed as a staffer to a
      Senate Committee in the mid 1960s acknowledged his service on
      the NSC OCB. You have offered nothing to support your argument
      and ignore the independent evidence that back ups Corso.

      I think you need to abandon defense of an argument based solely
      on a very rigid historical argument that may earn a B+ in a
      graduate history class but fails to properly deal with the above
      three independent sources of evidence clearly back up
      demonstrate. Calling someone a liar is clearly an extraordinary
      claim that requires solid evidence. The evidence you have
      provided in terms of citing EO 10700 merely adds a level of
      complexity to the history of the OCB but does not prove your
      point. Your argument is weak and an example of historical
      revisionism that is deeply biased. Your claim that Corso is a
      liar is a very strong claim supported by a weak historical
      argument that overlooks a host of contrary evidence.
      Essentially, you have provided a weak argument to support a
      strong claim. In that sense, your effort to dismiss Corso's
      credibility is a failure.

      In conclusion, I've clearly made my point that Corso's service
      on the OCB and its association with the NSC entitled him to make
      the claim that he was a staff member of the NSC. In that sense,
      Corso's testimony is consistent with the historical record and
      his credibility is intact. I have contended that the association
      between independent agencies such as the OCB are much more fluid
      than you suggest by your rigid argument. The above three sources
      support my argument that the OCB was functionally part of the
      NSC in the years 1953-56 and that Corso's peers understood that
      quite well. Corso statements concerning his assignment as a
      staffer to the NSC bolsters his credibility as a whistleblower
      and should not in any way by any membership.

      I will now offer some brief responses to what you say below.

      [BS]Here is what the National Security Act of 1947 actually stated in
      1947 and through the 50's, the time period that is actually relevant
      to Corso's lies about purportedly working as an "NSC Staff" member
      in 1954-6:

      ---

      SEC. 102(a) There is hereby established UNDER the National
      Security Council [NSC] a Central Intelligence Agency [CIA]....

      102(d) For the purpose of COORDINATING the intelligence
      activities of the several Government departments and agencies
      in the interest of national security, it shall be the duty of the
      Agency [CIA], UNDER the DIRECTION of the National Security
      Council [NSC]--

      (1) to advise the National Security Council....

      (2) to make recommendations to the National Security Council
      for the COORDINATION of such intelligence activities....

      (5) to perform such other functions and duties ... as the National
      Security Council may from time to time direct.

      ---

      [MS] Let me remind the list that you first raised the issue of the
      CIA to make the contentious point that CIA staff members had as
      much right as Operations Coordinating Board (OCB) staff members
      to claim to be staff members of the NSC. I initially pointed out
      that the CIA was a statutory agency passed by Congress, while
      the OCB was an agency created by Executive Order and therefore
      not a statutory agency with the power to issue regulations that
      had to be enforced. This meant that the OCB was clearly
      dependent on the President and the NSC which created it to have
      its recommendations carried out. Cutler describes the OCB as
      part of how NSC mechanism operated. In contrast, the CIA had
      significantly more autonomy due to it being created by statute
      and therefore having the statutory authority to pass regulations
      that Federal authority. Furthermore, the CIA had as its primary
      function assisting the DCI. Consequently, it is mistaken to
      equate the CIA and the OCB despite the latter's designation as
      an independent agency that reports to the NSC. That was my point
      but it seems you are intent on demonstrating that a staff member
      of the CIA during the years 1953-1956 had as much right as Corso
      to claim to be a staff member to the NSC. That's a moot point
      since the issue at hand is Corso's reference to being part of
      the NSC.

      As far as the original 1947 NSC Act is concerned in terms of the
      relationship between the CIA and the DCI, the pertinent section
      which you don't include in the above is what follows:

      Sec. 403-1. Central Intelligence Agency
      There is a Central Intelligence Agency. The function of the
      Agency shall be to assist the Director of Central Intelligence in
      carrying out the responsibilities referred to in paragraphs (1)
      through (5) of section 403-3(d) of this title.

      -SOURCE-
      (July 26, 1947, ch. 343, title I, Sec. 102A, as added Pub. L.
      104-293, title VIII, Sec. 805(b), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3479.)

