The heist that changed history (a little)

KingOrfeo

Literotica Guru
Joined
Jul 27, 2008
Posts
39,182
From Salon:

Wednesday, Apr 23, 2014 07:00 PM EDT

Let’s break into the FBI! Before Snowden and Manning, there was “1971″

Four decades later, lefties who stole secret files and got away with it come clean on a heist that changed history

Andrew O'Hehir


Long before Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning, and even before Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers (although only by a matter of months), there was the Citizens’ Commission to Investigate the FBI. Some well-meaning lefty nonprofit spun off from the ACLU? Not quite. This self-appointed commission comprised eight antiwar activists in Philadelphia, who committed a daring act of counterespionage in March of 1971, breaking into a small suburban FBI field office in the middle of the night and stealing every file in the place. That modest pile of papers turned out to be the tip of an enormous iceberg, providing mainstream America with the first solid evidence of something radicals and dissidents had known for years: The United States government devoted immense amounts of money, energy and manpower into spying on its own citizens.

That information surprises absolutely no one today, of course, but that in itself indicates how much Americans’ attitudes about their own government have changed over the last four or five decades. The collective cynicism or disenchantment of the current era, which reaches from Occupy radicals to Cliven Bundy, and almost everyone in between, is a double-edged sword. One journalist I talked to last weekend at the Tribeca Film Festival shrugged off the impact of Johanna Hamilton’s rousing documentary “1971,” in which the members of the Citizens’ Commission come forward for the first time to talk about their history-making heist (long after the statute of limitations has expired). Big deal, my colleague essentially said — anybody who didn’t know that kind of stuff was going on was hopelessly naive.

No doubt that’s a realistic view of the inherently hypocritical, paranoid and Machiavellian nature of power. But part of the foundational myth of America was in fact hopelessly naive, the belief that we were a purer, better and freer nation than any other, a shining city upon a hill with a special dispensation from God. In the contemporary climate of permanent political derangement, that doctrine of American exceptionalism somehow manages to endure alongside intense and widespread distrust of government. Cliven Bundy waves the flag, but what it represents for him is something I can barely understand — apparently some mystical essence that’s totally unattached to the existing American nation-state.

But as my colleague Elias Isquith recently observed, it’s easier to mock the Cliven Bundys of the world than to notice that in their own upside-down fashion they’re making a valid point. The no-big-deal attitude of disenchantment can also insulate us from further outrages; Snowden’s revelations about NSA surveillance are no big deal, as long as we believe we trust the people in charge. After all, I’m not a terrorist! What do I need a Constitution for? This cognitive dissonance is especially useful for Democrats eager to support a likable president with “progressive” social policies, who has greatly expanded the extra-constitutional national-security state he inherited from his reviled predecessor. Another film in the Tribeca lineup, James Spione’s documentary “Silenced,” explores the Obama administration’s use of the notoriously broad 1917 Espionage Act to prosecute at least eight government whistle-blowers, including former CIA agent John Kiriakou, who exposed the agency’s use of torture on al-Qaida detainees. (It’s the same law that has been variously invoked against Snowden, Manning and Ellsberg, and that led to the execution of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg.)

From a Leo Strauss political-science viewpoint, the Citizens’ Commission 1971 burglary of that sleepy FBI field office in Media, Pa., was a disastrous event, one that pried the lid off the delusions that held the American body politic together. J. Edgar Hoover, America’s diabolical secret policeman, certainly felt that way. Hamilton’s documentary may not be great cinema, but it makes unstintingly clear that the odious Hoover was more powerful than any 20th-century president (with the possible exception of Franklin D. Roosevelt), and that for decades he ran a rogue agency within the federal government whose primary mission was to stamp out anti-American dissent, entirely as defined by him. As Media burglars like Keith Forsyth and Bonnie Raines make clear, they loathed Hoover and everything he stood for – and managed to get under his skin like almost no one else.

I don’t know whether we should be happy or sad that the actual break-in was distressingly easy, and that nothing like it is remotely conceivable now. One of the group’s female members cased the joint, while posing as a Swarthmore coed eager to interview real live FBI agents. Forsyth, who had some mechanical skills, taught himself to pick locks. (Even in his mid-60s, he retains the vibe of a counterculture bon vivant: “It was a lot easier than learning to play guitar!”) They wore gloves, left no fingerprints and got away scot-free. Although seven of the eight wound up on the FBI’s list of suspects, that list included almost every antiwar activist in the Northeast, and the agency never got anywhere near enough evidence for a prosecution. There was a mysterious ninth conspirator – still unnamed, in this film or any other materials I have seen – who at one point felt pangs of patriotism and considered turning them in. In the end that person remained silent.

