|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
News :: Miscellaneous |
|
Feds Worked to Quash College Protests, Boost Reagan's Political Career |
Current rating: 0 |
by AP repost (but it is important info)
(No verified email address) |
09 Jun 2002
Modified: 11 Jun 2002 |
"Things are done a lot differently today," FBI spokesman Bill Carter told the Chronicle.
Oh, really? In those days, the FBI did NOT have legal authority to do much of what it did. Now that the nation suffers under the yoke on our freedoms called the Patriot Act, along with a recently announced relaxation of rules for the conduct of investigations, the FBI now has legal cover for excesses far beyond their unlawful excesses of the past. Which would make things 'different', but not in a good way. |
SAN FRANCISCO - The FBI, working covertly with the CIA and then-Gov. Ronald Reagan, spent years unlawfully trying to quash the voices and careers of students and faculty deemed subversive at the University of California, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.
For years the FBI denied engaging in such activities at the university. But a 17-year legal challenge brought by a Chronicle reporter under the Freedom of Information Act forced the agency to release more than 200,000 pages of confidential records covering the 1940s to the 1970s, the newspaper reported in a special section <http://www.sfgate.com/campus/> for its Sunday editions.
Those documents describe the sweeping nature of the FBI's activities and show they ranged far beyond the campus and into state politics as the agency plotted to end the career of UC President Clark Kerr while aiding Reagan's political career.
Only after federal judges repeatedly ruled that the FBI had drifted unlawfully from intelligence gathering into politics - and the case was about to be heard by the Supreme Court - did the FBI settle, removing much of the blacked-out material in the files.
In its unsuccessful battle to keep them secret, the agency had said its actions had been proper - that it had merely tried to protect civil order and national security during a time when the nation feared Communism and waged war in Vietnam.
"Things are done a lot differently today," FBI spokesman Bill Carter told the Chronicle. "The files speak for themselves."
The broad outlines of the illegal FBI campaigns became public in the 1970s as Congress held hearings that showed the FBI and CIA had disrupted the lives of law-abiding citizens and organizations engaging in legitimate dissent.
The documents obtained by the Chronicle show just how extensive these activities were in California, how Kerr and others were targeted, and how eagerly Reagan worked to quash protests.
Gov. Reagan intended to mount a "psychological warfare campaign" against subversives, file tax evasion and other charges against them, and do anything else it could to restore moral order, Herbert Ellingwood, Reagan's legal affairs secretary, told the FBI in a request for confidential information about people on campus.
The records show FBI director J. Edgar Hoover agreed to provide such information from the agency's files.
"This has been done in the past," the director said, "and has worked quite successfully."
The Office of Ronald Reagan referred the Chronicle's questions to Edwin Meese III, Reagan's chief of staff as governor. Meese said the FBI, as far as he knew, gave Reagan no special political help, and that he did not remember planning any activities against "subversives."
"There was never any concentrated strategy to do these things," he said.
The documents also show that the FBI tried to protect Reagan from being implicated for lying about his own past as a member of several groups officially deemed subversive by altering his security clearance.
Reports that Reagan informed on his fellow actors at a time when the FBI was trying to root out suspected subversives have surfaced before, but were downplayed. In 1985, when the FBI released some documents about Reagan, a Reagan spokesman said he had only a "very minor" involvement with the bureau at a time when he was president of the Screen Actors Guild.
The records obtained by the Chronicle reveal who it was that Reagan and his first wife, Jane Wyman, named during a 1947 meeting with FBI agents: Larry Parks ("The Jolson Story"), Howard Da Silva ("The Lost Weekend") and Alexander Knox ("Wilson"). Each was later called before the House Un-American Activities Committee and blacklisted in Hollywood.
The new documents also show Reagan's contacts with the bureau were more extensive than he acknowledged or has been reported: Files show he repeatedly gave the FBI names of people he suspected of being communist over the years.
Hoover, meanwhile, ordered agents to investigate the 6,000 UC faculty members and top administrators. The resulting report in 1960 listed professors' political activities, and said many had engaged in "illicit love affairs, homosexuality, sexual perversion, excessive drinking or other instances of conduct reflecting mental instability."
