Slashdot Mirror
Declassified LBJ Tapes Accuse Richard Nixon of Treason
Hugh Pickens writes writes "After the Watergate scandal taught Richard Nixon the consequences of recording White House conversations, none of his successors has dared to do it. But Nixon wasn't the first. He got the idea from his predecessor Lyndon Johnson, who felt there was an obligation to allow historians to eventually eavesdrop on his presidency. Now David Taylor reports on BBC that the latest set of declassified tapes of President Lyndon Johnson's telephone calls show that by the time of the Presidential election in November 1968, LBJ had evidence that Nixon had sabotaged the Vietnam war peace talks — or, as he put it, that Nixon was guilty of treason and had 'blood on his hands'. It begins in the summer of 1968. Nixon feared a breakthrough at the Paris Peace talks designed to find a negotiated settlement to the Vietnam war that he knew would derail his campaign. Nixon therefore set up a clandestine back-channel to the South Vietnamese involving Anna Chennault, a senior campaign adviser. In late October 1968 there were major concessions from Hanoi which promised to allow meaningful talks to get underway in Paris. This was exactly what Nixon feared. Chennault was dispatched to the South Vietnamese embassy with a clear message: the South Vietnamese government should withdraw from the talks, refuse to deal with Johnson, and if Nixon was elected, they would get a much better deal. Meanwhile the FBI had bugged the ambassador's phone and transcripts of Chennault's calls were sent to the White House. Johnson was told by Defense Secretary Clark Clifford that the interference was illegal and threatened the chance for peace. The president gave Humphrey enough information to sink his opponent but by then, a few days from the election, Humphrey had been told he had closed the gap with Nixon and would win the presidency so Humphrey decided it would be too disruptive to the country to accuse the Republicans of treason, if the Democrats were going to win anyway. In the end Nixon won by less than 1% of the popular vote, escalated the war into Laos and Cambodia with the loss of an additional 22,000 American lives, and finally settled for a peace agreement in 1973 that was within grasp in 1968."
Seems to me, Humphrey actually put the good of his Country ahead of personal and party gain. This is a far cry from what we've become as a Nation.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
I'm reminded that Clinton's administration created a fairly good email archiving system. Bush's people dismantled it upon taking office because they knew they were there to commit fraud even before 9/11.
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
Thank goodness someone in the US is picking up on this. This has been news in the UK all week.
Then it is one of the worst crimes of treason ever.
Anything that remains of Nixon's estate (should be traceable still) should be immediately frozen to be used to compensate those affected by this - the families of those who died as a result of this act of treason that continued the war for a further 5 years, and those injured as well.
His entire period of presidency should be blackened (even further?!), his name should be dirt, any offspring should want to change their name to distance themselves from this evil man.
What am I missing these items came out years ago. See http://hnn.us/articles/60446.html for a better indication on what happened then this poor summary.
.
It's a sad symptom of the state of discourse when it's formulated like this. As if the only responsibility of a US president in a war was to not waste American lives.
The bombing set the stage for millennialist national-communist dictatorships in both those states, and one of the worst genocides in the 20th century (and that's saying something).
In light of what could have been avoided, maybe future presidents should take a lesson, and not always "look forward, not backward".
By not exposing treason that ultimately led to the genocide in Cambodia? I can't agree with this "national interests über alles" attitude you're espousing.
This story only tells part of Nixon's story. Learn how the Bush family is connected to Nazis, how Nixon kept a lid on the "whole Bay of Pigs thing" and more about the United States' sordid past 50 years. Disclaimer: I have nothing to do with this documentary besides wanting to share the insight into this.
What are the odds of a sociopath like him being elected president? Quite good, because being a sociopath *helps you* win elections. In fact it gives you a tremendous advantage. Given how competitive elections are, it would be astonishing if presidents weren't sociopaths.
\u262D = \u5350
But was it for the better? The country might be better off if the criminals are exposed, and the battles fought, instead of festering as conspiracy theories.
But was it for the better? The country might be better off if the criminals are exposed, and the battles fought, instead of festering as conspiracy facts.
ftfy
Peace talks. LBJ escalated American involvement in the Vietnam War, from 16,000 American advisors/soldiers in 1963 to 550,000 combat troops by early 1968. And Johnson wants to blame someone else for sabotaging peace talks. Go sell the Brooklyn Bridge to someone else.
You are totally correct. Two wrongs make a right and Nixon was a swell fella because he wasn't any of those other guys.
If we reduce the argument to tribal squabbles and liberal Democrats vs neo-conservative Republicans, we can happily ignore the real issues of right vs wrong, moral vs immoral and honest vs dishonest. And we don't want to be dealing with those, do we?