      So the CIA clearly had as its chief function assisting the DCI
      in the performance of a range of duties some of which involved
      reporting to the NSC as the paragraphs you cite above point out.
      This does makes it clear that the above sections you cited were
      not the exclusive function of the CIA.


      [BS]So the CIA does "report" to the NSC and "coordinate" matters for
      the NSC in the relevant 50's time frame, just like the OCB where
      Corso worked in 1954-6. Yet CIA staff do not get to lie like Corso
      on their resume's and claim they worked for the higher-ranking
      impressive-sounding NSC.

      [MS] Again, comparing the CIA and the NCB is like comparing apples
      and oranges since one was created by statute and the other by
      EO. They had differing degrees of autonomy, power and functions
      as far as the NSC is concerned.

      There is no mention of the CIA reporting to the NSC in the
      previous paragraphs which stipulate that the CIA was created to
      serve the Director of the Central Intelligence as the head of
      all the intelligence community comprising the intelligence
      services of the various military departments and government
      agencies. There was no statutory requirement for the CIA to
      report to the NSC. That is a fiction you have created to support
      your fallacious reasoning.

      [BS]As the Nat Sec Act actually stated in the 50's, as I quoted
      above,
      the CIA does "report" to and serves directly "under" the NSC and
      it does "coordinate" matters for the NSC in the relevant 50's time
      frame, just like the OCB where Corso worked in 1954-6. Yet CIA
      personnel do not get to lie like Corso on their resume's and claim
      they worked for the high-level impressive-sounding NSC.

      [MS] As I have claimed, the CIA is a statutory body while the OCB
      was
      an independent agency created by Executive Authority. You are
      comparing oranges and apples here.

      [BS] Your ignorance of basic national security history and structure
      is
      as astounding as it is appalling. Yours is the "fiction" that is
      totally "wrong," as apparently you are incapable of distinguishing
      between what the National Security Act of 1947 originally stated
      and how it read _in the 50's_ the time period that is relevant to
      this thread rather than how it reads today in 2005.

      Or else you know exactly what you are doing by foisting the 2005
      version of the law on us knowing full well that it has been reworded
      by numerous revisions especially since 9-11, that the version as it
      stood in the 50's completely verifies what I said, and you thought
      you could just get away with a fast one and snow people by making
      it look complicated, when it is very simple.

      [MS] Your use of hyperbole demonstrates may earn you points in a
      high
      school debating program but doesn't help in investigating
      Corso's claims and the OCB. The history of the CIA is really a
      distraction from the core issue which is the status of the OCB,
      not the CIA. I do not know of any CIA employee claiming that
      s/he is an NSC member by virtue of serving on the CIA in the
      period at question. That's a hypothetical situation that you
      have raised which is best a distraction.

      Well the answer may come from one of the Majestic Documents
      where the First Annual Report of the Majestic Twelve Project
      states that "MAJ-Com-1 with assistance of the Panel [Majestic 12
      Group] persuades the President to establish the Psychological
      Strategy Board on 4 April 1951" (Majestic Documents, ed. R & R.
      Woods, p. 114). So why would Majestic 12 recommend the creation
      of the PSB and have it housed in the State Department rather
      than the Old Executive Office building with other NSC
      committees? My guess is that MJ-12 was created as an independent
      agency as recommended by Truman's leaked memo of Sept 24, 1947
      and an alleged Presidential Directive of 26 September that
      established the MJ-12 group according to the "First Annual
      Report". In order to maximize secrecy, MJ-12 was likely formally
      independent but functionally was at the apex of the NSC when it
      came to issues associated with UFOs and the ETH. My guess is
      that if we pursue the control and genesis of the PSB and the OCB
      we end up with a clearer picture of how MJ-12 was run and its
      links with the NSC.

      [BS] It is typical that you use "guesswork" based on preposterous and
      ridiculous forged documents such as the MJ-12 "1st" Annual
      Report that is so laughably bad that it can't even keep the
      numbering of the alleged (bogus) "annual reports" straight, as
      the "1st" annual report should be in 1948, not in late 1952 (the
      latest date of the forged contents within the report).

      [MS] I don't see why refering to Majestic Documents reference to the
      Psychological Strategy Board as created by the Majestic-12
      committee is preposterous. We have a leaked document with
      contested authenicity that refers to the creation of the
      forerunner to the OCB. I think it is an interesting connection
      to explore given Corso's service on the OCB.