CIA Director John McCone also was involved, meeting with Hoover in January 1965 after the Free Speech Movement held its first sit-ins. Records show they decided to leak information to conservative UC Regent Edwin Pauley, who would "use his influence to curtail, harass and at times eliminate" liberal faculty members. Pauley had hoped to fire Kerr.
The FBI blamed the liberal Kerr for allowing the campus protests to grow, and Hoover himself wanted a crackdown at Berkeley before student protests grew nationwide.
When, to Hoover's dismay, President Lyndon Johnson picked Kerr to become his secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, the FBI background check included damaging information the agency knew to be false, and Johnson withdrew the nomination, the documents show.
Reagan was elected California's governor in 1966 after repeatedly consulting with the FBI while campaigning against "campus malcontents and filthy speech advocates" at Berkeley. One of his first moves was to fire Kerr, who never received another White House appointment.
Kerr, whose own FOIA request was denied by the FBI, said he was unaware of the plots against him. "Maybe I was too naive, but I never assumed they were taking efforts to get rid of me," he told The Chronicle.
Also see "Reagan, Hoover, and the UC Red Scare" at: http://www.sfgate.com/campus/
Copyright 2002 The Associated Press
|
See also:
http://www.ap.org
|
Comments
|
A Pretty Good Story for the AP |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
09 Jun 2002
|
I wonder if it'll see the light of day in the News-Gazette?
Here are links to a couple of interesting articles that show how relevant the discusssion of the historical role of US intelligence agencies above is to the situation in the US today:
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/jun2002/ashc-j07.shtml
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/jun2002/bush-j08.shtml |
|
United Spies of America |
by Boulder Daily Camera Editorial
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
10 Jun 2002
|
Attorney General's Moves Flout the Constitution
The nation's top cop says the FBI needs greater and broader spying power to prevent terrorism. For constitutional and practical reasons, he is wrong.
In late May, U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft announced that he was immediately loosening restrictions on the FBI. Ashcroft said the new rules would allow agents to do such benign tasks as search the Internet, listen in on chat rooms and monitor religious sanctuaries.
Ashcroft emphasized his respect for civil liberties. "We intend to honor our Constitution and respect the freedom that we hold so dear."
This week, Ashcroft announced another broadening of government power. At his behest, the U.S. government will require tens of thousands of Muslims and Middle Eastern visa holders to be fingerprinted and register with the government.
Again, the attorney general emphasized his respect for the Constitution. He said, "We are an open country." As long as you weren't born in Syria, that is.
Ashcroft's arguments were persuasive, even if only on the emotional level: "A band of men entered our country under false pretenses in order to plan and execute murderous acts of war," Ashcroft said. That much is irrefutable.
Still, a critical question remains: Is the key to preventing terrorism a looser leash on domestic spies? The answer is no.
Ashcroft falsely implies that FBI agents have been hamstrung by rules imposed during the 1970s. Under those rules, he suggests, an agent "cannot surf the web the way you or I can. Nor can they simply walk into a public event or a public place to observe ongoing activities. They have no clear authority to use commercial data services that any business in America can use."
FBI agents, Ashcroft said, have been required to "blind themselves to information that everyone else is free to see."
Framed in such a way, it's hard to argue with the attorney general's conclusion. But his characterizations are misleading. FBI agents have always been free to read newspapers or surf the Web. Government watchdogs point out that many investigations have been precipitated by things agents have read in the papers.
Furthermore, agents have been free to infiltrate churches and attend political rallies. And they've been authorized to monitor electronic and other communication. But they've been authorized to do so only when there's been evidence that a crime has been or is about to be committed.
That's a reasonable search. When police investigate people in the absence of evidence of a crime, that's an unreasonable search. Forbidding the latter is a bedrock American principle. The looser FBI rules flout the Constitution.
Ashcroft's program of registering legal aliens suffers from the same flaw. Because 19 hijackers came here from the Middle East, Ashcroft proposes to register, fingerprint and monitor tens of thousands of people who've evidenced no reason for such scrutiny. Whatever else this is, it is not the American way.
In addition to the constitutional flaws in the Ashcroft policies, there is also the matter of common sense. We have learned since Sept. 11 that the nation's spies and border control did not react to the clues they had, not that they lacked clues to which they could react. Is the appropriate response, then, to open the floodgates of information, thereby making it more difficult to connect the investigatory dots? Clearly, it is not.