Why not expose it after the election?
Relevant:
http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/12/25/1988286/wikileaks-how-us-tried-to-stop.html
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
While Nixon's actions certainly border on treason, he was dealing with South Vietnam, an ally. On the other hand, prior to the 1980 election Reagan bargained with Iran, an enemy, to keep Americans imprisoned and subvert the election. It's hard to see that as anything less than treason.
Now if we could also convince you to never vote for a democrat either, we might be getting somewhere.
Cheney, Rove, and Rumsfeld should be in prison for crimes against humanity.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
22,000 american lives.
How many lives, total.
they all count
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
Sadly Nixon isn't around to answer for this but perhaps a few of his cohorts are. Personally anyone who's still around who knew about this and had access to the evidence but didn't act about it either from complicity or because they thought they could use it as a bargaining chip should be stuck up against a wall and shot!
Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
This is a far cry from what we've become as a Nation.
That is, a nation full of people who are willing to give away all of their freedoms to the government so they can feel safe, and who accuse anyone of opposing these measures of being on the Bad Guy Team.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
How is not exposing a presidential candidate's treason putting country ahead of personal and party gain? Just because he would gain politically does not automatically mean that he shouldn't do it "for the good of the country." Those things are not exclusive.
The world moves for love. It kneels before it in awe.
You are so horribly misinformed it's not funny. You probably got most of this from Fox.
One question: do you really think we shouldn't gave entered WWI or WWII?
Note that the US was already in Korea at the end of WWII and war was inevitable.
The Vietnam war was just plain wrong.
as it's pretty much iron clad evidence. Maybe I misunderstood, but these are tapes of LBJ discussing the topic without the slightest question of whether it happened. It's all pretty well documented from what I can tell.
Also, happy to see this story on slashdot. Yeah, it's not tech news and I know that bugs people, but Christ. The way I heard about this was the Mother-lovin' BBC. This is the biggest news since Watergate and the news media is just pretending it didn't happen. Part of me wants to say 'Oh well, that's America' but screw that. I'm sick of saying things could be worse when they could be so much better.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
If Nixon couldn't hide this, and couldn't cover up Watergate, how could he possibly fake the Moon landings?
That's because you are working with hindsight knowledge of what happened after the decision by Humphrey not to expose Nixon. If you remove that knowledge from the picture then Humphrey did the right thing in that he avoided complicating the election at the last minute and throwing the country into further turmoil. If he won as he was led to believe he would, he could have then prosecuted Nixon via normal channels. After Nixon became president it became infinitely more difficult to prosecute him because he was a sitting president and had all the protections that that includes.
No, it was not for the better. Nixon should have been hanged, as should Bush and Cheney be hanged. Allowing our leaders to get away with war crimes only ensures future war crimes.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Oh, so you must be an LBJ fan, you know, the Democrat who sent a half million troops into Vietnam. Get a clue.
It's quite funny to say "Lyndon B. Johnson a Democrat President led the USA into the Vietnam War. Richard Nixon a Republican President led the USA out of Vietnam" in a discussion about Nixon PREVENTING the end of Vietnam war 5 years sooner...
Seems to me, Humphrey actually put the good of his Country ahead of personal and party gain. This is a far cry from what we've become as a Nation.
Afaik Humphrey didn't expose Nixon because polls told him he would win anyway and that there was no need to steep that low.
And what would the use have been after having lost.
Better to wait for the rematch and use it then.
As far as this report indicates, Humphrey BELIEVED he put his nation's interests before his own. That said, your belief in good and evil is different from his and mine. No two parties will ever agree on what the right thing to do is in every circumstance, but I would trade what we have now for good intentions.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
But if this evidence had been made public, even after the election, it might have pressured Nixon to pursue peace rather than escalation in Vietnam.
no need to steep that low.
To steep at all he'd need to have been supported by the Tea Party.
I am officially gone from
And you're probably okay with Obama bombing citizens under NDAA.
In other words, unless you're going to apply your logic to both (D) and (R) equally, then it doesn't matter. Both parties are criminal enterprises.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
No, I'd quite like to see Obama hanged as well.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
In the US we have a pretty good history of not hanging outgoing politicians for controversial political decisions they made while in office. This is one of the reasons that our politicians are so very willing to leave office. You will notice that there are various regimes in the world where outgoing leadership turns into political prisoners or are executed... you may also notice that the leadership in those parts tends to do rather oppressive things to cling to power: e.g. when people protested Hugo Chavez he brought out snipers.
