Docstoc

The Return of COINTELPRO

Document Sample
The Return of COINTELPRO Powered By Docstoc
					The Return of COINTELPRO?
Tom McNamara
counterpunch.org
January 23, 2013

“Democracies die behind closed doors” – Judge Damon J. Keith

For 15 years (1956-1971) the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) ran a broad and highly
coordinated domestic intelligence / counterintelligence program known as COINTELPRO
(COunter INTELligence PROgrams). What was originally deemed as a justifiable effort to
protect the US during the Cold War from Soviet and Communist threats and infiltration, soon
devolved into a program for suppressing domestic dissent and spying on American citizens.
Approximately 20,000 people were investigated by the FBI based only on their political views
and beliefs. Most were never suspected of having committed any crime.

The reasoning behind the program, as detailed in a 1976 Senate report, was that the FBI had “the
duty to do whatever is necessary to combat perceived threats to the existing social and political
order.” The fact that the “perceived threats” were usually American citizens engaging in
constitutionally protected behaviour was apparently overlooked. The stated goal of
COINTELPRO was to “expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit, or otherwise neutralize” any
individual or group deemed to be subversive or a threat to the established power structure.

The FBI’s techniques were often extreme, with the agency being complicit in the murder and
assassination of political dissidents, or having people sent away to prison for life. Some of the
more “moderate” actions that were used were blackmail, spreading false rumors, intimidation
and harassment. It has been argued that the US is unique in that it is the only Western
industrialized democracy to have engaged in such a wide spread and well organized domestic
surveillance program. It finally came to an end in 1971 when it was threatened with public
exposure.

Or did it?

In a stunning revelation from the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund (PCJF), it appears that
COINTELPRO is alive and well. Through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, PCJF
was able to obtain documents showing how the FBI was treating the Occupy Wall Street (OWS)
movement, from its inception, as a potential criminal and domestic terrorist threat. This despite
the FBI’s own acknowledgement that the OWS organizers themselves planned on engaging in
peaceful and popular protest and did not “condone the use of violence.”

The documents, while heavily redacted, give a clear picture of how the FBI was using its offices
and agents across the country as early as August 2011 to engage in a massive surveillance
scheme against OWS. This was almost a month before any actual protests took place or
encampments were set up (the most famous being the one in New York City’s Zuccotti Park).
The FBI’s documents show a government agency at its most paranoid. It considered all planned
protests, and the individuals involved, as potential threats. Most disturbing of all, there is talk (p.
61) of the government being ready to “engage in sniper attacks against protesters in Houston,
Texas, if deemed necessary” and perhaps needing to formulate a plan “to kill the leadership [of
the protest groups] via suppressed sniper rifles.”

Furthermore, the documents reveal a close and intricate partnership between the federal
government on one side and banks and private businesses on the other.

On August 19, 2011, the FBI met with representatives of the New York Stock Exchange in order
to discuss OWS protests that wouldn’t happen for another four weeks. In September of that year,
even before OWS got into full swing, the FBI was notifying local businesses that they might be
affected by protests. It is not clear if, while on Wall Street, the FBI investigated the criminal and
irresponsible behavior engaged in by some of the largest banks on the planet, behavior which led
directly to the financial crisis of 2008.

We are also introduced to a creature named the “Domestic Security Alliance Council” which,
according to the federal government, is “a strategic partnership between the FBI, the Department
of Homeland Security and the private sector.” A DSAC report tells us that any information
shared between US intelligence agencies and their corporate partners should not be released to
“the media, the general public or other personnel.”

In a curious coincidence, nine days after the PCJF’s embarrassing release of FBI documents, the
New York Post ran a story about how a 27 year old woman and her “Harvard grad and Occupy
Wall Street” boyfriend, Aaron Greene, were arrested by officers from the New York City Police
Department (NYPD) after an alleged cache of weapons and bomb making explosives were found
in their Greenwich Village apartment.

And what exactly led the police to this apartment? Was it credible actionable intelligence
gathered from the FBI’s massive domestic surveillance program? Did some agent acquire this
information by bravely infiltrating the potential domestic terrorist group known as OWS? Hardly.
The NYPD was simply executing a routine search warrant related to a credit card-theft case.

But in a story about the exact same event that appeared in the New York Times, it was reported
that “police said they did not believe that Mr. Greene was active in any political movements” and
that no “evidence of a planned terrorist attack” had been found . Furthermore, police hadn’t
“made a connection to any known plot or any connection to any known terrorists.” No mention
was made of the suspect’s alleged ties to the OWS movement, an item that had been prominently
reported in the New York Post’s version of events.

Oddly, a more recent New York Post story stated that Mr. Greene was now a “Nazi-loving
Harvard grad” and a reported “Adolf Hitler-wannabe.” No mention was made of his suspected
ties to OWS. This author made several attempts to contact the New York Post, and the writers of
the 2 articles, in an effort to find out how they knew that Mr. Greene was an OWS member and
activist. Attempts were also made to try to find out if the New York Post still believed that Mr.
Greene was an active OWS member, or if they now simply thought that he was just an “Adolf
Hitler-wannabe.”

As of the writing of this article, no response has been received from the New York Post.

The FBI’s stated mission regarding America’s security is to “develop a comprehensive
understanding of the threats and penetrate national and transnational networks that have a desire
and capability to harm us.”

The American people would be far better served by their government if, instead of wasting
millions of dollars and thousands of man-hours harassing peaceful protesters, it spent a fraction
of that time and money investigating, and bringing to justice, the people responsible for the
engineered destruction of the American economy, and by extension, American society.

You know. The real terrorists.

Tom McNamara is an Assistant Professor at the ESC Rennes School of Business, France, and a
Visiting Lecturer at the French National Military Academy at Saint-Cyr, Coëtquidan, France.

Sources

“COINTELPRO: The FBI’s Covert Action Programs Against American Citizens”
Supplementary Detailed Staff Reports on Intelligence Activities and the Rights of Americans,
Book III, Final report of the Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with respect to
Intelligence Activities, United States Senate, April 23, 1976. Accessed at:

http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/cointelpro/churchfinalreportIIIa.htm

“COINTELPRO: The Untold American Story”, by Paul Wolf with contributions from Robert
Boyle, Bob Brown, Tom Burghardt, Noam Chomsky, Ward Churchill, Kathleen Cleaver, Bruce
Ellison, Cynthia McKinney, Nkechi Taifa, Laura Whitehorn, Nicholas Wilson, and Howard Zinn.
Presented to U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson at the World
Conference Against Racism in Durban, South Africa by the members of the Congressional Black
Caucus attending the conference: Donna Christianson, John Conyers, Eddie Bernice Johnson,
Barbara Lee, Sheila Jackson Lee, Cynthia McKinney, and Diane Watson, September 1, 2001.
Accessed at:

http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/cointelpro/coinwcar3.htm

“FBI Documents Reveal Secret Nationwide Occupy Monitoring” The Partnership for Civil
Justice Fund (PCJF), December 22, 2012. Accessed at:
http://www.justiceonline.org/commentary/fbi-files-ows.html

“Greenwich Village couple busted with cache of weapons, bombmaking explosives: sources” by
Jamie Schram, Antonio Antenucci and Matt McNulty, December 31, 2012, The New York Post.
Accessed at:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/bombmaking_in_the_village_LoRDqNzP02SD
ZyfC1pLVXN

“Manhattan Couple Stored Bomb-Making Items, Police Say” by Wendy Ruderman, December
31, 2012, The New York Times. Accessed at:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/01/nyregion/manhattan-couple-stored-bomb-making-items-
police-say.html?_r=2&%29&

“More About FBI Spying” The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), June 25, 2010.
Accessed at:

http://www.aclu.org/spy-files/more-about-fbi-spying

“NYC couple arrested after explosive substance find” December 31, 2012, CBS/AP. Accessed at:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57561371/nyc-couple-arrested-after-explosive-
substance-find/

“Revealed: how the FBI coordinated the crackdown on Occupy” by Naomi Wolf, December 29,
2012, The Guardian. Accessed at:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/29/fbi-coordinated-crackdown-occupy

“The Federal Bureau of Investigation – Mission” The Federal Bureau of Investigation. Accessed
at:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/intelligence/mission

“Village ‘bomber’ planned to blow up Washington Sq. Arch with high-grade explosives: cops”
by Jamie Schram and Jessica Simeone, January 10, 2013, The New York Post. Accessed at:

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/village_bomber_planned_grade_blow_seiuSwWLlcAPyGv
fDkPwDM

http://www.infowars.com/the-return-of-cointelpro/

Similar/Related Articles


   1.   The SF8, FBI Repression, and the Return of COINTELPRO
   2.   COINTELPRO 2.0
   3.   COINTELPRO Déjà Vu: FBI Recruits Informers for the RNC
   4.   Is Nico Haupt a COINTELPRO Operative?
   5.   Flashback: the New COINTELPRO
   6.   Connecticut lawmakers return to work and guns take center stage
    7. COINTELPRO Returns: My First-Hand Experience With Government Spies
    8. FBI Director’s Term Extension Ensures Neo-COINTELPRO Operations Will Prevail
    9. Is COINTELPRO Effort Underway to Sabotage Ron Paul in Iowa?
    10. Cynthia McKinney on 9/11 and COINTELPRO
    11. Wikileaks: CoIntelPro Psyop
    12. Wikileaks: Corrupted Oracle or a Cointelpro Asset of the Establishment?



www.justiceonline.org > News / Commentary



FBI Documents Reveal Secret
Nationwide Occupy Monitoring
See the released documents here

       DECEMBER 22, 2012


        •



       EMAIL


        •



       PRINT


        •



    


Issue: Free SpeechGov't Transparency
Case:

Occupy Crackdown FOIA Requests


FBI documents just obtained by the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund (PCJF) pursuant to
the PCJF’s Freedom of Information Act demands reveal that from its inception, the FBI
treated the Occupy movement as a potential criminal and terrorist threat even though the
agency acknowledges in documents that organizers explicitly called for peaceful protest
and did “not condone the use of violence” at occupy protests.

The PCJF has obtained heavily redacted documents showing that FBI offices and agents
around the country were in high gear conducting surveillance against the movement even
as early as August 2011, a month prior to the establishment of the OWS encampment in
Zuccotti Park and other Occupy actions around the country.

“This production, which we believe is just the tip of the iceberg, is a window into the
nationwide scope of the FBI’s surveillance, monitoring, and reporting on peaceful
protestors organizing with the Occupy movement,” stated Mara Verheyden-Hilliard,
Executive Director of the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund (PCJF). “These documents show
that the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security are treating protests against the
corporate and banking structure of America as potential criminal and terrorist activity.
These documents also show these federal agencies functioning as a de facto intelligence
arm of Wall Street and Corporate America.”

“The documents are heavily redacted, and it is clear from the production that the FBI is
withholding far more material. We are filing an appeal challenging this response and
demanding full disclosure to the public of the records of this operation,” stated Heather
Benno, staff attorney with the PCJF.

      As early as August 19, 2011, the FBI in New York was meeting with the New York
       Stock Exchange to discuss the Occupy Wall Street protests that wouldn’t start for
       another month. By September, prior to the start of the OWS, the FBI was notifying
       businesses that they might be the focus of an OWS protest.

      The FBI’s Indianapolis division released a “Potential Criminal Activity Alert” on
       September 15, 2011, even though they acknowledged that no specific protest date
       had been scheduled in Indiana. The documents show that the Indianapolis division
       of the FBI was coordinating with “All Indiana State and Local Law Enforcement
       Agencies,” as well as the “Indiana Intelligence Fusion Center,” the FBI “Directorate of
       Intelligence” and other national FBI coordinating mechanisms.

      Documents show the spying abuses of the FBI’s “Campus Liaison Program” in which
       the FBI in Albany and the Syracuse Joint Terrorism Task Force disseminated
       information to “sixteen (16) different campus police officials,” and then “six (6)
       additional campus police officials.” Campus officials were in contact with the FBI
       for information on OWS. A representative of the State University of New York at
    Oswego contacted the FBI for information on the OWS protests and reported to the
    FBI on the SUNY-Oswego Occupy encampment made up of students and professors.

   Documents released show coordination between the FBI, Department of Homeland
    Security and corporate America. They include a report by the Domestic Security
    Alliance Council (DSAC), described by the federal government as “a strategic
    partnership between the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security and the private
    sector,” discussing the OWS protests at the West Coast ports to “raise awareness
    concerning this type of criminal activity.” The DSAC report shows the nature of
    secret collaboration between American intelligence agencies and their corporate
    clients - the document contains a “handling notice” that the information is “meant
    for use primarily within the corporate security community. Such messages shall not
    be released in either written or oral form to the media, the general public or other
    personnel…” (The DSAC document was also obtained by the Northern California
    ACLU which has sought local FBI surveillance files.)

   Naval Criminal Investigative Services (NCIS) reported to the DSAC on the
    relationship between OWS and organized labor for the port actions. The NCIS
    describes itself as “an elite worldwide federal law enforcement organization” whose
    “mission is to investigate and defeat criminal, terrorist, and foreign intelligence
    threats to the United States Navy and Marine Corps ashore, afloat and in
    cyberspace.” The NCIS also assists with the transport of Guantanamo prisoners.

   DSAC issued several tips to its corporate clients on “civil unrest” which it defines as
    ranging from “small, organized rallies to large-scale demonstrations and rioting.” It
    advised to dress conservatively, avoid political discussions and “avoid all large
    gatherings related to civil issues. Even seemingly peaceful rallies can spur violent
    activity or be met with resistance by security forces. Bystanders may be arrested or
    harmed by security forces using water cannons, tear gas or other measures to
    control crowds.”

   The FBI in Anchorage reported from a Joint Terrorism Task Force meeting of
    November 3, 2011, about Occupy activities in Anchorage.

   A port Facility Security Officer in Anchorage coordinated with the FBI to attend the
    meeting of protestors and gain intelligence on the planning of the port actions. He
    was advised to request the presence of an Anchorage Police Department official to
    also attend the event. The FBI Special Agent told the undercover private operative
    that he would notify the Joint Terrorism Task Force and that he would provide a
    point of contact at the Anchorage Police Department.

   The Jacksonville, Florida FBI prepared a Domestic Terrorism briefing on the “spread
    of the Occupy Wall Street Movement” in October 2011. The intelligence meeting
    discussed Occupy venues identifying “Daytona, Gainesville and Ocala Resident
    Agency territories as portions …where some of the highest unemployment rates in
    Florida continue to exist.”

   The Tampa, Florida FBI “Domestic Terrorism” liaison participated with the Tampa
    Police Department’s monthly intelligence meeting in which Occupy Lakeland,
    Occupy Polk County and Occupy St. Petersburg were discussed. They reported on an
    individual “leading the Occupy Tampa” and plans for travel to Gainesville for a
    protest planning meeting, as well as on Veterans for Peace plans to protest at
    MacDill Air Force Base.

   The Federal Reserve in Richmond appears to have had personnel surveilling OWS
    planning. They were in contact with the FBI in Richmond to “pass on information
    regarding the movement known as occupy Wall Street.” There were repeated
    communications “to pass on updates of the events and decisions made during the
    small rallies and the following information received from the Capital Police
    Intelligence Unit through JTTF (Joint Terrorism Task Force).”

   The Virginia FBI was collecting intelligence on the OWS movement for dissemination
    to the Virginia Fusion Center and other Intelligence divisions.

   The Milwaukee division of the FBI was coordinating with the Ashwaubenon Public
    Safety division in Green Bay Wisconsin regarding Occupy.

   The Memphis FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force met to discuss “domestic terrorism”
    threats, including, “Aryan Nations, Occupy Wall Street, and Anonymous.”

   The Birmingham, AL division of the FBI sent communications to HAZMAT teams
    regarding the Occupy Wall Street movement.

   The Jackson, Mississippi division of the FBI attended a meeting of the Bank Security
    Group in Biloxi, MS with multiple private banks and the Biloxi Police Department, in
    which they discussed an announced protest for “National Bad Bank Sit-In-Day” on
    December 7, 2011.
      The Denver, CO FBI and its Bank Fraud Working Group met and were briefed on
       Occupy Wall Street in November 2011. Members of the Working Group include
       private financial institutions and local area law enforcement.

      Jackson, MS Joint Terrorism Task Force issued a “Counterterrorism Preparedness”
       alert. This heavily redacted document includes the description, “To document…the
       Occupy Wall Street Movement.”

You can read the FBI - OWS documents below where we have uploaded them in searchable
format for public viewing.

The PCJF filed Freedom of Information Act demands with multiple federal law enforcement
agencies in the fall of 2011 as the Occupy crackdown began. The FBI initially attempted to
limit its search to only one limited record keeping index. Recognizing this as a common
tactic used by the FBI to conduct an inadequate search, the PCJF pressed forward
demanding searches be performed of the FBI headquarters as well as FBI field offices
nationwide.

The PCJF will continue to push for public disclosure of the government’s spy files and will
release documents as they are obtained.

Click here to see the FBI documents obtained by the PCJF.

http://www.justiceonline.org/commentary/fbi-files-ows.html#documents




Greenwich Village couple
busted with cache of
weapons, bombmaking
explosives: sources
      By JAMIE SCHRAM, ANTONIO ANTENUCCI and MATT MCNULTY
      Last Updated: 6:25 AM, December 31, 2012
      Posted: 2:51 AM, December 31, 2012
The privileged daughter of a prominent city doctor, and her boyfriend — a Harvard grad and
Occupy Wall Street activist — have been busted for allegedly having a cache of weapons and a
bombmaking explosive in their Greenwich Village apartment.

Morgan Gliedman — who is nine-months pregnant — and her baby daddy, Aaron Greene, 31,
also had instructions on making bombs, including a stack of papers with a cover sheet titled,
“The Terrorist Encyclopedia,’’ sources told The Post yesterday.

People who know Greene say his political views are “extreme,” the sources said.




Morgan Gliedman




Susyn Schops Gliedman
Paul Gliedman




                                                                                                          William Farrington
Morgan Gliedman, daughter of Realtor Susyn Schops Gliedman and prominent doctor Paul Gliedman, was busted at this building
with her OWS boyfriend
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/bombmaking_in_the_village_LoRDqNzP02SDZyfC1pLVXN




Manhattan Couple Stored Bomb-Making Items, Police Say
    By WENDY RUDERMAN


    Published: December 31, 2012

    Inside their Greenwich Village apartment, a young couple spent December preparing for a
    baby.

    Related
   City Room: Mystery Powder Leads to Evacuations in Greenwich Village(December 29, 2012)
    Connect with NYTMetro




    Follow us on Twitter and like us on Facebook for news and conversation.

    Morgan Gliedman, 27, the daughter of a prominent New York City oncologist, was nine
    months pregnant, and her boyfriend, Aaron Greene, 31, son of the president of an acclaimed
    artwork-restoration business, was excited about the birth of his first child, a relative said.

    But on Saturday, police investigators searched the couple’s apartment on West Ninth Street
    and found what appeared to be ingredients for a bomb, as well as weapon-making guides,
    the authorities said.

    They confiscated seven grams of a chemical called hexamethylene triperoxide diamine, or
    HMTD, an explosive. The discovery prompted the police to evacuate the building as a
    precaution.

    “This is a serious explosive used in terrorists’ attacks previously,” Paul J. Browne, the Police
    Department’s chief spokesman, said on Monday. “We have not yet determined why Greene
    had them in his possession.”

    Mr. Browne stressed that investigators had not found evidence of a planned terrorist attack.

    Mr. Greene and Ms. Gliedman were charged with criminal possession of a loaded firearm
    and criminal possession of an explosive substance.

    The location of the apartment in Greenwich Village recalled the 1970 explosion in a nearby
    town house caused by a bomb being assembled by the Weather Underground movement.

    But the police said they did not believe that Mr. Greene was active in any political
    movements.
Investigators found the explosive powder in a plastic container. In a bedroom, they
discovered a sawed-off, 12-gauge Mossberg 500 shotgun, a 12-gauge Ruger over-under
shotgun and 60 shotgun shells. Investigators also found a flare launcher, described by the
police as “a commercially available replica of a M203 grenade launcher,” four flares and
nine high-capacity rifle magazines, according to Mr. Browne and a criminal complaint filed
by the Manhattan district attorney.

Then there were stacks of literature: several United States Army field manuals and do-it-
yourself instructions for making bombs, booby traps and deadly homemade weapons.

“It’s an ongoing investigation that aroused our concerns, obviously, because of the weapons,
including the explosives, and the material found in the apartment, including these
handbooks involving weapons of mass killing,” Mr. Browne said. “What it means is still
unknown.”

“We haven’t made a connection to any known plot or any connection to any known
terrorists,” Mr. Browne said.

Mr. Browne described Mr. Greene and Ms. Gliedman as “admitted heroin addicts.”

He said investigators searched the apartment after a tip from someone who had been inside.

Ms. Gliedman was at a hospital Monday after giving birth, the police said.

Ms. Gliedman’s father, Paul Gliedman, is director of radiation oncology at Beth Israel
Hospital Medical Center in Brooklyn. Her mother, Susyn Schops Gliedman, is a real estate
agent.

Reached by phone, Ms. Schops Gliedman said her daughter was being unfairly blamed.

“He’s trying to pin it all on her,” she said, referring to Mr. Greene.

Mr. Greene’s lawyer, Lisa J. Pelosi, declined to comment.

Alain Delaquérière contributed reporting.

A version of this article appeared in print on January 1, 2013, on page A16 of the New York edition with the headline:
Manhattan Couple Stored Bomb-Making Items, Police Say.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/01/nyregion/manhattan-couple-stored-bomb-making-items-police-
say.html?_r=3&%29&
December 29, 2012, 6:12 pmComment


Mystery Powder Leads to Evacuations in
Greenwich Village
By COLIN MOYNIHAN and JULIE TURKEWITZ




                                                                             Hiroko Masuike/The
New York TimesThe bomb squad investigated an apartment on 8 West Ninth Street after narcotics
detectives, who were there executing a search warrant, found explosive powder.

A search for narcotics in a Greenwich Village apartment on Saturday morning led to a call to the
bomb squad and evacuations after detectives discovered explosive powder, the police said.

Members of the narcotics squad, who had executed a search warrant in the apartment building, at
8 West Ninth Street, were told by someone in the apartment that the powder was “some sort of
organic explosive,” a police official said.

The police official said that it did not appear that the powder was being used to make a bomb. It
was removed by the bomb squad, and it was unclear exactly what the substance was.
The police official added that two guns were also removed from the apartment and that charges
in the case were pending.

Still, police tape stretched across sidewalks and parts of the street on Saturday morning, sealing
off the block of Ninth Street, near Fifth Avenue, where the powder had been found.

Jennifer Han, 31, said that she woke up shortly after 7 a.m. and saw several police officers
banging on the windows of buildings on the south side of the block and evacuating people.
Officers later allowed those who could prove that they lived or worked on the block to duck
beneath the tape.

As snow began to fall, some people walking up and down Fifth Avenue stopped to gaze at the
police vehicles on the block and the officers posted near the tape, an unusual scene in an area
filled with elegant brick town houses.

“It’s totally not normal,” said Scott Adams, a psychologist who was escorted beyond the tape
and into his office by police officers about 10:30 a.m. “There’s very little crime here.”

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/29/mystery-powder-leads-to-evacuations-in-greenwich-
village/




Village 'bomber' planned to blow up Washington
Sq. Arch with high-grade explosives: cops
      By JAMIE SCHRAM and JESSICA SIMEONE
      Last Updated: 4:04 PM, January 10, 2013
      Posted: 11:14 AM, January 10, 2013


The Nazi-loving Harvard grad busted with bomb-making materials in his Greenwich Village
apartment was planning to blow up the Washington Square Arch with high-grade explosives,
police officials said.

Aaron Greene, 31, who was indicted last week on felony charges of possessing explosives and
firearms, was seen sprinkling the combustible powder on the sidewalk in Washington Square
Park and hitting it with a rock, causing an explosion, friends told NYPD investigators.

Police suspect the material to be hexamethylene triperoxide diamine (HMTD), which was
discovered along with shotguns and ammo in the Ninth Street apartment Greene shared with
his girlfriend, Morgan Gliedman. Gliedman, a Dalton graduate who gave birth to Greene's child
shortly thereafter, was also arrested during the raid on Dec. 30.
                                                                                 Steven Hirsch
Aaron Greene




                                                                                      NYPost
The Washington Arch

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/village_bomber_planned_grade_blow_seiuSwWLlcAPyGvfDkPw
DM




   Get FBI Updates
Home • About Us • Directorate of Intelligence • Mission


Mission
                                               Mission

The FBI’s national security mission is to lead and coordinate intelligence efforts that drive
actions to protect the United States.

Our goal is to develop a comprehensive understanding of the threats and penetrate national and
transnational networks that have a desire and capability to harm us. Such networks include:
terrorist organizations, foreign intelligence services, those that seek to proliferate weapons of
mass destruction, and criminal enterprises.

In order to be successful, we must understand the threat, continue to integrate our intelligence
and law enforcement capabilities in every FBI operational program, and continue to expand our
contribution to the Intelligence Community knowledge base.

Because national security and criminal threats are often intertwined, our ability to integrate
intelligence and investigations makes us uniquely situated to address our nation’s threats and
vulnerabilities.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/intelligence/mission




                     SUPPLEMENTARY DETAILED STAFF REPORTS
                       ON INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES AND THE
                              RIGHTS OF AMERICANS

                                              _______

                                             BOOK III
                                              _______


                                         FINAL REPORT

                                               OF THE

                                  SELECT COMMITTEE
                         TO STUDY GOVERNMENTAL OPERATIONS

                                         WITH RESPECT TO

                                  INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES
                                   UNITED STATES SENATE



                        APRIL 23 (under authority of the order of April 14), 1976




 COINTELPRO: THE FBI'S COVERT ACTION PROGRAMS AGAINST AMERICAN
                             CITIZENS



                            I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY


COINTELPRO is the FBI acronym for a series of covert action programs directed against
domestic groups. In these programs, the Bureau went beyond the collection of intelligence to
secret action defined to "disrupt" and "neutralize" target groups and individuals. The techniques
were adopted wholesale from wartime counterintelligence, and ranged from the trivial (mailing
reprints of Reader's Digest articles to college administrators) to the degrading (sending
anonymous poison-pen letters intended to break up marriages) and the dangerous (encouraging
gang warfare and falsely labeling members of a violent group as police informers).

This report is based on a staff study of more than 20,000 pages of Bureau documents, depositions
of many of the Bureau agents involved in the programs, and interviews of several
COINTELPRO targets. The examples selected for discussion necessarily represent a small
percentage of the more than 2,000 approved COINTELPRO actions. Nevertheless, the cases
demonstrate the consequences of a Government agency's decision to take the law into its own
hands for the "greater good" of the country.

COINTELPRO began in 1956, in part because of frustration with Supreme Court rulings limiting
the Government's power to proceed overtly against dissident groups; it ended in 1971 with the
threat of public exposure. 1 In the intervening 15 years, the Bureau conducted a sophisticated
vigilante operation aimed squarely at preventing the exercise of First Amendment rights of
speech and association, on the theory that preventing the growth of dangerous groups and the
propagation of dangerous ideas would protect the national security and deter violence. 2

Many of the techniques used would be intolerable in a democratic society even if all of the
targets had been involved in violent activity, but COINTELPRO went far beyond that. The
unexpressed major premise of the programs was that a law enforcement agency has the duty to
do whatever is necessary to combat perceived threats to the existing social and political order.

A. "Counterintelligence Program": A Misnomer for Domestic Covert Action
COINTELPRO is an acronym for "counterintelligence program."

Counterintelligence is defined as those actions by an intelligence agency intended to protect its
own security and to undermine hostile intelligence operations. Under COINTELPRO certain
techniques the Bureau had used against hostile foreign agents were adopted for use against
perceived domestic threats to the established political and social order. The formal programs
which incorporated these techniques were, therefore, also called "counterintelligence." 2a

"Covert action" is, however, a more accurate term for the Bureau's programs directed against
American citizens. "Covert action" is the label applied to clandestine activities intended to
influence political choices and social values. 3

B. Who Were the Targets?

1. The Five Targeted Groups

The Bureau's covert action programs were aimed at five perceived threats to domestic tranquility:
the "Communist Party, USA" program (1956-71) ; the "Socialist Workers Party" program (1961-
69) ; the "White Hate Group" program (1964-71) ; the "Black Nationalist-Hate Group" program
(1967-71) ; and the "New Left" program (1968-71).

2. Labels Without Meaning

The Bureau's titles for its programs should not be accepted uncritically. They imply a precision
of definition and of targeting which did not exist.

Even the names of the later programs had no clear definition. The Black Nationalist program,
according to its supervisor, included "a great number of organizations that you might not today
characterize as black nationalist but which were in fact primarily black." 3a Indeed, the
nonviolent Southern Christian Leadership Conference was labeled as a Black Nationalist "Hate
Group.'' 4 Nor could anyone at the Bureau even define "New Left," except as "more or less an
attitude." 5

Furthermore, the actual targets were chosen from a far broader group than the names of the
programs would imply. The CPUSA program targeted not only Party members but also sponsors
of the National Committee to Abolish the House Un-American Activities Committee 6 and civil
rights leaders allegedly under Communist influence or simply not "anti-Communist." 7 The
Socialist Workers Party program included non-SWP sponsors of antiwar demonstrations which
were cosponsored by the SWP or the Young Socialist Alliance, its youth group. 8 The Black
Nationalist program targeted a range of organizations from the Panthers to SNCC to the peaceful
Southern Christian Leadership Conference, 9 and included most black student groups. 10 New
Left targets ranged from the SDS 11 to the Interuniversity Committee for Debate on Foreign
Policy, 12 from all of Antioch College ("vanguard of the New Left") 13 to the New Mexico Free
University 14 and other "alternate" schools, 15 and from underground newspapers 16 to students
protesting university censorship of a student publication by carrying signs with four-letter words
on them. 17
C. What Were the Purposes of COINTELPRO?

The breadth of targeting and lack of substantive content in the descriptive titles of the programs
reflect the range of motivations for COINTELPRO activity: protecting national security,
preventing violence, and maintaining the existing social and political order by "disrupting" and
"neutralizing" groups and individuals perceived as threats.

1. Protecting National Security

The first COINTELPRO, against the CPUSA, was instituted to counter what the Bureau believed
to be a threat to the national security. As the chief of the COINTELPRO unit explained it:

We were trying first to develop intelligence so we would know what they were doing [and]
second, to contain the threat.... To stop the spread of communism, to stop the effectiveness of the
Communist Party as a vehicle of Soviet intelligence, propaganda and agitation. 17a

Had the Bureau stopped there, perhaps the term "counterintelligence" would have been an
accurate label for the program. The expansion of the CPUSA program to non-Communists,
however, and the addition of subsequent programs, make it clear that other purposes were also at
work.

2. Preventing Violence

One of these purposes was the prevention of violence. Every Bureau witness deposed stated that
the purpose of the particular program or programs with which he was associated was to deter
violent acts by the target groups, although the witnesses differed in their assessment of how
successful the programs were in achieving that goal. The preventive function was not, however,
intended to be a product of specific proposals directed at specific criminal acts. Rather, the
programs were aimed at groups which the Bureau believed to be violent or to have the potential
for violence.

The programs were to prevent violence by deterring membership in the target groups, even if
neither the particular member nor the group was violent at the time. As the supervisor of the
Black Nationalist COINTELPRO put it, "Obviously you are going to prevent violence or a
greater amount of violence if you have smaller groups." (Black Nationalist supervisor deposition,
10/17/75, p. 24.) The COINTELPRO unit chief agreed: "We also made an effort to deter or
counteract the propaganda ... and to deter recruitment where we could. This was done with the
view that if we could curb the organization, we could curb the action or the violence within the
organization." 17b In short, the programs were to prevent violence indirectly, rather than directly,
by preventing possibly violent citizens from joining or continuing to associate with possibly
violent groups. 18

The prevention of violence, is clearly not, in itself, an improper purpose; preventing violence is
the ultimate goal of most law enforcement. Prosecution and sentencing are intended to deter
future criminal behavior, not only of the subject but also of others who might break the law. In
that sense, law enforcement legitimately attempts the indirect prevention of possible violence
and, if the methods used are proper, raises no constitutional issues. When the government goes
beyond traditional law enforcement methods, however, and attacks group membership and
advocacy, it treads on ground forbidden to it by the Constitution. In Brandenberg v. Ohio, 395
U.S. 444 (1969), the Supreme Court held that the government is not permitted to "forbid or
proscribe advocacy of the use of force or law violation except where such advocacy is directed
toward inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such
action." In the absence of such clear and present danger, the government cannot act against
speech nor, presumably, against association.

3. Maintaining the Existing Social and Political Order

Protecting national security and preventing violence are the purposes advanced by the Bureau for
COINTELPRO. There is another purpose for COINTELPRO which is not explicit but which
offers the only explanation for those actions which had no conceivable rational relationship to
either national security or violent activity. The unexpressed major premise of much of
COINTELPRO is that the Bureau has a role in maintaining the existing social order, and that its
efforts should be aimed toward combating those who threaten that order. 19

The "New Left" COINTELPRO presents the most striking example of this attitude. As discussed
earlier, the Bureau did not define the term "New Left," and the range of targets went far beyond
alleged "subversives" or "extremists." Thus, for example, two student participants in a "free
speech" demonstration were targeted because they defended the use of the classic four-letter-
word. Significantly, they were made COINTELPRO subjects even though the demonstration
"does not appear to be inspired by the New Left" because it "shows obvious disregard for
decency and established morality." 20 In another case, reprints of a newspaper article entitled
"Rabbi in Vietnam Says Withdrawal Not the Answer" were mailed to members of the Vietnam
Day Committee "to convince [them] of the correctness of the U.S. foreign policy in Vietnam." 21
Still another document weighs against the "liberal press and the bleeding hearts and the forces on
the left" which were "taking advantage of the situation in Chicago surrounding the Democratic
National Convention to attack the police and organized law enforcement agencies." 22
Upholding decency and established morality, defending the correctness of U.S. foreign policy,
and attacking those who thought the Chicago police used undue force have no apparent
connection with the expressed goals of protecting national security and preventing violence.
These documents, among others examined, compel the conclusion that Federal law enforcement
officers looked upon themselves as guardians of the status quo. The attitude should not be a
surprise; the difficulty lies in the choice of weapons.

D. What Techniques Were Used?

1. The Techniques of Wartime

Under the COINTELPRO programs, the -rsenal of techniques used against foreign espionage
agents was transferred to domestic enemies. As William C. Sullivan, former Assistant to the
Director, put it,
This is a rough, tough, dirty business, and dangerous. It was dangerous at times. No holds were
barred.... We have used [these techniques] against Soviet agents. They have used [them] against
us. . . . [The same methods were] brought home against any organization against which we were
targeted. We did not differentiate. This is a rough, tough business. 23

Mr. Sullivan's description -- rough, tough, and dirty -- is accurate. In the course of
COINTELPRO's fifteen-year history, a number of individual actions may have violated specific
criminal statutes; 24 a number of individual actions involved risk of serious bodily injury or
death to the targets (at least four assaults were reported as "results" ; 25 and a number of actions,
while not illegal or dangerous, can only be described as "abhorrent in a free Society." 26 On the
other hand, many of the actions were more silly than repellent.

The Bureau approved 2,370 separate counterintelligence actions. 27 Their techniques ranged
from anonymously mailing reprints of newspaper and magazine articles (sometimes Bureau-
authored or planted) to group members or supporters to convince them of the error of their ways,
28 to mailing anonymous letters to a member's spouse accusing the target of infidelity ; 29 from
using informants to raise controversial issues at meetings in order to cause dissent, 30 to the
"snitch jacket" (falsely labeling a group member as an informant) 31 and encouraging street
warfare between violent groups ; 32 from contacting members of a "legitimate group to expose
the alleged subversive background of a fellow member 33 to contacting an employer to get a
target fired; 34 from attempting to arrange for reporters to interview targets with planted
questions, 35 to trying to stop targets from speaking at all ; 36 from notifying state and local
authorities of a target's criminal law violations, 37 to using the IRS to audit a professor, not just
to collect any taxes owing, but to distract him from his political activities. 38

2. Techniques Carrying A Serious Risk of Physical, Emotional, or Economic Damage.

The Bureau recognized that some techniques were more likely than others to cause serious
physical, emotional, or economic damage to the targets. Any proposed use of those techniques
was scrutinized carefully by headquarters supervisory personnel, in an attempt to balance the
"greater good" to be achieved by the proposal against the known or risked harm to the target. If
the "good" was sufficient, the proposal was approved. 39 For instance, in discussing anonymous
letters to spouses, the agent who supervised the New Left COINTELPRO stated:

[Before recommending approval] I would want to know what you want to get out of this, who
are these people. If it's somebody, and say they did split up, what would accrue from it as far as
disrupting the New Left is concerned? Say they broke up, what then....

[The question would be] is it worth it? 39a

Similarly, with regard to the "snitch jacket" technique -- falsely labeling a group member as a
police informant -- the chief of the Racial Intelligence Section stated:

You have to be able to make decisions and I am sure that labeling somebody as an informant,
that you'd want to make certain that it served a good purpose before you did it and not do it
haphazardly. . . . It is a serious thing. . . . As far as I am aware, in the black extremist area, by
using that technique, no one was killed. I am sure of that. 40

Moore was asked whether the fact that no one was killed was the result of "luck or planning." He
answered:

"Oh, it just happened that way, I am sure." 41

It is thus clear that, as Sullivan said, "No holds were barred, 42 although some holds were
weighed more carefully than others. When the willingness to use techniques which were
concededly dangerous or harmful to the targets is combined with the range of purposes and
criteria by which these targets were chosen, the result is neither "within bounds" nor "justified"
in a free society. 43

E. Legal Restrictions Were Ignored

What happened to turn a law enforcement agency into a law violator? Why do those involved
still believe their actions were not only defensible, but right? 44

The answers to these questions are found in a combination of factors: the availability of
information showing the targets' vulnerability gathered through the unrestrained collection of
domestic intelligence; the belief both within and without the Bureau that it could handle any
problem; and frustration with the apparent inability of traditional law enforcement methods to
solve the problems presented.

There is no doubt that Congress and the public looked to the Bureau for protection against
domestic and foreign threats. As the COINTELPRO unit chief stated:

At this time [the mid-1950s] there was a general philosophy too, the general attitude of the
public at this time was you did not have to worry about Communism because the FBI would take
care of it. Leave it to the FBI.

I hardly know an agent who would ever go to a social affair or something, if he were introduced
as FBI, the comment would be, "we feel very good because we know you are handling the
threat." We were handling the threat with what directives and statutes were available. There did
not seem to be any strong interest of anybody to give us stronger or better defined statutes. 45

Not only was no one interested in giving the Bureau better statutes (nor, for that matter, did the
Bureau request them), but the Supreme Court drastically narrowed the scope of the statutes
available. The Bureau personnel involved trace the institution of the first formal
counterintelligence program to the Supreme Court reversal of the Smith Act convictions. The
unit chief testified:

The Supreme Court rulings had rendered the Smith Act technically unenforceable.... It made it
ineffective to prosecute Communist Party members, made it impossible to prosecute Communist
Party members at the time. 46
This belief in the failure of law enforcement produced the subsequent COINTELPROs as well.
The unit chief continued:

The other COINTELPRO programs were opened as the threat arose in areas of extremism and
subversion and there were not adequate statutes to proceed against the organization or to prevent
their activities. 47

Every Bureau witness deposed agreed that his particular COINTELPRO was the result of
tremendous pressure on the Bureau to do something about a perceived threat, coupled with the
inability of law enforcement techniques to cope with the situation, either because there were no
pertinent federal statutes, 48 or because local law enforcement efforts were stymied by
indifference or the refusal of those in charge to call the police.