      [BS] What ridiculous hogwash you recite as if it was authoritative
      official records. This bogus MJ-12 "1st" Annual Report refers to
      agencies that did not even exist yet in 1947 or 1952 as carrying
      out such things as Roswell-related "radiation monitoring
      flights" in NM in 1947 supposedly done by "AFTAC" an agency that
      was not even created until 1959!

      This is just what a 90's era lazy hoaxer who had no real
      knowledge or understanding of intelligence history or military
      history, or to do any historical research, might throw together,
      not realizing or caring that agencies existing in the 90's (like
      AFTAC) did not exist with the same name - or exist at all back in
      the time being invented for the MJ- 12 hoax documents.

      Likewise the ignoramus hoaxer of the MJ-12 "1st" Annual Report
      screwed up on the claim that the "Armed Forces Security Agency"
      (AFSA, NSA's predecessor) had "First Five Years" of its
      intelligence activities to digest and report (in 1952). But AFSA
      did not exist in 1947 or 1948. AFSA was created by JCS Directive
      in 1949. That's 3 years not 5 years.

      The dumbbell hoaxer of the MJ-12 "1st" Annual Report also
      recklessly threw in the kitchen sink as to the scope of the
      AFSA's alleged intelligence activities (on UFO's of course),
      making it into some kind of superspy Gestapo agency while not
      knowing what he was talking about in tossing around confused
      mumbo-jumbo terminology. He claims that AFSA had 5 years of
      "Signals, Radar, Communications and Human Intelligence
      Operations in the First Five Years." In fact AFSA was another
      highly ineffectual agency, which required replacement by the
      NSA, and its only intelligence activity was Communications
      Intelligence (COMINT, and did not have Radar or Human
      Intelligence (RADINT and HUMINT) operations. The hoaxer was so
      stupid he didn't even know the difference between these
      categories, as Signals Intelligence (SIGINT) includes COMINT and
      you don't list both of them together as if separate and
      different.

      [MS] What you say above is moot and is more appropriately discussed
      in a new thread.

      [BS] This is double-talk and you know it! You've been caught cold,
      dude! Admit it. Corso inflated his resume' with a non-existent
      "NSC Staff" service when his military records prove he merely
      served on the OCB.

      …

      All that double-talk is belied by the fact that William H.
      Jackson in 1956 had to conduct a study as to why the OCB was not
      functioning effectively. The reason was simple: The OCB did not
      have the authority of the NSC and the President behind it! The
      OCB was not a part of the NSC so its suggestions for
      "coordination" were ignored by the national security agencies
      and departments. The concept of OCB getting "voluntary
      cooperation" was not working because OCB had no NSC power to
      enforce. It's a simple concept which any poli sci professor
      should be able to grasp instantly.

      [MS] This merely proves my point that functionally it was clear that
      the OCB was part of the NSC

      [BS]That's pure double-talk! Jackson's report as approved by
      Eisenhower proves that the OCB was _not_ functioning as part of
      the NSC and that it needed to be. You think you can twist any
      fact of history around to its exact opposite meaning and get
      away with it, but you're wrong, you're not going to get away
      with it.

      [MS] This again is incorrect. You ignore what Robert Cutler said
      concerning how the OCB operated as part of the NSC mechanism. He
      was merely giving a factual description of the OCB's activities
      and how it worked with the NSC during the years 1953-58. It was
      clear that the NSC mechanism appeared to function appropriately
      and that there was more at play than merely giving the OCB more
      institutional clout since it's clear from what Cutler said that
      it was already part of the NSC mechanism so the NSC was the real
      power behind the OCB. You conveniently ignore this with your
      citation of Jackson's reform making it appear that the OCB was
      just an agency with no real authority. That's nonsense, the NSC
      was always behind the OCB as is clear from its establishing EO
      and Cutler's description of it.

      [BS] Then you have the nerve to quote Jackson saying and confirming
      exactly the same thing I have said (below) but act like it
      somehow supports you. It does not.

      [MS] and that's where it belonged rather
      than being housed in the Department of State. Jackson was on the
      record in 1954 for strengthening the OCB by statutes that would
      formally put it in the NSC.