We know what happened before, when the FBI enjoyed broad spying powers granted under the pretext of preventing subversion. Innocent people suffered. The Constitution faltered. We've traveled this path before. It's a road best not taken.
Copyright 2002, The Daily Camera and the E.W. Scripps Company
http://www.thedailycamera.com/bdc/home/ |
|
Ronnie Ray-gun |
by Publicuss@hotmail.com
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
10 Jun 2002
|
|
just more confirmation of my already low opinion of this B-grade actor . . . typical Ronnie Ray-gun |
|
Ex-UC Chief Calls FBI Actions Despicable |
by Seth Rosenfeld
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
11 Jun 2002
|
Clark Kerr reacts to Chronicle report on bureau misdeeds
Clark Kerr, ousted from his job as president of the University of California following student protests in the 1960s, says he is greatly disturbed by documents revealing that the FBI campaigned to get him fired.
"I always had a high opinion of the FBI, so it came to me as quite a shock that they would step outside their boundaries the way they did," Kerr said Sunday in an interview at his El Cerrito home. "I think they did me some damage."
Kerr gave his first public response to a Chronicle report that revealed wide-ranging and unlawful covert operations at the university involving the head of the CIA and Gov. Ronald Reagan.
Kerr, 91, a renowned educator who led UC to academic excellence, also said that the FBI harmed the integrity of the university by intruding into campus affairs and exacerbating internal disputes.
"What bothers me is that the FBI would want to go so far outside its proper jurisdiction and get involved in the internal affairs of the university," Kerr said.
The Chronicle's report was based on FBI records obtained after a 17-year legal battle under the Freedom of Information Act. The FBI refused to turn over many records on the grounds that they concerned law enforcement, but five federal judges found that many of the FBI's activities were unlawful and ordered more than 200,000 pages of the files released.
An FBI spokesman had previously declined to comment on The Chronicle story. Edwin Meese III, who was Gov. Reagan's chief of staff, had said that to his knowledge the FBI gave Reagan no special help, and the bureau's contacts with him were proper.
The documents show that the FBI:
-- Sent the White House a report on Kerr containing allegations that he was disloyal -- even though the bureau knew they were false.
-- Schemed with then-CIA Chief John McCone to leak derogatory reports about students and faculty to Edwin Pauley, a senior member of the university's Board of Regents, who used them in his efforts to oust Kerr.
-- Gave a secret briefing about alleged subversion on campus to Gov. Reagan,
who had vowed to fire Kerr during his 1966 campaign for governor.
Kerr was dismissed by UC's governing Board of Regents on Jan. 20, 1967, at the first board meeting attended by the newly elected Reagan.
Kerr acknowledged that by then some regents and Reagan were angry with him because of continuing student protests at UC Berkeley.
"Then the FBI came in and added some fuel to the flames," he said. "What happened might have happened anyway, but it was more likely with FBI support."
Kerr said the FBI's secretly giving the late regent Pauley reports about liberal faculty, students and regents harmed the university's integrity.
"Organizations are based on trust, and when you start passing around private, derogatory information, it's destructive of trust," Kerr said in other remarks to The Chronicle. "It's harmful to the university to have one member of the board be provided derogatory information on others."
Kerr's dismissal followed a series of protests, including the 1964 Free Speech Movement, in which Berkeley students challenging the university's ban against campus political activity staged the nation's first major college protests of the era. The FSM was followed by the "filthy speech movement" and anti-Vietnam War demonstrations.
But Hoover and other top FBI officials had been unhappy with Kerr for years.
Soon after Kerr became UC president in 1958, the head of the San Francisco FBI office wrote Hoover a memo reporting on a plot by an aide to conservative state Sen. Hugh Burns to get Kerr removed from his job. "Dr. Kerr," an FBI report on the plan said, "has always given the impression that he is a 'liberal' in the educational field."
Kerr said he was disturbed by the FBI's apparently having taken sides against him because of his political views.
"I think it's despicable," he said. "It's certainly undemocratic. It's the kind of thing you would expect more from the intelligence agencies of Russia than you would from the U.S."