Outside pressure and law enforcement frustration do not, of course, fully explain COINTELPRO.
Perhaps, after all, the best explanation was proffered by George C. Moore, the Racial
Intelligence Section chief:

The FBI's counterintelligence program came up because there was a point -- if you have anything
in the FBI, you have an action-oriented group of people who see something happening and want
to do something to take its place. 49

F. Command and Control

1. 1956-71

While that "action-oriented group of people" was proceeding with fifteen years of
COINTELPRO activities, where were those responsible for the supervision and control of the
Bureau? Part of the answer lies in the definition of "covert action"-- clandestine activities. No
one outside the Bureau was supposed to know that COINTELPRO existed. Even within the
Bureau, the programs were handled on a "need-to-know" basis.

Nevertheless, the Bureau has supplied the Committee with documents which support its
contention that various Attorneys General, advisors to Presidents, members of the House
Appropriations Subcommittee, and, in 1958, the Cabinet were at least put on notice of the
existence of the CPUSA and White Hate COINTELPROs. The Bureau cannot support its claim
that anyone outside the FBI was informed of the existence of the Socialist Workers Party, Black
Nationalist, or New Left COINTELPROs, and even those letters or briefings which referred
(usually indirectly) to the CPUSA and White Hate COINTELPROs failed to mention the use of
techniques which risked physical, emotional, or economic damage to their targets. In any event,
there is no record that any of these officials asked to know more, and none of them appears to
have expressed disapproval based on the information they were given.

As the history of the Domestic Intelligence Division shows, the absence of disapproval has been
interpreted by the Bureau as sufficient authorization to continue an activity (and occasionally,
even express disapproval has not sufficed to stop a practice). Perhaps, however, the crux of the
"command and control" problem lies in the testimony by one former Attorney General that he
was too busy to know what the Bureau was doing, 50 and by another that, as a matter of political
reality, he could not have stopped it anyway. 51

2. Post-1971

Whether the Attorney General can control the Bureau is still an open question. The Peterson
Committee, which was formed within the Justice Department to investigate COINTELPRO at
Attorney General Saxbe's request, worked only with Bureau-prepared summaries of the
COINTELPRO files. 52 Further, the fact that the Department of Justice must work with the
Bureau on a day-to-day basis may influence the Department's judgment on Bureau activities. 53

G. Termination

If COINTELPRO had been a short-lived aberration, the thorny problems of motivation,
techniques, and control presented might be safely relegated to history. However, COINTELPRO
existed for years on an "ad hoc" basis before the formal programs were instituted, and more
significantly, COINTELPRO-type activities may continue today under the rubric of
"investigation."

1. The Grey Area Between Counterintelligence and Investigation

The word "counterintelligence" had no fixed meaning even before the programs were terminated.
The Bureau witnesses agreed that there is a large grey area between "counterintelligence" and
"aggressive investigation," and that, headquarters supervisors sometimes had difficulty in
deciding which caption should go on certain proposals. 54

Aggressive investigation continues, and may be even more disruptive than covert action. An
anonymous letter (COINTELPRO) can be ignored as the work of a crank; an overt approach by
the Bureau ("investigation") is not so easily dismissed. 55 The line between information
collection and harassment can be extremely thin.

2. Is COINTELPRO Continuing?

COINTELPRO-type activities which are clearly not within the "grey area" between
COINTELPRO and investigation have continued on at least three occasions. Although all
COINTELPROs were officially terminated "for security reasons" on April 27, 1971, the
documents discontinuing the program provided:

In exceptional circumstances where it is considered counterintelligence action is warranted,
recommendations should be submitted to the Bureau under the individual case caption to which
it pertains. These recommendations will be considered on an individual basis. 56

The Committee requested that the Bureau provide it with a list of any "COINTELPRO-type"
actions Since April 28,1971. The Bureau first advised the Committee that a review failed to
develop any information indicating post termination COINTELPRO activity. Subsequently, the
Bureau located and furnished to the Committee two instances of COINTELPRO-type operations.
57 The Committee has discovered a third instance; four months after COINTELPRO was
terminated, information on an attorney's political background was furnished to friendly
newspaper sources under the so-called "Mass Media Program," intended to discredit both the
attorney and his client. 58

The Committee has not been able to determine with any greater precision the extent to which
COINTELPRO may be continuing. Any proposals to initiate COINTELPRO-type action would
be filed under the individual case caption. The Bureau has over 500,000 case files, and each one
would have to be searched. In this context, it should be noted that a Bureau search of all field
office COINTELPRO files revealed the existence of five operations in addition to those known
to the Petersen committee. 59 A search of all investigative files might be similarly productive.

3. The Future of COINTELPRO

Attitudes within and without the Bureau demonstrate a continued belief by some that covert
action against American citizens is permissible if the need for it is strong enough. When the
Petersen Committee report on COINTELPRO was released, Director Kelley responded, "For the
FBI to have done less under the circumstances would have been an abdication of its
responsibilities to the American people." He also restated his "feeling that the FBI's
counterintelligence programs had an impact on the crises of the time and, therefore, that they
helped to bring about a favorable change in this country." 60 In his testimony before the Select
Committee, Director Kelley continued to defend COINTELPRO, albeit with some reservations:

What I said then, in 1974, and what I believe today, is that the FBI employees involved in these
programs did what they felt was expected of them by the President, the Attorney General, the
Congress, and the people of the United States. . . .

Our concern over whatever abuses occurred in the Counterintelligence Programs, and there were
some substantial ones, should not obscure the underlying purpose of those programs.

We must recognize that situations have occurred in the past and will arise in the future where the
Government may well be expected to depart from its traditional role, in the FBI's case, as an
investigative and intelligence-gathering agency, and take affirmative steps which are needed to
meet an imminent threat to human life or property. 62

Nor is the Director alone in his belief that faced with sufficient threat, covert disruption is
justified. The Department of Justice promulgated tentative guidelines for the Bureau which
would have permitted the Attorney General to authorize "preventive action" where there is a
substantial possibility that violence will occur and "prosecution is impracticable." Although
those guidelines have now been dropped, the principle has not been rejected.


                           II. THE FIVE DOMESTIC PROGRAMS

A. Origins
The origins of COINTELPRO are rooted in the Bureau's jurisdiction to investigate hostile
foreign intelligence activities on American soil. Counterintelligence, of course, goes beyond
investigation; it is affirmative action taken to neutralize hostile agents.

The Bureau believed its wartime counterattacks on foreign agents to be effective -- and what
works against one enemy will work against another. In the atmosphere of the Cold War, the
American Communist Party was viewed as a deadly threat to national security.

In 1956, the Bureau decided that a formal counterintelligence program, coordinated from
headquarters, would be an effective weapon in the fight against Communism. The first
COINTELPRO was therefore initiated. 63

The CPUSA COINTELPRO accounted for more than half of all approved proposals. 64 The
Bureau personnel involved believed that the success of the program -- one action was described
as "the most effective single blow ever dealt the organized communist movement" -- made
counterintelligence techniques the weapons of choice whenever the Bureau assessed a new and,
in its view, equally serious threat to the country.

As noted earlier, law enforcement frustration also played a part in the origins of each
COINTELPRO. In each case, Bureau witnesses testified that the lack of adequate statutes,
uncooperative or ineffective local police, or restrictive court rulings had made it impossible to
use traditional law enforcement methods against the targeted groups.

Additionally, a certain amount of empire building may have been at work. Under William C.
Sullivan, the Domestic Intelligence Division greatly expanded its jurisdiction. Klan matters were
transferred in 1964 to the Intelligence Division from the General Investigative Division; black
nationalist groups were added in 1967; and, just as the Old Left appeared to be dying out, 66 the
New Left was gradually added to the work of the Division's Internal Security Section in the late
1960s.

Finally, it is significant that the five domestic COINTELPROs were started against the five
groups which were the subject of intensified investigative programs. Of course, the fact that such
intensive investigative programs were started at all reflects the Bureau's process of threat
assessment: the greater the threat, the more need to know about it (intelligence) and the more
impetus to counter it (covert action). More important, however, the mere existence of the
additional information gained through the investigative programs inevitably demonstrated those
particular organizational or personal weaknesses which were vulnerable to disruption.
COINTELPRO demonstrates the dangers inherent in the overbroad collection of domestic
intelligence; when information is available, it can be -- and was -- improperly used.

B. The Programs

Before examining each program in detail, some general observations may be useful. Each of the
five domestic COINTELPROs had certain traits in common. As noted above, each program used
techniques learned from the Bureau's wartime efforts against hostile foreign agents. Each sprang
from frustration with the perceived inability of law enforcement to deal with what the Bureau
believed to be a serious threat to the country. Each program depended on an intensive
intelligence effort to provide the information used to disrupt the target groups.

The programs also differ to some extent. The White Hate program, for example, was very
precisely targeted; each of the other programs spread to a number of groups which do not appear
to fall within any clear parameters. 67 In fact, with each subsequent COINTELPRO, the
targeting became more diffuse.

The White Hate COINTELPRO also used comparatively few techniques which carried a risk of
serious physical, emotional, or economic damage to the targets, while the Black Nationalist
COINTELPRO used such techniques extensively. The New Left COINTELPRO, on the other
hand, had the highest proportion of proposals aimed at preventing the exercise of free speech.
Like the progression in targeting, the use of dangerous, degrading, or blatantly unconstitutional
techniques also appears to have become less restrained with each subsequent program.

1. CPUSA. -- The first official COINTELPRO program, against the Communist Party, USA, was
started in August 1956 with Director Hoover's approval. Although the formal program was
instituted in 1956, COINTELPRO-type activities had gone on for years. The memorandum
recommending the program refers to prior actions, constituting "harassment," which were
generated by the field during the course of the Bureau's investigation of the Communist Party."
These prior actions were instituted on all ad hoc basis as the opportunity arose. As Sullivan
testified, "[Before 1956] we were engaged in COINTELPRO tactics, divide, confuse, weaken in
diverse ways, all organization. . . . [Before 1956] it, was more sporadic. It depended on a given
office. . . ." 69

In 1956, a series of field conferences was held to discuss the development of new security
informants. The Smith Act trials and related proceedings had exposed over 100 informants,
leaving the Bureau's intelligence apparatus in some disarray. During the field conferences, a
formal counterintelligence program was recommended, partly because of the gaps in the
informant ranks. 70

Since the Bureau had evidence that until the late 1940s the CPUSA had been "blatantly"
involved in Soviet espionage, and believed that the Soviets were continuing to use the Party for
"political and intelligence purposes," 71 there was no clear line of demarcation in the Bureau's
switch from foreign to domestic counterintelligence. The initial areas of concentration were the
use of informants to capitalize on the conflicts within the Party over Nikita Khrushchev's
denunciation of Stalin; to prevent the CP's efforts to take over (via a merger) a broad-based
socialist group; to encourage the Socialist Workers Party in its attacks on the CP; and to use the
IRS to investigate underground CP members who either failed to file, or filed under false names.

As the program proceeded, other targets and techniques were developed, but until 1960 the
CPUSA targets were Party members, and the techniques were aimed at the Party organization
(factionalism, public exposure, etc.)

2. The 1960 Expansion. -- In March 1960, CPUSA COINTELPRO field offices received a
directive to intensify counterintelligence efforts to prevent Communist infiltration
("COMINFIL") of mass organizations, ranging from the NAACP 72 to a local scout troop. 73
The usual technique would be to tell a leader of the organization about the alleged Communist in
its midst, the target, of course, being the alleged Communist rather than the organization. In an
increasing number of cases, however, both the alleged Communist and the organization were
targeted, usually by planting a news article about Communists active in the organization. For
example, a newsman was given information about Communist participation in a SANE march,
with the express purpose being to discredit SANE as well as the participants, and another
newspaper was alerted to plans of Bettina Aptheker to join a United Farm Workers picket line.
74 The 1960 "COMINFIL" memorandum marks the beginning of the slide from targeting CP
members to those allegedly under CP "influence" (such civil right's leaders as Martin Luther
King, Jr.) to "fellow travelers" (those, taking positions supported by the Communists, such as
school integration, increased minority hiring, and opposition to HUAC.) 75

3. Socialist Workers Party. -- The Socialist Workers Party ("SWP") COINTELPRO program was
initiated on October 12, 1961, by the headquarters supervisor handling the SWP desk (but with
Hoover's concurrence) apparently on a theory of even-handed treatment: if the Bureau has a
program against the CP, it was only fair to have one against the Trotskyites. (The COINTELPRO
unit chief, in response to a question about why the Bureau targeted the SWP in view of the fact
that the SWP's hostility to the Communist Party had been useful in disrupting the CPUSA,
answered, "I do not think that the Bureau discriminates against subversive organizations.") 76

The program was not given high priority -- only 45 actions were approved -- and was
discontinued in 1969, two years before the other four programs ended. (The SWP program was
then subsumed in the New Left COINTELPRO.) Nevertheless, it marks an important departure
from the CPUSA COINTELPRO: although the-SWP had contacts with foreign Trotskyite groups,
there was no evidence that the SWP was involved in espionage. These were, in C. D. Brennans
phrase, "home grown tomatoes." 77 The Bureau has conceded that the SWP has never been
engaged in organizational violence, nor has it taken any criminal steps toward overthrowing the
country. 78

Nor does the Bureau claim the SWP was engaged in revolutionary acts. The Party was targeted
for its rhetoric; significantly, the originating letter points to the SWPs "open" espousal of its line,
"through running candidates for public office" and its direction and/or support of "such causes as
Castro's Cuba and integration problems arising in the South." Further, the American people had
to be alerted to the fact that "the SWP is not just another socialist group but follows the
revolutionary principles of Marx, Lenin, and Engles as interpreted by Leon Trotsky." 79

Like the CPUSA COINTELPRO, non-Party members were also targeted, particularly when the
SWP and the Young Socialist Alliance (the SWP's youth group) started to co-sponsor antiwar
marches. 80

4. White Hate. -- The Klan COINTELPRO began on July 30, 1964, with the transfer of the
"responsibility for development of informants and gathering of intelligence on the KKK and
other hate groups" from the General Investigative Division to the Domestic Intelligence Division.
The memorandum recommending the reorganization also suggested that, "counterintelligence
and disruption tactics be given further study by DID and appropriate recommendations made."
81

Accordingly, on September 2, 1964, a directive was sent to seventeen field offices instituting a
COINTELPRO against Klan-type and hate organizations "to expose, disrupt, and otherwise
neutralize the activities of the various Klans and hate organizations, their leadership, and
adherents." 82 Seventeen Klan organizations and nine "hate" organizations (e.g., American Nazi
Party, National States Rights Party, etc.) were listed as targets. The field offices were also
instructed specifically to consider "Action Groups" -- "the relatively few individuals in each
organization who use strong arm tactics and violent actions to achieve their ends." 83 However,
counterintelligence proposals were not to be limited to these few, but were to include any
influential member if the opportunity arose. As the unit chief stated:

The emphasis was on determining the identity and exposing and neutralizing the violence prone
activities of "Action Groups," but also it was important to expose the unlawful activities of other
Klan organizations. We also made an effort to deter or counteract the propaganda and to deter
violence and to deter recruitment where we could. This was done with the view that if we could
curb the organization, we could curb the action or the violence within the organization. 84

The White Hate COINTELPRO appears to have been limited, with few exceptions, 85 to the
original named targets. No "legitimate" right wing organizations were drawn into the program, in
contrast with the earlier spread of the CPUSA and SWP programs to non members. This
precision has been attributed by the Bureau to the superior intelligence on "hate" groups received
by excellent informant penetration.

Bureau witnesses believe the Klan program to have been highly effective. The unit chief stated:

I think the Bureau got the job done.. I think that one reason we were able to get the job done was
that we were able to use counterintelligence techniques. It is possible that we eventually could
have done the job without counterintelligence techniques. I am not sure we could have done it as
well or as quickly. 86

This view was shared by George C. Moore, Section Chief of the Racial Intelligence Section,
which had responsibility for the White Hate and Black Nationalist COINTELPROs:

I think from what I have seen and what I have read, as far as the counterintelligence program on
the, Klan is concerned, that it was effective. I think it was one of the most effective programs I
have ever seen the Bureau handle as far as any group is concerned. 87

5. Black Nationalist-Hate Groups. 88 -- In marked contrast to prior COINTELPROs, which grew
out of years of intensive intelligence investigation, the Black Nationalist COINTELPRO and the
racial intelligence investigative section were set up at about the same time in 1967.

Prior to that time, the Division's investigation of "Negro matters" was limited to instances of
alleged Communist infiltration of civil rights groups and to monitoring civil rights protest
activity. However, the long, hot summer of 1967 led to intense pressure on the Bureau to do
something to contain the problem, and once again, the Bureau heeded the call.

The originating letter was sent out to twenty-three field offices on August 25, 1967, describing
the program's purpose as

... to expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit, or otherwise neutralize the activities of black
nationalist, hate-type organizations and groupings, their leadership, spokesmen, membership, and
supporters, and to counter their propensity for violence and civil disorder. . . . Efforts of the
various groups to consolidate their forces or to recruit new or youthful adherents must be
frustrated. 89

Initial group targets for "intensified attention" were the Southern Christian Leadership
Conference, the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, Revolutionary Action Movement,
Deacons for Defense and Justice, Congress of Racial Equality, and the Nation of Islam.
Individuals named targets were Stokely Carmichael, H. "Rap" Brown, Elijah Muhammed, and
Maxwell Stanford. The targets were chosen by conferring with Headquarters personnel
supervising the racial cases; the list was not intended to exclude other groups known to the field.

According to the Black Nationalist supervisor, individuals and organizations were targeted
because of their propensity for violence or their "radical or revolutionary rhetoric [and] actions":

Revolutionary would be [defined as] advocacy of the overthrow of the Government.... Radical [is]
a loose term that might cover, for example, the separatist view of the Nation of Islam, the
influence of a group called U.S. Incorporated.... Generally, they wanted a separate black nation....
They [the NOI] advocated formation of a separate black nation on the territory of five Southern
states. 90

The letter went on to direct field offices to exploit conflicts within and between groups; to use
news media contacts to disrupt, ridicule, or discredit groups; to preclude "violence-prone" or
"rabble rouser" leaders of these groups from spreading their philosophy publicly; and to gather
information on the "unsavory backgrounds" -- immorality, subversive activity, and criminal
activity-- of group members. 91

According to George C. Moore, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference was included
because

... at that time it was still under investigation because of the communist infiltration. As far as I
know, there were not any violent propensities, except that I note ... in the cover memo
[expanding the program] or somewhere, that they mentioned that if Martin Luther King decided
to go a certain way, he could cause some trouble.... I cannot explain it satisfactorily . . . this is
something the section inherited. 92

On March 4, 1968, the program was expanded from twenty-three to forty-one field offices. 93
The letter expanding the program lists five long-range goals for the program:
(1) to prevent the "coalition of militant black nationalist groups," which might be the first step
toward a real "Mau Mau" in America;

(2) to prevent the rise of a "messiah" who could "unify, and electrify," the movement, naming
specifically Martin Luther King, Stokely Carmichael, and Elijah Muhammed;

(3) to prevent violence on the part of black nationalist groups, by pinpointing "potential
troublemakers" and neutralizing them "before they exercise their potential for violence;"

(4) to prevent groups and leaders from gaining "respectability" by discrediting them to the
"responsible" Negro community, to the white community (both the responsible community and
the "liberals" -- the distinction is the Bureau's), and to Negro radicals; and

(5) to prevent the long range growth of these organizations, especially among youth, by
developing specific tactics to "prevent these groups from recruiting young people." 94

6. The Panther Directives. -- The Black Panther Party ("BPP") was not included in the first two
lists of primary targets (August 1967 and March 1968) because it had not attained national
importance. By November 1968, apparently the BPP had become sufficiently active to be
considered a primary target. A letter to certain field offices with BPP activity dated November 25,
1968, ordered recipient offices to submit "imaginative and hard-hitting counterintelligence
measures aimed at crippling the BPP." Proposals were to be received every two weeks. Particular
attention was to be given to capitalizing upon the differences between the BPP and US, Inc. (Ron
Karenga's group), which had reached such proportions that "it is taking on the aura of gang
warfare with attendant threats of murder and reprisals." 95

On January 30, 1969, this program against the BPP was expanded to additional offices, noting
that the BPP was attempting to create a better image. In line with this effort, Bobby Seale was
conducting a "purge" 96 of the party, including expelling police informants. Recipient offices
were instructed to take advantage of the opportunity to further plant the seeds of suspicion
concerning disloyalty among ranking officials. 97

Bureau witnesses are not certain whether the Black Nationalist program was effective. Mr.
Moore stated:

I know that the ... overall results of the Klan [COINTELPRO] was much more effective from
what I have been told than the Black Extremism [COINTELPRO] because of the number of
informants in the Klan who could take action which would be more effective. In the Black
Extremism Group . . . we got a late start because we did not have extremist - activity [until] '67
and '68. Then we had to play catch-up.... It is not easy to measure effectiveness.... There were
policemen killed in those days. There were bombs thrown. There were establishments burned
with molotov cocktails.... We can measure that damage. You cannot measure over on the other
side, what lives were saved because somebody did not leave the organization or suspicion was
sown on his leadership and this organization gradually declined and [there was] suspicion within
it, or this organization did not join with [that] organization as a result of a black power
conference which was aimed towards consolidation efforts. All we know, either through their
own ineptitude, maybe it emerged through counterintelligence, maybe, I think we like to think
that that helped to do it, that there was not this development. . . . What part did
counterintelligence [play?] We hope that it did play a part. Maybe we just gave it a nudge." 98

7. New Left. -- The Internal Security Section had undergone a slow transition from concentrating
on the "Old Left" -- the CPUSA and SWP -- to focusing primarily on the activities of the "New
Left" -- a term which had no precise definition within the Bureau. 99 Some agents defined "New
Left" functionally, by connection with protests. Others defined it by philosophy, particularly
antiwar philosophy.

On October 28, 1968, the fifth and final COINTELPRO was started against this undefined group.
The program was triggered in part by the Columbia campus disturbance. Once again, law
enforcement methods had broken down, largely (in the Bureau's opinion) because college
administrators refused to call the police on campus to deal with student demonstrations. The
atmosphere at the time was described by the Headquarters agent who supervised the New Left
COINTELPRO:

During that particular time, there was considerable public, Administration -- I mean
governmental Administration [and] news media interest in the protest movement to the extent
that some groups, I don't recall any specifics, but some groups were calling for something to be
done to blunt or reduce the protest movements that were disrupting campuses. I can't classify it
as exactly an hysteria, but there was considerable interest [and concern]. That was the framework
that we were working with.... It would be my impression that as a result of this hysteria, some
governmental leaders were looking to the Bureau. 100

And, once again, the combination of perceived threat, public outcry, and law enforcement
frustration produced a COINTELPRO.

According to the initiating letter, the counterintelligence program's purpose was to "expose,
disrupt, and otherwise neutralize," the activities of the various New Left organizations, their
leadership, and adherents, with particular attention to Key Activists, "the moving forces behind
the New Left." The final paragraph contains an exhortation to a "forward look, enthusiasm, and
interest" because of the Bureau's concern that "the anarchist activities of a few can paralyze
institutions of learning, induction centers, cripple traffic, and tie the arms of law enforcement
officials all to the detriment of our society." The internal memorandum recommending the
program further sets forth the Bureau's concerns:

Our Nation is undergoing an era of disruption and violence caused to a large extent by various
individuals generally connected with the New Left. Some of these activists urge revolution in
America and call for the defeat of the United States in Vietnam. They continually and falsely
allege police brutality and do not hesitate to utilize unlawful acts to further their so-called causes.

The document continues:
The New Left has on many occasions viciously and scurrilously attacked the Director and the
Bureau in an attempt to hamper our investigation of it and to drive us off the college campuses.
101

Based on those factors, the Bureau decided to institute a new COINTELPRO.

8. New Left Directives. -- The Bureau's concern with "tying the hands of law enforcement
officers," and with the perceived weakness of college administrators in refusing to call police
onto the campus, led to a May 23, 1968, directive to all participating field offices to gather
information on three categories of New Left activities:

(1) false allegations of police brutality, to "counter the wide-spread charges of police brutality
that invariably arise following student-police encounters";

(2) immorality, depicting the "scurrilous and depraved nature of many of the characters,
activities, habits, and living conditions representative of New Left adherents"; and

(3) action by college administrators, "to show the value of college administrators and school
officials taking a firm stand," and pointing out "whether and to what extent faculty members
rendered aid and encouragement."

The letter continues, "Every avenue of possible embarrassment must be vigorously and
enthusiastically explored. It cannot be expected that information of this type will be easily
obtained, and an imaginative approach by your personnel is imperative to its success." 103

The order to furnish information on "immorality" was not carried out with sufficient enthusiasm.
On October 9, 1968, headquarters sent another letter to all offices, taking them to task for their
failure to "remain alert for and to seek specific data depicting the depraved nature and moral
looseness of the New Left" and to "use this material in a vigorous and enthusiastic approach to
neutralizing them." 104 Recipient offices were again instructed to be "particularly alert for this
type of data" 105 and told:

As the current school year commences, it can be expected that the New Left with its anti-war and
anti-draft entourage will make every effort to confront college authorities, stifle military
recruiting, and frustrate the Selective Service System. Each office will be expected, therefore, to
afford this program continuous effective attention in order that no opportunity will be missed to
destroy this insidious movement. 106

As to the police brutality and "college administrator" categories, the Bureau's belief that getting
tough with students and demonstrators would solve the problem, and that any injuries which
resulted were deserved, is reflected in the Bureau's reaction to allegations of police brutality
following the Chicago Democratic Convention.

On August 28, 1968, a letter was sent to the Chicago field office instructing it to "obtain all
possible evidence that would disprove these charges" [that the Chicago police used undue force]
and to "consider measures by which cooperative news media may be used to counteract these
allegations." The administrative "note" (for the file) states :

Once again, the liberal press and the bleeding hearts and the forces on the left are taking
advantage of the situation in Chicago surrounding the Democratic National Convention to attack
the police and organized law enforcement agencies.... We should be mindful of this situation and
develop all possible evidence to expose this activity and to refute these false allegations. 107

In the same vein, on September 9, 1968, an instruction was sent to all offices which had sent
informants to the Chicago convention demonstrations, ordering them to debrief the informants
for information "indicating incidents were staged to show police reacted with undue force and
any information that authorities were baited by militants into using force." 108 The offices were
also to obtain evidence of possible violations of anti-riot laws. 109

The originating New Left letter had asked all recipient offices to respond with suggestions for
counterintelligence action. Those responses were analyzed and a letter sent to all offices on July
6, 1968, setting forth twelve suggestions for counterintelligence action which could be utilized
by all offices. Briefly the techniques are:

(1) preparing leaflets designed to discredit student demonstrators, using photographs of New Left
leadership at the respective universities. "Naturally, the most obnoxious pictures should be used";

(2) instigating "personal conflicts or animosities" between New Left leaders;

(3) creating the impression that leaders are "informants for the Bureau or other law enforcement
agencies";

(4) sending articles from student newspapers or the "underground press" which show the
depravity of the New Left to university officials, donors, legislators, and parents. "Articles
showing advocation of the use of narcotics and free sex are ideal";

(5) having members arrested on marijuana charges;

(6) sending anonymous letters about a student's activities to parents, neighbors, and the parents'
employers. "This could have the effect of forcing the parents to take action";

(7) sending anonymous letters or leaflets describing the "activities and associations" of New Left
faculty members and graduate assistants to university officials, legislators, Boards of Regents,
and the press. "These letters should be signed 'A Concerned Alumni,' or 'A Concerned
Taxpayer'";

(8) using cooperative press contacts" to emphasize that the "disruptive elements" constitute a
"minority" of the students. "The press should demand an immediate referendum on the issue in
question";
(9) exploiting the "hostility" among the SDS and other New Left groups toward the SWP, YSA,
and Progressive Labor Party;

(10) using "friendly news media'' and law enforcement officials to disrupt New Left
coffeehouses near military bases which are attempting to "influence members of the Armed
Forces";

(11) using cartoons, photographs, and anonymous letters to "ridicule" the New Left, and

(12) using "misinformation" to "confuse and disrupt" New Left activities, such as by notifying
members that events have been cancelled. 110

As noted earlier, the lack of any Bureau definition of "New Left" resulted in targeting almost
every anti-war group, 111 and spread to students demonstrating against anything. One notable
example is a proposal targeting a student who carried an "obscene" sign in a demonstration
protesting administration censorship of the school newspaper, and another student who sent a
letter to that paper defending the demonstration. 112 In another article regarding "free love" on a
university campus was anonymously mailed to college administrators and state officials since
free love allows "an atmosphere to build up on campus that will be a fertile field for the New
Left." 113

None of the Bureau witnesses deposed believes the New Left COINTELPRO was generally
effective, in part because of the imprecise targeting.


      III. THE GOALS OF COINTELPRO: PREVENTING OR DISRUPTING THE
                  EXERCISE OF FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS

The origins of COINTELPRO demonstrate that the Bureau adopted extralegal methods to
counter perceived threats to national security and public order because the ordinary legal
processes were believed to be insufficient to do the job. In essence, the Bureau took the law into
its own hands, conducting a sophisticated vigilante operation against domestic enemies.

The risks inherent in setting aside the laws, even though the, purpose seems compelling at the
time, were described by Tom Charles Huston in his testimony before the Committee: 114

The risk was that you would get people who would be susceptible to political considerations as
opposed to national security considerations, or would construe political considerations to be
national security considerations, to move from the kid with a bomb to the kid with a picket sign,
and from the kid with the picket sign to the kid with the bumper sticker of the opposing
candidate. And you just keep going down the line. 115

The description is apt. Certainly, COINTELPRO took in a staggering range of targets. As noted
earlier, the choice of individuals and organizations to be neutralized and disrupted ranged from
the violent elements of the Black Panther Party to Martin Luther King, Jr., who the Bureau
concedes was an advocate of nonviolence; from the Communist Party to the Ku Klux Klan; and
from the advocates of violent revolution such as the Weathermen, to the supporters of peaceful
social change, including the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and the Inter-University
Committee for Debate on Foreign Policy.

The breadth of targeting springs partly from a lack of definition for the categories involved, and
partly from the Bureau's belief that dissident speech and association should be prevented because
they were incipient steps toward the possible ultimate commission of an act which might be
criminal. Thus, the Bureau's self-imposed role as protector of the existing political and social
order blurred the line between targeting criminal activity and constitutionally protected acts and
advocacy.

The clearest example of actions directly aimed at the exercise of constitutional rights are those
targeting speakers, teachers, writers or publications, and meetings or peaceful demonstrations.
116 Approximately 18 percent of all approved COINTELPRO proposals fell into these
categories. 117

The cases include attempts (sometimes successful) to get university and high school teachers
fired; to prevent targets from speaking on campus; to stop chapters of target groups from being
formed; to prevent the distribution of books, newspapers, or periodicals; to disrupt news
conferences; to disrupt peaceful demonstrations, including the SCLCs Washington Spring
Project and Poor People's Campaign, and most of the large antiwar marches; and to deny
facilities for meetings or conferences.

A. Efforts to Prevent Speaking

An illustrative example of attacks on speaking concerns the plans of a dissident stockholders'
group to protest a large corporation's war production at the annual stockholders meeting. 118 The
field office was authorized to furnish information about the group's plans (obtained from paid
informants in the group) to a confidential source in the company's management. The Bureau's
purpose was not only to "circumvent efforts to disrupt the corporate meeting," but also to prevent
any attempt to "obtain publicity or embarrass" corporate officials. 119

In another case, 120 anonymous telephone calls were made to the editorial desks of three
newspapers in a Midwestern city, advising them that a lecture to be given on a university campus
was actually being sponsored by a Communist-front organization. The university had recently
lifted its ban on Communist speakers on campus and was experiencing some political difficulty
over this decision. The express purpose of the phone calls was to prevent a Communist-
sponsored speaker from appearing on campus and, for a time, it appeared to have worked. One of
the newspapers contacted the director of the university's conference center. He in turn discussed
the meeting with the president of the university who decided to cancel the meeting. 121 The
sponsoring organization, supported by the ACLU, took the case to court, and won a ruling that
the university could not bar the speaker. (Bureau headquarters then ordered the field office to
furnish information on the judge.) Although the lecture went ahead as scheduled, headquarters
commended the field office for the affirmative results of its suggestion: the sponsoring
organization had been forced to incur additional expense and attorneys' fees, and had received
newspaper exposure of its "true communist character."
B. Efforts to Prevent Teaching

Teachers were targeted because the Bureau believed that they were in a unique position to "plant
the seeds of communism [or whatever ideology was under attack] in the minds of unsuspecting
youth." Further, as noted earlier, it was believed that a teacher's position gave respectability to
whatever cause he supported. In one case, a high school teacher was targeted for inviting two
poets to attend a class at his school. The poets were noted for their efforts in the draft resistance
movement. This invitation led to an investigation by the local police, which in turn provoked
sharp criticism from the ACLU. The field office was authorized to send anonymous letters to two
local newspapers, to the city Board of Education, and to the high school administration,
suggesting that the ACLU should not criticize the police for probing into high school activities,
"but should rather have focused attention on [the teacher] who has been a convicted draft
dodger." The letter continued, "[the teacher] is the assault on academic freedom and not the local
police." The purpose of the letter, according to Bureau documents, was "to highlight [the
teacher's] antidraft activities at the local high school" and to "discourage any efforts" he may
make there. The letter was also intended to "show support for the local police against obvious
attempts by the New Left to agitate in the high schools." 122 No results were reported.

In another case, 123 a university professor who was "an active participant in New Left
demonstrations" had publicly surrendered his draft card and had been arrested twice, (but not
convicted) in antiwar demonstrations. The Bureau decided that the professor should be "removed
from his position" at the university. The field office was authorized to contact a "confidential
source" at a foundation which contributed substantial funds to the university, and "discreetly
suggest that the [foundation] may desire to call to the attention of the University administration
questions concerning the advisability of [the professor's] continuing his position there." The
foundation official was told by the university that the professor's contract would not be renewed,
but in fact the professor did continue to teach. The following academic year, therefore, the field
office was authorized to furnish additional information to the foundation official on the
professor's arrest and conviction (with a, suspended sentence) in another demonstration. No
results were reported.

In a third instance, the Bureau attempted to "discredit and neutralize" a university professor and
the Inter-University Committee for Debate on Foreign Policy, in which lie was active. The field
office was authorized to send a fictitious name letter to influential state political figures, the mass
media, university administrators, and the Board of Regents, accusing the professor and "his
protesting cohorts" of "giving aid and comfort to the enemy," and wondering "if the strategy is to
bleed the United States white by prolonging the war in Vietnam and pave the way for a takeover
by Russia." No results were reported. 124

C. Efforts to Prevent Writing and Publishing

The Bureau's purpose in targeting attempts to speak was explicitly to prevent the "propagation"
of a target's philosophy and to deter "recruitment" of new members. Publications and writers
appear to have been targeted for the same reasons. In one example, 125 two university
instructors were targeted solely because they were influential in the publication of and
contributed financial support to a student "underground" newspaper whose editorial policy was
described as "left-of-center, anti-establishment, and opposed [to] the University administration."
The Bureau believed that if the two instructors were forced to withdraw their support of the
newspaper, it would "fold and cease publication. . . . This would eliminate what voice the New
Left has in the area." Accordingly, the field office was authorized to send an anonymous letter to
a university official furnishing information concerning the instructors' association with the
newspaper, with a warning that if the university did not persuade the instructors to cease their
support, the letter's author would be forced to expose their activities publicly. The field office
reported that as a result of this technique, both teachers were placed on probation by the
university president, which would prevent them from getting any raises.

Newspapers were a common target. The Black Panther Party paper was the subject of a number
of actions, both because of its contents and because it was a source of income for the Party. 126
Other examples include contacting the landlord of premises rented by two "New Left"
newspapers in an attempt to get them evicted; 121 an anonymous letter to a state legislator
protesting the distribution on campus of an underground newspaper "representative of the type of
mentality that is following the New Left theory of immorality on certain college campuses"; 128
a letter signed "Disgusted Taxpayer and Patron" to advertisers in a student newspaper intended to
"increase pressure on the student newspaper to discontinue the type of journalism that had been
employed'' (an article had quoted a demonstrator's "vulgar Ianguage"); 129 and proposals (which,
according to the Bureau's response to a staff inquiry, were never carried out) to physically
disrupt printing plants. 130

D. Efforts to Prevent Meeting

The Bureau also attempted to prevent target groups from meeting. Frequently used techniques
include contacting the, owner of meeting facilities in order to have him refuse to rent to the
group; 131 trying to have a group's charter revoked; 132 using the press to disrupt a "closed"
meeting by arriving unannounced; 133 and attempting to persuade sponsors to withdraw funds.
134 The most striking examples of attacks meeting, however, involve the use of
"disinformation." 135

In one "disinformation" case, the Chicago Field Office duplicated blank forms prepared by the
National Mobilization Committee to End the War in Vietnam ("NMC") soliciting housing for
demonstators coming to Chicago for the Democratic National Convention. Chicago filled out
217 of these forms with fictitious names and addresses and sent them to the NMC, which
provided them to demonstrators who made "long and useless journeys to locate these addresses."
The NMC then decided to discard all replies received on the housing forms rather than have out-
of-town demonstrators try to locate nonexistent addresses. 136 (The same program was carried
out when the Washington Mobilization Committee distributed housing forms for demonstrators
coming to Washington for the 1969 Presidential inaugural ceremonies.) 137

In another case, during the demonstrations accompanying inauguration ceremonies, the
Washington Field Office discovered that NMC marshals were using walkie-talkies to coordinate
their movements and activities. WFO used the same citizen band to supply the marshals with
misinformation and, pretending to be an NMC unit, countermanded NMC orders. 138
In a third case 139 a midwest field office disrupted arrangements for state university students to
attend the 1969 inaugural demonstrations by making a series of anonymous telephone calls to the
transportation company. The calls were designed to confuse both the transportation company and
the SDS leaders as to the cost of transportation and the time and place for leaving and returning.
This office also placed confusing leaflets around the campus to show different times and places
for demonstration-planning meetings, as well as conflicting times and dates for traveling to
Washington.