      [BS] As you now admit the OCB was not "in the NSC" in 1954 when Corso
      was on staff with OCB, and that one idea was to put the OCB into
      the NSC "by statutes" because of the fact it was not then part
      of the NSC. Jackson did not say "formally" put into the NSC, as
      if somehow the OCB was already "informally" part of the NSC
      already. You slipped that word "formally" in. If the OCB was
      already informally functioning as part of the NSC it would not
      have had problems getting its coordination plans enforced among
      the departments and agencies of the government by "voluntary
      cooperation." OCB lacked the NSC's clout because it was not part
      of the NSC and Jackson sought to rectify that by merging the OCB
      into the NSC, as much as you wish to nullify that fact of
      history behind Eisenhower's Executive Order 10700 merging the
      OCB into the NSC on July 1, 1957, a year after Corso had
      departed the paper- tiger ineffectual OCB.

      [MS] This is nonsense as Cutler's description of the OCB makes
      clear.
      It was part of the NSC system from 1953-58 when he served on it.
      The OCB was informally part of the NSC, and the NSC was the
      final authority behind OCB policies. Again, you ignore the
      evidence that is contrary to your argument.

      [BS] The OCB was not functioning "informally," de facto ("as a fact"
      or in practical day-to-day reality) as part of the NSC -- if it
      did it would have had the "de facto" day-to-day practical
      reality of the power of the NSC, but it did not, it was an
      ineffectual paper tiger paper-pushing org, and that's why
      Jackson had to seek to get OCB merged into the NSC in 1957. Nor
      was the OCB structured "formally" de jure on the org charts as
      part of the NSC as you even are forced now to admit. Jackson
      wanted the OCB merged with the NSC so it would finally have
      NSC's backing and authority automatically.

      [MS] Again let me repeat what Robert Cutler, Eisenhower's Special
      Assistant said about the OCB:

      "Under President Eisenhower, the normal procedure for operating
      the policy-making aspects of the NSC mechanism has involved
      three main steps. ... Finally, the President approves, modifies,
      or rejects the Council's recommendations, transmits those
      policies which he approves to the departments and agencies
      responsible for planning their execution, and-as a rule where
      international affairs are concerned-requests the NSC Operations
      Coordinating Board to assist these departments and agencies in
      coordinating their respective planning for action under the
      approved policies.... During the period 1953-1958, with which I
      am familiar, the great bulk of national security policy
      determinations were made by the President through the operations
      of the NSC mechanism just described."

      Clearly the OCB was part of the NSC mechanism in place for
      implementing NSC decisions as well as having to report to the
      NSC.
      …

      [BS] Thus Jackson reported back to Eisenhower on Dec. 31, 1956, and
      Jan. 3, 1957, that the OCB needed to have Presidential (or Vice-
      Presidential) authority via the NSC to back up its orders, and
      so the OCB needed to be "integrated" directly into the NSC
      functionally. The OCB was not part of the NSC and thus had no
      power or authority to enforce its orders. Once OCB was part of
      the NSC it would be able to issue direct orders in the name of
      the NSC. Eisenhower agreed and ordered OCB merged into the NSC
      July 1, 1957, by his Executive Order 10700.

      Do you get that? The President had to personally intervene to
      make the OCB part of the NSC - long after Corso was long gone
      from the OCB.

      [MS] Now this is where you again err. What do you think the OCB was
      doing prior to its formal incorporation into the NSC? It was
      reporting to and implementing NSC decisions, just the same as
      after it's statutory incorporation into the NSC.

      [BS] You don't know what you're even talking about. The OCB was not
      "implementing" NSC decisions, that was the whole problem. You
      still refuse to "get it" because it destroys your precious liar
      boy Corso to have to recognize the truth. OCB was not
      functional, not effective, because it did not have the NSC's
      power, and had to solicit "voluntary cooperation" of other
      agencies. That's why Jackson intervened with the President to
      get OCB merged into the NSC.

      [MS] As I have repeatedly said, you ignore what Robert Cutler had to
      say about the OCB and how it was part of the implementing
      mechanism developed by the NSC. So the OCB was both reporting to
      and implementing NSC decisions. You ignore this point since it
      damages your weak argument that Corso was lying.