In early 1960, Hoover became furious over an essay question on UC's English aptitude test for high school applicants that asked: "What are the dangers to a democracy of a national police organization, like the FBI, which operates secretly and is unresponsive to public criticism?"
Hoover blamed Kerr for the question, even though the university president had nothing to do with it. The following year, Hoover wrote on a memo to his top aides, "I know Kerr is no good."
In those days, when many officials feared that communists had infiltrated the U.S. government, such remarks "would have been very damaging," Kerr said.
In December 1964, President Lyndon Johnson was considering Kerr to be his secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, and requested a routine background report on Kerr. A federal court in the FOIA case later found that the FBI used the report as a pretext to undermine Kerr. The FBI sent the White House allegations that Kerr was disloyal, even though the bureau had investigated and found them to be untrue.
"That was damaging to me, not pointing out that it was not true," Kerr said.
"That amazes me," he added. "That was really a very aggressive action, to spread it around the government."
After the false FBI report to the White House, and his dismissal as UC president in January 1967, Kerr never received another White House appointment.
"All this going on really sort of surprises me," Kerr said. "I shouldn't say surprises me. It disturbs me."
Kerr said he was unaware of the FBI's efforts against him until he was contacted by The Chronicle.
He had requested his FBI files under the Freedom of Information Act in the late 1970s, Kerr said, but an FBI official told him that "they couldn't send me anything."
"My guess is," Kerr said, "they were trying to keep it quiet."
©2002 San Francisco Chronicle
|
|
FBI Guidelines, Corporate Interests & Ecoterrorism in Dallas, TX |
by Tish & chickpea
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
11 Jun 2002
|
Last week, the FBI released its rewritten guidelines for carrying out investigations. This report examines the changes and then offers an analysis of how they relate to domestic terrorism, as defined in large part by corporate interests, by looking at the recent Radical Education Camp and ExxonMobil demonstrations in Dallas, TX.
Attorney General John Ashcroft and the new F.B.I. director, Robert Mueller, announced on May 30th that sweeping changes had been made to the guidelines that determine how FBI agents carry out investigations.
The new guidelines will broadly loosen restrictions on domestic spying on religious and political organizations. The FBI will now be able to conduct generalized topical research even though they have no evidence a crime has been or is about to be committed. The FBI will now purchase information from data mining companies. The FBI will now be able to conduct preliminary inquiries for one year and to conduct full investigations for one year with no evidence of a crime being committed.
When asked during the question and answer period following the announcement whether the changes would lead to a rollback of civil-liberties protections, Ashcroft said the guidelines would be used only "for the purpose of detecting and preventing terrorism." "It's not to be abused for other purposes," he said.
The rewritten guidelines were originally put in place in response to law enforcement excesses in the 1950s and 1960s. They were put in place after the FBI illegally spied on and persecuted the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and other political dissenters. In response to congressional investigations into law enforcement abuse, the Justice Department adopted "Attorney General Guidelines" that limited the scope of acceptable surveillance and infiltration of religious and political organizations.
The pressing question now is, who do these rewritten guidelines affect?
John Ashcroft said during the press conference "The guidelines expand the scope of those investigations to the full range of terrorist activities under the USA Patriot Act."
USA PATRIOT is an acronym that stands for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism. The act, passed october 25th, 2001 has made vast changes in the way investigations can proceed, who can be investigated and how detainees will be treated and prosecution carried out. Jennifer Van Bergen writes, "If you think this law applies only to the bad guys who attacked our nation, think again. Many provisions in this law apply to and will affect Americans, in many, bad ways."
Under this act, what is a terrorist and to whom does this designation apply?
Along with the delineation of foreign terrorist networks, within the PATRIOT act a broad category of criminals, "domestic terrorists" is defined. Quoting the patriot act, "the term 'domestic terrorism' means activities that--involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; appear to be intended--to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States."
The downfall of this definition is it could easily be applied to American citizens engaging on lawful activity through broad interpretation, allowing law enforcement agencies to carry out legal surveillance procedures that violate civil rights protections.