In a fourth instance, the "East Village Other" planned to bomb the Pentagon with flowers during
the 1967 NMC rally in Washington. The New York office answered the ad for a pilot, and kept
up the pretense right to the point at which the publisher showed up at the airport with 200 pounds
of flowers, with no one to fly the plane. Thus, the Bureau was able to prevent this "agitational-
propaganda activity as relates to dropping flowers over Washington." 140

The cases discussed above are just a few examples of the Bureau's direct attack on speaking,
teaching, writing and meeting. Other instances include targeting the New Mexico Free
University for teaching, among other things, "confrontation politics" and "draft counseling
training." 141 In another case, an editorial cartoonist for a northeast newspaper was asked to
prepare a cartoon which would "ridicule and discredit" a group of antiwar activists who traveled
to North Vietnam to inspect conditions there; the cartoon was intended to "depict [the individuals]
as traitors to their country for traveling to North Vietnam and making utterances against the
foreign policy of the United States." 142 A professor was targeted for being the faculty advisor
to a college group which circulated "The Student As Nigger" on campus."' A professor
conducting a study on the effect and social costs of McCarthyism was targeted because he sought
information and help from the American Institute of Marxist Studies. 144 Contacts were made
with three separate law schools in an attempt to keep a teaching candidate from being hired, or
once hired, from getting his contract renewed. 145

The attacks on speaking, teaching, writing, and meeting have been examined in some detail
because they present, in their purist form, the consequences of acting outside the legal process.
Perhaps the Bureau was correct in its assumption that words lead to deeds, and that larger group
membership produces a greater risk of violence. Nevertheless, the law draws the line between
criminal acts and constitutionally protected activity, and that line must be kept. 146 As Justice
Brandeis declared in a different context fifty years ago:

Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole
people, by its example. Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds
contempt for law: it invites every man to become a law unto himself. To declare that in the
administration of the criminal law the end justifies the means -- to declare that the Government
may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of the private criminal -- would bring
terrible retribution. Against the pernicious doctrine this Court should resolutely set its face.
Olmstead v. U.S., 277 U.S. 439,485 (1927)


                              IV. COINTELPRO TECHNIQUES
The techniques used in COINTELPRO were -- and are -- used against hostile foreign intelligence
agents. Sullivan's testimony that the "rough, tough, dirty business'' 147 of foreign
counterintelligence was brought home against domestic enemies was corroborated by George
Moore, whose Racial Intelligence Section supervised the White Hate and Black Nationalist
COINTELPROs:

You can trace [the origins] up and back to foreign intelligence, particularly penetration of the
group by the individual informant. Before you can engage in counterintelligence you must have
intelligence .... If you have good intelligence and know what it's going to do, you can seed
distrust, sow misinformation. The same technique is used in the foreign field. The same
technique is used, misinformation, disruption, is used in the domestic groups, although in the
domestic groups you are dealing in '67 and '68 with many, many more across the country ... than
you had ever dealt with as far as your foreign groups. 148

The arsenal of techniques used in the Bureau's secret war against domestic enemies ranged from
the trivial to the life endangering. Slightly more than a quarter of all approved actions were
intended to promote factionalization within groups and between groups; a roughly equal number
of actions involved the creation and dissemination of propaganda. 149 Other techniques involved
the use of federal, state, and local agencies in selective law enforcement, and other use (and
abuse) of government processes; disseminating derogatory information to family, friends, and
associates; contacting employers; exposing "communist infiltration" or support of target groups;
and using organizations which were hostile to target groups to disrupt meetings or otherwise
attack the targets.

A. Propaganda

The Bureau's COINTELPRO propaganda efforts stem from the same basic premise as the attacks
on speaking, teaching, writing and meeting: propaganda works. Certain ideas are dangerous, and
if their expression cannot be prevented, they should be countered with Bureau-approved views.
Three basic techniques were used: (1) mailing reprints of newspaper and magazine articles to
group members or potential supporters intended to convince them of the error of their ways; (2)
writing articles for or furnishing information to "friendly" media sources to "expose" target
groups; 150 and (3) writing, printing, and disseminating pamphlets and fliers without identifying
the Bureau as the source.

1. Reprint Mailings

The documents contain case after case of articles and newspaper clippings being mailed
(anonymously, of course) to group members. The Jewish members of the Communist Party
appear to have been inundated with clippings dealing with Soviet mistreatment of Jews.
Similarly, Jewish supporters of the Black Panther Party received articles from the BPP
newspaper containing anti-Semitic statements. College administrators received reprints of a
Reader's Digest article 151 and a Barron's article on campus disturbances intended to persuade
them to "get tough." 152
Perhaps only one example need be examined in detail, and that only because it clearly sets forth
the purpose of propaganda reprint mailings. Fifty copies of an article entitled "Rabbi in Vietnam
Says Withdrawal Not the Answer," escribed as "an excellent article in support of United States
foreign policy in Vietnam," were mailed to certain unnamed professors and members of the
Vietnam Day Committee "who have no other subversive organizational affiliations." The
purpose of the mailing was "to convince [the recipients] of the correctness of the U.S. foreign
policy in Vietnam." 153

Reprint mailings would seem to fall under Attorney General Levi's characterization of much of
COINTELPRO as "foolishness." 154 They violate no one's civil rights, but should the Bureau be
in the anonymous propaganda business?

2. "Friendly'' Media

Much of the Bureau's propaganda efforts involved giving information or articles to "friendly"
media sources who could be relied upon not to reveal the Bureau's interests. 155 The Crime
Records Division of the Bureau was responsible for public relations, including all headquarters
contacts with the media. In the course of its work (most of which had nothing to do with
COINTELPRO) the Division assembled a list of "friendly" news media sources -- those who
wrote pro-Bureau stories. 156 Field offices also had "confidential sources" (unpaid Bureau
informants) in the media, and were able to ensure their cooperation.

The Bureau's use of the news media took two different forms: placing unfavorable articles and
documentaries about targeted groups, and leaking derogatory information intended to discredit
individuals. 157

A typical example of media propaganda is the headquarters letter authorizing the Boston Field
Office to furnish "derogatory information about the Nation of Islam (NOI) to established source
[name excised)": 158

Your suggestions concerning material to furnish [name] are good. Emphasize to him that the
NOI predilection for violence, preaching of race hatred, and hypocrisy, should be exposed.
Material furnished [name] should be either public source or known to enough people as to
protect your sources. Insure the Bureau's interest in this matter is completely protected by [name].
160

In another case, information on the Junta of Militant Organizations ("JOMO", a Black
Nationalist target) was furnished to a source at a Tampa television station. 161 Ironically, the
station manager, who had no knowledge of the Bureau's involvement, invited the Special Agent
in Charge, his assistant, and other agents to a preview of the half-hour film which resulted. The
SAC complimented the station manager on his product, and suggested that it be made available
to civic groups. 162

A Miami television station made four separate documentaries (on the Klan, Black Nationalist
groups, and the New Left) with materials secretly supplied by the Bureau. One of the
documentaries, which had played to an estimated audience of 200,000, was the subject of an
internal memorandum "to advise of highly successful results of counterintelligence, exposing the
black extremist Nation of Islam."

[Excised] was elated at the response. The station received more favorable telephone calls from
viewers than the switchboard could handle. Community leaders have commented favorably on
the program, three civic organizations have asked to show the film to their members as a public
service, and the Broward County Sheriff's Office plans to show the film to its officers and in
connection with its community service program.

This expose showed that NOI leaders are of questionable character and live in luxury through a
large amount of money taken as contributions from their members. The extreme nature of NOI
teachings was underscored. Miami sources advised the expose has caused considerable concern
to local NOI leaders who have attempted to rebut the program at each open meeting of the NOI
since the program was presented. Local NOI leaders plan a rebuttal in the NOI newspaper.
Attendance by visitors at weekly NOI meetings has dropped 50%. This shows the value of
carefully planned counterintelligence action. 163

The Bureau also planted derogatory articles about the Poor People's Campaign, the Institute for
Policy Studies, the Southern Students Organizing Committee, the National Mobilization
Committee, and a host of other organizations it believed needed to be seen in their "true light."

3. Bureau-Authored Pamphlets and Fliers.

The Bureau occasionally drafted, printed, and distributed its own propaganda. These pieces were
usually intended to ridicule their targets, rather than offer "straight" propaganda on the issue.
Four of these fliers are reproduced in the following pages.
NOTE: Memorandum from New York Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 1/14/70; memorandum
from FBI Headquarters to New York Field Office, 1/20/70.
NOTE: Memorandum from New York Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 2/7/69; memorandum
from FBI Headquarters to New York Field Office, 2/14/69.
NOTE: Memorandum from New York Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 1/21/69; memorandum
from FBI Headquarters to New York Field Office, 1/24/69.
NOTE: Memorandum from New York Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 8/5/69; memorandum
from FBI Headquarters to New York Field Office, 8/11/69.


B. Effects to Promote Enmity and Factionalism Within Groups or Between Groups

Approximately 28% of the Bureau's COINTELPRO efforts were designed to weaken groups by
setting members against each other, or to separate groups which might otherwise be allies, and
convert them into mutual enemies. The techniques used included anonymous mailings (reprints,
Bureau-authored articles and letters) to group members criticizing a leader or an allied group;
164 using informants to raise controversial issues; forming a "notional" -- a Bureau run splinter
group -- to draw away membership from the target organization; encouraging hostility up to and
including gang warfare between rival groups; and the "snitch jacket."

1. Encouraging Violence Between Rival Groups

The Bureau's attempts to capitalize on active hostility between target groups carried with them
the risk of serious physical injury to the targets. As the Black Nationalist supervisor put it:

It is not easy [to judge the risks inherent in this technique]. You make the best judgment you can
based on all the circumstances and you always have an element of doubt where you are dealing
with individuals that I think most people would characterize as having a degree of instability. 65

The Bureau took that risk. The Panther directive instructing recipient officers to encourage the
differences between the Panthers and U.S., Inc. which were "taking on the aura of gang warfare
with attendant threats of murder and reprisals," 166 is just one example.
A separate report on disruptive efforts aimed at the Panthers will examine in detail the Bureau's
attempts to foment violence. These efforts included anonymously distributing cartoons which
pictured the U.S. organization gloating over the corpses of two murdered Panthers, and
suggested that other BPP members would be next, 167 and sending a New Jersey Panther leader
the following letter which purported to be from an SDS member: 168

"To Former Comrade [name]

"As one of 'those little bourgeois, snooty nose' -- 'little schoolboys' -- 'Iittle sissies' Dave Hilliard
spoke of in the 'Guardian' of 8/16/69, I would like to say that you and the rest of you black racists
can go to hell. I stood shoulder to shoulder with Carl Nichols last year in Military Park in
Newark and got my a--- whipped by a Newark pig all for the cause of the wineheads like you
and the rest of the black pussycats that call themselves Panthers. Big deal, you have to have a
three hour educational session just to teach those ... (you all know what that means don't you! It's
the first word your handkerchief head mamma teaches you) how to spell it.

"Who the hell set you and the Panthers up as the vanguard of the revolutionary and disciplinary
group. You can tell all those wineheads you associate with that you'll kick no one's '... a---,'
because you'd have to take a three year course in spelling to know what an a--- is and three more
years to be taught where it's located.

"Julius Lester called the BPP the vanguard (that's leader) organization so international whore
Cleaver calls him racist, now when full allegiance is not given to the Panthers, again racist. What
the hell do you want? Are you getting this? Are you lost? If you're not digging then you're really
hopeless.

"Oh yes! We are not concerned about Hilliard's threats.

"Brains will win over brawn. The way the Panthers have retaliated against US is another
indication. The score: US-6: Panthers-0.

"Why, I read an article in the Panther paper where a California Panther sat in his car and watched
his friend get shot by Karenga's group and what did he do? He run back and write a full page
story about how tough the Panthers are and what they're going to do. Ha Ha -- B -- S --.

"Goodbye [name] baby-and watch out. Karenga's coming.

"'Right On' as they say."

An anonymous letter was also sent to the leader of the Blackstone Rangers, a Chicago gang "to
whom violent type activity, shooting, and the like, are second nature," advising him that "the
brothers that run the Panthers blame you for blocking their thing and there's supposed to be a hit
out for you." The letter was intended to "intensify the degree of animosity between the two
groups" and cause "retaliatory action which could disrupt the BPP or lead to reprisals against its
leadership." 169
EDITOR:

What's with this bull---- SDS outfit? I'll tell you what they has finally showed there true color
White. They are just like the commies and all the other white radical groups that suck up to the
blacks and use us. We voted at our meeting in Oakland for community control over the pigs but
SDS says no. Well we can do with out them mothers. We can do it by ourselfs.

                           OFF THE PIGS POWER TO THE PEOPLE
                                     Soul Brother Jake

In another case, the Bureau tried to promote violence, not between violent groups, but between a
possibly violent person and another target. The field office was given permission to arrange a
meeting between an SCLC officer and the leader of a small group described as "anti-Vietnam
black nationalist [veterans'] organization." The leader of the veterans' group was known to be
upset because he was not receiving funds from the SCLC. He was also known to be on leave
from a mental hospital, and the Bureau had been advised that he would be recommitted if he
were arrested on any charge. It was believed that "if the confrontation occurs at SCLC
headquarters," the veterans' group leader "will lose his temper, start a fight," and the "police will
be called in." The purpose was to "neutralize" the leader by causing his commitment to a mental
hospital, and to gain "unfavorable publicity for the SCLC." 170

At least four assaults -- two of them on women -- were reported as "results" of Bureau actions.
The San Diego field office claimed credit for three of them. In one case, US members "broke
into" a BPP meeting and "roughed up" a woman member. 171

In the second instance, a critical newspaper article in the Black Panther paper was sent to the US
leader. The field office noted that "the possibility exists that some sort of retaliatory actions will
be taken against the BPP." 172 The prediction proved correct; the field office reported that as a
result of this mailing, members of US assaulted a Panther newspaper vendor. 173 The third
assault occurred after the San Diego Police Department, acting on a tip from the Bureau that "sex
orgies" were taking place at Panther headquarters, raided the premises. (The police department
conducted a "research project," discovered two outstanding traffic warrants for a BPP member,
and used the warrants to gain entry.) The field office reported that as a "direct result" of the raid,
the woman who allowed the officers into the BPP headquarters had been "severely beaten up" by
other members." 174

In the fourth case, the New Haven field office reported that an informant had joined in a "heated
conversation" between several group members and sided with one of the parties "in order to
increase the tension." The argument ended with members hitting each other. The informant
"departed the premises at this point, since he felt that he had been successful, causing a
flammable situation to erupt into a fight." 175

2. Anonymous Mailings

The Bureau's use of anonymous mailings to promote factionalism range from the relatively bland
mailing of reprints or fliers criticizing a group's leaders for living ostentatiously or being
ineffective speakers, to reporting a chapter's infractions to the group's headquarters intended to
cause censure or disciplinary action.

Critical letters were also sent to one group purporting to be from another, or from a member of
the group registering a protest over a proposed alliance.

For instance, the Bureau was particularly concerned with the alliance between the SDS and the
Black Panther Party. A typical example of anonymous mailing intended to separate these groups
is a letter sent to the Black Panther newspaper: 176 [sic - report did not contain text of letter. -
PW]

In a similar vein, is a letter mailed to Black Panther and New Left leaders. 177

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

Since when do us Blacks have to swallow the dictates of the honky SDS? Doing this only
hinders the Party progress in gaining Black control over Black people. We've been over by the
white facists pigs and the Man's control over our destiny. We're sick and tired of being severly
brutalized, denied our rights and treated like animals by the white pigs. We say to hell with the
SDS and its honky intellectual approaches which only perpetuate control of Black people by the
honkies.

The Black Panther Party theory for community control is the only answer to our problems and
that is to be followed and enforced by all means necessary to insure control by Blacks over all
police departments regardless of whether they are run by honkies or uncle toms.

The damn SDS is a paper organization with a severe case of diarhea of the mouth which has
done nothing but feed us lip service. Those few idiots calling themselves weathermen run around
like kids on halloween. A good example is their "militant" activities at the Northland Shopping
Center a couple of weeks ago. They call themselves revolutionaries but take a look at who they
are. Most of them come from well heeled families even by honky standards. They think they're
helping us Blacks but their futile, misguided and above all white efforts only muddy the
revolutionary waters.

The time has come for an absolute break with any non-Black group and especially those -------
SDS and a return to our pursuit of a pure black revolution by Blacks for Blacks.

Power !

Off the Pigs!!!!

These examples are not, of course, exclusive, but they do give the flavor of the anonymous
mailings effort.

3. Interviews
Interviewing group members or supporters was an overt "investigative" technique sometimes
used for the covert purpose of disruption. For example, one field office noted that "other [BPP]
weaknesses that have been capitalized on include interviews of members wherein jealousy
among the members has been stimulated and at the same time has caused a number of persons to
fall under suspicion and be purged from the Party." 178

In another case, fourteen field offices were instructed to conduct simultaneous interviews of
individuals known to have been contacted by members of the Revolutionary Union. The purpose
of the coordinated interviews was "to make possible affiliates of the RU believe that the
organization is infiltrated by informants on a high level. 179

In a third instance, 'a "black nationalist" target attempted to organize a youth group in
Mississippi. The field office used informants to determine "the identities of leaders of this group
and in interviewing these leaders, expressed to them [the target's] background and his true
intentions regarding organizing Negro youth groups." Agents also interviewed the target's
landlords and "advised them of certain aspects of [his] past activities and his reputation in the
Jackson vicinity as being a Negro extremist." Three of the landlords asked the target to move.
180 The same field office reported that it had interviewed members of the Tougaloo College
Political Action Committee, an "SNCC - affiliated" student group. The members were
interviewed while they were home on summer vacation. "Sources report that these interviews
had a very upsetting effect on the PAC organization and they felt they have been betrayed by
someone at Tougaloo College. Many of the members have limited their participation in PAC
affairs since their interview by Agents during the summer of 1968." 181

4. Using Informants To Raise Controversial Issues

The Bureau's use of informants generally is the subject of a separate report. It is worth noting
here, however, that the use of informants to take advantage of ideological splits in an
organization dates back to the first COINTELPRO. The originating CUPSA document refers to
the use of informants to capitalize on the discussion within the Party following Khrushchev's
denunciation of Stalin. 182

Informants were also used to widen rifts in other organizations. For instance, an informant was
instructed to imply that the head of one faction of the SDS was using group funds for his drug
habit, and that a second leader embezzled funds at another school. The field office reported that
"as a result of actions taken by this informant, there have been fist fights and acts of name calling
at several of the recent SDS meetings." In addition, members of one faction "have made early
morning telephone calls" to other SDS members and "have threatened them and attempted to
discourage them from attending SDS meetings." 183

In another case, an informant was used to "raise the question" among his associates that an
unmarried, 30-year old group leader "may either a bisexual or a homosexual." The field office
believed that the question would "rapidly 'become a rumor" and "could have serious results
concerning the ability and effectiveness of [the target's] leadership." 184

5. Fictitious Organizations
There are basically three kinds of "notional" or fictitious organizations. All three were used in
COINTELPRO attempts to factionalize.

The first kind of "notional" was the organization whose members were all Bureau informants.
Because of the Committee's agreement with the Bureau not to reveal the identities of informants,
the only example which can be discussed publicly is a proposal which, although approved, was
never implemented. That proposal involved setting up a chapter of the W.E.B. DuBois Club in a
Southern city which would be composed entirely of Bureau informants and fictitious persons.
The initial purpose of the chapter was to cause the CPUSA expense by sending organizers into
the area, cause the Party to fund Bureau coverage of out-of-town CP meetings by paying the
informants' expenses, and receive literature and instructions. Later, the chapter was to begin to
engage in deviation from the Party line so that it would be expelled from the main organization
"and then they could claim to be the victim of a Stalinist type purge." It was anticipated that the
entire operation would take no more than 18 months. 185

The second kind of "notional" was the fictitious organization with some unsuspecting (non-
informant) members. For example, Bureau informants set up a Klan organization intended to
attract membership away from the United Klans of America. The Bureau paid the informant's
personal expenses in setting up the new organization, which had, at its height, 250 members. 186

The third type of "notional" was the wholly fictitious organization, with no actual members,
which was used as a pseudonym for mailing letters or pamphlets. For instance, the Bureau sent
out newsletters from something called "The Committee for Expansion of Socialist Thought in
America," which attacked the CPUSA from the "Marxist right" for at least two years. 187

6. Labeling Targets As Informants

The "snitch jacket" technique -- neutralizing a target by labeling him a "snitch" or informant, so
that he would no longer be trusted -- was used in all COINTELPROs. The methods utilized
ranged from having an authentic informant start a rumor about the target member, 188 to
anonymous letters or phone calls, 189 to faked informants' reports. 190

When the technique was used against a member of a nonviolent group, the result was often
alienation from the group. For example, a San Diego man was targeted because he was active in
draft counseling at the city's Message Information Center. He had, coincidentally, been present at
the arrest of a Selective Service violator, and had been at a "crash pad" just prior to the arrest of a
second violator. The Bureau used a real informant to suggest at a Center meeting that it was
"strange" that the two men had been arrested by federal agents shortly after the target became
aware of their locations. The field office reported that the target had been "completely ostracized
by members of the Message Information Center and all of the other individuals throughout the
area . . . associated with this and/or related groups." 191

In another case, a local police officer was used to "jacket" the head of the Student Mobilization
Committee at the University of South Carolina. The police officer picked up two members of the
Committee on the pretext of interviewing them concerning narcotics. By prearranged signal, he
had his radio operator call him with the message, "[name of target] just called. Wants you to
contact her. Said you have her number." 192 No results were reported.

The "snitch jacket'' is a particularly nasty technique even when used in peaceful groups. It gains
an added dimension of danger when it is used -- as, indeed, it was -- in groups known to have
murdered informers. 193

For instance, a Black Panther leader was arrested by the local police with four other members of
the BPP. The others were released, but the leader remained in custody. Headquarters authorized
the field office to circulate the rumor that the leader "is the last to be released" because "he is
cooperating with and has made a deal with the Los Angeles Police Department to furnish them
information concerning the BPP."

The target of the first proposal then received an anonymous phone call stating that his own arrest
was caused by a rival leader. 194

In another case, the Bureau learned that the chairman of the New York BPP chapter was under
suspicion as an informant because of the arrest of another member for weapons possession. In
order to "cast further suspicion on him" the Bureau sent anonymous letters to BPP headquarters
in the state, the wife of the arrested member, and a local member of CORE, saying "Danger-
Beware-Black Brothers, [name of target] is the fink who told the pigs that [arrested members]
were carrying guns." The letter also gave the target's address. 195

In a third instance, the Bureau learned through electronic surveillance of the BPP the
whereabouts of a fugitive. After his arrest, the Bureau sent a letter in a "purposely somewhat
illiterate type scrawl" to the fugitive's half-brother:

Brother:

Jimmie was sold out by Sister [name -- the BPP leader who made the phone call picked up by the
tap] for some pig money to pay her rent. When she don't get it that way she takes Panther money.
How come her kid sells the paper in his school and no one bothers him. How comes Tyler got
busted up by the pigs and her kid didn't. How comes the FBI pig fascists knew where to bust
Lonnie and Minnie way out where they were.

--- Think baby. 196

In another example, the chairman of the Kansas City BPP chapter went to Washington in an
attempt to testify before a Senate subcommittee about information he allegedly possessed about
the transfer of firearms from the Kansas City Police Department to a retired Army General. The
attempt did not succeed; the committee chairman adjourned the hearing and then asked the BPP
member to present his information to an aide. The Bureau then authorized an anonymous phone
call to BPP headquarters "to the effect that [the target] was paid by the committee to testify, that
he has cooperated fully with this committee, and that he intends to return at a later date to furnish
additional testimony which will include complete details of the BPP operation in Kansas City."
197
In the fifth case, the Bureau had so successfully disrupted the San Diego BPP that it no longer
existed. One of the former members, however, was "'politicking' for the position of local leader if
the group is ever reorganized." Headquarters authorized the San Diego field office to send
anonymous notes to "selected individuals within the black community of San Diego" to "initiate
the rumor that [the target], who has aspirations of becoming the local Black Panther Party
Captain, is a police informant." 198

In a sixth case, a letter alleging that a Washington, D.C., BPP leader was a police informant was
sent "as part of our continuing effort to foment internal dissension within ranks of Black Panther
Party:" 199

Brother: I recently read in the Black Panther newspaper about that low dog Gaines down in
Texas who betrayed his people to the pigs and it reminded me of a recent incident that I should
tell you about. Around the first part of Feb. I was locked up at the local pigpen when the pigs
brought in this dude, who told me he was a Panther. This dude who said his name was [deleted]
said he was vamped on by six pigs and was brutalized by them. This dude talked real bad and
said he had killed pip and was going to get more when he got out, so I thought he probably was
one of you. The morning after [name] was brought in a couple of other dudes in suits came to see
him and called him out of the cell and he was gone a couple of hours. Later on these dudes came
back again to see him. [Name] told me the dudes were his lawyers but they smelled like pig to
me. It seems to me that you might want to look into this because I know you don't want anymore
low-life dogs helping the pigs brutalize the people. You don't know me and I'm not a Panther but
I want to help with the cause when I can.

A lumpen brother

In a seventh case, the "most influential BPP activist in North Carolina" had been photographed
outside a house where, a "shoot out" with local police had taken place. The photograph, which
appeared in the local newspaper, showed the target talking to a policeman. The photograph and
an accompanying article were sent to BPP headquarters in Oakland, California, with a
handwritten note, supposedly from a female BPP member known to be "disenchanted" with the
target, saying, "I think this is two pigs oinking." 200

Although Bureau witnesses stated that they did not authorize a "snitch jacket" when they had
information that the group was at that time actually killing suspected informants, 201 they
admitted that the risk was there whenever the technique was used.

It would be fair to say there was an element of risk there which we tried to examine on a case by
case basis. 202

Moore added, "I am not aware of any time we ever labeled anybody as an informant, that
anything [violent] ever happened as a result, and that is something that could be measured."
When asked whether that was luck or lack of planning, he responded, "Oh, it just happened that
way, I am sure." 203

C. Using Hostile Third Parties Against Target Groups
The Bureau's factionalism efforts were intended to separate individuals or groups which might
otherwise be allies. Another set of actions is a variant of that technique; organizations already
opposed to the target groups were used to attack them.

The American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars, for example, printed and distributed
under their own names Bureau-authored pamphlets condemning the SDS and the DuBois Clubs.

In another case, a confidential source, who headed an anti-Communist organization in Cleveland,
and who published a, "self-described conservative weekly newspaper," the Cleveland Times, was
anonymously mailed information on the Unitarian Society of Cleveland's sponsorship of efforts
to abolish the House Committee on Un-American Activities. The source had "embarrassed" the
Unitarian minister with questions about the alleged Communist connections of other cosponsors
"at public meetings." 204

It was anticipated that the source would publish a critical article in her newspaper, which "may
very well have the result of alerting the more responsible people in the community" to the nature
of the movement and "stifle it before it gets started." 205

The source newspaper did publish air article entitled "Locals to Aid Red Line," which named the
Minister, among others, as a local sponsor of what it termed a "Communist dominated plot" to
abolish the House Committee. 206

One group, described as a "militant anticommunist right wing organization, more of an activist
group than is the more well known John Birch Society," was used on at least four separate
occasions. The Bureau developed a long-range program to use the organization in
"counterintelligence activity" by establishing a fictitious person named "Lester Johnson" who
sent letters, made phone calls, offered financial support, and suggested action:

In view of the activist nature of this organization, and their lack of experience and knowledge
concerning the interior workings of the [local] CP, [the field office proposes] that efforts be
made to take over their activities and use them in such a manner as would be best calculated by
this office to completely disrupt and neutralize the [local] CP, all without [the organization]
becoming aware of the Bureau's interest in its operation. 207

"Lester Johnson" used the organization to distribute fliers and letters opposing the candidacy of a
lawyer running for a judgeship 208 and to disrupt a dinner at which an alleged Communist was
to speak. 209 "Johnson" also congratulated the organization on disrupting an antidraft meeting at
a, Methodist Church, furnishing further information about a speaker at the meeting 210 and
suggested that members picket the home of a local "communist functionary." 211

Another case is slightly different from the usual "hostile third party" actions, in that both
organizations were Bureau targets. "Operation Hoodwink" was intended to be a long-range
program to disrupt both La Cosa Nostra (which was not otherwise a COINTELPRO target) and
the Communist Party by "having them expend their energies attacking each other." The initial
project was to prepare and send a leaflet, which purported to be from a Communist Party leader
to a member of a New York "family" attacking working conditions at a business owned by the
family member. 212

D. Disseminating Derogatory Information to Family, Friends, and Associates

Although this technique was used in relatively few cases it accounts for some of the most
distressing of all COINTELPRO actions. Personal life information, some of which was gathered
expressly to be used in the programs, was then disseminated, either directly to the target's family
through an anonymous letter or telephone call, or indirectly, by giving the information to the
media.

Several letters were sent to spouses; three examples follow. 213 The names have been deleted for
privacy reasons.

The first letter was sent to the wife of a Grand Dragon of the United Klans of America ("Mrs.
A"). It was to be "typed on plain paper in an amateurish fashion." 214

"My Dear Mrs. (A),

"I write this letter to you only after a long period of praying to God. I must cleanse my soul of
these thoughts. I certainly do not want to create problems inside a faintly but I owe a duty to the
klans and its principles as well as to my own menfolk who have cast their divine lot with the
klans.

"Your husband came to [deleted] about a year ago and my menfolk blindly followed his
leadership, believing him to be the savior of this country. They never believed the "stories that he
stole money from the klans in [deleted] or that he is now making over $25,000 a year. They
never believed the stories that your house in [deleted] has a new refrigerator, washer, dryer and
yet one year ago, was threadbare. They refuse to believe that your husband now owns three cars
and a truck, including the new white car. But I believe all these things and I can forgive them for
a man wants to do for his family in the best way he can.

"I don't have any of these things and I don't grudge you any of them neither. But your husband
has been committing the greatest of the sins of our Lord for many years. He has taken the flesh
of another unto himself.

"Yes, Mrs. A, he has been committing adultery. My menfolk say they don't believe this but I
think they do. I feel like crying. I saw her with my own eyes. They call her Ruby. Her last name
is something like [deleted] and she lives in the 700 block of [deleted] Street in [deleted.] I know
this. I saw her strut around at a rally with her lustfilled eyes and smart aleck figure.

"I cannot stand for this. I will not let my husband and two brothers stand side by side with your
husband and this woman in the glorious robes of the klan. I am typing this because I am going to
send copys to Mr. Shelton and some of the klans leaders that I have faith in. I will not stop until
your husband is driven from [deleted] and back into the flesh-pots from wherein he came.
"I am a loyal klanswoman and a good churchgoer. I feel this problem affects the future of our
great country. I hope I do not cause you harm by this and if you believe in the Good Book as I do,
you may soon receive your husband back into the fold. I pray for you and your beautiful little
children and only wish I could tell you who I am. I will soon, but I am afraid my own men would
be harmed if I do."

"A God-fearing klanswoman"

The second letter was sent to the husband ("Mr. B") of a woman who had the distinction of being
both a New Left and Black Nationalist target; she was a leader in the local branch of the
Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, "which group is active in draft resistance,
antiwar rallies and New Left activities," and an officer in ACTION, a biracial group which broke
off from the local chapter of the Congress of Racial Equality and which "engaged in numerous
acts of civil disruption and disobedience." 215

Two informants reported that Mr. B had been making suspicious inquiries about his wife's
relationship with the Black males in ACTION. The local field office proposed an anonymous
letter to the husband which would confirm his suspicions, although the informants did not know
whether the allegations of misconduct were true. It was hoped that the "resulting marital
tempest" would "result in ACTION losing their [officer] and the WILPF losing a valuable leader,
thus striking a major blow against both organizations." 216

Accordingly, the following letter, 216a written in black ink, was sent to the husband:
A letter from the field office to headquarters four months later reported as a "tangible result" of
the letter that the target and her husband had recently separated, following a series of marital
arguments:

This matrimonial stress and strain should cause her to function much less effectively in ACTION.
While the letter sent by the [field office] was probably not the sole cause of this separation, it
certainly contributed very strongly. 217

The third letter was sent to the wife of a leader of the Black Liberators ("Mrs. C"). She was
living in their home town with their two daughters while he worked in the city. Bureau
documents describe Mrs. C. as a "faithful, loving wife, who is apparently convinced that her
husband is performing a vital service to the Black world. . . . She is to all indications an
intelligent, respectable young mother, who is active in the AME Methodist Church." 218

The letter was "prepared from a penmanship, spelling style to imitate that of the average Black
Liberator member. It contains several accusations which should cause [X's] wife great concern."
It was expressly intended to produce "ill feeling and possibly a lasting distrust" between X and
his wife; it was hoped that the "concern over what to do about it" would "detract from his time
spent in the plots and plans of his organization." 219
The letter was addressed to "Sister C":




The Petersen Committee said that some COINTELPRO actions were "abhorrent in a free
society." This technique surely falls within that condemnation. 220

E. Contacts with Employers

The Bureau often tried to get targets fired, with some success. 221 If the target was a teacher, the
intent was usually to deprive him of a forum and to remove what the Bureau believed to be the
added prestige given a political cause by educators. In other employer contacts, the purpose was
either to eliminate a source of funds for the individual or (if the target was a donor) the group, or
to have the employer apply pressure on the target to stop his activities.

For example, an Episcopal minister furnished "financial and other" assistance to the Black
Panther Party in his city. The Bureau sent an anonymous letter to his bishop so that the church
would exert pressure on the minister to "refrain from assistance to the Black Panther Party." 222
Similarly, a priest who allowed the Black Panther Party to use his church for its breakfast
program was targeted; his bishop received both an anonymous letter and three anonymous phone
calls. The priest was transferred shortly thereafter. 223

In another case, a black county employee was targeted because he had attended a fund raiser for
the Mississippi Summer Project and, on another occasion, a presentation of a Negro History
Week program. Both functions had been supported by "clandestine CP members." The employee,
according to the documents, had no record of subversive activities; "he and his wife appear to be
genuinely interested in the welfare of Negroes and other minority groups and are being taken in
by the communists." The Bureau chose a curiously indirect way to inform the target of his
friends' Party membership; a local law enforcement official was used to contact the County
Administrator in the expectation that the employee would be "called in and questioned about his
left-wing associates." 224

The Bureau made several attempts to stop outside sources from funding target operations. 225
For example, the Bureau learned that SNCC was trying to obtain funds from the Episcopal
Church for a "liberation school." Two carefully spaced letters were sent to the Church which
falsely alleged that SNCC was engaged in a "fraudulent scheme" involving the anticipated funds.
The letters purported to be from local businessmen approached by SNCC to place fictitious
orders for school supplies and divide the money when the Church paid the bills. 226 Similar
letters were sent to the Interreligious Foundation for Community Organizing, from which SNCC
had requested a grant for its "Agrarian Reform Plan." This time, the letters alleged kickback
approaches in the sale of farm equipment and real estate. 227

Other targets include an employee of the Urban League, who was fired because the Bureau
contacted a confidential source in a foundation which funded the League; 228 a lawyer known
for his representation of "subversives," whose nonmovement client received an anonymous letter
advising it not to employ a "well-known Communist Party apologist"; 229 and a television
commentator who was transferred after his station and superiors received an anonymous protest
letter. The commentator, who had a weekly religious program, had expressed admiration for a
black nationalist leader and criticized the United States' defense policy. 230

F. Use and Abuse of Government Processes

This category, which comprises 9 percent of all approved proposals includes selective law
enforcement (using Federal, state, or local authorities to arrest, audit, raid, inspect, deport, etc.) ;
interference with judicial proceedings, including targeting lawyers who represent "subversives";
interference with candidates or political appointees; and using politicians and investigating
committees, sometimes without their knowledge, to take action against targets.

1. Selective Law Enforcement

Bureau documents often state that notifying law enforcement agencies of violations committed
by COINTELPRO targets is not counterintelligence, but part of normal Bureau responsibility.
Other documents, however, make it clear that "counterintelligence" was precisely the purpose.
"Be alert to have them arrested," reads a New Left COINTELPRO directive to all participating
field offices. 231 Further, there is clearly a difference between notifying other agencies of
information that the Bureau happened across in an investigation -- in plain view, so to speak --
and instructing field offices to find evidence of violations -- any violations -- to "get" a target. As
George Moore stated:

Ordinarily, we would not be interested in health violations because it is not my jurisdiction, we
would not waste our time. But under this program, we would tell our informants perhaps to be
alert to any health violations or other licensing requirements or things of that nature, whether
there were violations and we would see that they were reported. 232

State and local agencies were frequently informed of alleged statutory violations which would
come within their jurisdiction. 233 As noted above, this was not always normal Bureau
procedure.

A typical example of the attempted use, of local authorities to disrupt targeted activities is the
Bureau's attempt to have a Democratic Party fund raiser raided by the state Alcoholic Beverage
Control Commission. 234 The function was to be held at a private house: the admission charge
included "refreshments." It was anticipated that alcoholic beverages would be served. A
confidential source in the ABC Commission agreed to send an agent to the fund raiser to
determine if liquor was being served and then to conduct a raid. 235 (In fact, the raid was
cancelled for reasons beyond the Bureau's control. A prior raid on the local fire department's
fund raiser had given rise to considerable criticism and the District Attorney issued an advisory
opinion that such affairs did not violate state law. The confidential source advised the field office
that the ABC would not, after all, raid the Democrats because of "political ramifications.") 236

In the second case, the target was a "key figure" Communist. He had a history of homosexuality
and was known to frequent a local hotel. The Bureau requested that the local police have him
arrested for homosexuality; it was then intended to publicize the arrest to "embarrass the Party."
Interestingly, the Bureau withdrew its request when the target stopped working actively for the
Party because it would no longer cause the intended disruption. 237 This would appear to rebut
the Bureau's contention that turning over evidence of violations to local authorities was not really
COINTELPRO at all, but just part of its job.

2. Interference With Judicial Process

The Bureau's attempts to interfere with judicial processes affecting targets are particularly
disturbing because they violate a fundamental principle of our system of government. Justice is
supposed to be blind. Nevertheless, when a target appeared before a judge, a jury, or a probation
board, he sometimes carried an unknown burden; the Bureau had gotten there first.

Three examples should be sufficient. A university student who was a leader of the Afro
American Action Committee had been arrested in a demonstration at the university. The Bureau
sent an anonymous letter to the county prosecutor intended to discredit her by exposing her
"subversive connections"; her adoptive father was described as a Communist Party member. The
Bureau believed that the letter might aid the prosecutor in his case against the student. Another
anonymous letter containing the same information was mailed to a local radio announcer who
had an "open mike" program critical of local "leftist" activity. The letter was intended to further
publicize the "connection" between the student and the Communist Party. 239

In the second example, a Klan leader who had been convicted on a weapons charge was out on
bail pending appeal. He spoke at a Klan rally, and the Bureau arranged to have newsmen present.
The resulting stories and photographs were then delivered to the appellate judges considering his
case. 240

The third instance involved a real estate speculator's bequest of over a million dollars to the three
representatives of the Communist Party who were expected to turn it over to the Party. The
Bureau interviewed the probate judge sitting on the case, who was "very cooperative" and
promised to look the case over carefully. The judge asked the Bureau to determine whether the
widow would be willing to "take any action designed to keep the Communist Party from getting
the money." The Bureau's efforts to gain the widow's help in contesting the will proved
unsuccessful. 241

3. Candidates and Political Appointees

The Bureau apparently did not trust the American people, to make the proper choices in the
voting booth. Candidates who, in the Bureau's opinion, should not be elected were therefore
targeted. The case of the Democratic fundraiser discussed earlier was just one example.