Western democracies have prosecuted a variety of people for war crimes, but it doesn't take a flaming Republican to notice that there were a variety of very important qualitative differences between the likes of Adolf Hitler's gang and GWBush's...
I contend that your proposed alternative is significantly uglier than the current situation.
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
Really? "Let us get away with war crimes or we'll go all Chavez on you" That's the best excuse you have? Is the rule of law simply not an option?
Changing presidents in the US is not regime change. We have the same constitution and the same body of laws. The military swears to defend the constitution against foreign and domestic enemies. And a treasonous president trying to illegally hold on to power is a domestic enemy. If we as a country were sensible to hold presidents accountable when they commit treason, we'd also have a military that is sensible enough to know that their allegiance is to the constitution and the rule of law, and not the president and the rule of man.
Is Bush Hitler? No. But he still has more blood on his hands than any free man should. He deserves to hang for his crimes.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
when people protested Hugo Chavez he brought out snipers.
People are still repeating this trash? It was debunked the day after it was first broadcast by the Venezuelan media conglomerates (such as Univision, which backed the actual coup attempt both financially and politically). The only people shot at that protest were the counter-protesters who backed Chavez, none of them hit by rifle fire, just pistol rounds (probably from the bodyguards of the wealthy protesters). FWIW, Univision (based in Caracas) is the Fox News of Latin America.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
seems to be history revisionism to suit the current left-vs-right politics of today
Johnson had no qualms with escalating the war in viet nam for all the wrong reasons. He had blood on his hands. So did Kennedy.
a.k.a. Nixon had worse stuff on the democrats
Worse than treason? If Nixon was ready to screw up a peace deal, if he'd had anything on the Democrats, he would have used it. Nixon sent the plumbers to Watergate to dig up dirt on the Democrats in 72.
Putting pure politicians in charge of military decisions (or anything in need of objective reality) is a problem.
Yeah, we should leave diplomacy to the generals.
No, those of you who think I'm being a partisan hack by singling out the worst war criminal of our time are being knee jerk partisan hacks. Obama has done many bad things, warrantless wiretapping, indefinite detention, violating the war powers act, etc. But none of those come close to causing hundreds of thousands of innocent people to die so your cronies get lucrative war contracts. Obama is a common criminal, Bush is directly responsible for more American deaths than Bin Laden. Get some perspective.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
First off, this tape is old news, it was released years ago, no idea why it's now getting traction. Secondly, in the conversation (IIRC, it was with Everett Dirkson, but might be wrong, haven't heard it for 6 months or so), Johnson states that he is reluctant to release the tape as he is afraid of how the country will react, given the shitstorm we were already living with, but you can hear that he is really pissed and feeling hamstrung. I was never a fan of either of them, but I think he should have released the tape and fuck the consequences. I suggest you listen to the tape before stating that he was stupid, a coward or hoping to sabotage the peace talks his administration had set in motion. Just my opinion.
"Life is not magic." Dr. Ron Weiss - "If we don't play God, who will?" Dr. James Watson
Most people in this discussion seem to forget two things: First, the '68 election was one of the ugliest and bitterest of the 20th century.* Second *Humphrey believed he was winning". (And he very nearly did.)
Releasing this information under those circumstances would have been seen as pouring gasoline on the fire, when there was no need to do so, leading to further division and dissension within the country at a time when it could ill afford it.
* Consider that the campaign had already been marked by Robert Kennedy's assassination, Martin Luther King's assassination, the Tet offensive, widespread violence and protests over racial issues and the war...
Then you need to state that in your original statement in order to have any credibility. Otherwise, you just come off as a knee jerk partisan hack.
Hatta remarked on a few of our most prominent national war criminals. The fact that they're all Republican wasn't anywhere in his post; nor was it relevant. Turn off "fair" and "balanced" reporting (which includes virtually all network news, I feel compelled to add) and try to understand that some things in this world are simply true, and all the spin and fake balance in the world won't change that.
"Opinions differ on shape of World" type reporting is the death of reason and understanding.
"All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."
At the time I didn't care for Carter. he botched a few things.
Here and now, we would be lucky to have someone of his character.
The avoidance of short-term turmoil by avoiding accountability for gross misdeeds by the powerful is a recurring trend that encourages overreach and abuse by politicians (both candidates and officeholders), and is in no way "for the good of the country", though that's the excuse that members of the club of the super-powerful use (perhaps even to themselves) to justify not holding other members of that club accountable.
And it hardly takes specific hindsight to recognize that not holding traitors accountable encourages treason.
Clinton did that because his generals enforcing the post Desert Storm sanctions DEMANDED the attacks. And started calling him "dereliction of duty" for not bombing more things.