Commenting on this provision, Nancy Chang of the Center for Constitutional Rights states: "Vigorous protest activities, by their very nature, could be construed as acts that 'appear to be intended ... to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion.' Further, clashes between demonstrators and police officers and acts of civil disobedience - even those that do not result in injuries and are entirely non-violent - could be construed as 'dangerous to human life' and in 'violation of the criminal laws.' Environmental activists, anti- globalization activists, and anti-abortion activists who use direct action to further their political agendas are particularly vulnerable to prosecution as 'domestic terrorists.'
The recent ACLU report, INSATIABLE APPETITE: The Government's Demand for New and Unnecessary Powers After September 11 (http://www.aclu.org/congress/InsatiableAppetite.pdf) states that the patriot act "Has the very real potential to greatly chill constitutionally protected speech in its overbroad redefinition of 'domestic terrorism.' The new definition is so vague that it could allow the government to designate lawful advocacy groups such as Operation Rescue or Greenpeace as terrorist outfits and subject them to invasive surveillance, wiretapping, harassment and then criminally penalize them for protected political advocacy."
When a group's activities are defined as domestic terrorism or supporting groups that engaging in domestic terrorism, a bevy of new guidelines instituted by the patriot act and the changes to FBI guidelines apply to any investigation. The delineation of terrorism easily enables law enforcement officers to slip past restrictions such as obtaining warrants or having probable cause. Under the patriot act, agents can enter your home, search your stuff, photograph your belongings, download your hard drive and never even tell you they had been there. Under the new FBI guidelines, this can all be done without any probable cause that a crime has been or will be committed, for up to one year before being reviewed by senior officials.
Remember, the new guidelines primarily affect religious and political groups. So who benefits from applying the terrorist label to these groups? Recent events in Texas provide an example of how these new guidelines will impact how the FBI deals with domestic terrorism.
At last week's festival of resistance surrounding the Exxon Mobil annual shareholder meeting in Dallas, Texas, numerous conservative organizations led a joint counter-protest and media smear campaign against a grassroots alliance of environmental and human rights activists. Blurring distinctions between the Earth Liberation Front and say Green Peace, organizations like the Committee for the Defense of Free Enterprise, the Free Republic Network and Citizens for Sound Economy came together to protect ExxonMobil shareholders and Dallas from what they described as an 'attack' by eco-terrorists.
Mark Levin, president of the American Freedom Center published an op-ed in the Ft. Worth Star Telegram on the day of the shareholder meeting. In it, he suggested that "As the U.S. military continues to battle terrorism overseas, ExxonMobil is preparing for the possibility of eco-terrorism at this week's shareholders meeting in Dallas."
His language was similar to that used during the February 2002 congressional subcomittee hearings on eco-terrorism, where lawmakers and industry leaders decried eco-terrorists in ways typically reserved for groups like al-Qaida, Hamas and Hezbollah.
However, while the counter protesters proclaimed to fret about threats to public safety, they also demonstrated a clear concern for the corporate agenda.
Citizens for a Sound Economy, one of the main organizers of the counter demonstration, claimed that environmentalists and public interest organizations are nothing more than "undeducated thugs who are anti-globalists, anti capitalists, anti-profit and anti-everything."
When counter protesters, many calling themselves "freepers," converged on the site of the shareholder meeting, they held signs that read "Capitalism and Free Enterprise are what make this country great! Thanks ExxonMobil for being a good corporate neighbor."
These signs pointed to a pattern identified by the Washington Post in which groups like CSE do the bidding of their backers while maintaining their corporate donor's anonymity. As of 1998, CSE's budget documents indicated that their top contributor was the Oil and Gas industry sector, at over $2.3 million, with ExxonMobil contributing $200,000.
When demonstrators at the shareholder meeting attempted to engage the freepers in diologue, they would often blow a loud whistle in response, or more sinisterly, clap their hands and yell "lets hear it for the eco-terrorists, you?re an eco-terrorist! Why don't you go burn down a ski resort?"
One of the groups on the FBI's May 2001 domestic terrorist list is the Earth Liberation Front, a group also associated with the Animal Liberation Front, whose members have indeed claimed responsibility for arson and other forms of property destruction to stop the destruction and exploitation of the natural environment.