      [BS] You are so off the wall here you apparently can't even tell the
      difference between an Executive Order of the President (10700
      which merged OCB and NSC) and the bogus "statutory incorporation
      [of OCB] into the NSC" which you refer to. There was no
      "statute" incorporating the OCB into the NSC. It was an
      Executive Order. Statutes are laws passed by Congress. This is
      sloppy desperate argumentation by someone who has utterly lost
      the argument and is trying to kick up whatever dust he can as a
      smokescreen.

      [MS] Again, your use of hyperbole is a unwelcome distraction and
      your
      language reflects your own desire to bolster a weak argument.
      Nevertheless, you are partly correct. I agree, it is not
      accurate to refer to the "statutory incorporation" of the OCB
      into the NSC since it was incorporated through EO 10700 rather
      than an Act of Congress such as the 1947 National Security Act.
      Nevertheless, Executive Orders have legal authority and are
      recorded in the Code of Federal Regulations so the point I was
      making was obviously that an authorized legal action was taken
      to incorporate the OCB into the NSC. I certainly could have used
      a more appropriate wording but the point was clear.

      [BS] Later histories and FBI references from the 60's look back on an
      OCB that ended its days as a part of the NSC from 1957- 1961.
      But Corso was with the OCB only from 1954 to 1956, when OCB was
      a "voluntary cooperation" type of paper-tiger agency that was
      not a part of the NSC. He cannot claim to have been an "NSC
      Staff" member. His claims were a lie pure and simple. He had no
      more right to claim being an "NSC Staff" member than any CIA
      employee or manager does just because the CIA coordinates for
      the NSC and reports to the NSC.

      [MS] As I said earlier, despite the evidence that I and others have
      given you that it has been standard practice for members of the
      OCB and historical researchers to refer to the OCB as part of
      the NSC throughout its history from 1953 to 1961. You insist
      that only EO 10700 made it part of the NSC in 1957.

      …

      [BS] False! None of these others such as Cutler and the FBI memo
      said the OCB was part of the NSC "throughout its history from
      1953 to 1961." Quote them saying "1953 to 1961"!! You can't
      because they never said such an absurd, historically and factually
      false thing, falsified by EO 10700 making OCB part of the NSC
      only in 1957.

      [MS] That is incorrect, I have twice quoted Cutler and he refers to
      the years 1953-58 when the OCB was part of the NSC mechansim for
      implementing decisions. So the OCB by the 1953 EO creating it,
      had within its mandate to report to the NSC, and as Cutler
      describes it, was part of the implementing mechanism for the
      NSC. So functionally it was part of the NSC before 1957. Your
      argument falls apart with Cutler's clear description of the OCB
      functions yet you doggedly ignore this.

      [BS] Corso lied repeatedly in claiming he had served on the
      illustrious "NSC Staff," when in fact he served on the paper-
      pushing OCB instead, at a time when it was not a part of the NSC
      and lacked the NSC's power and authority (1954-6). CIA employees
      are not allowed to say they worked for the "NSC Staff" when the
      CIA was exactly parallel to the OCB, in reporting to the NSC as
      an "independent agency."

      [MS] I have already responded to this above. Let me say in
      conclusion, that I have enjoyed the opportunity to review the
      history and functions of the OCB with you in order to determine
      the veracity of Corso's claims. I find your use of hyperbole an
      unwelcome distraction and hope in future you tone this down in
      order to better analyse with others the claims of whistleblowers
      such as Philip Corso.

      Personally, after reviewing all the documents and arguments so
      far I have to conclude that your argument is very weak and
      ignores abundant contrary evidence supporting Corso's claim of
      being a staff member of the NSC. Given that your claim that
      Corso is liar is a very strong claim to make, I would expect you
      to come up with much stronger arguments to support it. Your
      argument that everything prior to the 1957 EO that formally
      incorporated the OCB into the NSC meant that no one who served
      on the OCB was entitled to refer to themselves as a staff member
      of the NSC is very weak. The independent evidence from the FBI
      files, Senate POW hearing, Cutler's writing, all support Corso.
      I find it extraordinary that you would call such a well
      credentialled military servicemen a liar simply because of your
      propensity to historical revisionism based on your own
      subjective criteria that ignores contrary evidentiary sources.
      You are way overboard with your claims regarding Corso and I
      hope my efforts here have alerted some on this list to the
      weakness of the argument that Corso lied when it came to his
      claims of being an NSC staff member.


      Aloha,

      Michael Salla
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.