The main conflict Clinton got us in was UN approved actions to stop several civil wars where people were murdering their neighbors women and children in the streets after Communism broke down. That's hardly "warmongering" which is why the GOP hated it so much.
Even the Monica Lewinsky thing was an unprecedented PERSONAL lawsuit against a sitting President. Prior to Clinton such a thing was unheard of... With Carter, Clinton, and now Obama, the GOP (and followers).keep taking "equivelant" stands... But these aren't equivelant to the things Nixon, Regan, Bush 2... Pulled violating laws put in place on the PRESIDENTS DUTIES.
As for the "bombing Americans" argument, that's the military staffers Bush put in place screwing their boss over with "leaks". Cheney taught them how to do it, and Obama doesn't have the balls to start executing generals for lose lips... Like Bush did to Ambasadors and RETIRED Generals that merely DISAGREED with him.
If TFA's claims are true, Nixon was clearly breaking the law by acting as a private citizen negotiating with foreign government, just as Carter has done more recently. However, the claim that his actions were treasonous are just plain wrong: treason in the United States consists of giving aid and comfort to the enemy, and nothing else qualifies. In case you've forgotten, it was North Vietnam that was the enemy.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
You might think differently when your sister comes to visit while your wife is away and you get accused of committing adultery.
Sure, it's easy enough to demonstrate the charge is bogus, but who's going to notice that?
Or better yet, your enemy sends strippers to your house and releases the video of them arriving (and of course leaving out the part where you chase them off).
The "I've got nothing to hide" argument doesn't carry much weight when giving people power they can easily abuse.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
It was LBJ who said it was "treason". I assume he knew the definition.
First definitions I found:
noun: a crime that undermines the offender's government
noun: disloyalty by virtue of subversive behavior
noun: an act of deliberate betrayal
Satisfies those. Maybe not in US law, but this a a description of the acts, not a legal brief.
So, you want to execute most, if not every, American head of state over the last 50 years*.
Well, you should note his original post also said "Allowing our leaders to get away with war crimes only ensures future war crimes." So it can be reasonably argued that as soon as we tolerated one President's war crimes, it would be expected that his successors would be emboldened to (and perhaps even be *expected* to) commit further war crimes.
If you want to argue that Hatta's definition of "war crimes" is flawed, fine. But if you do accept the actions he cites as war crimes, and that execution is the just punishment for said crimes, then to try to paint the idea that most recent Presidents would so qualify as ipso facto absurd is merely genuflecting to authority, nothing more.
Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
Carter sold weapons to Indonesia while they were committing genocide in East Timor. Carter is complicit in the deaths of over 200,000 people, or a third of all Timorese.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
So, you want to execute most, if not every, American head of state over the last 50 years*. You're a big fan of "peace" and "social justice" then? Maybe it's best that you don't have a say.
Yes, I'm in favor of executing most, if not every, American head of state over the last 50 years. And if I got my way, I'd still have less blood on my hands than any one of those presidents.
You don't address Reagan here, but I seem to recall you aren't a "fan," so I trust it would be, "Off with this head!" That leaves Jimmy Carter. Will you be taking his head as well... if only to complete the set? Collect them all?
Yes, Reagan made an arms deal with the Iranians. Giving aid and comfort to our enemies is the Constitutional definition of treason. Carter sold the arms that killed 200,000 East Timorese. That's not treason, but I can't see how supplying arms to a genocide isn't a war crime.
The fact that we never hold our leaders responsible for their crimes means that every president has no reason not to commit crimes. So they do. All of them. Start holding them accountable, and this will change.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
That and treason is the one crime the constitution defines; and it carries with it unusually high hurtles for conviction; two witnesses to an overt act or a confession in open court.
From the sounds of things it does not look like they have that here.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
None of those presidents were deliberately acting against U.S. interest (except Nixon). Of course, if you allow yourself the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, Carter also did some things that were highly detrimental to the U.S.'s strategic interests—arming the mujahideen, for example:
Of course, Reagan expanded the program significantly, and Bush cut off funds and failed to take any actions to stabilize Afghanistan after the Soviets left. But Bush's decision not to interfere would not have mattered as much had Carter not interfered in the first place.
Then again, I can't think of any time when the U.S. tried to topple a foreign government that didn't come back to bite it in the you-know-where. One of the primary reasons why so many extremist groups exist in the first place is because the U.S. government helped tear down Iran's democratic government and replaced it with a puppet government under the Shah, which it supported for decades.