The ELF was a major subject at the February 2002 subcommittee hearing on ecoterrorism, led in large part by Republican Representative Scott McInnis of Colorado, chairman of the House Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health. Present at the hearings were representatives from paper industry corporations like Boise Cascade and Pacific Lumber, both targets of boycott campaigns by environmentalists for their use of old growth wood products. At a conference entitled, "Stopping Eco-Terrorism," sponsored by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, McInnis reported that the "number one threat of violence in this country is eco-terrorism."
In response to the hearings, David Barbarash, a spokesman for the Animal Liberation Front said that "What they're clearly doing is using September 11 as a political football. A lot of what is being pushed . . . has been on their table for a long time; it's not new. It's all coming out now with such ferocity because of this focus on rounding up terrorists."
The Clearinghouse for Environmental Advocacy and Research (CLEAR), which tracks anti-environmental groups, has suggested that conservative think tanks and industry front groups blur distinctions between the ELF and openly non-violent organziations under the pretext that "If environmental groups cost business money, then they're eco-terrorists." Similarly, the diverse groups that converged for the Festival of Resistance at the ExxonMobil shareholder meeting were all painted with the same wide brushstroke as "ecoterrorists" while they kicked off the US campaign to boycott the corporation
CSE representatives argued in television news reports that "the same environmental radicals who looted Seattle to protest the World Trade Organization meeting in 1999 will descend on Dallas to protest ExxonMobil's environmental policies."
TV reports and Mark Levin's newspaper editorial called attention to the Radical Encuentro Camp, or REC, a three day activist enounter that took place before the shareholder protesters. They linked REC to the ELF because some of the workshops at the camp were given by members of the Ruckus Society. Ruckus is a larger organization that puts on similar camps that include non-violent direct action tactical training. Levin argued that the Ruckus Society has trained members of the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) and the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), and that the REC camp was similarly training eco-terrorists.
Since REC was associated with planning and training for the shareholder meeting demonstrations, the media smear campaign supported the conclusion voiced by counter-protesters that all those associated with the festival of resistance were eco-terrorists.
If this seems far-fetched, consider the testimony of Ron Arnold, a"wise use" proponent and vice president of the corporate-linked conservative think tank Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise before a congressional committee in 1998 on "eco-terrorism" in which he defined "eco-terror" explicitly to include non-violent civil disobedience.
If you have ever given money to an environmental organization associated with the use or support of direct action or participated in a boycott, if you've considered attending the REC camp or Festival of Resistance in Dallas, then you may part of a grand conspiracy that's degrading life in America according to groups like CSE. Worse yet, you might even be a terrorist, or at least an accomplice.
Under the new FBI guidelines released last week under Aschcroft, the conclusions drawn from Ron Arnold's comments are strategically important for conservative think tanks and corporate front groups who are using the tragic attacks of September 11 to further their own agendas.
One of the stipulations of the new guidelines is that investigated groups must be terrorist-related. If every organization and individual that protested the ExxonMobil shareholder meeting is lumped into the same ecoterrorist category, they are now subject to FBI investigations and data gathering for up to a year without any indication of criminal activity.
http://www.houston.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=3405&group=webcast
|
|
A CRITICAL HISTORY OF THE FBI |
by Steven Aftergood/Secrecy News
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
11 Jun 2002
|
"FBI officials intensively investigated the Federation of American Scientists" in the late 1940s and 1950s, recalls Athan Theoharis in "Chasing Spies," his new critical history of the FBI.
"FBI agents carefully monitored the public activities of FAS leaders and their various efforts to influence public policy, having been ordered to determine their 'political orientation,' possible links to Communists or suspected Communists, and 'agitation and pressure activities aimed at influencing the dissemination of technical and other information' [concerning nuclear policy]," Theoharis notes.
As the standards governing FBI investigations are being modified, the Bureau's record is of more than historical interest. While the FBI should not be unduly burdened by its past excesses as it works today to combat terrorist threats to the nation, neither should those excesses be altogether forgotten.
Chapter One of "Chasing Spies: How the FBI Failed in Counterintelligence But Promoted the Politics of McCarthyism in the Cold War Years" by Athan Theoharis is now posted here:
http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/theoharis.htm
See also:
http://www.ivanrdee.com/spTheoharis_Chasing.html |
|