Socialist Workers Party candidates were routinely selected for counterintelligence, although they
had never come close to winning an election. In one case, a SWP candidate for state office
inadvertently protected herself from action by announcing at a news conference that she had no
objections to premarital sex; a field office thereupon withdrew its previously approved proposal
to publicize her common law marriage. 241a

Other candidates were also targeted. A Midwest lawyer whose firm represented "subversives"
(defendants in the Smith Act trials) ran for City Council. The lawyer had been active in the civil
rights movement in the South, and the John Birch Society in his city had recently mailed a book
called "It's Very Simple -- The True Story of Civil Rights" to various ministers, priests, and
rabbis. The Bureau received a copy of the mailing list from a source in the Birch Society and
sent an anonymous follow-up letter to the book's recipients noting the pages on which the
candidate had been mentioned and calling their attention to the "Communist background" of this
"charlatan." 242 The Bureau also sent a fictitious-name letter to a television station on which the
candidate was to appear, enclosing a series of informative questions it believed should be asked.
243 The candidate was defeated. He subsequently ran (successfully, as it happened) for a
judgeship.

Political appointees were also targeted. One target was a member of the board of the NAACP
and the Democratic State Central Committee. His brother, according to the documents, was a
communist, and the target had participated in some Party youth group activities fifteen years
earlier. The target's appointment as secretary of a city transportation board elicited an anonymous
letter to the Mayor, with carbons to two newspapers, protesting the use of "us taxpayers' money"
in the appointment of a "known Communist" to a highly paid job; more anonymous letters to
various politicians, the American Legion, and the county prosecutor in the same vein; and a
pseudonymous letter to the members of the transportation board, stating that the Mayor had
"saddled them with a Commie secretary because he thinks it will get him a few Negro votes. 244

4. Investigating Committees

State and Federal legislative investigating committees were occasionally used to attack a target,
since the committees' interests usually marched with the Bureau's.

Perhaps the most elaborate use of an investigating committee was the framing of a complicated
"snitch jacket." In October 1959, a legislative committee held hearings in Philadelphia,
"ostensibly" to show a resurgence of CP activity in the area. 245 The Bureau's target was
subpoenaed to appear before the committee but was not actually called to testify. The field office
proposed that local CP leaders be contacted to raise the question of "how it was possible for [the
target] to escape testifying" before the committee; this "might place suspicion on him as being
cooperative" with the investigators and "raise sufficient doubt in the minds of the leaders
regarding [the target] to force him out of the CP or at least to isolate and neutralize him."
Strangely enough, the target was not a bona fide CP member; he was an undercover infiltrator
for a private anti-Communist group who had been a source of trouble for the FBI because he
kept getting in their way.

A more typical example of the use of a legislative committee is a series of anonymous letters
sent to the chairman of a state investigating committee that was designated to look into New Left
activities on the state's college campuses. The target was an activist professor, and the letters
detailed his "subversive background."

G. Exposing "Communist Infiltration" of Groups

This technique was used in approximately 4 percent of all approved proposals. The most
common method involved anonymously notifying the group (civil rights organization, PTA, Boy
Scouts, etc.) that one or more of its members was a "Communist," 246 so that it could take
whatever action it deemed appropriate. Occasionally, however, the group itself was the
COINTELPRO target. In those cases, the information went to the media, and the intent was to
link the group to the Communist Party.

For example, one target was a Western professor who was the immediate past president of a
local peace center, "a coalition of anti-Vietnam and antidraft groups." He had resigned to become
chairman of the state's McCarthy campaign organization, but it was anticipated that he would
return to the peace center after the election. According to the documents, the professor's wife had
been a Communist Party member in the early 1950s. This information was furnished to a
newspaper editor who had written an editorial branding the SDS and various black power groups
as "professional revolutionists." The information was intended to "expose these people at this
time when they are receiving considerable publicity to not only educate the public to their
character, but disrupt the members" of the peace organization. 247
In another case, the Bureau learned through electronic surveillance of a civil rights leader's plans
to attend a reception at the Soviet Mission to the United Nations. (The reception was to honor a
Soviet author.) The civil rights leader was active in a school boycott which had been previously
targeted; the Bureau arranged to have news photographers at the scene to photograph him
entering the Soviet Mission. 248

Other instances include furnishing information to the media on the participation of the
Communist Party Presidential candidate in a United Farm Workers' picket line: 249
"confidentially" telling established sources of three Northern California newspapers that the San
Francisco County CP Committee had stated that the Bay area civil rights groups would "begin
working" on the area's large newspapers "in an effort to secure greater employment of Negroes;"
250 and furnishing information on Socialist Workers Party participation in the Spring
Mobilization Committee to End the War in Vietnam to "discredit" the antiwar group by tying it
"into the subversive movement." 251


           V. COMMAND AND CONTROL: THE PROBLEM OF OVERSIGHT

A. Within the, Bureau

1. Internal Administration

The Bureau attempted to exercise stringent internal controls over COINTELPRO. All
counterintelligence proposals had to be approved by headquarters. Every originating
COINTELPRO document contains a strong warning to the field that "no counterintelligence
action may be initiated by the field without specific Bureau authorization." The field would send
a proposal under the COINTELPRO caption to the Seat of Government -- the Bureau term for
headquarters -- where it would be routed to the Section Chief of the section handling the
particular COINTELPRO program. 252

The recommendation would then be attached to the proposal, beginning the process of
administrative review. The lowest level on which a proposal could be approved was the Assistant
Director, Domestic Intelligence Division, to whom the Section Chief reported via the Branch
Chief. More often, the proposal would go through the Assistant to the Director and often to the
Director himself.

2. Coordination

The Counterintelligence programs were coordinated with the rest of the section's work primarily
through informal contacts, but also through section meetings and the Section Chief's knowledge
of the work of his entire section. Further, although the initial COINTELPRO was an effort to
centralize what had been an ad hoc series of field actions, the programs continued to be
essentially field-oriented with little target selection by headquarters. However, the Section Chief
would attempt to make sure targets were being effectively chosen by occasionally sending out
directives to field offices to intensify the investigation of a particular individual or group and to
consider the subject for counterintelligence action."
3. Results

Participating field offices were required to send in status letters (usually every ninety days)
reporting any tangible results. They were instructed to resolve any doubts as to whether a
counterintelligence action caused the observed result in their favor. Nevertheless, results were
reported in only 527 cases, or 22 percent, of the approved actions. When a "good" result was
reported, the field office, or agent involved frequently received a letter of commendation or
incentive award. 254

4. Blurred Distinction Between Counterintelligence and Investigation

It is possible that some actions did not receive headquarters scrutiny simply because the field
offices were never told precisely what "counterintelligence" was. Although Bureau procedures
strictly required COINTELPRO proposals to be approved at headquarters and a control file to be
maintained both in the field and at headquarters, the field offices had no way to determine with
any certainty just what was counterintelligence and what was investigation. Many of the
techniques overlap: contacts with employers, contacts with family members, contacts with local
law enforcement, even straight interviewing, are all investigative techniques which were used in
COINTELPRO actions. 255 More importantly, actions in the Rev. Martin Luther King case
which cannot, by any stretch of the language, be called "investigative" were not called
COINTELPRO, but were carried under the investigative caption. 256

The Bureau witnesses agree that COINTELPRO has no fixed definition, and that there is a large
grey area between what is counterintelligence and what is aggressive investigation. As the Black
Nationalist supervisor put it, "Basically actions taken to neutralize an individual or disrupt an
organization would be COINTELPRO; actions which were primarily investigative would have
been handled by the investigative desks," even though the investigative action had disruptive
effects. 256a Aggressive investigation continues, and in many cases may be as disruptive as
COINTELPRO, because in an investigation the Bureau can and does reveal its interest. An
anonymous letter (COINTELPRO) can be discarded as the work of a crank; but if the local FBI
agent says the subject of an investigation is a subversive an employer or family member pays
attention.

5. Inspection

The Inspection Division attempted to ensure that standard procedures were being followed. The
Inspectors focused on two things: field office participation, and the mechanics of headquarters
approval. However, the Inspection Division did not exercise oversight in the sense of looking for
wrongdoing. Rather, it was an active participant in COINTELPRO by attempting to make sure
that it was being efficiently and enthusiastically conducted. 257

As the Assistant Director then in charge of the Inspection Division testified, the "propriety" of
COINTELPRO was not investigated. He agreed that his job was to "determine whether the
program was being pursued effectively as opposed to whether it was proper," and added, "There
was no instruction to me, nor do I believe there is any instruction in the Inspector's manual that
the Inspector should be on the alert to see that constitutional values are being protected." 258
B. Outside the Bureau: 1956-1971

There is no clear answer to the question whether anyone outside the Bureau knew about
COINTELPRO. One of the hallmarks of C01NTELPRO was its secrecy. No one outside the
Bureau was to know it existed. 259 A characteristic instruction appeared in the Black Nationalist
originating letter:

You are also cautioned that the nature of this new endeavor is such that under no circumstances
should the existence of the program be made known outside the Bureau and appropriate within-
office security should be afforded to sensitive operations and techniques considered under the
program. 260

Thus, for example, anonymous letters had to be written on commercially purchased stationery;
newsmen had to be so completely trustworthy that they were guaranteed not to reveal the
Bureau's interest; and inquiries of law enforcement officials had to be under investigative pretext.
In approving or denying any proposal, the primary consideration was preventing "embarrassment
to the Bureau." Embarrassment is a term of art. It means both public relations embarrassment --
criticism -- and any revelation of the Bureau's investigative interest to the subject, which may
then be expected to take countermeasures. 261

This secrecy has an obvious impact on the oversight process. There is some question whether
anyone with oversight responsibility outside the Bureau was informed of COINTELPRO. In
response to the Committee's request, the Bureau has assembled all documents available in its
files which indicate that members of the executive and legislative branches were so informed.
262

1. Executive Branch

On May 8, 1958, Director Hoover sent two letters, one to the Honorable Robert Cutler, Special
Assistant to President Eisenhower, and the other to Attorney General William Rogers, containing
the same information. The Attorney General's letter is captioned "COMMUNIST PARTY, USA-
INTERNAL SECURITY." The letters are fairly explicit notification of the CPUSA
COINTELPRO:

In August of 1956, this Bureau initiated a program designed to promote disruption within the
ranks of the Communist Party (CP) USA ... Several techniques have been utilized to accomplish
our objectives. 263

The letters go on to detail use of informants to engage in controversial discussions, after which
"acrimonious debates ensued, suspicions were aroused, and jealousies fomented"; and
anonymous mailings of anti-communist material, both reprinted and Bureau-prepared, to active
CP members. 264 (Two examples of the Bureau's product were enclosed.) "Tangible
accomplishments" achieved by the program were "disillusionment and defection among Party
members and increased factionalism at all levels." 265 However, the only techniques disclosed
were use of informants and anonymous propaganda mailings. There is no record of any reply to
these letters.
On January 10, 1961, letters from the Director were sent to Dean Rusk, Robert Kennedy, and
Byron R. White, who were about to take office as Secretary of State, Attorney General, and
Deputy Attorney General, respectively. The letters enclosed a top secret summary memorandum
setting forth the overall activities of the Communist Party, USA, and stated, "Our responsibilities
in the internal security field and our counterattack against the CPUSA are also set out in this
memorandum." 266

The five-page memorandum contains one section entitled "FBI Counterattack." This section
details penetration of the Party at all levels with security informants; use of various techniques to
keep the Party off-balance and disillusioned; infiltration by informants; intensive investigation of
Party members; and prosecution. Only one paragraph of that report appears at all related to the
Bureau's claim that the CPUSA COINTELPRO was disclosed:

As an adjunct to our regular investigative operations, we carry on a carefully planned program of
counterattack against the CPUSA which keeps it off balance. Our primary purpose in this
program is to bring about disillusionment on the part of individual members which is carried on
from both inside and outside the Party organization. [Sentence on use of informants to disrupt
excised for security reasons.]

In certain instances we have been successful in preventing communists from seizing control of
legitimate mass organizations and have discredited others who were secretly operating inside
such organizations. For example, during 1959 we were able to prevent the CPUSA from seizing
control of the 20,000-member branch of the National Association for the Advancement of
Colored People in Chicago, Illinois. 267

The only techniques disclosed were use of informants and COMINFIL exposure. There is no
record of any replies to these letters.

On September 2, 1965, letters were sent to the Honorable Marvin Watson, Special Assistant to
President Johnson and Attorney General Katzenbach (whose letter was captioned
"PENETRATION AND DISRUPTION OF KLAN ORGANIZATIONS-RACIAL MATTERS").
These two-page letters refer to the Bureau's success in solving a number of cases involving racial
violence in the South. They then detail the development of a large number of informants and the
value of the information received from them.

One paragraph deals with "disruption":

We also are seizing every opportunity to disrupt the activities of Klan organizations. Typical is
the manner in which we exposed and thwarted a "kick back" scheme a Klan group was using in
one southern state to help finance its activities. One member of the group was selling insurance
to other Klan members and would deposit a generous portion of the premium refunds in the Klan
treasury. As a result of action we took, the insurance company learned of the scheme and
cancelled all the policies held by Klan members, thereby cutting on a sizable source of revenue
which had been used to finance Klan activities. 268
Notifying an insurance company of a kick back scheme involving its premiums is not a "typical"
COINTELPRO technique. It falls within that grey area between counterintelligence and ordinary
Bureau responsibilities. Nevertheless, the statement that the Bureau is "seizing every opportunity
to disrupt the activities of Klan organizations" is considered by the Bureau to be notification of
the White Hate COINTELPRO, even though it does not distinguish between the inevitable and
sometimes proper disruption of intensive investigation and the intended disruption of covert
action.

On September 3,1965, Mr. Katzenbach replied to the Director's letter with a two-paragraph
memorandum captioned "Re: Your memorandum of September 2, regarding penetration and
disruption of Klan organizations." The body of the memorandum makes no reference to
disruption, but praises the accomplishments of the Bureau in the area of Klan penetration and
congratulates Director Hoover on the development of his informant system and the results
obtained through it. The letter concludes:

It is unfortunate that the value of these activities would in most cases be lost if too extensive
publicity were given to them; however, perhaps at some point it may be possible to place these
achievements on the public record, so that the Bureau can receive its due credit. 269

The Bureau interpreted this letter as approval and praise of its White Hate COINTELPRO. Mr.
Katzenbach has said that he has no memory of this document, nor of the response. He testified
that during his term in the Department he had never heard the terms "COINTEL" or
COINTELPRO, and that while he was familiar with the Klan investigation, he was not aware of
any improper activities such as letters to Wives. 270 Mr. Katzenbach added:

It never occurred to me that the Bureau would engage in the sort of sustained improper activity
which it apparently did. Moreover, given these excesses, I am not surprised that I and others
were unaware of them. Would it have made sense for the FBI to seek approval for activities of
this nature -- especially from Attorneys General who did not share Mr. Hoover's political views,
who would not have been in sympathy with the purpose of these attacks, and who would not
have condoned the methods? 271

The files do not reveal any response from Mr. Watson.

On December 19, 1967, Director Hoover sent a letter to Attorney General Ramsey Clark, with a
copy to Deputy Attorney General Warren Christopher, captioned "KU KLUX KLAN
INVESTIGATIONS -- FBI ACCOMPLISHMENTS" and attaching a ten-page memorandum
with the same caption and a list of statements and publications regarding the Ku Klux Klan "and
the FBI's role in investigating Klan matters." The memorandum was prepared "pursuant to your
conversation with Cartha DeLoach of this Bureau concerning FBI coverage and penetration of
the Ku Klux Klan." 272

The memo is divided into eleven sections: Background, Present Status, FBI Responsibility,
Major Cases, Informants, Special Projects, Liaison With Local Authorities, Klan Infiltration of
Law Enforcement, Acquisition of Weapons and Dynamite of the Ku Klux Klan, Interviews of
Klansmen, and Recent Developments.
The first statement in the memorandum which might conceivably relate to the White Hate
COINTELPRO appears under the heading "FBI Responsibility":

. . . We conduct intelligence investigations with the view toward infiltrating the Ku Klux Klan
with informants, neutralizing it as a terrorist organization, and deterring violence. 273

The Bureau considers the word "neutralize" to be a COINTELPRO key word.

Some specific activities which were carried out within the Bureau under the COINTELPRO
caption are then detailed under the heading "Special Projects." The use of Bureau informants to
effect the removal of Klan officers is set forth under the subheadings "Florida," "Mississippi,"
and "Louisiana." More significantly, the "Florida" paragraph includes the statement that, "We
have found that by the removal of top Klan officers and provoking scandal within the state Klan
organization through our informants, the Klan in a particular area can be rendered ineffective."
274 This sentence, although somewhat buried should, if focused upon, have alerted the recipients
to actions going beyond normal investigative activity. Other references are more vague, referring
only to "containing the growth" or "controlling the expansion" of state Klans. 275 There is no
record of any reply to this letter, which Clark does not remember receiving:

Did [these phrases in the letter] put me on notice? No. Why? I either did not read them, or if I did
read them, didn't read them carefully.... I think I didn't read this. I think perhaps I had asked for it
for someone else, and either bucked it on to them or never saw it. 276

He added, "I think that any disruptive activities, such as those you reveal, regarding the
COINTEL program and the Ku Klux Klan should be absolutely prohibited and subjected to
criminal prosecution." 277

Finally, on September 17,1969, a letter was sent to Attorney General Mitchell, with copies to the
Deputy Attorney General and the Assistant Attorneys General of the Criminal Division, Internal
Security Division, and Civil Division, captioned "INVESTIGATION OF KLAN
ORGANIZATIONS-RACIAL MATTERS (KLAN)," which informs the recipients of the
"significant progress we have recently made in our investigation of the Ku Klux Klan." The one
page letter states that, "during the last several months, 278 while various national and state
leaders of the United Klan of America remain in prison, we have attempted to negate the
activities of the temporary leaders of the Ku Klux Klan." 279

The only example given is the "careful use and instruction of selected racial informants" to
"initiate a split within the United Klans of America." This split was evidenced by a Klan rally
during which "approximately 150 Klan membership cards were tacked to a cross and burned to
signify this breach." 280

The letter concludes, "We will continue to give full attention to our responsibilities in an effort to
accomplish the maximum possible neutralization of the Klan." 281 There is no record of any
replies to these letters.
While the only documentary evidence that members of the executive branch were informed of
the existence of any COINTELPRO has been set forth above, the COINTELPRO unit chief
stated that he was certain that Director Hoover orally briefed every Attorney General and
President, since he wrote "squibs" for the Director to use in such briefings. He could not,
however, remember the dates or subject matter of the briefings, and the Bureau was unable to
produce any such "squibs" (which would not, in any case, have been routinely saved). Cartha
DeLoach, former Assistant to the Director, testified that he "distinctly" recalled briefing Attorney
General Clark, "generally ... concerning COINTELPRO. 282 Clark denied that DeLoach's
testimony was either true or accurate, adding "I do not believe that he briefed me on anything
even, as he says, generally concerning COINTELPRO, whatever that means." 283 The Bureau
has failed to produce any memoranda of such oral briefings, although it was the habit of both
Director Hoover and DeLoach to write memoranda for the files in such situations. 284

2. The Cabinet

The Bureau has furnished the Committee a portion of a briefing paper prepared for Director
Hoover for his briefing of the Cabinet, presided over by President Eisenhower, dated November
6, 1958. There is no transcript of the actual briefing. The briefing as a whole apparently dealt
with, among other things, seven programs which are "part of our overall counterintelligence
operations" and which are "specific answers to specific problems which have arisen within our
investigative jurisdiction." Six of the programs apparently related to espionage. The seventh
deals with the CPUSA:

To counteract a resurgence of Communist Party influence in the United States, we have a
seventh program designed to intensify any confusion and dissatisfaction among its members.
During the past few years, this program has been most effective. Selective informants were
briefed and trained to raise controversial issues within the Party. In the process, many were able
to advance themselves to higher positions. The Internal Revenue Service was furnished the
names and addresses of Party functionaries who had been active in the underground apparatus.
Based on this information, investigations were instituted in 262 possible income tax evasion
cases. Anticommunist literature and simulated Party documents were mailed anonymously to
carefully chosen members. 285

This statement, although concise, would appear to be a fairly explicit notification of the existence
of the CPUSA COINTELPRO. There are no documents reflecting any response.

3. Legislative Branch

The Bureau has furnished excerpts from briefing papers prepared for the Director in his annual
appearances before the House Appropriations Subcommittee. During the hearings pertaining to
fiscal years 1958, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1963, 1966, and 1967, 286 these briefing papers were given
to the Director to be used in top secret, off-the-record testimony relating to the CPUSA and
White Hate COINTELPROs. No transcripts are available of the actual briefings, and it is,
therefore, not possible to determine whether the briefing papers were used at all, or, conversely,
whether the Director went beyond them to give additional information. Additionally, portions of
the briefing papers are underlined by hand and portions have been crossed out, also by hand.
Some sections are both underlined and crossed out. The Bureau has not been able to explain the
meaning of the underlining or cross marks. However, if the briefing papers were used as written,
the Subcommittee was informed of the existence of the CPUSA and Klan COINTELPROs.

The FY 1958 briefing paper is in outline form. Under the, heading "auxiliary measures directed
against Communist Party-USA" is a paragraph entitled "FBI counterintelligence program to
exploit Party 'split':"

The Bureau also recently inaugurated a newly devised counterintelligence program which is
designed to capitalize upon the "split" presently existing in the leadership of the Communist
Party-USA. Among other objectives, efforts are being made by the Bureau, through informants
and other techniques, to keep these rifts open, and to otherwise weaken the party where possible
to do so in an anonymous manner. The Internal Revenue Service has been given the names of
336 communist underground subjects, so that the agency may be able to entertain prosecutions
for filing of false income tax returns or other violations within the jurisdiction of that Service.

The FY 1959 briefing paper on the CPUSA deals primarily with informant penetration, but
includes the statement that "to counteract [CPUSA] activities the FBI for years has had a planned
intensive program designed to infiltrate, penetrate, disorganize, and disrupt the Communist Party,
USA." 287 In covering informant activities, the paper includes the statement "they [informants]
have likewise worked to excellent advantage as a disruptive tactic." 288 The one specific
example cited has been deleted by the Bureau because it tends to identify an informant.

The FY 1960 briefing paper is even more explicit. The pertinent section is entitled "FBI's Anti-
Communist Counterintelligence Program." It details use of informants to engage in controversial
discussions "to promote dissension, factionalism and defections" which "have been extremely
successful from a disruptive standpoint." 289 One paragraph deals with propaganda mailings
"carefully concealing the identity of the FBI as its source"; 290 another paragraph states that
"Communist Party leaders are considerably concerned over this anonymous dissemination of
literature." 291

The FY 1961 briefing paper, again titled "FBI's Counterintelligence Program", states that the
program was devised "to promote dissension, factionalism and defections within the communist
cause." 292 The only technique discussed (but at some length) is anonymous propaganda
mailings. The effectiveness of the technique, according to the paper, was proven from the mouth
of the enemy that the mailings "appear to be the greatest danger to the Communist Party, USA."
293

The FY 1963 briefing paper, captioned "Counterintelligence Program," is extraordinarily explicit.
It reveals that:

Since August, 1956, we have augmented our regular investigative operations against the
Communist Party-USA with a "counterintelligence program" which involves the application of
disruptive techniques and psychological warfare directed at discrediting and disrupting the
operations of the Party, and causing disillusionment and defections within the communist ranks.
The tangible results we are obtaining through these covert and extremely sensitive operations
speak for themselves. 294

The paper goes on to set forth such techniques as disrupting meetings, rallies, and press
conferences through causing the last-minute cancellation of the rental of the hall, packing the
audience with anticommunists, arranging adverse publicity in the press, and giving friendly
reporters "embarrassing questions" for Communists they interviewed. The briefing paper also
mentions the use of newsmen to take photographs which show the close relationship between the
leaders of the CPUSA and officials of the Soviet Union, using informants to sow discord and
factionalism, exposing and discrediting Communists in such "legitimate organizations" as the
YMCA and the Boy Scouts, and mailing anonymous propaganda. 295

The briefing paper for FY 1966 again refers to "counterintelligence action:" "We have since
1956 carried on a sensitive program for the purpose of disrupting, exposing, discrediting, and
otherwise neutralizing the Communist Party-USA and related organizations." 296 The paper
cites two examples. The first is an operation conducted against a Communist Party functionary
who arrived in a (deleted) city to conduct a secret two-week Party school for local youth. The
Bureau arranged for him to be greeted at the airport by local television newsmen. The
functionary lost his temper, pushing the reporter away and swinging his briefcase at the
cameraman, who was busily filming the entire incident. The film was later televised nationally.
The second technique is described as "the most effective single blow ever dealt the organized
communist movement." The description has been deleted "as it tends to reveal a highly sensitive
technique." 297 The COINTELPRO unit chief also stated that this one single action succeeded in
causing a "radical decrease" in CPUSA membership, but refused to tell the Committee staff what
that action was because it involved foreign counterintelligence. 298

The final briefing paper, for FY 1967, refers to the CPUSA program and its expansion in 1964 to
include "Klan and hate-type organizations and their memberships." It continues,
"counterintelligence action today is a valuable adjunct to investigative responsibilities and the
techniques used complement our investigations. All information related to the targeted
organizations, their leadership and members, which is developed from a variety of sources, is
carefully reviewed for its potential for use under this program." 299

Examples cited are the Bureau's preparation of a leaflet on the W.E.B. DuBois Clubs entitled
"Target ... American Youth!" sponsored by the VFW; alerting owners of meeting locations to
their use by Communists; alerting the Veterans Administration to a Klan member's full-time
employment in order to reduce his pension, and the IRS to the fact that he failed to file tax
returns; exposing the insurance kick back scheme also referred to in the 1965 letters to Watson
and Katzenbach; and increasing informant coverage by duplicating a Klan business card given to
prospective members. 300

C. Outside the Bureau: Post -- 1971.

In the fall of 1973, the Department of Justice released certain COINTELPRO documents which
had been requested by NBC reporter Carl Stern in a Freedom of Information Act request
following the Media, Pennsylvania, break-in. In January 1974, Attorney General Saxbe asked
Assistant Attorney General Henry Petersen to form an intradepartmental committee to study
COINTELPRO and report back to him. 301 The committee was composed of both Department
attorneys and Bureau agents. The Department lawyers did not work directly with Bureau
documents; instead the Bureau prepared summaries of the documents in the COINTELPRO
control file, which did not include the identities or affiliations of the targets, and the Department
members were allowed to do a sample comparison to verify the accuracy of the summaries.

A revised and shortened version of the report of the Petersen Committee was made public in
November 1974. The public report was prefaced by a statement from Attorney General Saxbe
which stated that while "in a small number of instances, some of these programs involved what
we consider today to be improper activities," most of the activities "were legitimate." 301a The
public version did not examine the purposes or legality of the programs or the techniques,
although it did state some COINTELPRO activities involved "isolated instances" of practices
that "can only be considered abhorrent in a free society." 302 The confidential report to Attorney
General Saxbe examined the legal issues at some length. It emphasized that many
COINTELPRO activities "were entirely proper and appropriate law enforcement procedures."
303 These included the following:

notifying other Government authorities of civil and criminal violations of group members;
interviewing such group members; disseminating public source material on such individuals and
groups to media representatives; encouraging informants to argue against the use of violence by
such groups; and issuing general public comment on the activities, policies and objectives of
such groups through testimony at legislative hearings and in other formal reports. 304

On the other hand, the report concluded that many other COINTELPRO activities designed to
expose, disrupt, and neutralize domestic groups "exceeded the Bureau's investigative authority
and may be said to constitute an unwarranted interference with First Amendment rights of free
speech and associations of the target individuals and organizations." 305

Department attorneys prepared two legal memoranda, one viewing COINTELPRO as a
conspiracy to deprive persons of First Amendment rights under 18 U.S.C. 241, and the other
rejecting that view. 306 The committee itself reached the following conclusion:

While as a matter of pure legal theory it is arguable that these programs resulted in Section 241
violations, it is the view of the committee that any decision as to whether prosecution should be
undertaken must also take into account several other important factors which bear upon the
events in question. These factors are: first, the historical context in which the programs were
conceived and executed by the Bureau in response to public and even Congressional demands for
action to neutralize the self-proclaimed revolutionary aims and violence prone activities of
extremist groups which posed a threat to the peace and tranquility of our cities in the mid and
late sixties; second, the fact that each of the COINTELPRO programs was personally approved
and supported by the late Director of the FBI; and third, the fact that the interferences with First
Amendment rights resulting from individual implemented program actions were insubstantial.
Under these circumstances, it is the view of the committee that the opening of a criminal
investigation of these matters is not warranted. 307
The report also concluded that there were "substantial questions" as to the liability of various
former and present officials to civil suit "under tort theories of defamation of interference with
contract rights." 308

The Departmental committee's crucial conclusion was that the interferences with First
Amendment rights were "insubstantial." It appears to have reached that conclusion by ignoring
the declared goals of the programs: cutting down group membership and preventing the
"propagation" of a group's philosophy. Further, the committee brushed over dangerous or
degrading techniques by breaking down the categories of actions into very small percentages,
and then concluded that, if only 1 percent of the actions involved poison pen letters to spouses,
then the activity was "insubstantial" as compared to the entirety of COINTEL proposals, even
though, as to the individuals in that category, the invasion might be very substantial indeed.

Another weakness in the Petersen committee report is its characterization as legitimate of such
techniques as "leaking" public source material to the media, interviewing group members, and
notifying other government authorities of civil and criminal violations. The term "public source
material" is misleading, since the FBI's files contain a large amount of so-called public source
data (such as arrest records, outdated or inaccurate news stories) which should not be "leaked"
outside the Bureau to discredit an individual. 309 Interviews can be conducted in such an
intrusive and persistent manner as to constitute harassment. Minor technical law violations can
be magnified when uncovered and reported by the FBI to another agency for the purpose of
disruption rather than objective law enforcement. 310 Claims that a technique is legitimate per se
should not be accepted without examining the actual purpose and effect of the activity.

Although the Petersen committee's report concluded that "the opening of a criminal investigation
of these matters is not warranted," 311 the Committee did recommend broad changes in Bureau
procedures. First, the report urged that "a sharp distinction . . . be made between FBI activities in
the area of foreign counterintelligence and those in the domestic field." 312 The committee
proposed that the Attorney General issue a directive to the FBI:

prohibiting it from instituting any counterintelligence program such as COINTELPRO without
his prior knowledge and approval. Specifically, this directive should make it unmistakably clear
that no disruptive action should be taken by the FBI in connection with its investigative
responsibilities involving domestic based organizations, except those which are sanctioned by
rule of law, procedure, or judicially recognized and accepted police practices, and which are not
in violation of state or federal law. The FBI should also be charged that in any event where a
proposed action may be perceived, with reason, to unfairly affect the rights of citizens, it is the
responsibility of the FBI as an institution and of FBI agents as individuals to seek legal advice
from the Attorney General or his authorized representative. 313

Attorney General Saxbe did not issue such a directive, and the matter is still pending before
Attorney General Levi. 314


                                         VI. EPILOGUE
On April 1, 1976, Attorney General Levi announced the establishment of a special review
committee within the Department of Justice to notify COINTELPRO victims that they were the
subjects of FBI activities directed against them. Notification will be made "in those instances
where the specific COINTELPRO activity was improper, actual harm may have occurred, and
the subjects are not already aware that they were the targets of COINTELPRO activities." 315

The review committee has established guidelines for determining which COINTELPRO
activities were "improper," but it will be difficult to make that determination without giving an
official imprimatur to questionable activities which do not meet the notification criteria. For
example, there is little point in notifying all recipients of anonymous reprint mailings that they
received their copy of a Reader's Digest article from the FBI, but the Department should not
suggest that the activity itself is a proper Bureau function. Other acts which fall within the "grey
area" between COINTELPRO and aggressive investigation present similar problems. 316

Nevertheless, a Departmental notification program is an important step toward redressing the
wrongs done, and carries with it some additional benefits. For the first time, Departmental
attorneys will review the original files, rather than relying on Bureau-prepared summaries.
Further, the Department will have acknowledged -- finally -- that COINTELPRO was wrong.
Official repudiation of the programs is long overdue.

The American people need to be assured that never again will an agency of the government be
permitted to conduct a secret war against those citizens it considers threats to the established
order. Only a combination of legislative prohibition and Departmental control can guarantee that
COINTELPRO will not happen again. The notification program is an auspicious beginning.



Footnotes:

1 On March 8,1971, the FBI resident agency in Media, Pennslyvania, was broken into. Documents stolen in the
break-in were widely circulated and published by the press. Since some documents carried a "COINTELPRO"
caption -- a word unknown outside the Bureau -- Carl Stern, a reporter for NBC, commenced a Freedom of
information Act lawsuit to compel the Bureau to produce other documents relating to the programs. The Bureau
decided because of "security reasons" to terminate them on April 27, 1971. (Memorandum from C. D. Brennan to W.
C. Sullivan, 4/27/71; Letter from FBI headquarters to all SAC's, 4/28/71.)

2 The Bureau's direct attacks on speaking, teaching, writing, and meeting are discussed at pp. 28-33, attempts to
prevent the growth of groups are set forth at pp. 34-40.

2a For a discussion of U.S. intelligence activities against hostile foreign intelligence operations, see Report on
Counterintelligence.

3 See Senate Select Committee Report, "Alleged Assassination Plots Involving Foreign Leaders" and Staff Report:
"Covert Action in Chile."

3a Black Nationalist Supervisor deposition, 10/17/75,1), p. 12.

4 Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to all SAC's, 8/25/67, p. 2.
5 New Left Supervisor's deposition, 10/28/75, p. 8. The closest any Bureau document comes to a definition is found
in an investigative directive: "The term 'New Left' does not refer to a definite organization, but to a movement which
is providing ideologies or platforms alternate to those of existing communist and other basic revolutionary
organizations, the so-called 'Old Left.' The New Left movement is a loosely-bound, free-wheeling, college-oriented
movement spearheaded by the Students for a Democratic Society and includes the more extreme and militant anti-
Vietnam war and anti-draft protest organizations." (Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to all SAC's, 10/28/68;
Hearings, Vol. 6, Exhibit 61. p. 669.) Although this characterization is longer than that of the New Left Supervisor,
it does not appear to be substantively different.

6 Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to Cleveland Field Office, 11/6/64.

7 One civil rights leader, the subject of at least three separate counterintelligence actions under the CPUSA caption,
was targeted because there was no "direct evidence" that he was a communist, "neither is there any substantial
evidence that he is anti-communist." One of the actions utilized information gained from a wiretap; the other two
involved dissemination of personal life information. (Memorandum from J.A. Sizoo to W.C. Sullivan, 2/4/64;
Memorandum from New York Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 2/12/64; Memoranda from FBI Headquarters to
New York Field Office, 3/26/64 and 4/10/64: Memorandum to New York Field Office from FBI Headquarters,
4/21/64; Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to Baltimore Field Office, 10/6/65.)

8 Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to Cleveland Field Office, 11/29/68.

9 FBI Headquarters memorandum, 8/25/67, p. 2.

10 Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to Jackson Field Office, 2/8/71, pp. 1-2.

11 Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to San Antonio Field Office, 10/31/68.

12 Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to Detroit Field Office, 10/26/66.

13 Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to Cincinnati Field Office, 6/18/68.

14 Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to Albuquerque Field Office, 3/14/69.

15 Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to San Antonio Field Office. 7/23/69.

16 Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to Pittsburgh Field Office, 11/14/69.

17 Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to Minneapolis Field Office, 11/4/68.

17a COINTELPRO Unit Chief deposition, 10/16/75, p. 14.

17b Unit Chief deposition, 10/16/75, p.54.

18 "Possibly violent" did not necessarily mean likely to be violent. Concededly non-violent groups were targeted
because they might someday change; Martin Luther King, Jr. was targeted because (among other things) he might
"abandon his supposed 'obedience' to 'white, liberal doctrines' (non-violence) and embrace black nationalism."
(Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to all SAC's, 3/4/68, 1). 3.)

19 This attitude toward change is apparent in many of those Bureau activities investigated by the Committee. It
played a large part in the Martin Luther King, Jr. case, which is the subject of a separate report.

20 FBI Headquarters memorandum, 11/4/68.
21 Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to San Francisco Field Office, 11/1/65.

22 Memorandum from Cartha DeLoach to John Mohr, 8/29/64, pp. 1-8.

23 William C. Sullivan testimony, 11/1/75, pp. 97-98.

24 A memorandum prepared for the Justice Department Committee which studied COINTELPRO in 1974 stated
that COINTELPRO activities "may" have violated the Civil Rights statute, the mail and wire fraud statutes, and the
prohibition against divulging information gained from wiretaps. (Memorandum to H. E. Petersen, 4/25/74.) Internal
Bureau documents show that Bureau officials believed sending threats through the mail might violate federal
extortion statutes. (See, e.g., Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to Newark Field Office, 2/19/71.) Such threats
were mailed or telephoned on several occasions.

25 Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to Chicago Field Office, 1/30/70.

26 Hearing of the Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Constitutional Rights 11/20/74, p. 11. The Petersen Committee,
composed of Department of Justice attorneys and Bureau agents, was formed in 1974 at the request of Attorney
General Saxbe to investigate COINTELPRO. Its conclusions are discussed on pp. 73-76.

27 3,247 actions were proposed.

28 E.g., Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to San Francisco Field Office, 11/1/65.

29 E.g., Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to San Francisco Field Office, 11/26/68.

30 E.g., Memorandum from Los Angeles Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 12/12/68.

31 E.g., Memorandum from Newark Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 7/3/69. The term "snitch jacket" is not part of
Bureau jargon; it was used by those familiar with the Bureau's activities directed against the Black Panther Party in a
staff interview.

32 E.g., Memorandum from Columbia Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 11/4/70.

33 E.g., Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to Chicago Field Office, 8/2/68.

34 E.g., Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to Cleveland and Boston Field Offices, 5/5/64.

35 E.g., Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to Minneapolis Field Office, 11/18/69.

36 E.g., Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to San Antonio Field Office, 4/6/70.

37 E.g., Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to Minneapolis Field Office, 11/19/70.

38 E.g., Memorandum from Midwest City Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 8/1/68.

39 Mechanically, the Bureau's programs were administered at headquarters, but individual actions were proposed
and usually carried out by the field. A field proposal under the COINTELPRO caption would be routed to a special
agent supervising that particular program. During most of COINTELPRO's history that supervisor was a member of
the section at the Domestic Intelligence Division with investigative responsibility for the subject of the proposal.
The supervisor's recommendation then went up through the Bureau hierarchy. Proposals were rarely approved below
the level of Assistant Director in charge of the Division, and often were approved by one of the top three men in the
Bureau.
39a New Left supervisor testimony, 10/28/75, pp. 72, 74.

40 George C. Moore testimony, 11/3/75, p. 62.

41 Moore, 11/3/75, p. 64

42 Sullivan, 11/1/75, p. 97.

43 James B. Adams testimony, 11/19/75, Hearings, Vol. 6, pp. 73, 75.

44 The unit chief stated: "The Bureau people did not think that they were doing anything wrong and most of us to
this day do not think we were doing anything wrong." (Unit chief, 10/16/75, p. 102.) Moore felt the same way: "I
thought I did something very important during those days. I have no apologies to make for anything we did, really."
(Moore 11/3/75, p. 25.)

