Cryptome.Org has posted documents courtesy of the National Security Archive that describe an early 1960s plan by the Joint Chiefs of Staff to conduct terrorist attacks against U.S. targets and blame Cuba in order to create public support for a possible military intervention in Cuba.

In an annex entitled “Pretexts to Justify U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba,” the document recommends a number of possible ways to accomplish this. The first would be to conduct violent acts in and around the U.S. base at Guantanamo.

2. A series of well coordinated incidents will be planned to take place in and around Guantanamo to give genuine appearance of being done by hostile Cuban forces.

a. Incidents to establish a credible attack (not in chronological order):

(1) start rumors (many). Use clandestine radio.

(2) Land friendly Cubans in uniform “over-the-fence” to stage attack on base.

(3) Capture Cuban (friendly) saboteurs inside the base.

(4) Start riots near the base main gate (friendly Cubans).<

(5) Blow up ammunition inside the base; start fires.

(6) Burn aircraft on air base (sabotage).

(7) Lob mortar shells from outside of base into base. Some damage to installations.

(8) capture assault teams approaching from the sea or vicinity of Guantanamo City.

(9) Capture militia group which storms the base.

(10) Sabotage ship in harbor; large fires — napthalene.

(11) Sink ship near harbor entrance. Conduct funerals for mock-victims (may be lieu of (10)).

b. United States would respond by executing offensive operations to secure water and power supplies, destroying artillery and mortar emplacements which threaten the base.

c. Commence large scale United States military operations.

Another possible scenario outline by the document is what it calls a “Remember the Maine” incident, in which the military would sabotage and destroy a U.S. ship and then blame Cuba.

a. We could blow up a US ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba.

b. We could blow up a drone (unmanned) vessel anywhere in the Cuban waters. We could arrange to cause such incident in the vicinity of Havana or Santiago as a spectacular result of Cuban attack from the air or sea, or both. The presence of Cuban planes or ships merely investigating the intent of the vessel could be fairly compelling evidence that the ship was taken under attack. The nearness to Havana or Santiago would add credibility especially to those people that might have heard the blast or have seen the fire. The US could follow up with an air/sea rescue operation covered by US fighters to “evacuate” remaining members of the non-existent crew. Casualty lists in US newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation.

Finally, why not just go all the way and engage in a violent terrorist campaign within the United States and blame it on Cuban terrorists?

4. We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington. The terror campaign could be pointed at refugees seeking haven in the United States. We could sink a boatload of Cubans en route to Florida (real or simulated). We could foster attempts on lives of Cuban refugees in the United States even to the extent of wounding in instances to be widely publicized. Exploding a few plastic bombs in carefully chosen spots, the arrest of Cuban agents and the release of prepared documents substantiating Cuban involvement, also would be helpful in projecting the idea of an irresponsible government.

An irresponsible government indeed.

I’ve always been impressed with RJ Rummel’s books on what he calls democide — the state-sponsored murder of civilians. Rummel has written a number of books about state violence (a good introduction to his work his Death By Government).

One of the interesting things, which Rummel has written about in asides to his more scholarly works, is the difficulty of comprehending the numbers murdered by states in the 20th century. The number is easy enough to repeat. By Rummel’s estimate, about 174 million people were murdered by states in the 20th century. But as Rummel points out, that number is a bit too big for our minds to get wrapped around.

Rummel has posted on his web site some visual attempts to depict just how many people that is in more tangible ways. One non-visual way to illustrate that number is that this would be equivalent to killing 2 out of 3 Americans alive today.

One of the more surprising facts is contained in a chart comparing civilian murders to combat deaths. The comparison isn’t even close, with an estimated 36 million people killed in combat in the 20th century.

No, it’s not a file trading service but Fancast.Com is likely to face similar legal scrutiny if it ever takes off. The idea is simple — hook up a microphone to your PC and give your own play-by-play of an ongoing sporting event. Personally, the low quality audio of such sites makes them unattractive, but some people might enjoy this.

Of course, the lawyers for the sports leagues will almost certainly try to claim that this is illegal. Anyone who has ever watched or listened to any sports broadcast is familiar with the standard disclaimer: any retransmission, rebroadcast or any other us of this telecast is prohibited without the consent of the team and league.

The person behind the site, Adam Epstein, is complicating the intellectual property argument a bit by not making money directly off the audio feeds. For now they’re free, and he plans on charging a monthly fee for the people who want to use the site to broadcast, but not listen.

There has, of course, already been a famous legal case on the intellectual property status of sports-related information. Several years ago the National Basketball Assocation sued Motorola, Stats, and AOL for providing detailed real time scores from NBA games. A US appeals court judge ruled in 1997 that the NBA doesn’t actually own the scores of its games.

Whether or not a court would extend that to what is essentially a rebroadcasting of game remains to be seen.

The Houston Chronicle reports that the common name for Ephinephelus itajara i– the jewfish — is being changed because it is considered offensive.

Standard fare in today’s politically correct world, but the irony is the new name: the Goliath grouper. As the Chronicle sums it up, “the AFS is renaming the jewfish by giving it the name of a Jew-killing Philistine.”

FootballKills.Org is an amusing parody of gun control arguments.