The files they took – remember, this all came from one low-intensity FBI field office in the genteel western suburbs of Philadelphia – revealed that the agency had agents and informants within the Black Panthers, the women’s movement and throughout the student antiwar left. Receptionists at Swarthmore, Temple, Penn and other Philly-area colleges had been paid to keep tabs on hippie-type pinko agitators; FBI agents had faked letter-writing campaigns from “concerned citizens” urging campus administrators to crack down on dissidents. One piece of paper taken from the Media office referred to an FBI program called COINTELPRO – which turned out to be an extensive universe of interlocking and frequently illegal secret campaigns against “subversive” elements of all stripes — although no one knew what that word meant at the time.

Even after the successful Media burglary, the Straussian secret-keeping culture of America in 1971 nearly prevented the information in those files from reaching the public. The Citizens’ Commission mailed anonymous packages to the Washington bureaus of the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times – who immediately turned over the purloined material to the FBI and published nothing. Leading congressional liberals, including Sen. George McGovern and Rep. Parren Mitchell, D-Md., also wanted no part of these revelations, although Mitchell said on the House floor that he had read the files sent to his office and found them disturbing. Only Washington Post reporter Betty Medsger and her boss Ben Bradlee – in his blue-blood, Boston Brahmin fashion, one of the true American heroes of the 20th century – saw it differently. Yes, the material had clearly been obtained by illegal means, but what it revealed about the inner workings of America’s federal police force trumped any ethical qualms about its acquisition.

Hamilton’s “1971” will surely find distribution in some form, and it’s well worth seeing. (I’ll strive to keep you posted.) It’s both an inspiring David-and-Goliath fable of citizen activism that made a difference and a cautionary tale about the ability of the dark state or “permanent government” to repair itself, like some overgrown evil paramecium, and keep on keeping on. As Keith Forsyth observes, the Media break-in was a key moment in the history of the early ‘70s, pointing the way to the downfall of Richard Nixon, the demise of Hoover’s quasi-independent fiefdom and the extraordinary Church Committee hearings of 1976, a moment when Congress briefly seemed to take its oversight responsibilities seriously when it came to surveillance, intelligence and national security. But that was just a brief caesura in the gradual slide toward no-big-deal, toward “keep us safe,” toward the casual acceptance of the idea that we have no rights that the executive branch is not free to abrogate, as long as we convince ourselves the people at the top are kind of cool.
 
From Breitbart

It's not surprising to learn that various governments (not just the United States) account for the bulk of online mischief, but it's a bit sobering to see the numbers laid out by a new Verizon investigative report, summarized by the UK Telegraph: there has been a 300 percent increase in cyber espionage since last year's report, and government agents are responsible for 87 percent of it.

http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/...rcent-of-online-spying-comes-from-governments
 
From Breitbart

It's not surprising to learn that various governments (not just the United States) account for the bulk of online mischief, but it's a bit sobering to see the numbers laid out by a new Verizon investigative report, summarized by the UK Telegraph: there has been a 300 percent increase in cyber espionage since last year's report, and government agents are responsible for 87 percent of it.

http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/...rcent-of-online-spying-comes-from-governments

Hm. Breitbart. Well, stopped clock and all that.
 
COINTELPRO:

COINTELPRO (an acronym for COunter INTELligence PROgram) was a series of covert, and at times illegal,[1] projects conducted by the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) aimed at surveying, infiltrating, discrediting, and disrupting domestic political organizations.[2] National Security Agency operation Project MINARET targeted the personal communications of leading Americans, including Senators Frank Church and Howard Baker, civil rights leaders, including Dr. Martin Luther King, journalists and athletes who criticized the Vietnam War.[3][4]

The FBI has used covert operations against domestic political groups since its inception; however, covert operations under the official COINTELPRO label took place between 1956 and 1971.[5] COINTELPRO tactics are still used to this day, and have been alleged to include discrediting targets through psychological warfare; smearing individuals and groups using forged documents and by planting false reports in the media; harassment; wrongful imprisonment; and illegal violence, including assassination.[6][7][8] The FBI's stated motivation was "protecting national security, preventing violence, and maintaining the existing social and political order.[sic.]"[9]