45 Unit chief, 10/16/75, pp. 11, 12, 14.

46 Unit chief, 10/10/75, pp. 12-14, Deputy Associate Director Adams' testimony on COINTELPRO noted that
"interpretations as to the constitutionality of [the Smith Act of 1940] leave us with a statute still on the books that
proscribes certain actions, but yet the degree of proof necessary to operate under the few remaining areas is such that
there was no satisfactory way to proceed." (Adams testimony, 11/19/75. Hearings, Vol. 6. p. 71.) In fact, the Smith
Act decisions did not come down until 1957. Perhaps the witnesses were referring to Communist Party v.
Subversive Activities Control Board, 351 U.S. 115 (1956), which held that testimony by "tainted" Government
witnesses required remanding the case to the Board.

47 Unit chief, 10/16/75, p. 15.

48 One witness also pointed out that while the federal antiriot and antibombing statutes were not passed until 1968,
inadequate statutes were not the only problem. Statutes directed at specific criminal acts would only have served to
allow prosecution after the crime; they would not have prevented the act in the first place. He also stated that he did
not believe it would be possible to pass a statute which would have given the Bureau the tools necessary to prevent
violence by disrupting the growth of violence-prone organizations -- "because of something called the United States
Constitution." When asked whether that answer implied that preventing the growth of an organization is
unconstitutional, he answered, "I think so." (Black Nationalist supervisor, 10/1/75, pp. 25-26.) He was the only
Bureau witness who had reservations about COINTELPRO's constitutionality. Another witness gave a more typical
response. When asked whether anybody at any time during the course of the programs discussed their
constitutionality or legal authority, he replied, "No, we never gave it a thought." (Moore, 11/3/75, p. 83.)

49 Moore, 11/3/75, p. 79.

50 Ramsey Clark testimony, 12/3/75, Hearings, Vol. 6,1).245).

Nicholas deB. Katzenbach testimony, 12/3/75, Hearings, Vol. 6, p. 217.

52 These summaries were the point of departure for the Select Committee's investigation but were deemed
unsatisfactory for a complete inquiry.

53 For instance, the Department is defending litigation commenced against the Bureau by COINTELPRO victims
who happen to have received their files through Freedom of Information Act requests. More such litigation may
arise as more targets learn of Bureau actions taken against them.

54 The New Left supervisor stated, "[The COINTELPRO caption was] as much as it was anything else, and
administrative device to channel the mail to the Bureau . . . we get back to this old argument between the supervisors
not argument, but discussion, between the supervisors, it falls on yours, no, it doesn't, it's yours." (New Left
Supervisor, 10/28/75, p. 49.)

55 The Bureau can and does reveal its interest in the subjects of investigation to employees, family members, and
neighbors. The Black Nationalist supervisor explained, "Generally speaking, we should not be giving out
information to somebody we are trying to get information from. As a practical matter sometimes we have to. The
mere fact that you contact somebody about someone gives them the indication that the FBI is interested in that
person." (Black Nationalist deposition, 10/17/75, p. 16). See also the statement of the Social Workers Party, 10/2/75,
which details more than 200 incidents involving its members since COINTELPRO's termination. The SWP believes
these to be as disruptive as the formal SWP COINTELPRO.

56 Memorandum from Charles D. Brennan to William C. Sullivan, 4/27/71, Hearings, Vol. 6, Exhibit 55-3.

57 In one instance, a field office was authorized to contact the editor of a Southern newspaper to suggest that he
have reporters interview Klan members and write an article based on those interviews. The editor was also furnished
information on Klan use of the polygraph to "weed out FBI informants." According to the Bureau, "subsequent
publication of the Klan's activities resulted in a number of Klan officials ceasing their activities." (Letter from FBI to
the Senate Select Committee 10/24/75.) The second case involved an anonymous letter and derogatory newspaper
clipping which were sent to a Black Panther Party office in the Northeast to discredit a Panther leader's abilities.
(Letter from FBI to the Senate Select Committee, 9/24/75.)

58 It should be noted that Charles Colson spent seven months in jail for similar activity involving the client.

59 Letter from Attorney General Edward H. Levi to the Senate Select Committee, 5/23/75. These included: (1) 37
actions authorized between 1960 and 1971 "aimed at militant groups which sought Puerto Rican independence;" (2)
"Operation Hoodwink," from October 1966 to July 1968, "aimed at putting organized crime elements in competition
with the Communist Party USA;" (3) a 1961 program targeted against "a foreign-dominated group;" (4) two actions
taken between January 1969 and March 1971 against "a foreign nationality group in the United States;" and (5)
seven actions between 1961 and 1968 against members, leaders, and factions of "a foreign communist party."

The FBI's operations against "a foreign communist party" indicate that the Bureau, as well as the CIA, has engaged
in covert action abroad.

60 Clarence M. Kelley testimony, House Civil Rights and Constitutional Rights Subcommittee hearings, 11/20/74,
pp. 44-45. This statement appears to be an explicit recognition that one purpose of COINTELPRO was to influence
political events.

61 omitted in original.

62 Clarence M. Kelley testimony, 12/10/75, Hearings, Vol. 6, 1). 283, 284. Affirmative legal steps to meet an
imminent threat to life or property are, of course, quite proper. The difficulty with the Director's statement,
juxtaposed as it was with a discussion of COINTELPRO, is that the threats COINTELPRO purported to meet were
not imminent, the techniques used were sometimes illegal, and the purposes went far beyond the prevention of death
or destruction.

63 Memorandum from Alan Belmont to L. V. Boardman, 8/28/56, Hearings, vol. 6, exhibit 12.

64 1,388 of a total of 2,370.

65 Excerpt from materials prepared for the FBI Director's briefing of the House Appropriations Subcommittee, FY
1966, p. 2.
66 According to Sullivan, membership in the Communist Party declined steadily through the '60s. When the CPUSA
membership dropped below a certain figure, Director Hoover ordered that the membership figures be classified.
Sullivan believes that this was done to protect the Bureau's appropriations. (Sullivan, 11/1/75, pp. 33-34.)

67 For instance, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference was targeted as a "Black Nationalist-Hate Group."
(memorandum from FBI headquarters to all SAC's, 3/4/68, p. 4.)

68 Memorandum from Alan Belmont to L. V. Boardman, 8/28/56, Hearings, Vol. 6. exhibit 12.

69 Sullivan testimony, 11/1/75, pp. 42-43.

70 As noted earlier, Bureau personnel also trace the decision to adopt counterIntelligence methods to the Supreme
Court decisions overturning the Smith Act convictions. As the unit chief put it, "The Supreme Court rulings had
rendered the Smith Act technically unenforceable .... it made it ineffective to prosecute Communist Party members,
made it impossible to prosecute Communist Party members at the time." (Unit chief, 10/16/75, p. 14).

71 Unit chief, 10/16/75, p. 10.

72 Memorandum from New Haven Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 5/24/60.

73 Memorandum from Milwaukee Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 7/13/60, pp. 1-2.

74 Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to San Francisco Field Office, 9/13/68.

75 Sullivan, 11/1/75, p. 29.

76 Unit chief, 10/16/75, p. 40.

77 Charles D. Brennan testimony, Senate Select Committee on Campaign Activities, 6/13/73, p. 10.

78 Robert Shackleford testimony, 2/6/76, pp. 88-89.

79) Memorandum from FBI Headquarters.

80 For example, anonymous letters were sent to the parents of two nonmember students participating in a hunger
strike against the war at a midwest college, because the fast was sponsored by the Young Socialist Alliance. The
letters warned that the students' participation "could lead to injury to [their] health and damage [their] academic
standing," and alerted them to their sons' "involvement in left wing activities." It was hoped that the parents would
"protest to the college that the fast is being allowed" and that the Young Socialist Alliance was permitted on campus.
(Memorandum from FBI headquarters to Cleveland Field Office, 11/29/68.)

81 Memorandum from J. H. Gale to Charles Tolsen, 7/30/64, p. 5. Opinion within the Division had been sharply
divided on the merits of this transfer. Some saw it as an attempt to bring the Intelligence Division's expertise in
penetrating secret organizations to bear on a problem -- Klan involvement in the murder of civil rights workers --
creating tremendous pressures on the Bureau to solve. Traditional law enforcement methods were insufficient
because of a lack of Federal statutes, and the noncooperation of local law enforcement. Others thought that the
Klan's activities were essentially a law enforcement problem, and that the transfer would dilute the Division's major
internal security responsibility. Those who opposed the transfer lost, and trace many of the Division's subsequent
difficulties to this "substantial enlargement" of the Division's responsibilities. ("Unit chief, 10/16/75, pp. 45-47.)

82 Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to Atlanta Field Office, 9/2/64, p. 1.
83 FBI Headquarters memorandum, 9/2/64, p. 3.

84 Unit Chief, 10/14/75, p. 54.

85 A few actions were approved against the "Minutemen," when it became known that members were stockpiling
weapons.

86 Unit Chief, 10/16/75, p. 48.

87 Moore, 11/3/75, p. 31.

88 Note that this characterization had no substantive meaning within the Bureau. See p. 4.

89 Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to all SAC's, 8/25/67.

90 Black Nationalist supervisor, 10/17/75, pp. 66-67. The supervisor stated that individual NOI members were
involved with sporadic violence against police, but the organization was not itself involved in violence. (Black
National supervisor, 10/17/75, p. 67.) Moore agreed that the NOI was not involved in organizational violence,
adding that the Nation of Islam had been unjustly blamed for violence in the ghetto riots of 1967 and 1968: "We had
a good informant coverage of the Nation of Islam.... We were able to take a very positive stand and tell the
Department of Justice and tell everybody else who accused the Nation of Islam ... [that they] were not involved in
any of the riots or disturbances. Elijah Muhammed kept them under control, and he did not have them on the streets
at all during any of the riots." (Moore, 11/3/75, p. 36.)

When asked why, therefore, the NOI was included as a target, Mr. Moore answered: "Because of the potential, they
did represent a potential ... they were a paramilitary type. They had drills, the Fruit of Islam, they had the capability
because they were a force to be reckoned with, with the snap of his finger Elijah Muhammed could bring them into
any situation. So that there was a very definite potential, very definite potential." (Moore, 11/3/75, p. 37.)

91 The unit chief, who wrote the letter on instructions from his superiors, concedes that the letter directed field
offices to gather personal life information on targets, not for "scandalous reasons," but "to deter violence or
neutralize the activities of violence-prone groups." (Unit chief, 10/16/75, p. 66.)

92 Moore, 11/3/75, pp. 37, 39, 40.

93 Primary targets listed in this second letter are the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, the Student
Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, Revolutionary Action Movement, Nation of Islam, Stokely Carmichael, H.
"Rap" Brown, Martin Luther King, Maxwell Stanford, and Elijah Muhammed. CORE was dropped for reasons no
witness was able to reconstruct. The agent who prepared the second letter disagreed with the inclusion of the SCLC,
but lost. (Black Nationalist supervisor, 10/17/75, p. 14.)

94 Memorandum from FBI headquarters to all SAC's, 3/4/68, pp. 3-4.

95 Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to Baltimore Field Office, 11/25/68.

96 Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to all SAC's, 1/30/69.

97 This technique, the "snitch jacket," was used in all COINTELPRO programs.

98 Moore, 11/3/75, pp. 34, 50-52.
99 As the New Left supervisor put it, "I cannot recall any document that was written defining New Left as such. It is
my impression that the characterization of New Left groups rather than being defined at any specific time by
document, it more or less grew...." Agreeing it was a very amorphous term, he added: "It has never been strictly
defined, as far as I know.... It is more or less an attitude I would think." (New Left supervisor, 10/28/75, pp. 7-8.)

100 New Left supervisor, 10/28/75, pp. 21-22.

101 Memorandum from Charles D. Brennan to William C. Sullivan, 5/9/68.

102 omitted in original.

103 memorandum from FBI headquarters to all SAC's, 5/23/68. Memorandum from FBI headquarters to all SACs,
10/9/68. This time the field offices got the message. One example of information furnished under the "Immorality"
caption comes from the Boston field office;

"[Informant] who has provided reliable information in the past concerning the activities of the New Left in the
Metropolitan Boston area has advised that numerous meetings concerning anti-Vietnam and/or draft activity are
conducted by members sitting around the table or a living room completely in the nude. These same individuals,
both male and female, live and sleep together regularly and it is not unusual to have these people take up residence
with a different partner after a six or seven month period.

"According to the informant, the living conditions and habits of some of the New Left adherents are appalling in that
certain individuals have been known to wear the same clothes for an estimated period of weeks and in some
instances for months. Personal hygiene and eating habits are equally neglected by these people, the informant said.

"The informant has noted that those individuals who most recently joined the movement are in most instances the
worst offenders as far as moral and personal habits are concerned. However, if these individuals remain in the
movement for any length of time, their appearance and personal habits appear to improve somewhat."
(Memorandum from Boston Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 6/13/68.)

106 Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to all SACs, 10/9/68.

107 Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to Chicago Field Office, 8/28/68.

108 Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to all SAC's, 9/9/68.

109 Note that there was no attempt to determine whether the allegations were true. Ramsey Clark, Attorney General
at the time, testified that he did not know that either directive had been issued and that "they are highly improper."
He also noted that the Bureau's close working relationship with state and local police forces had made it necessary to
"preempt the FBI" in cases involving the investigation of police misconduct' "we found it necessary to use the Civil
Rights Division, and that is basically what we did." (Clark, 12/3/75, Hearings Vol. 6. pp. 254-255.)

110 Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to all SAC's, 7/6/68.

111 The New Left supervisor confirmed what the documents reveal: "legitimate" (nonviolent) antiwar groups were
targeted because they were "lending aid and comfort" to more disruptive groups. According to the New Left
supervisor:

"This [nonviolent groups protesting against the war] was the type of thing that the New Left, the violent portion,
would seize upon. They could use the legitimacy of an accepted college group or outside group to further their
interests." (New Left supervisor, 10/28/75, p. 39)
Nonviolent groups were thus disrupted so there would be less opportunity for a violent group to make use of them
and their respectability. Professors active in "New Left matters," whether involved in violence or just in general
protest, were targeted for "using [their] good offices to lend aid and comfort to the entire protest movement or to
help disrupt the school through [their] programs." (New Left supervisor, 10/28/75, p. 69.)

112 Memorandum from FBI Headquarters, Minneapolis Field Office, 11/4/68.

113 Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to San Antonio Field Office, 8/27/68.

114 Huston was the Presidential assistant who coordinated the 1970 recommendations by an interagency committee
for expanded domestic intelligence, including concededly illegal activity. The so-called "Huston Plan" is the subject
of a separate report.

115 Tom Charles Huston testimony, 9/23/75, Hearings, Vol. 2, p. 45.

116 The usual constitutional inquiry is whether the government is "chilling" First Amendment rights by indirectly
discouraging a protected activity while pursuing an otherwise legitimate purpose. In the case of COINTELPRO, the
Bureau was not attempting indirectly to chill free speech or association; it was squarely attacking their exercise.

117 The percentage is derived from a cross-indexed tabulation of the Petersen Committee summaries. Interestingly,
these categories account for 39 percent of the approved "New Left" proposals, which reflects both the close
connection between antiwar activities and the campuses, and the "aid and comfort" theory of targeting, in which
teachers were targeted for advocating an end to the war through nonviolent means.

118 The group was composed largely of university teachers and clergymen who had bought shares in order to attend
the meeting. (Memorandum from Minneapolis Field Office to FBI headquarters, 4/1/70.)

119 Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to Minneapolis Field Office, 4/23/70; memorandum from Minneapolis
Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 4/1/70.

120 Memorandum from Detroit Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 10/26/60; Memoranda from FBI Headquarters to
Detroit Field Office, 10/27/60, 10/28/60, 10/31/60; Memorandum from F. J. Baumgardner to Alan H. Belmont,
10/26/60.

121 It is interesting to note that after the anonymous calls to the newspapers giving information on the "communist
nature" of the sponsor, the conference center director called the local FBI office to ask for information on the
speaker. He was informed that Bureau records are confidential and that the Bureau could not make any comment.

122 Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to Pittsburgh Field Office, 6/19/69.

123 Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to Pittsburgh Field Office, 5/1/70.

124 Memorandum from Detroit Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 10/11/66; memorandum from FBI Headquarters
to Detroit Field Office, 10/26/66.

125 Memorandum from Mobile Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 12/9/70; memorandum from FBI Headquarters to
Mobile Field Office, 12/31/70; memorandum from Mobile Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 2/3/71.

126 In one example, a letter signed "A Black Parent" was sent to the mayor, the Superintendent of Schools, the
Commander of the American Legion, and two newspapers in a northeastern city protesting a high school's
subscription to the BPP newspaper. The letter was also intended to focus attention on the teacher who entered the
subscription "so as to deter him from implementing black extremist literature and philosophy into the Black History
curriculum" of the school system. (Memorandum from Buffalo Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 2/5/70.)
127 Memorandum from Los Angeles Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 9/9/68; memorandum from FBI
Headquarters to SAC, Los Angeles Field Office, 9/23/68.

128 Memorandum from Newark Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 5/23/69; memorandum from FBI Headquarters to
Newark Field Office, 6/4/69.

129 Memorandum from Detroit Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 2/28/69; memorandum from FBI Headquarters to
Detroit Field Office, 3/27/69.

130 For example, one proposal requested that the FBI Lab prepare a quart of solution "capable of duplicating a scent
of the most foul smelling feces available," along with a dispenser capable of squirting a narrow stream for a distance
of approximately three feet. The proposed targets were the physical plant of a New Left publisher and BPP
publications prior to their distribution. Headquarters instructed the field office to furnish more information about the
purpose for the material's use and the manner and security with which it would be used. The idea was then
apparently dropped. (Memorandum from Detroit Meld Office to FBI Headquarters, 10/13/70; memorandum from
FBI Headquarters to Detroit Field Office, 10/23/70.)

131 Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to Los Angeles Field Office, 9/23/68.

132 Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to San Antonio Field Office, 5/13/69.

133 Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to Indianapolis Field Office, 6/17/68.

134 Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to all SAC's, 12/30/68.

135 One of the 12 standard techniques referred to in the New Left memorandum discussed at pp. 25--26,
disinformation bridges the line between "counterintelligence" and sabotage.

136 Memorandum from Chicago Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 9/9/68; memorandum from Charles Brennan to
William C. Sullivan, 8/15/68.

137 Memorandum from Washington Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 1/21/69.

138 Egil Krogh has stated to the Committee staff that he was in charge of coordinating D.C. law enforcement efforts
during demonstrations, and gained the cooperation of NMC marshals to ensure an orderly demonstration. This law
enforcement/NMC coordination was effected through the same walkie-talkie system the Bureau was disrupting.
(Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to Washington Field Office, 1/10/69; staff summary of Egil Krogh interview,
5/23/75.)

139 Memorandum from Cincinnati Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 12/20/68; memorandum from FBI
Headquarters to Cinncinnati Field Office, 12/29/68.

140 Memoranda from New York Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 9/15/67, 9/26/67, and 10/17/67; memorandum
from FBI Headquarters to New York Field Office, 9/29/67. By letter of January 14, 1976, the. Bureau submitted
specific instances of "action, other than arrest and prosecution, to prevent any stage of [a] crime or violent acts from
being initiated" which had been taken. The examples were intended to aid in developing "preventive action"
guidelines.

One of the examples was the prevention of the publisher's plan to drop flowers over the Pentagon: "A plan was thus
thwarted which could well have resulted in tragedy had another pilot accepted such a dangerous flying mission and
violated Federal or local regulations in flying low over the Pentagon which is also in the heavy traffic pattern of the
Washington National Airport." The letter does not explain why it was necessary to act covertly in this case. If flying
over the Pentagon violates Federal regulations, the Bureau could have arrested those involved when they arrived at
the airport. No informant was involved; the newspaper had advertised openly for a pilot.

141 Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to Albuquerque Field Office, 3/19/69.

142 Memorandum from Boston Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 1/22/66.

143 Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to El Paso Field Office, 12/6/68.

144 Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to New York Field Office, 3/19/65.

145 Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to Cleveland and Boston Field Offices, 5/6/64.

146 Mr. Huston learned that lesson as well:

"We went from this kind of sincere intention, honest intention, to develop a series of justifications and
rationalizations based upon this ... distorted view of inherent executive power and from that, whether it was direct ...
or was indirect or inevitable, as I tend to think it is, you went down the road to where you ended up, with these
people going into the Watergate.

"And so that has convinced me that you have just got to draw the line at the top of the totem pole, and that we would
then have to take the risk -- it is not a risk-free choice, but it is one that, I am afraid, in my judgment, that we do not
have any alternative but to take." (Huston, 9/23/75, p. 45.)

147 Sullivan, 11/1/75, pp. 97-98.

148 Moore, 11/3/75, pp. 32-33.

149 The percentages used in this section are derived from a staff tabulation of the Petersen Committee summaries.
The numbers are approximate because it was occasionally difficult to determine from the summary what the purpose
of the technique was.

150 The resulting articles could then be used in the reprint mailing program.

151 Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to Minneapolis Field Office, 11/4/68.

152 Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to Boston Field Office, 9/12/68.

153 Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to San Francisco Field Office, 11/1/65.

154 Levi 12/11/75, Hearings, Vol. 6, p. 318.

155 "Name checks" were apparently run on all reporters proposed for use in the program, to make sure they were
reliable. In one case, a check of Bureau files showed that a television reporter proposed as the recipient of
information on the SDS had the same name as someone who had served in the Abraham Lincoln Brigade. The field
office was asked to determine whether the "individuals" were "identical." The field office obtained the reporter's
credit records, voting registration, and local police records, and determined that his credit rating was satisfactory,
that he had no arrest record, that he "stated a preference for one of the two major Political Parties" -- and that he was
not, in fact, the man who fought in the Spanish Civil war. Accordingly, the information was furnished.
(Memorandum from Pittsburgh Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 12/26/68; memorandum from FBI Headquarters
to Pittsburgh Field Office, 1/23/69.)
156 The Bureau also noted, for its files, those who criticized its work or its Director, and the Division maintained a
"not-to-contact" list which included the names of some reporters and authors. One proposal to leak information to
the Boston Globe was turned down because both the newspaper and one of its reporters "have made unfounded
criticisms of the FBI in the past." The Boston ]Field Office was advised to resubmit the suggestion using another
newspaper. (Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to Boston Field Office, 2/8/68.)

157 Leaking derogatory information is discussed at p. 50.

158 The Committee's agreement with the Bureau governing document production Provided that the Bureau could
excise the names of "confidential sources" when the documents were delivered to the Committee. Although the staff
was permitted to see the excised names at Bureau headquarters, it was also agreed that the names not be used.

159 Note that Bureau witnesses testified that the NOI was not, in fact, involved in organization violence. See pp. 20-
21.

160 Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to Boston Field Office, 2/27/68.

161 Memorandum from Tampa Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 8/5/68.

162 Memorandum from Tampa Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 2/7/69.

163 Memorandum from G. C. Moore to William C. Sullivan, 10/21/69.

164 This technique was also used in disseminating propaganda. The distinction lies in the purpose for which the
letter, article or flier was mailed.

165 Black Nationalist supervisor, 10/17/75, p. 40.

166 Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to Baltimore Field Office, 11/25/68.

167 Memorandum from San Diego Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 2/20/69; memorandum from San Diego Field
Office to FBI Headquarters, 3/27/69; memorandum from FBI Headquarters to San Diego Field Office, 4/4/69.

168 Memorandum from Newark Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 8/15/69. According to the proposal, the letter
would not be typed by the field office stenographic pool because of the language. The field office also used asterisks
in its communication with headquarters which "refer to that colloquial phrase ... which implies an unnatural physical
relationship with a maternal parent." Presumably the phrase was used in the letter when it was sent to the Panthers.

169 Memorandum from Chicago Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 1/12/69: memorandum from FBI Headquarters
to Chicago Field Office, 1/30/69.

170 Memorandum from Philadelphia Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 11/25/68; memorandum from FBI
Headquarters to Philadelphia Field Office, 12/9/68.

171 Memorandum from San Diego Meld Office to FBI Headquarters, 4/10/69, p. 4.

172 Memorandum from San Diego Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 11/12/69.

173 Memorandum from San Diego Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 11/12/69.

174 Memorandum from San Diego Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 12/3/69.
175 Memorandum from New Haven Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 2/18/70.

176 Memorandum from San Francisco Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 8/27/69; memorandum from FBI
Headquarters to San Francisco Meld Office, 9/5/69.

177 Memorandum from Detroit Meld Office to FBI Headquarters, 2/10/70; memorandum from FBI Headquarters to
Detroit Field Office, 3/3/70.

178 Memorandum from Indianapolis Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 9/23/69.

179 Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to all SACs, 10/28/70.

180 Memorandum from Jackson Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 11/27/68.

181 Ibid.

182 Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to New York Field Office, 9/6/56.

183 Memorandum from Los Angeles Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 12/12/68. p. 1

184 Memorandum from San Diego Meld Office to FBI Headquarters, 2/2/70.

185 Memorandum from New York Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 7/9/64.

186 Memorandum from C. D. Brennan to W. C. Sullivan, 8/28/67.

187 Memorandum from F. J. Baumgardner to W. C. Sullivan, 1/5/65.

188 Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to San Diego Field Office, 2/14/09.

189 Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to Jackson Field Office. 11/15/68.

190 Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to New York Field Office, 2/9/60.

191 Memorandum from San Diego Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 2/17/69; memorandum from FBI Headquarters
to San Diego Field Office, 3/6/69; memorandum from San Diego Field Office to FBI Headquarters 4/30/69.

192 Memorandum from San Diego Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 1/31/69; memorandum from FBI Headquarters
to San Diego Field Office, 2/14/69.

193 One Bureau document stated that the Black Panther Party "has murdered two members it suspected of being
police informants." (memorandum from FBI Headquarters to Cincinnati Field Office, 2/18/71.)

194 Memorandum from San Diego Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 2/11/69; memorandum to San Diego Field
Office from FBI Headquarters, 2/19/69.

195 Memorandum from New York Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 2/14/69; memorandum from FBI Headquarters
to New York Field Office, 3/10/69.

196 Memorandum to FBI Headquarters from SAC, Newark, 7/3/69; memorandum to Newark Field Office from FBI
Headquarters, 7/14/69.
197 Memorandum from Kansas City Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 10/16/69; memorandum from FBI
Headquarters to San Francisco Field Office, 11/3/69.

198 Memorandum to FBI Headquarters from San Diego Field Office, 3/6/70; memorandum from FBI Headquarters
to San Diego Field Office, 3/6/70.

199 Memorandum from Charlotte Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 3/23/71; memorandum from FBI Headquarters
to Charlotte Field Office, 3/31/71.

200 Memorandum from Charlotte Field Office to FBI Headquarters 3/23/71; memorandum FBI Headquarters to
Charlotte Field Office, 3/31/71.

201 In fact, some proposals were turned down for that reason. See, e.g., letter from FBI Headquarters to Cincinnati
Field Office, 2/18/71, in which a proposal that an imprisoned BPP member be labeled a "pig informer" was rejected
because it was possible it would result in the target's death. But note that just one month later, two similar proposals
were approved. Letter from FBI Headquarters to Washington Field Office, 3/19/71, and letter from FBI
Headquarters to Charlotte Field Office, 3/31/71.

202 Black Nationalist supervisor, 10/17/75, p. 39.

203 Moore, 11/3/15, p. 64.

204 The minister has given the Select Committee an affidavit which states that there was an organized attempt by
the Bureau's source to disrupt the Church's meetings, including "fist fights." Affidavit of Rev. Dennis G. Kuby,
10/19/75).

205 Memorandum from Cleveland Meld Office to FBI Headquarters, 10/28/64; memorandum from FBI
Headquarters to Cleveland Field Office, 11/6/64.

206 Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to Cleveland Field Office, 11/6/64.

207 Memorandum from Detroit Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 10/18/66, p. 2.

208 Memorandum from Detroit Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 1/19/67.

The lawyer was targeted, along with his law firm, because the firm "has a long history of providing services for
individual communists and communist organizations," and because he belonged to the National Lawyers Guild.

209 Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to Detroit Field Office, 1/16/67.

210 Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to Detroit Field Office, 1/10/67.

211 Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to Detroit Field Office, 11/3/66.

212 Memorandum from F. J. Baumgardner to William C. Sullivan, 10/4/66; memorandum from FBI Headquarters to
New York Field Office, 10/5/66.

A similar proposal attempted "to cause dissension between Negro numbers operators and the Italian hoodlum
element" in Detroit. The Bureau had information that black "numbers men" were contributing money to the local
"black power movement." An anonymous letter containing a black hand and the words "watch out" was sent a
minister who was "the best known black militant in Detroit." The letter was intended to achieve two objectives. First,
the minister was expected to assume that "the Italian hoodlum element was responsible for this letter, report this to
the Negro numbers operators, and thereby cause them to further resent the Italian hoodlum element." Second, it is
also possible that [the minister] may become extremely frightened upon receipt of this letter and sever his contact
with the Negro numbers men in Detroit and might even restrict his black nationalist activity or leave Detroit.
(Memorandum from the Detroit Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 6/14/68; Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to
Detroit Field Office, 6/28/68.)

213 Letters were also sent to parents informing them that their children were in communes, or with a roommate of
the opposite sex; information on an actress' pregnancy by a Black Panther was sent to a gossip columnist; and
information about a partner's affair with another partner's wife was sent to the members of a law firm as well as the
injured spouses.

Personal life information was not the only kind of derogatory information disseminated; information on the
"subversive background" of a target (or family member) was also used, as were arrest records.

214 Memorandum from Richmond Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 8/26/66.

215 Memorandum from St. Louis Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 1/30/70.

216 Memorandum from St. Louis Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 1/30/70. Note that there is no allegation that
ACTION was engaged in violence. When the target was interviewed by the staff, she was asked whether ACTION
ever took part in violent activities. She replied that someone once spat in a communion cup during a church sit-in
and that members sometimes used four letter words, which was considered violent in her city. The staff member
then asked about more conventionally violent acts, such as throwing bricks or burning buildings. Her response was a
shocked, "Oh, no! I'm a pacifist -- I wouldn't be involved in an organization like that." (Staff interview of a
COINTELPRO target.)

216a Memorandum from St. Louis Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 1/30/70.

217 Memorandum from St. Louis Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 6/17/70.

218 Memorandum from St. Louis Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 2/14/69, p. 1.

219 Memorandum from St. Louis Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 2/14/69, pp. 2-3.

220 House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights, Hearings, 11/20/74, p. 11.

221 There were 84 contacts with employers or 3 percent of the total.

222 Memorandum from New Haven Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 11/12/69.

223 Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to San Diego Field Office, 9/11/69.

224 Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to San Francisco Field Office, 9/29/64.

225 The FBI also used a "confidential source" in a foundation to gain funding for a "moderate" civil rights
organization. (Memorandum from G. C. Moore to W. C. Sullivan, 10/23/68.)

226 Memorandum from New York Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 6/18/70.

227 Memorandum from New York Field office to FBI Headquarters, 8/19/70.

228 Memoranda from FBI Headquarters to Pittsburgh Field Office, 3/3/69 and 4/3/69.
229 Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to New York Field Office, 7/2/64.

230 Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to Cincinnati Field Office, 3/28/69.

231 Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to all SAC's, 10/9/68.

232 Moore, 11/3/75, p. 47.

233 Federal agencies were also used. For instance, a foreign-born professor active in the New Left was deported by
the Immigration and Naturalization Service at the Bureau's instigation. (Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to
San Diego Field Office, 9/6/68.) The Bureau's use of the IRS in COINTELPRO is included in a separate report.
Among other actions, the Bureau obtained an activist professor's tax returns and then used a source in a regional IRS
office to arrange an audit. The audit was intended to be timed to interfere with the professor's meetings to plan
protest demonstrations in the 1968 Democratic convention.

234 The fund raiser was targeted because of two of the candidates who would be present. One, a state assemblyman
running for reelection, was active in the Vietnam Day Committee; the other, the Democratic candidate for Congress,
had been a sponsor of the National Committee to Abolish the House Committee on Un-American Activities and had
led demonstrations opposing the manufacture of napalm bombs. (Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to San
Francisco Field Office, 10/21/66.)

234 Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to San Francisco Field Office, 11/14/66.

236 Ibid.

237 Memorandum from New York Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 2/23/60; memorandum from FBI Headquarters
to New York Field Office, 3/11/60; memorandum from New York Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 11/10/60;
memorandum from FBI Headquarters to New York Field Office, 11/17/60.

238 omitted in original.

239 memorandum from FBI Headquarters to Minneapolis Field Office, 7/22/69; memorandum from FBI
Headquarters to Minneapolis Field Office, 4/9/69. Charles Colson spent seven months in jail for violating the civil
rights of a defendant in a criminal case through the deliberate creation of prejudicial pretrial publicity.

240 Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to Miami Field Office, 6/23/66; memorandum from Miami Field Office
to FBI Headquarters, 9/30/66.

241 Memorandum from New York Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 4/5/67. The Bureau also obtained legal advice
from a probate attorney on how the will could be attacked; contacted other relatives of the deceased; leaked
information about the will to a city newspaper; and solicited the efforts of the IRS and state taxing authorities to
deplete the estate as much as possible.

241a Memorandum from Atlanta Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 7/13/70.

242 Memorandum from Detroit Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 9/15/65; memorandum from FBI Headquarters to
Detroit Field Office, 9/22/65.

243 Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to Detroit Field Office, 10/1/65.

244 Memorandum from Detroit Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 10/24/66; memorandum from FBI Headquarters
to Detroit Field Office, 11/3/66.
245 According to the documents, "operating under the direction of New York headquarters," a document was placed
in the record by the Committee which according to the "presiding officer," indicated that the CP planned to hold its
national convention in Philadelphia. The field office added, "This office is not aware of any such plan of the CP."
Memorandum from, Philadelphia Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 11/3/59; memorandum from FBI Headquarters
to Philadelphia Field Office, 11/12/59.

246 Note that the "Communist" label was loosely applied, and might mean only that an informant reported that a
target had attended meetings of a "front" group some years earlier. As noted earlier, none of the "COINTELPRO"
labels were precise.

247 Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to Phoenix Field Office, 6/11/68.

248 Memorandum from William C. Sullivan, 2/4/64; memorandum from FBI Headquarters to New York Field
Office, 2/12/64.

249 The target was not intended to be the United Farm Workers, but a local college professor expected to participate
in the picket line. The Bureau had unsuccessfully directed "considerable efforts to prevent hiring" the professor.
Apparently, the Bureau did not consider the impact of this technique on the United Farm Workers' efforts.
Memorandum from San Francisco Field Office to FBI Headquarters 9/12/68; Memorandum from FBI Headquarters
to San Francisco Field Office, 9/13/68.

250 Memorandum from San Francisco Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 4/16/64.

251 Memorandum from San Francisco Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 3/10/67; memorandum from FBI
Headquarters to San Francisco Field Office, 3/14/67.

252 The CPUSA, SWP, and New Left programs were handled in the Internal Security Section; the White Hate
program was first handled in a short-lived three-man "COINTELPRO unit" which, during the three years of its
existence, supervised the CP and SWP programs as well, and then was transferred to the Extremists Section; the
Black Nationalist program was supervised by the Racial Intelligence Section. The Section Chief would then route
the proposal to the COINTELPRO supervisor for each program. Occasionally the Section Chief made a
recommendation as to the proposal; more often the supervisor made the initial decision to approve or deny.

253 No control file was maintained of these directives. Since these directives were sent out under the investigative
caption, the first time the COINTELPRO caption would be used was on the field proposal which responded to the
directives.

254 (Unit chief, 10/16/75, p. 167.) There is no central file of such awards, so the number is retrievable only by
searching each agent's personnel file.

255 According to Moore, even the "snitch jacket" -- labeling a group member as an informant when he is not -- is
not solely a counterintelligence technique, but may be used, in an ordinary investigation, to protect a real informant,
"Maybe . . . you had an informant whose life was at stake because somebody suspected him and the degree of
response . . . might be the degree that you would have to use in order to sow enough suspicion on other people to
take it away from your informant." (Moore, 11/3/75, p. 70)

256 See Dr. Martin Luther King Report.

256a Black Nationalist deposition, 10/17/75, p. 15.

257 As Moore put it, "This was a program, and whenever the Bureau had a program, you had to produce results
because it was scrutinized by the inspectors, not only during your own inspection on a yearly basis, but also
scrutinized in the field during field inspections." (Moore, 11/3/75, p. 43.) The New Left supervisor, who received
copies of the inspection reports, stated that "it would be an innocuous type report in every instance I can recall."
(New Left supervisor, 10/28/75, p. 72)

For example, one Domestic Intelligence Division inspection report on the "White Hate" programs noted under
"Accomplishments" that the decline in Klan organizations is attributable to "hard-hitting investigations,
counterintelligence programs directed at them, and penetration . . . by our racial informants." The report then lists
several specific actions, including the defeat of a candidate with Klan affiliations; the removal from office of a high
Klan official; and the issuance of a derogatory press release. (Inspection, Domestic Intelligence Division, 1/8-26/71,
pp. 15, 17-19.)

258 Mark Felt testimony, 2/3/76, pp. 56,65.

259 For security reasons, no instructions were printed in the Manual. In service training for intelligence agents did
contain an hour on COINTELPRO, so it may be assumed that most agents knew something about the programs.

For instances in which Attorneys General, the Cabinet, and the House Subcommittee on Appropriations were
allegedly informed of the existence of the CPUSA and Klan COINTELPROs. [sic]

260 Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to all SAC's, 8/25/67.

261 One example of the lengths to which the Bureau went in maintaining secrecy may be instructive. The Bureau
sent a letter to Klan members purporting to be from the "National Intelligence Committee" -- a super-secret Klan
disciplinary body. The letter fired the North Carolina Grand Dragon and suspended the Imperial Wizard, Robert
Shelton. Shelton complained to both the local postal inspector and the FBI resident agency (which solemnly assured
him that his complaint was not within the Bureau's jurisdiction). The Bureau had intended to mail a second "NIC"
letter, but the plans were held in abeyance until it could be learned whether the postal inspector intended to act on
Shelton's complaint. The Bureau, therefore, contacted the local postal inspector, using their investigation of
Shelton's complaint as a pretext, to see what the inspector intended to do. The field office reported that the local
inspector had forwarded the complaint to regional headquarters, which in turn referred it to a Chief Postal Inspector
in Washington, D.C. The Bureau's liaison agent was then sent to that office to determine what action the postal
authorities planned to take. He returned with the information that the Post Office had referred the matter to the Fraud
Section of the Department of Justice's Criminal Division, under a cover letter stating that since Shelton's allegations
"appear to involve an internal struggle" for Klan control, and "since the evidence of mail fraud was somewhat
tenuous in nature," the Post Office did not contemplate any investigation. Neither, apparently, did the Department.
The Bureau did not inform either the Postal Inspector or the Criminal Division that it had authored the letter under
review. Instead, when it appeared the FBI's role would not be discovered, the Bureau prepared to send out the
second letter -- a plan which was discontinued when the Klan "notional" was proposed.