I'm not saying that we wouldn't have terrorism if the U.S. had not provided material support to people who would probably be called terrorists today, tried to set up puppet governments in Iran and other places, or allowed Afghanistan to degrade into a horrible state of civil war after the Soviets pulled out, but we'd likely have a lot fewer terrorists, and it is quite clear that the terrorists who did exist would not have as much money and would not be as well armed. If nothing else, these are lessons that future Presidents need to learn.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
None of those presidents were deliberately acting against U.S. interest (except Nixon). Of course, if you allow yourself the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, Carter also did some things that were highly detrimental to the U.S.'s strategic interests—arming the mujahideen, for example:
Of course, Reagan expanded the program significantly, and Bush cut off funds and failed to take any actions to stabilize Afghanistan after the Soviets left. But Bush's decision not to interfere would not have mattered as much had Carter not interfered in the first place.
The funny thing is that France and the UK are currently calling for arming Syrian rebels. We've lost count of Syrian rebel factions and now they start shooting at each other. Exactly what the country needs. More guns. Because they will gladly give them back when they are done with Assad...
And people say history doesn't move in circles...
20 minutes into the future
It's called accountability, Slick. The first president to be held accountable for his actions (and not some contrived blue dress witch hunt) will make it far less likely that future presidents would skate the law so brazenly. Letting Nixon get away with his crimes encouraged Reagan to engage in criminal actions, which encouraged the Bushes, Obama, and to a lesser extent Clinton. Just like letting the banks get away with massive financial fraud in 2008 encouraged more fraud through 2012, and today.
So why do you hate the rule of law, fjord?
No, those of you who think I'm being a partisan hack by singling out the worst war criminal of our time are being knee jerk partisan hacks. Obama has done many bad things, warrantless wiretapping, indefinite detention, violating the war powers act, etc. But none of those come close to causing hundreds of thousands of innocent people to die so your cronies get lucrative war contracts. Obama is a common criminal, Bush is directly responsible for more American deaths than Bin Laden. Get some perspective.
How about the forgotten, still living war criminal who's responsibility for war crimes is pretty ironclad and more brazen than Bush/Cheney and orders of magnitude larger than Obama.
Henry Kissinger. Christopher Hitchens wrote an excellent book called "The Trial of Henry Kissinger". I think it can be found free online and there's a video of it on Netflix.
The one minded indifference to suffering is astounding. I can at least entertain the thought that Bush thinks what he did was right, Cheney probably realizes the truth more, and Kissinger, if he had a conscience wouldn't have slept the past forty years.
The US entry into WWI was a disaster. It caused a war that would have probably ended in a draw to become a blowout with severe, punitive and vindictive penalties for the loser. Those penalties were a large part of the ultimate causes of WWII.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
In this context, the definition of "directly" that you are implying is useless. E.g., was it the solider, rifle, bullet, the disruption of basic neural function due to the brain being massively traumatized, the cessation of cardio-pulmonary activity, or the resulting cascade failure of metabolic pathways that "directly" caused the enemy combatant to die when shot in the head?
In this context, a political leader is 'directly' responsible for the consequences of a decision when those consequences were reasonably foreseeable without the benefit of hindsight. Every decision has tradeoffs, so it is expected that a political leader has weighed those tradeoffs and decided that the foreseeable positive/desirable consequences outweigh the foreseeable negative/undesirable consequences such that the tradeoff is acceptable and he/she is willing to accept responsibility for the outcome (i.e., both positive and negative consequences).
On the other hand, a political leader is 'indirectly' responsible for those consequences of decisions which were not reasonably foreseeable due to the limits of the knowledge available to them at the time. This acknowledgement does not and should not, however, always absolve the leader of any accountability related to indirect consequences.
To argue that Bush was not 'directly' responsible for American deaths you have to argue that American deaths were not a foreseeable consequence of going to war. That deaths are a foreseeable and well-understood consequence of war does not, of course, automatically mean that going to war was a bad decision. To make that judgment requires that you decide whether or not the positive consequences of the war outweigh the negative consequences (such as dead American soldiers). To paraphrase one of my old JROTC instructors, a politician should only decide to go to war if, on the 10,000th time he does so, he can still fold up that flag, look that kid's mother in the eye as he hands it over, and still believe that it was worth it. FDR and Churchill would have been able to--and history would agree with them. Would Bush have been able to do the same? I personally do not have an answer to that question, but that is the bar that should be set.
Sure, in general, consequences can never be predicted. You can always conjure up bogeymen of what would and would not have happened, and pretend that the disaster in Cambodia was an entirely unpredictable consequence of "bombing it into the stone age". Therefore we should defend our leaders no matter what.
Is that what you're suggesting? Sounds like it.
I say give truth a chance, and quit defending people who cover up (even for their political opponents!) for "our own good".
xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.