FBI records show that 85% of COINTELPRO resources targeted groups and individuals that the FBI deemed "subversive",[10] including communist and socialist organizations; organizations and individuals associated with the Civil Rights Movement, including Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and others associated with the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, and the Congress of Racial Equality and other civil rights organizations; black nationalist groups; the American Indian Movement; a broad range of organizations labeled "New Left", including Students for a Democratic Society and the Weathermen; almost all groups protesting the Vietnam War, as well as individual student demonstrators with no group affiliation; the National Lawyers Guild; organizations and individuals associated with the women's rights movement; nationalist groups such as those seeking independence for Puerto Rico, United Ireland, and Cuban exile movements including Orlando Bosch's Cuban Power and the Cuban Nationalist Movement; and additional notable Americans —even Albert Einstein, who was a socialist and a member of several civil rights groups, came under FBI surveillance during the years just before COINTELPRO's official inauguration.[11] The remaining 15% of COINTELPRO resources were expended to marginalize and subvert white hate groups, including the Ku Klux Klan and the National States' Rights Party.[12]

FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover issued directives governing COINTELPRO, ordering FBI agents to "expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit, neutralize or otherwise eliminate" the activities of these movements and their leaders.[13][14] Under Hoover, the agent in charge of COINTELPRO was William C. Sullivan.[15] Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy personally authorized some of these programs.[16] Kennedy learned that he was also a target of FBI surveillance.[citation needed]

<SNIP>

Post-COINTELPRO operations

While COINTELPRO was officially terminated in April 1971, (Former FBI Director William Webster stated that the program was "Rerouted"[1978]), critics allege that continuing FBI actions indicate that post-COINTELPRO reforms did not succeed in ending COINTELPRO tactics.[64][65][66] Documents released under the FOIA show that the FBI tracked the late David Halberstam, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and author, for more than two decades.[67][68]

“Counterterrorism” guidelines implemented during the Reagan administration have been described as allowing a return to COINTELPRO tactics.[69][pages needed] Some radical groups accuse factional opponents of being FBI informants or assume the FBI is infiltrating the movement.[70]

The FBI improperly opened investigations of American activist groups, even though they were planning nothing more than peaceful, protests and civil disobedience, according to a report by the Inspector General (IG) of the U.S. Department of Justice. The review by the inspector general was launched in response to complaints by civil liberties groups and members of Congress. The FBI improperly monitored groups including the Thomas Merton Center, a Pittsburgh-based peace group; People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA); and Greenpeace USA, an environmental activism organization. Also, activists affiliated with Greenpeace were improperly put on a terrorist watch list, although they were planning no violence or illegal activities.

The IG report found these "troubling" FBI practices between 2001 and 2006. In some cases, the FBI conducted investigations of people affiliated with activist groups for "factually weak" reasons. Also, the FBI extended investigations of some of the groups "without adequate basis" and improperly kept information about activist groups in its files. The IG report also found that FBI Director Robert Mueller III provided inaccurate congressional testimony about one of the investigations, but this inaccuracy may have been due to his relying on what FBI officials told him.[71]

Several authors have accused the FBI of continuing to deploy COINTELPRO-like tactics against radical groups after the official COINTELPRO operations were ended. Several authors have suggested the American Indian Movement (AIM) has been a target of such disturbing operations.

Authors such as Ward Churchill, Rex Weyler and Peter Mathiessen allege that the federal government intended to acquire uranium deposits on the Lakota tribe's reservation land, and that this motivated a larger government conspiracy against AIM activists on the Pine Ridge reservation.[5][38][72][73][74] Others believe COINTELPRO continues and similar actions are being taken against activist groups.[74][75][76]

Caroline Woidat says that, with respect to Native Americans, COINTELPRO should be understood within a historical context in which "Native Americans have been viewed and have viewed the world themselves through the lens of conspiracy theory."[77]

Other authors note that while some conspiracy theories related to COINTELPRO are unfounded, the issue of ongoing government surveillance and repression is real.[31][78]
 
In light of all this, the political apathy over NSA surveillance rather surprises me.

Yes, on the one hand there does seem to be a lot of pathy, if that's a word. People rant against NSA surveillance, they blog about it, editors get letters, pundits click their tongues, editorial cartoonists draw anti-NSA toons, comedians snark, every month since the stories began to break.

But OTOH, or, rather, at the higher levels -- nobody in Congress really seems to be fighting NSA surveillance. And nobody running for Congress this year is running against it (AFAIK and so far; examples would be welcomed).

There appears to be some sort of . . . disconnect here. Why?
 
Back
Top