Memorandum from Charlotte Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 5/9/67; memorandum from FBI Headquarters to
Charlotte Field Office, 5/24/67; memorandum. from Charlotte Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 5/31/67;
memorandum from Atlanta Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 6/7/67; memorandum from Atlanta Field Office to
FBI Headquarters, 6/13/67; memorandum from Birmingham Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 6/14/67;
memorandum from Charlotte Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 6/28/67; memorandum from FBI Headquarters to
Atlanta and Charlotte Field Offices, 6/29/67; memorandum from Atlanta Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 6/27/67;
memorandum from Bernard Rachner to Charles Brennan, 7/11/67; memorandum from Charlotte Field Office to FBI
Headquarters, 8/22/67; memorandum from FBI Headquarters to Charlotte Field Office, 8/21/67.

262 These documents were also made available to the Petersen Committee. The Petersen Committee twice asked the
Bureau for documents showing outside knowledge, and twice was told there were none. Only as the Petersen report
was ready to go to press did the Bureau find the documents delivered. (Staff interview with Henry Petersen.)

263 Memorandum from Director, FBI to the Attorney General, 5/8/58.

264 Memorandum from Director, FBI to the Attorney General, 5/8/58.
265 Memorandum from Director, FBI to the Attorney General, 5/8/58.

266 Memorandum from Director, FBI to the Attorney General, 1/10/61.

267 Memorandum from Director, FBI to the Attorney General, 1/10/61, p. 4.

268 Memorandum from Director, FBI to the Attorney General, 9/2/65, p. 2.

269 Memorandum from Nicholas deB. Katzenbach to J. Edgar Hoover, 9/3/65.

270 Nicholas deB. Katzenbach testimony, 12/3/75, Hearings, Vol. 6, pp. 206-207.

271 Katzenbach, 12/3/75, Hearings, Vol. 6, p. 217.

272 Memorandum from Director, FBI to the Attorney General, 12/19/67, p. 1.

273 Memorandum from Director, FBI to the Attorney General, 2/19/67, p. 4.

274 Memorandum from Director, FBI to the Attorney General, 12/19/67, p. 8.

275 The paragraph under the subheading "Tennessee" includes the statement that, through a highly placed Bureau
informant, "we were able to control the expansion of the Klan." The paragraphs under the subheading "Virginia"
states that, after the United Klans of America began an intensive organizational effort in the state, "We immediately
began an all-out effort to penetrate the Virginia Klan, contain its growth, and deter violence." The specific examples
given, however, are not COINTELPRO actions, but liaison with state and local authorities, prosecution, cooperation
with the Governor, and warning a civil rights worker of a plot against his life. The paragraph under the subheading
"Illinois" contains nothing relating to COINTELPRO activities, but refers to cooperation with state authorities in the
prosecution of a Klan official for a series of bombings. (Memorandum from Director, FBI, to the Attorney General,
12/19/67, pp. 8 10.)

276 Clark, 12/3/75, Hearings, Vol. 6, p. 235.

277 Clark, 12/3/75, Hearings, p. 221.

278 The White Hate COINTELPRO had been going on for five years.

279 Memorandum from Director, FBI to the Attorney General, 9/17/69.

280 Ibid.

281 Ibid.

282 DeLoach, 12/3/75, Hearings, Vol. 6, p. 183.

283 Clark. 12/3/75, Hearings, Vol. 6, p. 232.

284 Unit Chief, 10/14/75, p. 136; and 10/21/75, p. 42.

285 Excerpt from FBI Director's briefing to the President and his cabinet, 11/6/58, pp. 35-36.

286 The actual dates of the hearings would be 1957, 1968, 1959, 1960, 1962, 1965, and 1966.
287 Excerpt from FBI Director's briefing of the House Appropriations Subcommittee, FY 1959, p. 54.

288 Excerpt from FBI Director's briefing of the House Appropriations Subcommittee, FY 1959, p. 58.

289 Excerpt from FBI Director's briefing of the House Appropriations Subcommittee, FY 1960, p. 76.

290 Excerpt from FBI Director's briefing of the House Appropriations Subcommittee, FY 1960, p. 76.

291 Excerpt from FBI Director's briefing of the House Appropriations Subcommittee, FY 1960, p. 77.

292 Excerpt from FBI Director's briefing of the House Appropriations Subcommittee, FY 1961, p. 80.

293 Excerpt from FBI Director's briefing of the House Appropriations Subcommittee, FY 1961, p. 81.

294 Excerpt from FBI Director's briefing of the House Appropriations Subcommittee, FY 1963.

295 Excerpt from FBI Director's briefing of the House Appropriations Subcommittee, FY 1963.

296 Excerpt from FBI Director's briefing of the House Appropriations Subcommittee, FY 1966, p. 62. This is the
first time the targeting of non-Party members can be inferred.

297 Excerpt from FBI Director's briefing of the House Appropriations Subcommittee, FY 1966, p. 63.

298 Unit chief, 10/16/75, p. 113.

299 Excerpt from FBI Director's briefing of the House Appropriations Subcommittee, FY 1967, p. 71.

300 Excerpt from FBI Director's briefing of the House Appropriations Subcommittee, FY 1967, pp. 72-73.

301 Although portions of the Committee's report were made public in April 1974, Petersen has testified that the
purpose of the report was simply to inform the Attorney General. The inquiry was not intended to be conclusive and
certainly was not an adversary proceeding. "We were doing a survey rather than conducting an investigation."
(Henry Petersen testimony, 12/11/75, Hearing, Vol. 6, p. 271.)

301a William Saxbe statement, Civil Rights and Constitutional Rights SubCommittee of the House Committee on
the Judiciary, 11/20/74, p. 9.

302 Petersen committee report, CRCR Hearings, 11/20/74, p. 11.

303 Petersen committee report, CRCR, Hearings, 11/20/74, p. 26.

304 Petersen Committee Report, pp. 26-27.

305 Petersen Committee Report, p. 27.

306 Petersen Committee Report, p. 21.

307 Peterson Committee Report, pp. 21-22.

308 Petersen Committee Report, p. 22.
309 For instance, the 20-years-past "Communist" activities of a target professor's wife were found in "public source
material," as were the arrest records of a prominent civil rights leader. Both were leaked to "friendly" media on
condition that the Bureau's interest not be revealed.

310 See, e.g., the attempt to get an agent on the Alcohol Beverage Control Board to raid a Democratic Party
fundraiser.

311 The Civil Rights Division refused to endorse this conclusion, although it was under heavy pressure from top
Department executives to do so. Assistant Attorney General J. Stanley Pottinger was first informed of the Petersen
committee report a week before its public release; and no official of the Civil Rights Division had previously
examined any of the COINTELPRO materials or summaries. After the report's release, the Civil Rights Division
was permitted a short time to review some of the materials. (Staff summary of interview with Assistant Attorney
General Pottinger, 4/21/76.)

Under these restrictions the Civil Rights Division was not able to review "everything in the voluminous files," but
rather conducted only a "general survey of the program unrelated to specific allegations of criminal violations."
Assistant Attorney General Pottinger advised Attorney General Saxbe, upon the completion of this brief
examination of COINTELPRO, that the Division found "no basis for making criminal charges against particular
individuals or involving particular incidents." Although some of the acts reviewed appeared "to amount to technical
violations," the Division concluded that "without more" information, prosecutive action would not be justified under
its "normal criteria." However, Pottinger stressed that a "different prosecution judgment would be indicated if
specific acts more fully known and developed, could be evaluated in a complete factual context." (Memorandum
from J. Stanley Pottinger, Assistant Attorney General. to Attorney General Saxbe, 12/13/74.)

312 Petersen Committee Report, Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights, Hearings, 11/26/74, p. 25.

313 Petersen Committee Report, Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights hearings, 11/20/74, p. 28.

314 Attorney General Levi has proposed a series of guidelines on domestic intelligence. A set of "preventive action"
guidelines was prepared which would have authorized the Bureau to take "nonviolent emergency measures" to
"obstruct or prevent" the use of force or violence upon the Attorney Generals' authorization. These guidelines have
now been abandoned because the Attorney General determined that it was not possible to frame general language
which would permit proper (and indeed ordinary) law enforcement measures such as increased guards around
building or traffic control during a demonstration while preventing COINTELPRO type activity.

315 Department of Justice release, 4/1/76.

316 The notification guidelines read as follows:

1. The review of the COINTELPRO files should be conducted by the existing Shaheen committee.

2. An individual should be notified in those instances where an action directed against him was improper and, in
addition, there is reason to believe he may have been caused actual harm. In making this determination in doubtful
cases, the committee should resolve the question in favor of notification.

3. Excluded from notification should be those individuals who are known to be aware that they were the subjects of
COINTELPRO activities.

4. An advisory group will be created to pass upon those instances where the committee is uncertain as to whether
notification should be given, and otherwise to advise the committee as requested.

5. The manner of notification should be determined in each case to protect rights to privacy,
6. Notification should be given as the work of the committee proceeds, without waiting for the entire review to be
completed.

7. In the event that the committee determines in the process of review that conduct suggests disciplinary action or
referral of a matter to the Criminal or civil nights Divisions, the appropriate referral should be made.

8. No departure from these instructions will be made without the express approval of the Attorney General. The
committee may request such departure only through and with the recommendation of the advisory group. (Letter
from Department (if Justice to the Select Committee, 4/23/76.)



                                    Transcription and html by Paul Wolf, 2002.
http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/cointelpro/churchfinalreportIIIa.htm




COINTELPRO: The Untold American Story
By Paul Wolf with contributions from Robert Boyle, Bob Brown, Tom Burghardt, Noam
Chomsky, Ward Churchill, Kathleen Cleaver, Bruce Ellison, Cynthia McKinney, Nkechi
Taifa, Laura Whitehorn, Nicholas Wilson, and Howard Zinn.
Presented to U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson at the World
Conference Against Racism in Durban, South Africa by the members of the
Congressional Black Caucus attending the conference: Donna Christianson, John
Conyers, Eddie Bernice Johnson, Barbara Lee, Sheila Jackson Lee, Cynthia McKinney,
and Diane Watson, September 1, 2001.

Table of Contents
Overview
Victimization
COINTELPRO Techniques
Murder and Assassination
Agents Provocateurs
The Ku Klux Klan
The Secret Army Organization
Snitch Jacketing
The Subversion of the Press
Political Prisoners
                  Leonard Peltier
                  Mumia Abu Jamal
                  Geronimo ji Jaga Pratt
Dhoruba Bin Wahad
Marshall Eddie Conway
Justice Hangs in the Balance
Appendix: The Legacy of COINTELPRO
CISPES
The Judi Bari Bombing
Bibliography
Overview
We're here to talk about the FBI and U.S. democracy because here we
have this peculiar situation that we live in a democratic country -
everybody knows that, everybody says it, it's repeated, it's dinned into our
ears a thousand times, you grow up, you pledge allegiance, you salute the
flag, you hail democracy, you look at the totalitarian states, you read the
history of tyrannies, and here is the beacon light of democracy. And, of
course, there's some truth to that. There are things you can do in the
United States that you can't do many other places without being put in jail.
But the United States is a very complex system. It's very hard to describe
because, yes, there are elements of democracy; there are things that
you're grateful for, that you're not in front of the death squads in El
Salvador. On the other hand, it's not quite a democracy. And one of the
things that makes it not quite a democracy is the existence of outfits like
the FBI and the CIA. Democracy is based on openness, and the existence
of a secret policy, secret lists of dissident citizens, violates the spirit of
democracy.
Despite its carefully contrived image as the nation's premier crime fighting
agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has always functioned
primarily as America's political police. This role includes not only the
collection of intelligence on the activities of political dissidents and groups,
but often times, counterintelligence operations to thwart those activities.
The techniques employed are easily recognized by anyone familiar with
military psychological operations. The FBI, through the use of the criminal
justice system, the postal system, the telephone system and the Internal
Revenue Service, enjoys an operational capability surpassing even that of
the CIA, which conducts covert actions in foreign countries without having
access to those institutions.
Although covert operations have been employed throughout FBI history,
the formal COunter INTELligence PROgrams (COINTELPRO's) of the
period 1956-1971 were the first to be both broadly targeted and centrally
directed. According to FBI researcher Brian Glick, "FBI headquarters set
policy, assessed progress, charted new directions, demanded increased
production, and carefully monitored and controlled day-to-day operations.
This arrangement required that national COINTELPRO supervisors and
local FBI field offices communicate back and forth, at great length,
concerning every operation. They did so quite freely, with little fear of
public exposure. This generated a prolific trail of bureaucratic paper. The
moment that paper trail began to surface, the FBI discontinued all of its
formal domestic counterintelligence programs. It did not, however, cease
its covert political activity against U.S. dissidents." 1
Of roughly 20,000 people investigated by the FBI solely on the basis of
their political views between 1956-1971, about 10 to 15% were the targets
of active counterintelligence measures per se. Taking counterintelligence
in its broadest sense, to include spreading false information, it's estimated
that about two-thirds were COINTELPRO targets. Most targets were never
suspected of committing any crime.
The nineteen sixties were a period of social change and unrest. Color
television brought home images of jungle combat in Vietnam and
protesters and priests burning draft cards and American flags. In the
spring and summer months of 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967 and 1968, massive
black rebellions swept across almost every major US city in the Northeast,
Midwest and California. 2 Presidents Johnson and Nixon, and many
others feared violent revolution and denounced the protesters. President
Kennedy had felt the opposite: "Those who make peaceful revolution
impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
The counterculture of the sixties, and the FBI's reaction to it, were in many
ways a product of the 1950s, the so-called "Age of McCarthyism." John
Edgar Hoover, longtime Director of the FBI, was a prominent spokesman
of the anti-communist paranoia of the era:
The forces which are most anxious to weaken our internal security are not
always easy to identify. Communists have been trained in deceit and
secretly work toward the day when they hope to replace our American way
of life with a Communist dictatorship. They utilize cleverly camouflaged
movements, such as peace groups and civil rights groups to achieve their
sinister purposes. While they as individuals are difficult to identify, the
Communist party line is clear. Its first concern is the advancement of
Soviet Russia and the godless Communist cause. It is important to learn
to know the enemies of the American way of life. 3
Throughout the 1960s, Hoover consistently applied this theory to a wide
variety of groups, on occasion reprimanding agents unable to find
"obvious" communist connections in civil rights and anti-war groups. 4
During the entire COINTELPRO period, no links to Soviet Russia were
uncovered in any of the social movements disrupted by the FBI.
The commitment of the FBI to undermine and destroy popular movements
departing from political orthodoxy has been extensive, and apparently
proportional to the strength and promise of such movements, as one
would expect in the case of the secret police organization of any state,
though it is doubtful that there is anything comparable to this record
among the Western industrial democracies.
In retrospect, the COINTEPRO's of the 1960s were thoroughly successful
in achieving their stated goals, "to expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit, or
otherwise neutralize" the enemies of the State.
Victimization
The most serious of the FBI disruption programs were those directed
against "Black Nationalists." Agents were instructed to undertake actions
to discredit these groups both within "the responsible Negro community"
and to "Negro radicals," also "to the white community, both the
responsible community and to `liberals' who have vestiges of sympathy for
militant black nationalists simply because they are Negroes..."
A March 4th, 1968 memo from J Edgar Hoover to FBI field offices laid out
the goals of the COINTELPRO - Black Nationalist Hate Groups program:
"to prevent the coalition of militant black nationalist groups;" "to prevent
the rise of a messiah who could unify and electrify the militant black
nationalist movement;" "to prevent violence on the part of black nationalist
groups;" "to prevent militant black nationalist groups and leaders from
gaining respectability;" and "to prevent the long-range growth of militant
black nationalist organizations, especially among youth." Included in the
program were a broad spectrum of civil rights and religious groups; targets
included Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, Stokely Carmichael, Eldridge
Cleaver, and Elijah Muhammad.
A top secret Special Report 5 for President Nixon, dated June 1970 gives
some insight into the motivation for the actions undertaken by the
government to destroy the Black Panther party. The report describes the
party as "the most active and dangerous black extremist group in the
United States." Its "hard-core members" were estimated at about 800, but
"a recent poll indicates that approximately 25 per cent of the black
population has a great respect for the BPP, incuding 43 per cent of blacks
under 21 years of age." On the basis of such estimates of the potential of
the party, counterintelligence operations were carried out to ensure that it
did not succeed in organizing as a substantial social or political force.
Another memorandum explains the motivation for the FBI operations
against student protesters: "the movement of rebellious youth known as
the 'New Left,' involving and influencing a substantial number of college
students, is having a serious impact on contemporary society with a
potential for serious domestic strife." The New Left has "revolutionary
aims" and an "identification with Marxism-Leninism." It has attempted "to
infiltrate and radicalize labor," and after failing "to subvert and control the
mass media" has established "a large network of underground
publications which serve the dual purpose of an internal communication
network and an external propaganda organ." Its leaders have "openly
stated their sympathy with the international communist revolutionary
movements in South Vietnam and Cuba; and have directed others into
activities which support these movements."
The effectiveness of the state disruption programs is not easy to evaluate.
Black leaders estimate the significance of the programs as substantial. Dr.
James Turner of Cornell University, former president of the African
Heritage Studies Association, assessed these programs as having
"serious long-term consequences for black Americans," in that they "had
created in blacks a sense of depression and hopelessness." 6
He states that "the F.B.I. set out to break the momentum developed in
black communities in the late fifties and early sixties"; "we needed to put
together organizational mechanisms to deliver services," but instead, "our
ability to influence things that happen to us internally and externally was
killed." He concludes that "the lack of confidence and paranoia stimulated
among black people by these actions" is just beginning to fade.
The American Indian Movement, arguably the most hopeful vehicle for
indigenous pride and self-determination in the late 20th century, was also
destroyed. As AIM leader Dennis Banks has observed:
"The FBI's tactics eventually proved successful in a peculiar sort of way.
It's remarkable under the circumstances - and a real testament to the inner
strength of the traditional Oglalas - that the feds were never really able to
divide them from us, to have the traditionals denouncing us and working
against us. But, in the end, the sort of pressure the FBI put on people on
the reservation, particularly the old people, it just wore 'em down. A kind of
fatigue set in. With the firefight at Oglala, and all the things that happened
after that, it was easy to see we weren't going to win by direct
confrontation. So the traditionals asked us to disengage, to try and take
some of the heaviest pressure off. And, out of respect, we had no choice
but to honor those wishes. And that was the end of AIM, at least in the
way it had been known up till then. The resistance is still there, of course,
and the struggle goes on, but the movement itself kind of disappeared." 7
The same can be said for socialist movements targeted by COINTELPRO.
Alone among the parliamentary democracies, the United States has no
mass-based socialist party, however mild and reformist, no socialist voice
in the media, and virtually no departure from Keynesian economics in
American universities and journals. The people of the United States have
paid dearly for the enforcement of domestic privilege and the securing of
imperial domains. The vast waste of social wealth, miserable urban
ghettos, the threat and reality of unemployment, meaningless work in
authoritarian institutions, standards of health and social welfare that
should be intolerable in a society with such vast productive resources -- all
of this must be endured and even welcomed as the "price of freedom" if
the existing order is to stand without challenge.
COINTELPRO Techniques
From its inception, the FBI has operated on the doctrine that the
"preliminary stages of organization and preparation" must be frustrated,
well before there is any clear and present danger of "revolutionary
radicalism."
At its most extreme dimension, political dissidents have been eliminated
outright or sent to prison for the rest of their lives. There are quite a
number of individuals who have been handled in that fashion.
Many more, however, were "neutralized" by intimidation, harassment,
discrediting, snitch jacketing, a whole assortment of authoritarian and
illegal tactics.
Neutralization, as explained on record by the FBI, doesn't necessarily
pertain to the apprehension of parties in the commission of a crime, the
preparation of evidence against them, and securing of a judicial conviction,
but rather to simply making them incapable of engaging in political activity
by whatever means.
For those not assessed as being in themselves, necessarily a security risk,
but engaged in what the Bureau views to be politically objectionable
activity, those techniques might consist of disseminating derogatory
information to the target's family, friends and associates, visiting and
questioning them, basically, making it clear that the FBI are paying
attention to them, to try to intimidate them.
If the subject continues their activities, and particularly if they respond by
escalating them, the FBI will escalate its tactics as well. Maybe they'll be
arrested and prosecuted for spurious reasons. Maybe there will be more
vicious rumors circulated about them. False information may be planted in
the press. The targets' efforts to speak in public are frustrated, employers
may be contacted to try to get them fired. Anonymous letters have been
sent by the FBI to targets' spouses, accusing them of infidelity. Others
have contained death threats.
And if the subject persists then there will be a further escalation.
According to FBI memoranda of the 1960s, "Key black activists" were
repeatedly arrested "on any excuse" until "they could no longer make bail."
The FBI made use of informants, often quite violent and emotionally
disturbed individuals, to present false testimony to the courts, to frame
COINTELPRO targets for crimes they knew they did not commit. In some
cases the charges were quite serious, including murder.
Another option is "snitch jacketing" - making the target look like a police
informant or a CIA agent. This serves the dual purposes of isolating and
alienating important leaders, and increasing the general level of fear and
factionalism in the group.
"Black bag jobs" are burglaries performed in order to obtain the written
materials, mailing lists, position papers, and internal documents of an
organization or an individual. At least 10,000 American homes have been
subjected to illegal breaking and entering by the FBI, without judicial
warrants.
Group membership lists are used to expand the operation. Anonymous
mailings of newspaper and magazine articles may be mailed to group
members and supporters to convince them of the error of their ways.
Anonymous or spurious letters and cartoons are sent to promote
factionalism and widen rifts in or between organizations.
According to the FBI's own records, agents have been directed to use
"established local news media contacts" and other "sources available to
the Seat of Government" to "disrupt or neutralize" organizations and to
"ridicule and discredit" them.
Many counterintelligence techniques involve the use of paid informants.
Informants become agents provocateurs by raising controversial issues at
meetings to take advantage of ideological divisions, by promoting emnity
with other groups, or by inciting the group to violent acts, even to the point
of providing them with weapons.
Over the years, FBI provocateurs have repeatedly urged and initiated
violent acts, including forceful disruptions of meetings and demonstrations,
attacks on police, bombings, and so on, following an old strategy of Tsarist
police director TC Zubatov: "We shall provoke you to acts of terror and
then crush you."
A concise description of political warfare is given in a passage from a CIA
paper entitled "Nerve War Against Individuals," referring to the
overthrowing of the government of Guatemala in 1954:
The strength of an enemy consists largely of the individuals who occupy
key positions in the enemy organization, as leaders, speakers, writers,
organizers, cabinet members, senior government officials, army
commanders and staff officers, and so forth. Any effort to defeat the
enemy must therefore concentrate to a great extent upon these key
enemy individuals.
If such an effort is made by means short of physical violence, we call it
"psychological warfare." If it is focussed less upon convincing those
individuals by logical reasoning, but primarily upon moving them in the
desired direction by means of harassment, by frightening, confusing and
misleading them, we speak of a "nerve war". 8
The COINTELPROs clearly met the above definition of "nerve wars," and,
in the case of the American Indian Movement in Pine Ridge, South Dakota,
the FBI conducted a full-fledged counterinsurgency war, complete with
death squads, disappearances and assassinations, recalling Guatemala in
more recent years.
The full story of COINTELPRO may never be told. The Bureau's files were
never seized by Congress or the courts or sent to the National Archives.
Some have been destroyed. Many counterintelligence operations were
never committed to writing as such, or involve open investigations, and ex-
operatives are legally prohibited from talking about them. Most operations
remain secret until long after the damage has been done.
Murder and Assassination
Among the most remarkable of the COINTELPRO revelations are those
relating to the FBI's attempts to incite gang warfare and murderous attacks
on Black Panther leaders. For example, a COINTELPRO memo from FBI
Headquarters mailed November 25, 1968, informs recipient offices that:
a serious struggle is taking place between the Black Panther Party (BPP)
and the US [United Slaves] organization. The struggle has reached such
proportions that it is taking on the aura of gang warfare with attendant
threats of murder and reprisals.
In order to fully capitalize upon BPP and US differences as well as to
exploit all avenues of creating further dissension in the ranks of the BPP,
recipient offices are instructed to submit imaginative and hard-hitting
counterintelligence measures aimed at crippling the BPP. 9
According to the national chairman of the US organization, who became a
professor at San Diego State, the US and the Panthers had been
negotiating to avoid bloodshed: "Then the F.B.I. stepped in and the
shooting started."
A series of cartoons were produced in an effort to incite violence between
the Black Panther Party and the US; for example, one showing Panther
leader David Hilliard hanging dead with a rope around his neck from a tree.
The San Diego office reported to the director that:
in view of the recent killing of BPP member SYLVESTER BELL, a new
cartoon is being considered in the hopes that it will assist in the
continuance of the rift between BPP and US. This cartoon, or series of
cartoons, will be similar in nature to those formerly approved by the
Bureau and will be forwarded to the Bureau for evaluation and approval
immediately upon their completion.
Under the heading "TANGIBLE RESULTS" the memo continues:
Shootings, beatings, and a high degree of unrest continues to prevail in
the ghetto area of southeast San Diego. Although no specific
counterintelligence action can be credited with contributing to this over-all
situation, it is felt that a substantial amount of the unrest is directly
attributable to this program.
Between 1968-1971, FBI-initiated terror and disruption resulted in the
murder of Black Panthers Arthur Morris, Bobby Hutton, Steven
Bartholomew, Robert Lawrence, Tommy Lewis, Welton Armstead, Frank
Diggs, Alprentice Carter, John Huggins, Alex Rackley, John Savage,
Sylvester Bell, Larry Roberson, Nathaniel Clark, Walter Touré Pope,
Spurgeon Winters, Fred Hampton, Mark Clark, Sterling Jones, Eugene
Anderson, Babatunde X Omarwali, Carl Hampton, Jonathan Jackson,
Fred Bennett, Sandra Lane Pratt, Robert Webb, Samuel Napier, Harold
Russell, and George Jackson.
One of the more dramatic incidents occurred on the night of December 4,
1969, when Panther leaders Fred Hampton and Mark Clark were shot to
death by Chicago policemen in a predawn raid on their apartment.
Hampton, one of the most promising leaders of the Black Panther party,
was killed in bed, perhaps drugged. Depositions in a civil suit in Chicago
revealed that the chief of Panther security and Hampton's personal
bodyguard, William O'Neal, was an FBI infiltrator. O'Neal gave his FBI
contacting agent, Roy Mitchell, a detailed floor plan of the apartment,
which Mitchell turned over to the state's attorney's office shortly before the
attack, along with "information" -- of dubious veracity -- that there were two
illegal shotguns in the apartment. For his services, O'Neal was paid over
$10,000 from January 1969 through July 1970, according to Mitchell's
affidavit.
The availability of the floor plan presumably explains why "all the police
gunfire went to the inside corners of the apartment, rather than toward the
entrances," and undermines still further the pretense that the barrage was
caused by confusion in unfamiliar surroundings that led the police to
believe, falsely, that they were being fired upon by the Panthers inside. 10
Agent Mitchell was named by the Chicago Tribune as head of the Chicago
COINTELPRO directed against the Black Panthers and other black groups.
Whether or not this is true, there is substantial evidence of direct FBI
involvement in this Gestapo-style political assassination. O'Neal continued
to report to Agent Mitchell after the raid, taking part in meetings with the
Hampton family and their discussion with their lawyers.
There has as yet been no systematic investigation of the FBI campaign
against the Black Panther Party in Chicago, as part of its nationwide
program against the Panthers.
Malcolm X was supposedly murdered by former colleagues in the Nation
of Islam (NOI) as a result of the faction-fighting which had led to his
splitting away from that movement, and their "natural wrath" at his
establishment of a separate mosque, the Muslim Mosque, Inc.
However, the NOl factionalism at issue didn't just happen. It had been
developed by deliberate Bureau actions, through infiltration and the
"sparking of acrimonious debates within the organization," rumor-
mongering, and other tactics designed to foster internal disputes. 11 The
Chicago Special Agent in Charge, Marlin Johnson, who also oversaw the
assassinations of Fred Hampton and Mark Clark, makes it quite obvious
that he views the murder of Malcolm X as something of a model for
"successful" counterintelligence operations.
"Over the years considerable thought has been given, and action taken
with Bureau approval, relating to methods through which the NOI could be
discredited in the eyes of the general black populace or through which
factionalism among the leadership could be created. Serious
consideration has also been given towards developing ways and means of
changing NOI philosophy to one whereby the members could be
developed into useful citizens and the organization developed into one
emphasizing religion - the brotherhood of mankind - and self improvement.
Factional disputes have been developed - most notable being Malcolm X
Little." 12
In an internal FBI monograph dated September 1963 found that, given the
scope of support it had attracted over the preceding five years, civil rights
agitation represented a clear threat to "the established order" of the U.S.,
and that Martin Luther "King is growing in stature daily as the leader
among leaders of the Negro movement ... so goes Martin Luther King, and
also so goes the Negro movement in the United States." This accorded
well with COINTELPRO specialist William C. Sullivan's view, committed to
writing shortly after King's landmark "I Have a Dream" speech during the
massive civil rights demonstration in Washington, D.C., on August 28 of
the same year:
We must mark [King] now, if we have not before, as the most dangerous
Negro in the future of this Nation from the standpoint of communism, the
Negro, and national security ... it may be unrealistic to limit [our actions
against King] to legalistic proofs that would stand up in court or before
Congressional Committees.
The stated objective of the SCLC, and the nature of its practical activities,
was to organize for the securing of black voting rights across the rural
South, with an eye toward the ultimate dismantlement of at least the most
blatant aspects of the southern U.S. system of segregation. Even this
seemingly innocuous agenda was, however, seen as a threat by the FBI.
In mid-September of 1957, FBI supervisor J.G. Kelly forwarded a
newspaper clipping describing the formation of the SCLC to the Bureau's
Atlanta field office - that city being the location of SCLC headquarters -
informing local agents, for reasons which were never specified, the civil
rights group was "a likely target for communist infiltration," and that "in
view of the stated purpose of the organization you should remain alert for
public source information concerning it in connection with the racial
situation." 13
The Atlanta field office "looked into" the matter and ultimately opened a
COMINFIL (communist-inflitrated group) investigation of the SCLC,
apparently based on the fact that a single SWP member, Lonnie Cross,
had offered his services as a clerk in the organization's main office. 14 By
the end of the first year of FBI scrutiny, in September of 1958, a personal
file had been opened on King himself, ostensibly because he had been
approached on the steps of a Harlem church in which he'd delivered a
guest sermon by black CP member Benjamin J. Davis. 15 By October
1960, as the SCLC call for desegregation and black voting rights in the
south gained increasing attention and support across the nation, the
Bureau began actively infiltrating organizational meetings and conferences.
16
By July of 1961, FBI intelligence on the group was detailed enough to
recount that, while an undergraduate at Atlanta's Morehouse College in
1948, King had been affiliated with the Progressive Party, and that
executive director Wyatt Tee Walker had once subscribed to a CP
newspaper, The Worker. 17
Actual counterintelligence operations against King and the SCLC seem to
have begun with a January 8, 1962 letter from Hoover to Attorney General
Robert F. Kennedy, contending that the civil rights leader enjoyed a "close
relationship" with Stanley D. Levison, "a member of the Communist Party,
USA," and that Isadore Wofsy, "a high ranking communist leader," had
written a speech for King. 18
On the night of March 15-16,1962, FBI agents secretly broke into
Levison's New York office and planted a bug; a wiretap of his office phone
followed on March 20. 19 Among the other things picked up by the
surveillance was information that Jack ODell, who also had an alleged
"record of ties to the Communist party," had been recommended by both
King and Levison to serve as an assistant to Wyatt Tee Walker. 20
Although none of these supposed communist affiliations were ever
substantiated, it was on this basis that SCLC was targeted within the
Bureau's ongoing COINTELPRO-CP,USA, beginning with the planting of
five disinformational "news stories" concerning the organization's
"communist connections" on October 24, 1962. 21 By this point, Martin
Luther King's name had been placed in Section A of the FBI Reserve
Index, one step below those individuals registered in the Security Index
and scheduled to be rounded up and "preventively detained" in the event
of a declared national emergency; Attorney General Kennedy had also
authorized round-the-clock surveillance of all SCLC offices, as well as
King's home. 22 Hence, by November 8,1963, comprehensive telephone
taps had been installed at all organizational offices, and King's residence.
23
By 1964, King was not only firmly established as a preeminent civil rights
leader, but was beginning to show signs of pursuing a more fundamental
structural agenda of social change. Meanwhile, the Bureau continued its
efforts to discredit King, maintaining a drumbeat of mass media-distributed
propaganda concerning his supposed "communist influences" and sexual
proclivities, as well as triggering a spate of harassment by the Internal
Revenue Service (IRS). 24 When it was announced on October 14 of that
year that King would receive a Nobel Peace Prize as a reward for his work
in behalf of the rights of American blacks, the Bureau - exhibiting a certain
sense of desperation - dramatically escalated its efforts to neutralize him.
Two days after announcement of the impending award, COINTELPRO
specialist William Sullivan caused a composite audio tape to be produced,
supposedly consisting of "highlights" taken from the taps of King's phones
and bugs placed in his various hotel rooms over the preceding two years.
The result, prepared by FBI audio technician John Matter, purported to
demonstrate the civil rights leader had engaged in a series of "orgiastic"
trysts with prostitutes and, thus, "the depths of his sexual perversion and
depravity." The finished tape was packaged, along with an accompanying
anonymous letter (prepared by Bureau Internal Security Supervisor
Seymore F. Phillips on Sullivan's instruction), informing King that the audio
material would be released to the media unless he committed suicide prior
to bestowal of the Nobel Prize.
King, look into your heart. You know you are a complete fraud and a great
liability to all of us Negroes. White people in this country have enough
frauds of their own but I am sure that they don't have one at this time that
is any where near your equal. You are no clergyman and you know it. I
repeat you are a colossal fraud and an evil, vicious one at that. ...
King, there is only one thing left for you to do. You know what it is. You
have just 34 days in which to do (this exact number has been selected for
a specific reason, it has definite practical significant. You are done. There
is but one way out for you. You better take it before your filthy, abnormal
fraudulent self is bared to the nation. [sic]. 25
Sullivan then instructed veteran COINTELPRO operative Lish Whitson to
fly to Miami with the package; once there, Whitson was instructed to
address the parcel and mail it to the intended victim. 26 When King failed
to comply with Sullivan's anonymous directive that he kill himself, FBI
Associate Director Cartha D. "Deke" DeLoach attempted to follow through
with the threat to make the contents of the doctored tape public:
The Bureau Crime Records Division, headed by DeLoach, initiated a
major campaign to let newsmen know just what the Bureau [claimed to
have] on King. DeLoach personally offered a copy of the King surveillance
transcript to Newsweek Washington bureau chief Benjamin Bradlee.
Bradlee refused it, and mentioned the approach to a Newsday colleague,
Jay Iselin. 27
Bradlee's disclosure of what the FBI was up to served to curtail the
effectiveness of DeLoach's operation, and Bureau propagandists
consequently found relatively few takers on this particular story. More, in
the face of a planned investigation of electronic surveillance by
government agencies announced by Democratic Missouri Senator Edward
V. Long, J. Edgar Hoover was forced to order the rapid dismantling of the
electronic surveillance coverage of both King and the SCLC, drying up
much of the source material upon which Sullivan and his COINTELPRO
specialists depended for "authenticity."
Still, the Bureau's counterintelligence operations against King continued
apace, right up to the moment of the target's death by sniper fire on a
Memphis hotel balcony on April 4, 1968. 28 By 1969, "[FBI] efforts to
'expose' Martin Luther King, Jr., had not slackened even though King had
been dead for a year." 29
Those seeking independence for Puerto Rico were similarly attacked. The
Bureau considered independentista leader Juan Mari Bras' near-fatal
heart attack during April of 1964 to have been brought on, at least in part,
by an anonymous counterintelligence letter:
[deleted] stated that MARI BRAS' heart attack on April 21, 1964, was
obviously brought on by strain and overwork and opinioned that the
anonymous letter certainly did nothing to ease his tensions for he felt the
effects of the letter deeply. The source pointed out that with MARI BRAS'
illness and effects of the letter on the MPIPR leaders, that the
organization's activities had come to a near halt.
[paragraph deleted]
It is clear from the above that our anonymous letter has seriously
disrupted the MPIPR ranks and created a climate of distrust and
dissension from which it will take them some time to recover. This
particular technique has been outstandingly successful and we shall be on
the lookout to further exploit the achievements in this field. The Bureau will
be promptly advised of other positive results of this program that may
come to our attention. 30
The pattern remained evident more than a decade later when, after
reviewing portions of the 75 volumes of documents the FBI had compiled
on him, Mari Bras testified before the United Nations Commission on
Decolonization:
[The documents] reflect the general activity of the FBI toward the
movement. But some of the memos are dated 1976 and 1977; long after
COINTELPRO was [supposedly] ended as an FBI activity ... At one point,
there is a detailed description of the death of my son, in 1976, at the
hands of a gun-toting assassin. The bottom of the memo is fully deleted,
leaving one to wonder who the assassin was. The main point, however, is
that the memo is almost joyful about the impact his death will have upon
me in my Gubernatorial campaign, as head of our party, in 1976. 31
When Mari Bras suffered from an attack of severe depression the same
year, the San Juan Special Agent in Charge noted in a memo to FBI
headquarters that, "It would hardly be idle boasting to say that some of the
Bureau's activities have provoked the situation of Mari Bras." Given the
context established by the Bureau's own statements vis a vis Mari Bras, it
also seems quite likely that one of the means by which the FBI continued
to "exploit its achievements" in "provoking the situation" of the
independentista leader was to arrange for the firebombing of his home in
1978.
Lethal COINTELPRO operations against the independentistas continued
well into the 1980s. As Alfredo Lopez recounted in 1988:
[O]ver the past fifteen years, 170 attacks - beatings, shootings, and
bombings of independence organizations and activists - have been
documented ... there have been countless attacks and beatings of people
at rallies and pickets, to say nothing of independentistas walking the
streets. The 1975 bombing of a rally at Mayaguez that killed two
restaurant workers was more dramatic, but like the other 170 attacks
remains unsolved. Although many right-wing organizations claimed credit
for these attacks, not one person has been arrested or brought to trial. 32
A clear instance of direct FBI involvement in anti-independentista violence
is the "Cerro Maravilla Episode" of July 25,1978. On that date, two young
activists, Arnaldo Dario Rosado and Carlos Soto Arrivi, accompanied a
provocateur named Alejandro Gonzalez Malave, were lured into a trap
and shot to death by police near the mountain village. Official reports
claimed the pair had been on the way to blow up a television tower near
Cerro Maravilla, and had fired first when officers attempted to arrest them.
A taxi driver who was also on the scene, however, adamantly insisted that
this was untrue, that neither independentista had offered resistance when
captured, and that the police themselves had fired two volleys of shots in
order to make it sound from a distance as if they'd been fired upon. "It was
a planned murder," the witness said, "and it was carried out like that."
What had actually happened became even more obvious when a police
officer named Julio Cesar Andrades came forward and asserted that the
assassination had been planned "from on high" and in collaboration with
the Bureau. This led to confirmation of Gonzalez Molave's role as an
infiltrator reporting to both the local police and the FBI, a situation which
prompted him to admit "having planned and urged the bombing" in order
to set the two young victim up for execution. In the end, it was shown that:
Dario and Soto [had] surrendered. Police forced the men to their knees,
handcuffed their arms behind their backs, and as the two independentistas
pleaded for justice, the police tortured and murdered them. 33
None of the police and other officials involved were ever convicted of the
murders and crimes directly involved in this affair. However, despite
several years of systematic coverup by the FBI and U.S. Justice
Department, working in direct collaboration with the guilty officers, ten of
the latter were finally convicted on multiple counts of perjury and
sentenced to prison terms ranging from six to 30 years apiece. Having
evaded legal responsibility for his actions altogether, provocateur
Gonzalez Molave was shot to death in front of his home on April 29,1986,
by "party or parties unknown." This was followed, on February 28,1987, by
the government's payment of $575,000 settlements to both victims'
families, a total of $1,150,000 in acknowledgment of the official
misconduct attending their deaths and the subsequent investigation(s).
Despite tens of thousands of pages of documentary evidence, the idea
that the Bureau would utilize private right-wing operatives and terrorists is
a chilling, alien concept to most Americans. Nevertheless, the FBI has
financed, organized, and supplied arms to right-wing groups that carried
out fire-bombings, burglaries, and shootings. 34
This was the case during the FBI's COINTELPRO in South Dakota in the
1970's against the Oglala Sioux Nation and the American Indian
Movement. Right-wing vigilantes were used to disrupt the American Indian
Movement (AIM) and selectively terrorize and murder the Oglala Sioux
people 35, in what could only be described as a counter-insurgency
campaign. During the 36 months roughly beginning with the 1973 seige of
Wounded Knee and continuing through the first of May 1976, more than
sixty AIM members and supporters died violently on or in locations
immediately adjacent to the Pine Ridge Reservation. A minimum of 342
others suffered violent physical assaults. As Roberto Maestas and Bruce
Johansen have observed:
Using only these documented political deaths, the yearly murder rate on
Pine Ridge Reservation between March 1, 1973, and March 1, 1976, was
170 per 100,000. By comparison, Detroit, the reputed "murder capital of
the United States," had a rate of 20.2 in 1974. ... The political murder rate
at Pine Ridge between March 1, 1973, and March 1, 1976, was almost
equivalent to that in Chile during the three years after the military coup
supported by the United States deposed and killed President Salvador
Allende. 36
To commemorate the 1890 massacre of Wounded Knee, in which 300
Minnecojou Lakota were slaughtered by the U.S. Seventh Cavalry,
hundreds of Native Americans from reservations across the West
gathered in Wounded Knee, on the Pine Ridge Reservation in South
Dakota, during the winter of 1972-73. 37
This situation was already tense due to a series of unsolved murders on
the reservation, and a struggle between the administration of the Oglala
Sioux tribal president, Dick Wilson, and opposition organizations on the
reservation, including AIM. Wilson had been bestowed with a $62,000
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) grant for purposes of establishing a "tribal
ranger group" - an entity which designated itself as "Guardians Of the
OgIala Nation" (GOONs). Wilson's "goon squads" patrolled the reservation,
unleashing a reign of terror against Wilson's enemies. When victims
attempted to seek the protection of the BIA police, they quickly discovered
that perhaps a third of its roster - including its head, Delmar Eastman
(Crow), and his second-in-command, Duane Brewer (OgIala) - were
doubling as GOON leaders or members. For their part, BIA officials - who
had set the whole thing up - consistently turned aside requests for
assistance from the traditionals as being "purely internal tribal matters,"
beyond the scope of BIA authority.
On Feb 28th, 1973, residents of Wounded Knee, South Dakota found the
roads to the hamlet blockaded by GOONs, later reinforced by marshals
service Special Operations Group (SOG) teams and FBI personnel. By 10
p.m., Minneapolis SAC Joseph Trimbach had flown in to assume personal
command of the GOONs and BIA police, while Wayne Colburn, director of
the U.S. Marshals Service, had arrived to assume control over his now
reinforced SOG unit. Colonel Volney Warner of the 82nd Airborne Division
and 6th Army Colonel Jack Potter - operating directly under General
Alexander Haig, military liaison in the Nixon White House - had also been
dispatched from the Pentagon as "advisors" coordinating a flow of military
personnel, weapons and equipment to those besieging Wounded Knee.
As Rex Weyler has noted:
Documents later subpoenaed from the Pentagon revealed that Colonel
Potter directed the employment of 17 APCs [armored personnel carriers],
130,000 rounds of M-16 ammunition, 41,000 rounds of M-40 high
explosive, as well as helicopters, Phantom jets, and personnel. Military
officers, supply sergeants, maintenance technicians, chemical officers,
and medical teams remained on duty throughout the 71 day siege, all
working in civilian clothes [to conceal their unconstitutional involvement in
this "civil disorder"]. 38
On March 5, Dick Wilson - with federal officials present - held a press
conference to declare "open season" on AIM members on Pine Ridge,
declaring "AIM will die at Wounded Knee." For their part, those inside the
hamlet announced their intention to remain where they were until such
time as Wilson was removed from office, the GOONs disbanded, and the
massive federal presence withdrawn.
Beginning on March 13, federal forces directed fire from heavy .50 caliber
machineguns into the AIM positions. The following month was
characterized by alternating periods of negotiation, favored by the army
and the marshals - which the FBI and GOONs did their best to subvert -
and raging gun battles when the latter held sway. Several defenders were
severely wounded in a firefight on March 17, and on March 23 some
20,000 more rounds were fired into Wounded Knee in a 24-hour period.
The FBI's "turf battle" with the "soft" elements of the federal government
rapidly came to a head. On April 23, Chief U.S. Marshal Colburn and
federal negotiator Kent Frizzell were detained at a GOON roadblock and a
gun pointed at Frizzell's head. By his own account, Frizzell was saved only
after Colburn leveled a weapon at the GOON and said, "Go ahead and
shoot Frizzell, but when you do, you're dead." The pair were then released.
Later the same day, a furious Colburn returned with several of his men,
disarmed and arrested eleven GOONs, and dismantled the roadblock.
However, "that same night... some of Wilson's people put it up again. The
FBI, still supporting the vigilantes, had [obtained the release of those
arrested and] supplied them with automatic weapons." The GOONs were
being armed by the FBI with fully automatic M-16 assault rifles, apparently
limitless quantifies of ammunition, and state-of-the-art radio
communications gear. When Colburn again attempted to dismantle the
roadblock:
FBI [operations consultant] Richard [G.] Held arrived by helicopter to
inform the marshals that word had come from a high Washington source
to let the roadblock stand ... As a result the marshals were forced to allow
several of Wilson's people to be stationed at the roadblock and to
participate in ... patrols around the village. 39
On the evening of April 26, the marshals reported that they were taking
automatic weapons fire from behind their position, undoubtedly from
GOON patrols. The same "party or parties unknown" was also pumping
bullets into the AIM/ION positions in front of the marshals, a matter which
caused return fire from AIM. The marshals were thus caught in a crossfire.
At dawn on the 27th, the marshals, unnerved at being fired on all night
from both sides, fired tear gas cannisters from M-79 grenade launchers
into the AIM/ION bunkers. They followed up with some 20,000 rounds of
small arms ammunition. AIM member Buddy Lamont (Oglala), driven from
a bunker by the gas, was hit by automatic weapons fire and bled to death
before medics, pinned down by the barrage, could reach him.
When the siege finally ended through a negotiated settlement on May 7,
1973, the AIM casualty count stood at two dead and fourteen seriously
wounded. An additional eight-to-twelve individuals had been
"disappeared" by the GOONs. They were in all likelihood murdered and -
like an untold number of black civil rights workers in the swamps of
Mississippi and Louisiana - their bodies secretly buried somewhere in the
remote vastness of the reservation.
Of the 60-plus murders occurring in an area in which the FBI held
"preeminent jurisdiction," not one was solved by the Bureau. In most
instances, no active investigation was ever opened, despite eye-witnesses
identifying members of the Wilson GOON squad as killers.
U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Gerald Heaney, after reviewing numerous
court transcripts and FBI documents, concluded that the United States
Government overreacted at Wounded Knee. Instead of carefully
considering the legitimate grievances of Native Americans, the response
was essentially a military one.
While Judge Heaney believed that the "Native Americans" had some
culpability in the firefight that day, he concluded the United States must
share the responsibility. It never has. The FBI has never been held
accountable or even publicly investigated for what one Federal petit jury
and Judge Heaney concluded was complicity in the creation of a climate
of fear and terror on the Pine Ridge Reservation.
Other AIM casualties include Richard Oaks, leader of the 1970 occupation
of Alcatraz Island by "Indians of All Tribes," who was gunned down in
California the following year. Larray Cacuse, a Navajo AIM leader, was
shot to death in Arizona in 1972. In 1979, AIM leader John Trudell,
preparing to make a speech in Washington, was told by FBI personnel
that, if he gave the speech, there would be "consequences." Trudell not
only made his speech, calling for the U.S. to get out of North America and
detailing the nature of federal repression in Indian country, he burned a
U.S. flag as well. That night, his wife, mother-in-law, and three children
were "mysteriously" burned to death at their home on the Duck Valley
Reservation in Nevada.


