Mark Lane

From Wikispooks
Jump to navigation Jump to search

"“Conspiracy theorist”"
Person.png Mark Lane   Amazon IMDB Keywiki SpartacusRdf-entity.pngRdf-icon.png
(author, researcher, lawyer)
Mark Lane.jpg
The Bronx, New York, U.S.
Died10 May 2016 (Age 89)
Charlottesville, Virginia, U.S.
InterestsJFK Assassination
Early researcher into the JFK Assassination whose worked helped to prompt the CIA's coining of the phrase "Conspiracy theorist".

Mark Lane was a lawyer who was with US army intelligence during World War II. He is well known for his research into the JFK assassination and his involvement with the Jonestown massacre. The researcher Joel Van der Reijden has alleged that Lane is a CIA asset in the past. Christopher Bollyn, through his time and subsequent removal from American Free Press (AFP), argues that Mark Lane became at one point the owner of the Liberty Lobby and thus AFP, steering sentiment against him and his 9-11 work.[1]

Views on 911

Black Op Radio, Episode #580, original air-date: May 31st, 2012[2][3]

After Mark Lane talked about a planned assassination attempt on him, which he learned of in advance through the hit-men, the discussion went on to government sanctioned assassinations, like the Executive Assassination Ring[4], then the conversation continues from 47:45 as follows:

  • Interviewer: Right and when I think you have someone like a [J. Edgar Hoover], who has a great animosity to the Kennedy's and to Martin Luther King, and if he was in charge of putting names on a list, you know, who knows who would be labeled a terrorist. You know.
  • Mark Lane: Like now they would call anybody who dissents a terrorist, you know. There are terrorists, we know there are terrorists, its a serious threat, and we - we know of the terrorist attack in the United States, in New York City, and we know there are terrorists and we have to have real protection and I think that a lot of the intelligence community is doing a remarkable job. Although I must say that in stopping, in exposing these things before the event takes place, but if you read these things carefully and I get my information just from the New York Times basically, I'm not done research into it, but if you read it carefully, it sounds out there was a government agent involved at the early stages, and ah, that's basically how they solved the problem, so what his involvement was is hard to tell. I mean there is no sense (inaudible) coming up with an idea (inaudible) gonna do this and then even pounce to arrest him, ah. It's not, I know what entrapment is ..
  • Interviewer: Right. Like an agent provocateur, they guy joins somebody and then talks everybody into doing something and all of a sudden they're justifying they're existent, by talking some people that were (like): Maybe we are going to do, you know, form a union, and now he's talked him into blowing up a bridge, and he just got a raise and the whole structure of this TSA and, you know, Homeland Security is justified.
  • Mark Lane: Yea well, I think Homeland Security is justified. I mean there a terrorist in the world, and we know that, they attacked us. And I'm sure they are planning now in various places to attack us again. And we do have to have an intelligence organisations to (for) this. And even if the government gets involved with somebody's (inaudible) in planning it, that's what we've seen in a lot of these cases. If you read the New York Times and other major other respectable newspapers closely, you see that there was a government agent in from the beginning and ah, that's not the legal definition of entrapment though. And that's not a defense, it's in fact, the person was open to it at the outset. I mean entrapment is a very difficult defense to win. Because even if somebody else in the government suggests it, if you actually were open to it etc., you don't really have an entrapment defense. But it's entrapment as we understand it, not as the law, ah, describes it. Because I am a lawyer I believe we do it the way the law says. So it's not really entrapment in a lot of these cases, but its something we should not be doing to. (inaudible) In other cases I think that the government has done a very good job after 911, I mean we haven't had any major attacks here. And we know there are, its not like, ah, the old days of witch hunts, actually there were no witches, but there are terrorists and ah, we have a responsibility.
  • Interviewer: I know, I know, I think some people would debate that though. They would discuss that the fear mongering is, is, ah, greater than the real threat (ML: I'm sorry.) and you know. I'm saying that, when you think of how do these guys in a cave in the middle of Afghanistan really, really ah prepare to attack America. Is it that they're founded. Ah. Are they .. you know, it's like a weed that's been watered. How do these guys get into the country, how do they take they're flight training and ah, are they trained by CIA assets or something? You .. you .. you .. I'm more skeptical of the whole thing.
  • Mark Lane: Well, there are, as I say, there were no witches at Salem, there are terrorists all around the world, and we do have to have intelligence which protects us from them. And ah, I think so far, you know, 911 was the last one so far. And a lot of people who would like something like that to have happen in different ways. This country is vulnerable I mean this is not the old Soviet Union or anything. This country is really vulnerable because of the democracy, to these kind of attacks. I'm just amazed that nothing happened since that time and I texted that to a couple of people and I (inaudible) the administrations thus far, in in preventing that. But it doesn't mean we should ah call everybody who we disagree with or wish to move out house .. I got to run now (inaudible) ok?