Agents Provocateurs
Many details are now available concerning these extensive campaigns of
terror and disruption, in part through right-wing paramilitary groups
organized and financed by the national government, but primarily through
the much more effective means of infiltration and provocation of existing
groups. In particular, much of the violence that occurred on college
campuses can be attributed to government provocateurs.
The Alabama branch of the ACLU argued in court that in May 1970 an FBI
agent "committed arson and other violence that police used as a reason
for declaring that university students were unlawfully assembled" -- 150
students were arrested. The court ruled that the agent's role was irrelevant
unless the defense could establish that he was instructed to commit the
violent acts, but this was impossible, according to defense counsel, since
the FBI and police thwarted his efforts to locate the agent who had
admitted the acts to him. 40
William Frapolly, who surfaced as a government informer in the Chicago
Eight conspiracy trial, an active member of student and off-campus peace
groups in Chicago, "during an antiwar rally at his college, ... grabbed the
microphone from the college president and wrestled him off the stage" and
"worked out a scheme for wrecking the toilets in the college dorms...as an
act of antiwar protest." 41
One FBI provocateur resigned when he was asked to arrange the
bombing of a bridge in such a way that the person who placed the booby-
trapped bomb would be killed. This was in Seattle, where it was revealed
that FBI infiltrators had been engaged in a campaign of arson, terrorism,
and bombings of university and civic buildings, and where the FBI
arranged a robbery, entrapping a young black man who was paid $75 for
the job and killed in a police ambush. 42
In another case, an undercover operative who had formed and headed a
pro-Communist Chinese organization "at the direction of the bureau"
reports that at the Miami Republican convention he incited "people to turn
over one of the buses and then told them that if they really wanted to blow
the bus up, to stick a rag in the gas tank and light it." They were unable to
overturn the vehicle. 43
The Ku Klux Klan
During the 1960's, the FBI's role was not to protect civil rights workers, but
rather, through the use of informants, the Bureau actively assisted the Ku
Klux Klan in their campaign of racist murder and terror.
Church Committee hearings and internal FBI documents revealed that
more than one quarter of all active Klan members during the period were
FBI agents or informants. 44 However, Bureau intelligence "assets" were
neither neutral observers nor objective investigators, but active
participants in beatings, bombings and murders that claimed the lives of
some 50 civil rights activists by 1964. 44
Bureau spies were elected to top leadership posts in at least half of all
Klan units. 45 Needless to say, the informants gained positions of
organizational trust on the basis of promoting the Klan's fascist agenda.
Incitement to violence and participation in terrorist acts would only confirm
the infiltrator's loyalty and commitment.
Unlike slick Hollywood popularizations of the period, such as Alan Parker's
film, "Mississippi Burning," the FBI was instrumental in building the Ku
Klux Klan in the South,
"...setting up dozens of Klaverns, sometimes being leaders and public
spokespersons. Gary Rowe, an FBI informant, was involved in the Klan
killing of Viola Liuzzo, a civil rights worker. He claimed that he had to fire
shots at her rather than 'blow his cover.' One FBI agent, speaking at a
rally organized by the Klavern he led, proclaimed to his followers, 'We will
restore white rights if we have to kill every negro to do it.'" 46
Throughout its history, the Klan has had a contradictory relationship with
the national government: as a defender of white privilege and the
patriarchal status quo, and as an implicit threat, however provisional, to
federal power. Depending on political conditions in society as a whole,
vigilante terror can be supplemental to official violence, or kept on the
proverbial shortleash. 47 As a surrogate army in the field of terror against
official enemies, the Klan enjoys wide latitude. But when it moves into an
oppositional mode and attacks key institutions of national power, Klan
paramilitarism - but not its overt white supremacist ideology - is treated as
an imminent threat to the social order, suppressed, but never destroyed,
unlike other COINTELPRO target groups.
These roles are not mutually exclusive. As anti-racist researcher Michael
Novick warns: "The KKK and its successor and fraternal organizations are
deeply rooted in the actual white supremacist power relations of US
society. They exist as a supplement to the armed power of the state,
available to be used when the rulers and the state find it necessary." 48
The Klan's "supplemental" role, particularly as a private armed force
sporadically deployed to arrest the development of movements for Black
freedom, is best considered by comparison to other Bureau operations.
Unlike other COINTELPROs, the "Klan - White Hate Groups" program was
of a different order entirely. Senior FBI management and a majority of
agents in the field endorsed the Klan's values, if not the vigilante character
of their tactics; from militaristic anti-communism to extreme racial hatred;
from ultra-nationalism to misogynist puritanism. 49
This was evident during the civil rights struggles of the sixties, when
Freedom Riders and local community activists directly confronted hostile
police forces - many of whom were openly allied with the Klan. Despite
clear jurisdictional authority to enforce federal law, the FBI consistently
refused to protect civil rights workers under attack across the South. More
than once, the Bureau refused to warn those under imminent threat of
violence.
FBI inaction in the area of civil rights enforcement wasn't simply a matter
of what the Pike Committee of the House of Representatives dubbed "FBI
racism." Rather, FBI bureaucratic lethargy, when it came to protecting
Black lives, underscored its mission against subversion for constituents
whose privileges and power were threatened by a militant movement for
Black rights. 50
Strikingly different from anti-communist COINTELPROs that enmeshed
broad social sectors in a web of entanglements, FBI monitoring of the Klan
was strictly confined to the organization itself. No serious efforts were
made to explore the supplemental role of White Citizens' Councils, many
of which were active Klan fronts, let alone investigate the obvious and
widespread police complicity in racist violence. 51 Bureau surveillance of
the Klan was purely passive, hardly the directed aggression reserved for
left-wing targets.
In May, 1961, as civil rights activists turned up the heat, the FBI passed
information to the Klan about Freedom Rider buses on their way to
Birmingham, Alabama. A police sergeant, Thomas Cook, attached to the
Birmingham police intelligence branch was plied with reports by Bureau
informants. A Klan member himself, Cook furnished this information to
Robert Shelton's Alabama Knights and arranged several meetings to
discuss "matters of interest." Cook supplied Klan leaders with the names
of "inter-racial organizations," the location of meetings, and the
membership lists of civil rights groups for circulation in Klan publications.
FBI informant Gary Thomas Rowe wrote a confidential memo to the
Birmingham Special Agent in Charge (SAC) stating that Cook had handed
over inter-office intelligence memos on civil rights activists during a Klan
meeting. Rowe insisted that Cook not only gave him relevant information
that police had in their files, but urged Rowe to "help himself to any
material he thought he would need for the Klan." 52
According to documents obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union,
the Birmingham SAC called Cook and informed him of the progress that
Freedom Rider buses had made and when they were scheduled to arrive
in the city. According to Rowe, Cook and Birmingham's public safety
director, arch-segregationist Eugene "Bull" Connor conspired with Klan
leaders and directly organized physical attacks on Freedom Riders when
the buses reached their destination. According to one FBI memo, Connor
declared: "By God, if you are going to do this thing, do it right." 53
In consultation with Shelton's group, Birmingham police agreed not to
show up for 15 or 20 minutes after the buses pulled in, to give Klansmen
sufficient time to carry out their attack. Assailants were promised lenient
treatment if through some fluke, they managed to get arrested. During a
planning meeting that finalized logistical details, Grand Titan Hubert Page
advised Klansmen that Imperial Wizard Shelton had spoken with Detective
Cook, and was informed that Freedom Rider buses were scheduled to
arrive at 11:00 am.
Earlier that day, the KKK intercepted another bus on its way to
Birmingham, beating the passengers and setting the vehicle ablaze. As
agreed during consultations with Klan leadership, when the buses arrived
no police were present at either of Birmingham's bus terminals, but 60
Klansmen - including Rowe - were waiting. Klansmen attacked civil rights
workers, reporters and photographers, viciously beating anyone within
reach with chains, pipes and baseball bats.
According to ACLU attorney Howard Simon, "We found that the FBI knew
that the Birmingham Police Department was infiltrated by the Klan, that
many members of the police department were Klan members, that they
knew a person in intelligence was passing information directly to leaders
of the Klan, and they also knew their undercover agent had worked out an
agreement with the police department to stay away from the terminals.
They knew all that and still continued their relationship with the police
department." 54
Though the Bureau claimed that its "Klan - White Hate Groups"
COINTELPRO was launched in order to stifle white supremacist activities,
the historical record proves otherwise. The more well known, but by no
means only examples of Klan terror during the period - the 1963 bombing
of the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church that killed four black children; the
1964 murders of civil rights workers Goodman, Chaney and Schwerner in
Mississippi: and the 1965 assassination of Viola Liuzzo and her
companion near Selma, Alabama, point to knowledge of the crimes, and
complicity in subsequent cover-ups by FBI officials.
Bureau informant Gary Thomas Rowe was a central figure in some of the
most publicized crimes of the period, indulging in freelance acts of racist
terror. He was suspected of involvement in firebombing the home of a
wealthy Black Birmingham resident, the detonation of shrapnel bombs in
Black neighborhoods and the murder of a Black man during a 1963
demonstration. He became a prime suspect in the Birmingham church
bombing after he failed two polygraph tests. His answers were described
by investigators as "deceptive" when he denied having been with the Klan
group that planted the bomb. 55
Despite enough evidence to open a preliminary investigation, the FBI
refused, covering-up for Rowe even when another informant, John Wesley
Hall, named him as a member of a three-man Klan security committee
holding veto power over all proposed acts of violence. Years later, an
independent inquiry uncovered evidence that Hall became a Bureau
informant two months after the bombing and despite the fact that a
polygraph test convinced the Alabama FBI that he was probably involved
in the attack himself, Hall admitted to having moved dynamite for the plot's
ringleader, Robert E. Chambliss, a Klan member since 1924. Even though
court testimony and a wealth of evidence linked Hall, Rowe and other
members of the Alabama Knight's to the bombing, the suspects were
convicted on a misdemeanor charge - "possession of an explosive without
a permit." It took more than a decade and three bungled investigations to
finally convict Chambliss of the crime. 56
In July 1997, almost 35 years after the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church
bombing, the FBI re-opened its investigation based on "new information."
However, mainstream news accounts failed to report the pivotal role
played by Bureau informants. The Rev. Fred Shuttlesworth, a target of a
1963 Klan assassination plot, believes he knows why only one man was
convicted for the bombing. "It is well known," the 75-year old civil rights
leader said, "there was collusion all along between the FBI, local law
enforcement and the Klan." Rev. Shuttlesworth should know: Bureau
informant John Wesley Hall was the man who proposed killing the minister.
57
New light was shed on Rowe's privileged position as an FBI provocateur
tasked to "disrupt and neutralize" the civil rights struggle. During a
subsequent investigation into the murder of Viola Liuzzo, evidence
surfaced that it was Rowe who actually fired the fatal shots that took her
life. But instead of prosecuting Rowe, the Bureau placed him in a federal
witness protection program. 58
In 1978, Rowe was indicted by an Alabama grand jury as Liuzzo's killer.
But complicity in shielding Rowe and the Bureau from exposure came to
light when the contents of a J. Edgar Hoover memo to President Lyndon
Johnson became public. Hours after the killings Hoover wrote: "A Negro
man was with Mrs. Liuzzo and reportedly was sitting close to her." In a
subsequent memo to aides, Hoover said he informed the President that
"she was sitting very, very close to the Negro in the car, that it had the
appearance of a necking party." 59 While providing a glimpse into the
pathological nature of Hoover's racism and misogyny, the Director fails to
enlighten us as to the mechanics of a "necking party" during a 100 mph
car chase in the dead of night, a "party" by terrorized individuals fleeing
armed Klan thugs intent on killing them in cold blood. However twisted,
Hoover's slander was calculated to establish a motive; one that would
"justify" Mrs. Liuzzo's murder on grounds of breaking one of nativism's
primal laws: the prohibition against sex between the races.
On November 3, 1979, a posse organized by Klansmen and neo-Nazis
murdered five members of the Communist Workers Party (CWP) in broad
daylight. The CWP had organized a "Smash the Klan" demonstration in
Greensboro, North Carolina among the city's mostly black and working
class mill workers. CWP members included union organizers and activists
who had upset "the fundamental order of things." 60
An essential component for the operation, organized by night-riding
Klansmen, was U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF)
agent, Bernard Butkovich. The BATF agent, a Vietnam veteran and
demolitions expert undercover in the local branch of the American Nazi
Party, helped the Klan obtain automatic weapons, and also in making their
escape. 61
The posse had been organized and led by an FBI infiltrator, Edward
Dawson. Dawson was also a paid informant for the Greensboro Police
Department. 62 Dawson reported to his handlers that eighty-five
Klansmen meeting in nearby Lincolnton had expressed their intent to
counter-demonstrate on November 3. 63
The night-riders had stated they intended to arm themselves for their
counter-demonstration and that Klan leader, Grand Dragon Virgil Griffin,
was actively calling out Klansmen from other states to participate. It was
also rumored that neo-Nazis from the Winston-Salem area had obtained a
machine gun and other weapons. Dawson reported to Greensboro
detective Jerry Cooper that Klansmen and neo-Nazis were assembling at
the home of a local Klan member and that they were armed. 64
The police/FBI informant had received a copy of the parade route the day
before the CWP-initiated march; a map had been supplied by Detective
Cooper. Dawson had driven over the parade route three hours earlier with
a contingent of out-of-town Klansmen. Dawson also alerted Cooper that
the Klansmen and neo- Nazis possessed three handguns and nine long-
barrelled rifles, including automatic weapons supplied by BATF agent
Bernard Butkovich. 65
Prior to the beginning of the CWP's march and demonstration, Cooper and
other police officials drove by the house where the Klansmen and neo-
Nazis were assembling. They jotted down license plate numbers and then
declared a lunch break -- at approximately 10 a.m. 66 Less than an hour
later, Cooper, trailing behind the Klan caravan reported, "shots fired" and
then "heavy gunfire." The tactical squad assigned to monitor the march
were still out to lunch. 67
Two other officers, responding to a domestic disturbance call, noted the
absence of patrol cars usually assigned to the area. They arrived at the
Morningside projects, the site of the CWP march. Officer Wise later
reported having received a most unusual call from the police
communications center. The officers were asked how long they
anticipated being at their call; they were subsequently advised to "clear
the area as soon as possible." 68
Moments later, five demonstrators lay dead, murdered in broad daylight by
members of the Ku Klux Klan and the American Nazi Party. 69 According
to Michael Novick, the Greensboro massacre "set the tone for neo-Nazi
organizing by the KKK and other white supremacists in the ensuing
decade." 70
A subsequent civil suit brought against the neo-Nazis, the Klan and the
Greensboro police resulted in a partial award to the surviving family
members. FBI and BATF agents walked away scott-free.
The Secret Army Organization
Convinced that the United States was under threat of an imminent
communist takeover, Robert DePugh, a disenchanted member of the John
Birch Society, founded the Minutemen in the early sixties. Forged as a
"last line of defense against communism," DePugh's secret warriors were
dedicated to building an underground army to fight against "the enemy
within." 71
However absurd this paranoia may appear on the surface, it had serious
and deadly consequences for anyone caught in the cross-hairs. Before
their undoing in 1969, the result not of a sinister plot by "communist
infiltrators in the government," but because DePugh and others were
prepared to rob banks to finance the organization, the Minutemen had
built a formidable national network, with thousands of members stockpiling
secret arsenals with more than enough firepower to match their feverish
rhetoric. In 1966, 19 New York Minutemen were arrested and accused of
plotting to bomb three summer camps allegedly used by "Communist, left
wing and liberal" groups "for indoctrination purposes." Subsequent raids
uncovered a huge arms cache that included military assault rifles, bombs,
mortars, machine guns, grenade launchers and a bazooka.
In February 1970, six Minutemen from four states led by Jerry Lynn Davis
held a clandestine summit in northern Arizona. Surveying the ruins, they
were convinced that "communist elements" in the Justice Department had
destroyed the group. Undeterred by recent events, they formed the
nucleus of the Secret Army Organization (SAO).
As conceived by Davis and the others, the SAO would be armed but low-
key: a propaganda group with a potential for waging guerrilla war against
leftists, should the need arise. Emphasizing regional autonomy and a
decentralized structure, they believed they had inoculated themselves
against unwanted attention from "communist-controlled" government
agencies. Shortly after the meeting, chapters were established in San
Diego, Las Vegas, Phoenix and Seattle with promising contacts made in
Portland, El Paso, Los Angeles and Oklahoma. 72
A review of events in San Diego, submitted to the Church Committee in
June 1975 and based on "pubic admissions of the officers and agents
involved, including sworn testimony at various criminal trials and
statements given to news reporters and investigators," 73 describes how
the FBI played a central role in the creation of the Secret Army
Organization, placing informant Howard Berry Godfrey in a leadership
position.
Godfrey, a San Diego fireman, devout Mormon, and self-styled commando,
was an FBI informant for more than five years. According to ex-members,
it was Godfrey who was the real force behind the SAO. While employed
by the FBI, Godfrey selected the organization's name and defrayed its
start-up costs, including expenditures for printing and mailing literature. By
September 1971, there were four active cells in San Diego. Little did they
know they were under the direction of the FBI, the State's ultimate "secret
army organization."
San Diego was the center of a thriving activist community committed to a
multitude of projects anathema to the nativist right. With 200,000 active-
duty soldiers stationed at nearby bases, the Movement for a Democratic
Military (MDM) was the outgrowth of antiwar efforts to influence soldiers
bound for Vietnam. MDM organizing had made small, but promising
chinks in the military's armor. Campus organizing by the Students for a
Democratic Society (SDS), and the emergence of militant Chicano
organizations in the area were viewed as serious threats to the successful
prosecution of the war. A thriving underground press, in the form of the
San Diego Street Journal, was in stark contrast to the conservative and
establishment-oriented media. But when the Journal ran a series of
exposes on the shady financial empire of Nixon crony, C. Arnholt Smith,
the response from the right was swift. It would soon turn violent. 74
Between November 1969 and January 1970, remnants of the Minutemen
launched attacks against the Journal. Bullets were fired into the office,
paint splashed over furniture, equipment smashed, records and
subscription lists stolen, staff cars firebombed, Journal vending machines
vandalized. When the newspaper attempted to relocate to new offices,
their prospective landlord was arrested by the San Diego police on a
fabricated murder charge. Released after an hour, he told the Journal
they'd have to look elsewhere. As the SAO gradually came online as a
Bureau surrogate, attacks against the newspaper and its staff intensified.
75
Another SAO target was Dr. Peter Bohmer, a radical economics professor
at San Diego State University who was popular with students and an
articulate spokesperson against the war. Harassed by conservative
university bureaucrats who objected to his antiwar activism, Bohmer was
fired after a protracted struggle. Predictably, his much-publicized battle
with the university drew SAO scrutiny. Beginning in 1971, a vicious
campaign was launched against the professor. In April, tear gas crystals
were dumped in a car parked in front of his home. On May 4, a muffled
voice warned over the phone "the cross hairs are on you."
In the summer of 1971, San Diego was chosen as the site for the 1972
Republican convention. Harassment against Bohmer increased,
punctuated by assaults targeting the antiwar and Chicano movements. 76
Among these acts were destruction of newspaper offices and book stores,
firebombing of cars, and the distribution of leaflets giving the address of
the collective where anti-war activist Peter Bohmer lived "for any of our
readers who may care to look up this Red Scum, and say hello."
On January 6, 1972 the SAO dramatically upped the ante. Earlier that day
SAO cross-hair stickers were plastered on the door of Bohmer's office;
that evening a caller threatened, "This time we left a sticker, next time we
may leave a grenade. This is the SAO!"
A few hours later, in a car parked outside Bohmer's home, SAO soldier
George Mitchell Hoover fiddled with a gun. Sitting next to him was Godfrey,
the FBI's informant. Aiming a 9mm Polish Radom pistol, Hoover fired two
shots into the house; he would have fired a third but the weapon jammed.
The first bullet struck San Diego Street Journal reporter Paula Tharp,
shattering her elbow. The second shot narrowly missed Shari Whitehead
and lodged in a window frame above her head. Two shell-casings
matching the slug removed from Tharp's arm were retrieved from the
street.
The next day Godfrey turned over the gun to his FBI control agent, Steve
Christiansen, a devout Mormon and dedicated anti-communist himself.
The Special Agent hid the weapon under his couch for more than six
months while the San Diego police conducted a half-hearted investigation.
Though guilty of covering-up a criminal act, Christiansen insisted that
Bureau superiors knew he was hiding the gun and fully approved of his
actions to protect "confidential sources." 77
Although the Tharp shooting generated considerable publicity, and even
some pressure to make arrests, the San Diego police responded with the
absurd story that Bohmer carried out the attack himself in an effort "to
attract sympathy for his cause." 78
Relentless harassment continued throughout the spring of 1972; more
firebombings, threatening phone calls, more cross-hair stickers, just
another day at the office for right-wing counterguerrillas. But then the
group made a fatal mistake, one that would cost them dearly.
On June 19, 1972, William Yakopec entered the Guild Theater, a local
porno house; concealed under his jacket was a bomb. After he pried a
cover loose from a vent at the rear of the building, he hurriedly left the
premises. Moments later a powerful explosion ripped through the theater,
destroying the screen, blowing debris 60 feet into the air and showering
the terrified audience with concrete shards and two-by-fours.
Unfortunately for Yakopec and the SAO, a deputy district attorney and a
San Diego cop were in the audience, conducting an "investigation" to
determine whether I am Curious (Yellow) met pertinent criteria to be
banned as pornography. 79
Though city fathers had no problem when right-wing militias directed their
wrath at suitable targets, taking out a cop and a district attorney was too
much even in San Diego. Rubien D. Brandon, the officer who narrowly
escaped being blown to kingdom come, angrily phoned the FBI and
demanded the name of their informer. A week later, seven members of the
SAO were behind bars. Yakopec was charged with the Guild Theater
bombing, George Hoover with the Tharp shooting and the group's nominal
leader, Jerry Lynn Davis, with receiving stolen property and possession of
illegal explosives. Reluctantly, the Bureau realized the time had come to
shut the project down.
During the investigation of the Guild Theater bombing, the Yakopec home
and those of other SAO members were raided by police. Investigators
recovered two half pound blocks of C-4 plastique, HDP primers, blasting
caps, 30-40 feet of fuses, SAO literature, stacks of cross-hair stickers
ready to go and a small arsenal of weapons, including an unopened case
of M-16's valued at more than $60,000. During a simultaneous raid on the
home of Genevieve and Richard Fleury, police seized ammunition, dozens
of revolvers, lugers and eight bandoliers containing more than a thousand
rounds of 30-caliber bullets. It was later revealed that some of these
munitions had been transferred to the SAO from the Marine base at Camp
Pendelton by a right-wing physician, Dr. Harold Young. Ex-Minuteman
Dino Martinelli claimed he had been involved in the transfer and that the
SDPD and FBI were aware of the thefts but did nothing. 80
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) attorney Frederick Hetter
discovered during a subsequent investigation "that [FBI infiltrator] Godfrey
supplied 75% of the money for the SAO" in order for the terrorist army to
acquire the weapons. 81
What were the results of exposing the extensive links between federal
authorities and the Secret Army Organization? While Yakopec, Hoover
and Davis went to prison, Godfrey, the FBI's point-man, was rewarded
with a job in the state fire marshal's office. Agent Christiansen left the
Bureau shortly after his role in the affair came to light. Refusing to talk,
Christiansen would only tell reporters that "The FBI is taking good care of
us." 82 The FBI then continued with other illegal intelligence and terror
programs directed against Bohmer and associates, including several
assassination plots. Not one FBI agent or informer has been prosecuted.
Snitch Jacketing
Under the guidance of the FBI, informants were often able to work their
way into positions of power, such as was the case with Chicago-BPP
Chief of Security William O'Neal, or American Indian Movement
bodyguard Douglas Durham. Such individuals were often considered
valuable due to the (FBI-supplied) information they were able to provide.
Besides misleading and provoking the infiltrated groups, another
technique used by informants was to "snitch jacket" genuine activists, to
make them appear to be the informants. One such person was Kwame
Toure, formerly Stokely Carmichael.
Utilizing the services of an infiltrator who had worked his way into a
position as the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee leader's
bodyguard, the Bureau deliberately created the false appearance that
Stokely Carmichael was himself an operative. 83 In a memo dated July 10,
1968, the SAC, New York, proposed to Hoover that:
... consideration be given to convey the impression that CARMICHAEL is
a CIA informer. One method of accomplishing [this] would be to have a
carbon copy of an informant report supposedly written by CARMICHAEL
to the CIA carefully deposited in the automobile of a close Black
Nationalist friend ... It is hoped that when the informant report is read it will
help promote distrust between CARMICHAEL and the Black Community ...
It is also suggested that we inform a certain percentage of reliable criminal
and racial informants that "we have it from reliable sources that
CARMICHAEL is a CIA agent. It is hoped that the informants would
spread the rumor in various large Negro communities across the land. 84
Pursuant to a May 19,1969 Airtel from the SAC, San Francisco, to Hoover,
the Bureau then proceeded to "assist" the BPP in "expelling" Carmichael
through the forgery of letters on party letterhead. The gambit worked, as is
evidenced in the September 5, 1970 assertion by BPP head Huey P.
Newton: "We ... charge that Stokely Carmichael is operating as an agent
of the CIA." 85
Snitch jacketing has even resulted in the target's death. This appears to
have occurred in 1975 in the case of Anna Mae Pictou Aquash, a young
Micmac woman working with the American Indian Movement on the Pine
Ridge Reservation. According to attorney Bruce Ellison,
"I represented a young mother and AIM member named Anna Mae Pictou
on weapons charges. She told me after her arrest that the FBI threatened
to see her dead within a year unless she cooperated against members of
AIM. In an operation [similar to those] previously used against members of
the Black Panther Party, the FBI, through an informant named Doug
Durham who had infiltrated AIM leadership, began a rumor that she was
an informant.
"Six months later her body was found on the Pine Ridge Reservation. The
FBI said she died of exposure. They cut off her hands, claiming that this
was necessary to identify her, and buried her under the name of Jane Doe.
"We were able to get her body exhumed, and a second, independent
autopsy revealed that rather than dying of exposure, that someone had
placed a pistol to the back of her head and pulled the trigger. When I
asked for her hands after the second autopsy, because she was originally
not buried with her hands, an FBI agent went to his car and came back
and handed me a box, and with a big smile on his face he said, 'You want
her hands? Here.'" 86
The FBI agents involved then used the morgue photos of Aquash to
frighten another victim, Myrtle Poor Bear, a woman with a history of deep
psychological disorder, for which she had undergone extensive treatment,
explaining to their captive that she'd end up "the same way" unless she
did exactly what they wanted. Poor Bear quoted Agent Wood as informing
her, in specific reference to Aquash, that "they [Price and Wood] could get
away with killing because they were agents." Poor Bear was coerced into
giving false testimony which led to the extradition of Leonard Peltier, who
remains a political prisoner to this day. [See "Political Prisoners" section].
The Subversion of the Press
In 1960, the FBI implemented a formal COINTELPRO with the expressed
intent of destroying pro-independence groups in Puerto Rico. In doing so,
the Bureau engaged in the same kind of political warfare that was used by
the United States in Chile and elsewhere in Latin America. In an August 4,
1960 memorandum to the Special Agent in Charge, San Juan, Director
Hoover wrote:
"In considering this matter, you should bear in mind the Bureau desires to
disrupt the activities of these organizations and is not interested in mere
harrassment." 87
San Juan complied, at least on the level of planting disinformation in the
island press. Agents systematically planted articles and editorials, often
containing malicious gossip concerning independentista leaders' alleged
sexual or financial affairs, in "friendly" newspapers, and dispensed
"private" warnings to the owners of island radio stations that their FCC
licenses might be revoked if pro independence material were aired.
There is clear evidence that agents "talked to" the owners of radio stations
WLEO in Ponce, WKFE in Yauco and WJRS in San German about their
licensing as early as 1963. One result was cancellation of the one hour
daily time-block allotted to "Radio Bandera," a program produced by the
APU. Such tactics to deny a media voice to independentistas accord well
with other, more directly physical methods employed during the 1970s,
after COINTELPRO supposedly ended:
[There was] the bombing of Claridad [daily paper first of the MPIPR and
then the PSP] printing presses which has occurred at least five times in
the present decade. Although the MPI [now PSP] usually furnished the
police with detailed information as to the perpetrators of these acts, not
even one trial has ever been held on this island in connection with these
bombings, nor even one arrest made. The same holds true for a 1973
bombing of the National Committee of the [PIP]. 88
In the same memo, Hoover recommended gearing up the COINTELPRO,
using existing infiltrators within "groups seeking independence for Puerto
Rico" as agents provocateurs. The director felt that "carefully selected
informants" might be able to raise "controversial issues" within
independentista formations. Further, he pointed out that such individuals
might be utilized effectively to create situations in which "nationalist
elements could be pitted against the communist elements to disrupt some
of the organizations, particularly the MPIPR and ... FUPI."
Hoover also instructed that "the San Juan Office should be constantly alert
for articles extolling the virtues of Puerto Rico's relationship to the United
States as opposed to complete separation from the United States, for use
in anonymous mailings to selected subjects in the independence
movement who may be psychologically affected by such information."
The Bureau engaged in intensive investigation of independentista leaders
both on the island and in New York in order to ascertain their
"weaknesses" in terms of "morals, criminal records, spouses, children,
family life, educational qualifications and personal activities other than
independence activities." The findings, however flimsy or contrived, were
pumped into the media, disseminated as bogus cartoons or "political
broadsides," and/or surfaced within organizational contexts by
provocateurs, all with the express intent of setting the leaders one against
the other and at odds with their respective organizational memberships.
When evidence to support such redbaiting contentions could not be
discovered, the FBI's COINTELPRO specialists simply made it up:
MPIPR leaders, cognizant of the basic antipathy of Puerto Ricans,
predominantly Roman Catholic, to communism, have consistently avoided,
at times through public statements, any direct, overt linkage of the MPIPR
to communism ... The [San Juan office] feels that the above situation can
be exploited by means of a counterintelligence letter, purportedly by an
anonymous veteran MPIPR member. This letter would alert MPIPR
members to a probable Communist takeover of the organization. 89
Not only did the Bureau's systematic denial of media access to, spreading
of disinformation about, and fostering of factionalism within the
independentista movement have the effect of negating much of the
movement's electoral potential within the island arena itself, such tactics
also subverted other initiatives to resolve the issue of Puerto Rico's
colonial status in a peaceful fashion. This concerns in particular a
plebescite called for July 23, 1967. During the ten months prior to the
scheduled referendum to determine the desires of the Puertorriqueno
public with regard to the political status of their island, the Bureau went far
out of its way to spread confusion. The COINTELPRO methods used
included creation of two fictitious organizations Grupo pro-Uso Voto del
MPI (roughly, "Group within the MPIPR in Favor of Voting to Achieve
Independence") and the "Committee Against Foreign Domination of the
Fight for Independence" - as the medium through which to misrepresent
independentista positions "from the inside ." One outcome was that
Puertorriqueno voters increasingly shied away from the apparently
jumbled and bewildering independentista agenda and "accepted"
continuation of a "commonwealth" status under U.S. domination.
A 1967 Airtel from SAC, San Juan to J. Edgar Hoover describes a portion
of the COINTELPRO methods to be used in subverting the 1967 United
Nations plebescite to determine the political status of Puerto Rico:
[deleted] of the MPIPR Youth, has a personal following, and the San Juan
Office feels that if [deleted] can be split from the MPIPR at this time,
enough of the MPIPR Youth members would be sufficiently confused and
disgruntled to effectively neutralize the MPIPR during the critical period
just prior to the plebescite scheduled for July 23, 1967. 90
With this accomplished, the Bureau set about seeing to it the
independentistas remained artificially discredited (and the overall
Puertorriqueño option to mount a coherent effort to protest or reconvene
the plebescite truncated) by shifting responsibility for the disaster onto its
foremost victims:
It might be desirable to blame the communist bloc and particularly Cuba
for the failure of the United Nations and to criticize Mari Bras and others
for isolating the Puerto Rican independence forces from the democratic
countries. 91
The other COINTELPRO's also made use the news media. One tragic
story concerns Jean Seberg, a well known actress and white supporter of
the Black Panther Party. According to former FBI agent M. Wesley
Swearingen, who worked in Los Angeles at the time, a culture of racism
had so permeated the Bureau and its field offices that the agents seethed
with hatred toward the Panthers and the white women who associated
with them.
"In the view of the Bureau," Swearingen reported, "Jean was giving aid
and comfort to the enemy, the BPP ... The giving of her white body to a
black man was an unbearable thought for many of the white agents. An
agent [allegedly Richard W. Held] was overheard to say, a few days after I
arrived in Los Angeles from New York, 'I wonder how she'd like to gobble
my dick while I shove my .38 up that black bastard's ass [a reference to
BPP theorist Raymond "Masai" Hewitt, with whom Seberg was reputedly
having an affair]." 92
On May 27, 1970, when Seberg was in her fifth month of pregnancy, Held
sent a telegram to headquarters requesting approval to plant a story with
Hollywood gossip columnists to the effect that Seberg was pregnant, not
by her husband, Romaine Gary, but by a Panther. Held's idea was
approved, although implementation was to be postponed "approximately
two additional months," to protect the secrecy of a wiretap the Bureau had
installed in the LA and San Francisco BPP headquarters, and until the
victim's "pregnancy would be more visible to everyone." Hoover felt that
Seberg should be "neutralized" because she'd been a financial supporter
of the Black Panther Party.
The schedule was apparently accelerated, because on June 6, Held sent
Hoover a letter and attached newspaper clipping demonstrating the
"success" of his COINTELPRO action: a column by Joyce Haber, which
had run in the Los Angeles Times on May 19. Known by the FBI to have
been emotionally unstable and in the care of a psychiatrist before the
operation began, Seberg responded to the "disclosure" by attempting
suicide with an overdose of sleeping pills. This in turn precipitated the
premature delivery of her fetus; it died two days later. Seberg held a press
conference, and brought the fetus in a glass jar, to prove that it was white.
Henceforth, a shattered Jean Seberg was to regularly attempt suicide on
or near the anniversary of her child's death. In 1979, she was successful.
Romaine Gary, her ex-husband, who all along maintained he was the
father of the child, followed suit shortly thereafter. There is no indication
that this was ever considered to be anything other than an extremely
successful COINTELPRO operation.
The FBI actively promoted the idea that the Panthers and other black
nationalists were anti-Semitic, in order to weaken their support "among
liberal and naive elements." In one indicent, the New York Office sent
anonymous letters to Rabbi Meir Kahane of the right-wing Jewish Defense
League to try to provoke a response against the BPP. In reference to a
July 25, 1969 FBI report entitled, "JEWISH DEFENSE LEAGUE, RACIAL
MATTERS" the New York Field Office proposed:
Referenced report has been reviewed by the NYO in an effort to target
one individual within the Jewish Defense League (JEDEL) who would be
the suitable recipient of information furnished on an anonymous basis that
the Bureau wishes to disseminate and/or use for future counterintelligence
purposes.
NY is of the opinion that the individual within JEDEL who would most
suitably serve the above stated purposed would be Rabbi MEIR KAHANE,
a Director of JEDEL. It is noted that Rabbi KAHANE's background as a
writer for the NY newspaper "Jewish Press" would enable him to give
widespread coverage of anti-Semetic [sic] statements made by the BPP
and other Black Nationalist hate groups not only to members of JEDEL but
to other individuals who would take cognizance of such statements. ...
In view of the above comments the following is submitted as the
suggested communication to be used to establish rapport between the
anonymous source and the selected individual associated with JEDEL:
       Dear Rabbi Kahane:
       I am a negro man who is 48 years old and served his country in the
       U.S. Army in WW2 and worked as a truck driver with "the famous
       red-ball express" in Gen. Eisenhour's Army in France and Natzi
       Germany. One day I had a crash with the truck I was driving, a 2
       1/2 ton truck, and was injured real bad. I was treated and helped by
       a Jewish Army Dr. named "Rothstein" who helped me get better
       again.
       Also I was encouraged to remain in high school for two years by my
       favorite teacher, Mr. Katz. I have always thought Jewish people are
       good and they have helped me all my life. That is why I became so
       upset about my oldest son who is a Black Panther and very much
       against Jewish people. My oldest son just returned from Algiers in
       Africa where he met a bunch of other Black Panthers from all over
       the world. He said to me that they all agree that the Jewish people
       are against all the colored people and that the only friends the
       colored people have are the Arabs.
       I told my child that the Jewish people are the friends of the colored
       people but he calls me a Tom and says I'll never be anything better
       than a Jew boy's slave.
       Last night my boy had a meeting at my house with six of his Black
       Panther friends. From the way they talked it sounded like they had
       a plan to force Jewish store owners to give them money or they
       would drop a bomb on the Jewish store. Some of the money they
       will get will be sent to the Arabs in Africa.
       They left books and pictures around with Arab writing on them and
       pictures of Jewish soldiers killing Arab babys. I think they are going
       to give these away at Negro Christian Churchs.
       I thought you might be able to stop this. I think I can get some of
       the pictures and books without getting myself in trouble. I will send
       them to you if you are interested.
       I would like not to use my real name at this time.
       A friend"
It is further suggested that a second communication be sent to Rabbi
KAHANE approximately one week after the above described letter which
will follow the same foremat [sic], but will contain as enclosures some BPP
artifacts such as pictures of BOBBY SEALE, ELDRIDGE CLEAVER, a
copy of a BPP newspaper, etc. It is felt that a progression of letters should
then follow which would further establish rapport with the JEDEL and
eventually culminate in the anonymous letter writer requesting some
response from the JEDEL recipient of these letters. 93

Political Prisoners
When the government can select a person for criminal persecution
because of their political activity, when they can fabricate evidence against
that person and suppress evidence proving that fabrication, and prosecute
a person and put them in prison for any amount of time, let alone for life,
then you have a political prisoner.
There are numerous people in American jails who've dedicated their lives
to the transformation of their country, who put the benefit of their
communities ahead of themselves, who believed that transformation was
not only possible but they were willing to die for it. They were willing to die
to end brutality, racism, economic discrimination, imperialism, war.
In the case of AIM, this has meant the wholesale jailing of the movement's
leadership. Virtually every known AIM leader in the United States has
been incarcerated in either state or federal prisons since (or even before)
the organization's formal emergence in 1968, some repeatedly. After the
1973 siege of Wounded Knee the FBI caused 542 separate charges to be
filed against those it identified as "key AIM leaders." This resulted in 15
convictions, all on such petty or contrived offenses as "interfering with a
federal officer in the performance of his duty." Russell Means was faced
with 37 felony and three misdemeanor charges, none of which held up in
court. Organization members often languished in jail for months as the
cumulative bail required to free them outstripped resource capabilities of
AIM and supporting groups.
Another example was the "Panther 21" case, which in 1969 was the
longest criminal trial in New York history. It took the jury just ninety
minutes to reach "not guilty" verdicts in all of the 156 of the charges
against the thirteen defendants who ultimately stood trial.
A fair accounting of American political prisoners is beyond the scope of
this report, which seeks only to draw attention to the problem of political
repression and the tactics used, making note of a few illustrative cases.
Leonard Peltier
U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Gerald Heaney, after reviewing numerous
court transcripts and FBI documents, concluded that the United States
Government overreacted at Wounded Knee. Instead of carefully
considering the legitimate grievances of Native Americans, the response
was essentially a military one which culminated in a deadly firefight on
June 26, 1975, between Native Americans and FBI agents and U.S.
Marshals.
While Judge Heaney believed that the "Native Americans" had some
culpability in the firefight that day, he concluded the United States must
share the responsibility. It never has. The FBI has never been held
accountable or even publicly investigated for what one Federal petit jury
and Judge Heaney concluded was complicity in the creation of a climate
of fear and terror on the Pine Ridge Reservation.
The resulting firefight near Oglala was preceded by FBI documents
internally declaring AIM to be one of the most dangerous organizations in
the country and a threat to national security. It followed by two months the
issuing of a position paper entitled "FBI Paramilitary Operations in Indian
Country," a how-to plan for dealing with AIM in the battlefield. It used such
terms as "neutralization," which in the document was defined as "shooting
to kill." It included the role of the then-Nixon White House in handling
complaints as to such military tactics being utilized domestically.
It followed by one month the build-up of FBI personnel on the Pine Ridge
Reservation with mostly SWAT team members from various divisions of
the FBI. It followed by three weeks an inspection tour of the reservation by
senior FBI officials and the reporting of concern by those officials for the
widespread support enjoyed by AIM in the outlying communities on the
Pine Ridge Reservation, such as Oglala.
The FBI headquarters document further referred to an area near Oglala
which reportedly contained bunkers and would require the use of
paramilitary forces to assault. Three weeks later a firefight broke out on
the ranch of elders Cecelia and Harry Jumping Bull which lasted for nearly
nine hours. FBI documents describe as many as 47 people being involved
in the battle with SWAT teams of the FBI, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and
State police agencies.
Three young men lost their lives that day, each shot in the head, two FBI
agents and one AIM member. Members of the American Indian Movement,
before they escaped, sat and prayed for the three men who died that day.
The FBI has always only considered that only two men died that day, their
own agents.
One of the agents had in his briefcase a map of the reservation. It had the
Jumping Bull ranch circled with the word "bunkers" written next to it. The
bunkers turned out to be aged and crumbling root cellars.
Leonard Peltier and other AIM members from outside the reservation had
come into the Jumping Bull area to join other local AIM members because
the climate of violence on the reservation had gotten so intense that
people felt the need to gain assistance from the outside, so men and
women came in, including Leonard Peltier, and they brought with them
their single-shot 22's and their rusted shotguns and a few hunting rifles
that they were able to get, and they were in a camp on the Jumping Bull
ranch.
The government used the incident to increase its campaign of disruption
and destruction of the American Indian Movement. FBI agents, dressed
and equipped like combat soldiers, searched homes and questioned Pine
Ridge residents at gunpoint. Armored vehicles patrolled the reservation,
as did SWAT teams and National Guard helicopters.
This was accompanied by a public disinformation campaign by the FBI,
designed to make Oglala residents and their guests appear to be the
aggressors and, in fact, terrorists. The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights
would soon report, "It is patently clear that many of the statements
released to the media regarding the incident are either false,
unsubstantiated, or directly misleading."
Noting Leonard Peltier's regular presence and involvement in AIM
activities throughout the country, the FBI targeted him for prosecution from
the desks of its agents. According to FBI documents, about two and a half
weeks after the firefight, the Bureau was going to, in its own words,
"develop information to lock Peltier into the case," and it set out to do so.
The FBI eventually charged four AIM members, including Peltier, with the
killing of the agents. No one has ever been prosecuted for the killing of
AIM member Joe Stuntz that day.
After hearing testimony of numerous eyewitnesses to the violence directed
at AIM members by the goon squad and the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, two of Leonard Peltier's codefendants were acquitted on
self-defense grounds by an all-white jury in the conservative town of
Cedar Rapids, Iowa -- truly a remarkable thing, but people who were
willing to keep their eyes and their ears open and listen to the truth, and
were able, by a judge who had the courage and willingness to learn
himself, to allow this evidence to be presented.
However, after those acquittals, the FBI analyzed why these two men,
these two long-haired indian militant men could be acquitted by an all-
white jury, and decided a new judge was needed. FBI documents show
that in a meeting in Washington, D.C. at FBI headquarters, there was a
decision made to "put the full prosecutive weight of the Federal
Government" against Leonard Peltier.
Evidence shows the government used now admittedly false eyewitness
affidavits to extradite Peltier from Canada. This would catch the attention
of Amnesty International and the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, but only
a little bit.
The Court of Appeals would call such conduct "a clear abuse of the
investigative process by the FBI" and give credence to the claims of indian
people that if the government is willing to fabricate evidence to extradite a
person in this country, it is willing to fabricate evidence to convict those
branded as the enemy. Well, absolutely true, but Leonard Peltier remains
in prison.
At Peltier's trial the government presented evidence and argued to the jury
that he personally shot and killed the agents. To do this, the government
presented ballistics evidence purportedly connecting a shell casing found
near the agents' bodies with a rifle said to be possessed by Peltier on that
day, and the coerced and fabricated eyewitness account of a terrified
teenager, claiming that the agents followed Peltier in a van, precipitating
the firefight in Oglala.
Documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act show that the
ballistics evidence was a fraud; that the rifle could not have fired the
expended casing found near the body. Further, the FBI had suppressed
evidence showing the agents followed a pickup, not a van, into the
compound, and thought someone else, not Peltier, was in that vehicle.
Citing the case of Leonard Peltier as an example, Amnesty International
has called for an independent inquiry into the use of our criminal justice
system for political purposes by the FBI and other intelligence agencies in
this country. Amnesty cited similar concerns for other members of AIM
and other victims of the COINTELPRO-type operations by the FBI.
Upon disclosure of these documents, a renewed effort in a new trial was
sought from the courts. While concluding that the suppressed evidence
"casts a strong doubt" on the government's case, the appellate courts
denied relief. The U.S. Attorney's office has now admitted in court that it
had no credible evidence Leonard Peltier killed the agents, and speciously
claimed it never tried to prove it did. Under our system, if there is a
reasonable doubt, then Leonard Peltier is not guilty, yet he has been in
prison for nearly 25 years for a crime he did not commit.
The FBI still withholds thousands of pages of documents in this case,
claiming in many instances that disclosure would compromise the national
security. In the absence of such disclosure, no further efforts in a new trial
are possible. And Leonard Peltier is not alone in his imprisonment for his
political activities.
Mumia Abu Jamal
In the case of Mumia Abu-Jamal, neutralization occurred by falsely
creating the appearance that he was in commission of a crime he did not
commit, to put him in prison. The cost of political activism can include
judicial railroading into the electric chair, or the gas chamber or lethal
injection.
It is unquestionable that from a very early age, Mumia Abu-Jamal was
specifically targeted for neutralization by the Federal Bureau of
Investigation and the Philadelphia Police, and that the pattern of police
activity evident in that targeting, was continued, as it was in a number of
comparable cases, so long as he maintained political activism, and this
creates the basis to believe that he was in fact framed for the crime.
Mumia was deprived a fair trial, in which key witnesses were not allowed
to testify, exculpatory evidence was excluded, and a key witness had been
arrested numerous times for prostitution, opening the possibility that her
testimony was paid or coerced. Although no motive was ever shown for
why Mumia would have killed a police officer, there was a certainly a
motive to neutralize and frame him.
Geronimo ji Jaga Pratt
Elmer Gerard ("Geronimo" or "G" ji Jaga) Pratt was an active member of
the Los Angeles Black Panther Party (LA-BPP) Chapter during the
counterintelligence campaign which resulted in the "shooting war"
described earlier, between the US organization and the Panthers.
When Bunchy Carter and Ed Huggins were assassinated by US gunmen
on January 17, 1969, it was discovered that Carter had prepared an audio
tape for such an eventuality, designating Pratt his successor as head of
the LA-BPP. Pratt was also named by Carter to succeed himself and
Huggins as chapter representative on the national Panther Central
Committee. 94 It was at precisely this point that he appears to have been
personally targeted for "neutralization" through the application of
COINTELPRO techniques.
Pratt was designated a "Key Black Extremist" by the L.A. Bureau office
and placed in the National Security Index. 95 As a consequence, he was
targeted not only for neutralization by the FBI, but, as former Panther
infiltrator Louis Tackwood had pointed out, this automatically placed him
"on the wall' of the Los Angeles Police Department's (LAPD) Criminal
Conspiracy Section (CCS) "glass-house" (headquarters) as an individual
to be eliminated by local police action. As the informant explained the
CCS operation:
The room is broken up into divisions, see my point? Black, white, chicano
and subversives. Everybody's there. And every last one of the walls has
pictures of them. This one black, the middle all white, and the chicanos all
on this side. Most of the files are on the walls, you see? ... They got
everybody. Panthers, SDS, Weathermen. Let me explain to you. They got
a national hookup. You see my point? And because of this national power,
they are the only organization in the police department that has a liaison
man, that works for the FBI, and the FBI has a liaison man who works with
the CCS." 96
The inevitable consequence of this was that the new LA-BPP was placed
under intensely close surveillance by the FBI 97 and subjected to a series
of unfounded but serious arrests by the Bureau's local police affiliates at
CCS.
A conspiracy investigation of Pratt was opened with regard to the robbery
of a Bank of America facility already known by the Bureau to have been
carried out by US members. 98 Pratt was also made the subject of a
personalized series of COINTELPRO cartoons designed to make him a
target for the attentions of US.
This was followed very closely by a Bureau effort to ensnarl both Pratt and
Roger Lewis in a violation of the 1940 Smith Act and plotting of
"insurrection." 99
Four days after a similar raid on a Panther apartment in Chicago (the raid
which left Mark Clark and Fred Hampton dead), forty men of the Special
Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) squad, with more than a hundred regular
police as backup, raided the Los Angeles Panther headquarters at 5:30 in
the morning ... (No suggestion has been made that the two raids were
linked. But it's interesting to note that Fred Hampton had been in Los
Angeles one or two days before his death, meeting with Geronimo Pratt,
whom Tackwood says was the main target of the second raid.) The
Panthers chose to defend themselves, and for four hours they fought off
police, refusing to surrender until press and public were on the scene. Six
of them were wounded. Thirteen were arrested. Miraculously, none of
them were killed. 100
The similarities between the Chicago and Los Angeles raids are
undeniable, with a special local police unit closely linked to the FBI
involved in both assaults, spurious warrants seeking "illegal weapons"
utilized on both occasions, predawn timing of both raids to catch the
Panthers asleep and a reliance upon overwhelming police firepower to the
exclusion of all other methods. Both raids occurred in the context of an
ongoing and highly energetic anti-BPP COINTELPRO, and - as in the
Hampton assassination - bullets were fired directly into Pratt's bed. Unlike
the Chicago leader, however, Pratt was sleeping on the floor, the result of
spinal injuries sustained in Vietnam. 101
Pratt was explicitly singled out for neutralization by the head of the
Bureau's LA-COINTELPRO section, Richard Wallace Held - the son of
Richard G. Held, who orchestrated the coverup of FBI involvement in the
Hampton-Clark assassinations. 102
In both instances, the FBI had managed to place an infiltrator/provocateur
very high within the local BPP chapter - O'Neal in Chicago, in Los Angeles
it was Melvin "Cotton" Smith, number three man in the LA-BPP, who
provided detailed floorplans, including sleeping arrangements of the
Panther facility, prior to the raid. 103 And, in both cases, surviving
Panthers were immediately arrested for their "assault upon the police."
104
When the resultant case against the L.A. Panthers was finally prosecuted
in July, 1971:
... there was a "surprise" development. Melvin "Cotton" Smith turned up as
a star witness for the prosecution. According to Deputy District Attorney
Ronald H. Carroll, Smith had turned State's evidence to escape
prosecution ... [However] on November 22, 1971, Tackwood testified ... he
had started working for [CCS Sergeant R.G.] Farwell in the fall of 1969,
before the December 8 raid, and had been told by Farwell that [FBI
infiltrator] Cotton Smith was to be Tackwood's contact. Since Smith's
testimony was crucial to the State's case, Tackwood's exposure of Smith's
real role was a devastating blow to the prosecution. 105
One consequence of this revelation was that, after eleven days of
deliberation, the jury returned acquittals or failed to reach any verdict
whatsoever relative to charges of conspiring to assault and murder police
officers brought against all thirteen Panther defendants. Oddly, nine of the
defendants, including Pratt, were convicted of the relatively minor and
technical charge of conspiring to possess illegal weapons. 106 In addition:
In order for the armed police assault on the Panther headquarters to have
been justified, the police contention that the Panthers had fired on them
first would have had to have been true, in which case at least some of the
Panthers would have been guilty of conspiracy to commit murder and
assault charges ... The failure of the jury to return guilty verdicts on these
charges represented a total repudiation of the CCS [and FBI] "conspiracy"
theory that led to the raids on December 8. 107
On December 18, 1968, two black men robbed and shot a white couple,
Caroline and Kenneth Olsen, on a Santa Monica, California tennis court.
Caroline Olsen died one week later.
Pratt was accused of "the tennis court murder" in a letter dated August 10,
1969, addressed to LAPD Sergeant Duwayne Rice by an "underworld
informant" and marked "Do Not Open Except In Case of My Death."
Although the informant had not died, Rice opened and read the accusation,
and turned it over to CCS detective Ray Callahan for presentation to a
grand jury which secretly indicted Pratt.
The informant would later testify at trial that Pratt, in direct personal
conversation with him, had "bragged" of the crime. He further testified that
a .45 calibre Colt automatic seized by the LAPD, belonging to Pratt but not
ballistically matching the tennis court murder weapon, was actually the
gun in question, Pratt having "changed the barrel" in order to alter its
ballistic pattern. A second informant, who did not testify, corroborated this
testimony. 108
The supposed informant corroboration testimony, it was later revealed,
was obtained from Cotton Smith, already unmasked as an
infiltrator/provocateur during the 1971 shootout trial and thus unable to
credibly take the stand in the Olsen murder case. In 1985, Smith totally
recanted his allegations against Pratt, stating unequivocally that the
former Panther leader had been "framed," but by "the FBI rather than local
police"; he specifically named LA FBI COINTELPRO operative George
Aiken as having been instrumental in the affair. 109
Kenneth Olsen, the surviving victim, identified Pratt as the murderer in
open court, as did Barbara Reed, a shopkeeper who had seen the
gunmen prior to the shooting. Mitchell Lachman, who had been near the
tennis court on the evening of the murder, testified the gunmen fled in a
vehicle matching the description of Pratt's white over red GTO convertible.
However, both Olsen and the District Attorney omitted mention of the fact
that he had positively identified another man - Ronald Perkins - in a police
lineup very shortly after the fact, on December 24, 1968; they had similarly
neglected to mention that LAPD personnel had "worked with" Olsen from
photo spreads for some months prior to the trial, with an eye toward
obtaining the necessary ID of Pratt. 110 Again, both the prosecutors and
Mrs. Reed, the other witness who offered a positive ID on Pratt, "forgot"
comparable police coaching, and all parties to the State's case somehow
managed to overlook the fact that both Olsen and Reed had repeatedly
described both gunmen as "clean shaven," while Pratt was known to have
worn a mustache and goatee for the entirety of his adult life. 111 This
leaves Lachman's testimony that the assailants fled the scene in a white-
over-red convertible "like" (but not necessarily) Pratt's; even if it were the
same car, it was well established - and never contested by the State - that
virtually the whole LA-BPP had use of the vehicle during the period in
question. 112
Pratt's defense was that he was in Oakland, some 400 miles north of
Santa Monica, attending a BPP national leadership meeting on the
evening in question. Presentation of this alibi was, however, severely
hampered by the refusal of many of those also in attendance - such as
David, June, and Pat Hilliard, Bobby and John Seale, Nathan Hare,
Rosemary Gross and Brenda Presley (all of the Newton faction) - to testify
on his behalf. 113 Kathleen Cleaver, also in attendance at the meeting,
did testify that Pratt was in Oakland from December 13-25, 1968, but even
her efforts to do so had been hampered by COINTELPRO letters to her
husband "explaining" that it was "too dangerous" for her to return to the
United States during the trial. 114 With the weight of testimony heavily on
the side of the prosecution, Pratt was convicted of first degree murder on
July 28, 1972 and sentenced to seven years to life. 115
There were other problems with the case which went beyond Pratt's
inability to assemble defense witnesses. For instance, it did occur to the
defense that if the FBI were tapping the phones of the BPP national
offices in Oakland during December of 1968 - as seems likely - the Bureau
itself might well be able to substantiate Pratt's whereabouts on the crucial
night. The FBI, however, submitted at trial that no such taps or bugs
existed, an assertion which was later shown to be untrue. 116
The Bureau then refused to release its logs from the wiretaps, on "national
security" grounds, until forced to do so by an FOIA suit brought by
attorneys Jonathan Lubell, Mary O'Melveny and William H. O'Brien. 117 At
that point (1981), the transcripts were delivered, minus precisely the
records covering the period of time which might serve to establish Pratt's
innocence; "The FBI has indicated that the transcripts of the conversations
recorded by these telephone taps have been lost or destroyed," wrote the
frustrated judge. 118
The State's star witness, who first accused Pratt of the tennis court murder
in his letter to Rice, testified to Pratt's "confession" of the crime (i.e.,
"bragging") and finally reconciled the prosecution's ballistics difficulties,
was none other than the infiltrator/provocateur, expelled from the BPP by
Pratt, Julius C. (aka Julio) Butler. At the trial, the prosecution went
considerably out of its way to bolster Butler's credibility before the jury by
"establishing" that the witness was not a paid FBI informant:
Q: And when you were working for the Black Panther Party, were you also
working for law enforcement at the same time?
A: No.
Q: You had severed any ties you had with law enforcement?
A: That's correct.
Q: Have you at any time since leaving the Sheriffs Department worked for
the FBI or the CIA?
A: No.
Q: Are you now working for the FBI or CIA?
A: No.
This testimony was entered despite the fact that Los Angeles FBI Field
Office informant reports concerning one Julius Carl Butler show he
performed exactly this function, at least during the period beginning in
August of 1969 (the time when he ostensibly made his initial accusation
against Pratt) until January 20, 1970 (after Pratt was jailed without bond
on the Olsen murder charge). During the whole of 1970, he filed monthly
reports with the Bureau, he was "evaluated" by the FBI as an informant
during that year, and his informant file was not closed until May of 1972 -
immediately prior to his going on the witness stand. 119
Louis Tackwood has consistently contended that Butler was an FBI
infiltrator of the BPP from the day he joined the Party in early 1968 and
that he actively worked with CCS detectives Ray Callahan and Daniel P.
Mahoney to eliminate Pratt. 120
At the trial, the Bureau also submitted that Pratt was not the target of
COINTELPRO activity; several hundred documents subsequently
released under the FOIA demonstrate this to have been categorically
untrue. Further:
On 18 December 1979, eight years after Pratt's trial, the California
Attorney-General's office filed a declaration in court that his defense camp
had been infiltrated by one FBI informant. The Deputy Attorney-General
wrote to the court and defense counsel on 28 July 1980, enclosing a copy
of a letter of the same date from the Executive Assistant Director of the
FBI. This letter revealed that two had been in a position to obtain
information about Elmer Pratt's defense strategy. 121
One reason for the seemingly blanket recalcitrance of the authorities -
federal, state and local - in extending even the most elementary pretense
of justice in the Pratt case may revolve around his quiet refusal to
abandon the political principles which caused him to become a
COINTELPRO target in the first place. Whatever the particulars of official
motivation in the handling of the Pratt case, it must be assessed within the
overall COINTELPRO-BPP context, especially a counterintelligence-
related instructional memo, dated October 24, 1968, and sent by Bureau
headquarters to all field offices. It reads in part:
Successful prosecution is the best deterrent to such unlawful activities [as
dissident political organizing]. Intensive investigations of key activists ...
are logically expected to result in prosecutions under substantive violation
within the Bureau's jurisdiction. 122
To this, the Church Committee's rejoinder in its investigation of the
Bureau's COINTELPRO illegalities still seems quite appropriate: "While
the FBI considered Federal prosecution a 'logical' result, it should be
noted that key activists were chosen not because they were suspected of
having committed or planning [sic] to commit any specific Federal crime."
123 After 27 years in prison and five habeus corpus motions, the
conviction for the tennis court murder was finally vacated and Geronimo ji
Jaga was released.
Dhoruba Bin Wahad
In 1966, the New York City Police Department commenced its own
investigation of the Black Panther Party. Detective Ralph White of the New
York City Police Department was directed to infiltrate the Black Panther
Party and submit daily reports on the Party and its members. The NYPD
regularly communicated with police departments throughout the country,
sharing information on the BPP, its members and activities.
The NYPD was also working with the FBI on a daily basis. On August 29,
1968 FBI Special Agent Henry Naehle reported on his meeting with a
member of an NYPD "Special Unit" investigating the BPP. SA Naehle
acknowledged that the FBI�s New York Field Office (NYO) "has been
working closely with BSS in exchanging information of mutual interest and
to our mutual advantage."
An FBI "Inspector�s Review" for the first quarter of 1969 shows that the
NYPD, in conjunction with the FBI, had an "interview" and "arrest"
program as part of their campaign to neutralize and disrupt the BPP. The
NYPD advised the FBI that
these programs have severely hampered and disrupted the BPP,
particularly in Brooklyn, New York, where, for a while, BPP operations
were at a complete standstill and in fact have never recovered sufficiently
to operate effectively.
A series of FBI documents reveal a joint FBI/NYPD plan to gather
information on BPP members and their supporters in late 1968. During an
unprovoked attack by off-duty members of the NYPD on BPP members
attending a court appearance in Brooklyn, the briefcase of BPP leader
David Brothers was stolen by the NYPD and its contents photocopied and
given to the FBI. Rather than seeking to prosecute the police officers for
this theft, the FBI ordered "a review of these names and telephone
numbers [so that] appropriate action will be taken."
That "appropriate action" included an effort to label Brothers and two other
BPP leaders, Jorge Aponte and Robert Collier, as police informants. On
December 12, 1968, the FBI�s New York Office proposed circulating
flyers warning the community of the "DANGER" posed by Brothers, Collier
and Aponte. The NYO proposed that the flyers "be left in restaurants
where Negroes are known to frequent (Chock Full of Nuts, etc.)" BSS later
told the FBI that its proposal was successful in that David Brothers had
come under suspicion by the BPP. An FBI memorandum dated December
2, 1968 captioned "Counterintelligence Program" lists several operations
during the previous two-week period. It closes by stating that "every effort
is being made in the NYO to misdirect the operations of the BPP on a
daily basis."
In August 1968, Dhoruba Bin Wahad, then known as Richard Dhoruba
Moore, joined the BPP, and within a few months was promoted to a
position of leadership. He was soon identified by the Bureau and by the
NYPD as a "key agitator" and placed in the FBI's "Security Index",
"Agitator Index," and "Black Nationalist Photograph Album." FBI
supervisors instructed the NYO to "develop better liaison and closer
working relationship with the NYCPD" in their investigation of Dhoruba Bin
Wahad.
On April 2, 1969 Bin Wahad and 20 other members of the Black Panther
Party were indicted on charges of conspiracy in the so-called "Panther 21"
case. A NYPD memorandum notes that the Panther 21 arrests were
considered a "summation" of the overt and covert investigation
commenced in 1966. In a bi-weekly report to FBI Headquarters listing
several counterintelligence operations the FBI reported that
To date, the NYO has conducted over 500 interviews with BPP members
and sympathizers. Additionally, arrests of BPP members have been made
by Bureau Agents and the NYCPD. These interviews and arrests have
helped disrupt and cripple the activities of the BPP in the NYC area. Every
effort will be made to continue pressure on the BPP...
In July 1969, the NYPD sent officers to Oakland, California to monitor the
Black Panther Party�s nationwide conference calling for community
control of police departments. An NYPD memorandum candidly
acknowledged that community control of the police, "may not be in the
interests of the department."
Through its warrantless wiretaps of BPP telephones, the FBI learned that
the BPP was trying to raise the $100,000 bail that had been set for Bin
Wahad, whose release was considered by the BPP to be a priority over
the other 20 defendants, due to his leadership role in the organization.
Fundraising efforts were impeded by FBI/NYPD counterintelligence
operations. For example, following a fund raiser at the home of conductor
Leonard Bernstein, the FBI sent falsified letters to those in attendance in
order to "thwart the aims and efforts of the BPP in their attempt to solicit
money from socially prominent groups..." Unable to raise bail, Dhoruba
Bin Wahad spent the next year incarcerated.
The FBI continued to target BPP community programs. For example, the
FBI pressured several churches not to institute the BPP�s Free Breakfast
for Children Program at their parishes. In September, 1969, an NYPD
BSS representative told the FBI that the BPP was disintegrating in New
York.
By March of 1970, the BPP had raised enough money to post bail for the
most articulate leaders and chose Mr. Bin Wahad for release. The FBI
ordered that he be immediately and continuously surveilled and that
donors of bail money be identified. Director Hoover reminded his New
York Office that the activities of Panther 21 defendants were of "vital
interest" to the "Seat of Government".
Through their warrantless wiretaps of BPP offices and residences, the FBI
became aware in May 1970 of dissatisfaction among New York BPP
members, including Bin Wahad, with West Coast BPP members. A
COINTELPRO operation prepared by the New Haven Field Office and
submitted to the FBI�s New York Office consisted of an FBI-fabricated
note wherein Bin Wahad accused BPP leader Robert Bay of being an
informant.
This successful operation resulted in Dhoruba Bin Wahad's demotion
within the BPP. Aware of his disillusionment, the FBI disseminated
information regarding BPP strife to the media and participated in a plan to
either recruit Bin Wahad as an informant or have BPP members believe
he was an agent for the FBI.
In August 1970, BPP leader Huey P. Newton was released from prison. A
plethora of counterintelligence actions followed which sought to make
Newton suspicious of fellow BPP members, particularly those, like the Bin
Wahad, who were on the East Coast.
By early 1971, the plan bore fruit. On January 28, 1971, FBI Director
Hoover reported that Newton had become increasingly paranoid and had
expelled several loyal BPP members:
Newton responds violently...The Bureau feels that this near hysterical
reaction by the egotistical Newton is triggered by any criticism of his
activities, policies or leadership qualities and some of this criticism
undoubtedly is result of our counterintelligence projects now in operation.
This operation was enormously successful, resulting in a split within the
BPP with violent repercussions. In early January 1971, Fred Bennett, a
BPP member affiliated with the New York chapter, was shot and killed,
allegedly by Newton supporters. Newton came to believe that Bin Wahad
was plotting to kill him. Bin Wahad, in turn, was told by Connie Matthews,
Newton�s secretary, that Newton was planning to have Bin Wahad and
Panther 21 co-defendants Edward Joseph and Michael Tabor killed during
Newton�s upcoming East Coast speaking tour. As a result of the split and
fearing for his life, Bin Wahad, along with Tabor and Joseph, were forced
to flee during the Panther 21 trial.
On May 13, 1971, the Panther 21, including Dhoruba Bin Wahad, were
acquitted of all charges in the less than one hour of jury deliberations,
following what was at that time the longest trial in New York City history.
BSS Detective Edwin Cooper begrudgingly reported to defendant Michael
Codd that the case "was not proven to the jury�s satisfaction." Alarmed
and embarrassed by the acquittal, Director Hoover ordered an
"intensification" of the investigations of acquitted Panther 21 members
with special emphasis on those, like Bin Wahad, who were fugitives.
On May 19, 1971, NYPD Officers Thomas Curry and Nicholas Binetti were
shot on Riverside Drive in Manhattan. Two nights later, two other officers,
Waverly Jones and Joseph Piagentini, were shot and killed in Harlem. In
separate communiques delivered to the media, the Black Liberation Army
claimed responsibility for both attacks.
Immediately after these shootings, the FBI made the investigation of these
incidents, called "Newkill," a part of their long-standing program against
the BPP. Before any evidence had been collected, BPP members, in
particular those acquitted in the Panther 21 case, were targeted as
suspects. Hoover instructed the New York Office to
consider [the] possibility that both attacks may be result of revenge taken
against NYC police by the Black Panther Party (BPP) as a result of its
arrest of BPP members in April, 1969 [i.e. the Panther 21 case].
On May 26, 1971, J. Edgar Hoover met with then President Richard Nixon
who told Hoover that he wanted to make sure that the FBI did not "pull any
punches in going all out in gathering information...on the situation in New
York." Hoover informed his subordinates that Nixon's interest and the
FBI's involvement were to be kept strictly confidential.
"Newkill" was a joint FBI/NYPD operation involving total cooperation and
sharing of information. The FBI made all its facilities and resources,
including its laboratory, available to the NYPD. In turn, NYPD Chief of
Detectives Albert Seedman, who coordinated the NYPD's investigation,
ordered his subordinates to give the FBI "all available information
developed to date, as well as in future investigations."
On June 5, 1971, Bin Wahad was arrested during a robbery of a Bronx
after hours "social club", a hangout for local drug merchants. Seized from
inside the social club was a .45 caliber machine gun. Although the initial
ballistics test on the weapon failed to link it with the Curry-Binetti shooting,
the NYPD publicly declared they had seized the weapon used in May 19.
The NYPD now had in custody a well-known and vocal Black Panther
leader and the alleged weapon linked to a police shooting. His prosecution
and conviction would both neutralize an effective leader and justify the
failed Panther 21 case. But there was no direct evidence linking Bin
Wahad to the shooting.
Pauline Joseph, a diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic, became the
prosecution�s star witness. Ms. Joseph first surfaced when she made a
phone call to the NYPD on June 12, 1971, supplying her name and
address and stating that Bin Wahad and Edward Joseph (a Panther 21
defendant who jumped bail with Bin Wahad) were innocent of the Curry-
Binetti shooting. She told the police that Bin Wahad "did not do it, either
the Riverside Drive [Curry-Binetti] shooting or the 32nd precinct
[Piagentini-Jones] shooting..."
The first person to arrive at Ms. Joseph�s apartment was NYPD
Lieutenant Kenneth Sauer, the head of the 24th precinct detective squad.
Contrary to her testimony at trial, Ms. Joseph continued to maintain that
Bin Wahad was innocent of the Curry-Binetti shooting. Later that day she
was interviewed by BSS Detective Edwin Cooper. Joseph repeated that
Bin Wahad was innocent.
Ms. Joseph was arrested, and committed as a material witness. For nearly
two years she remained in the exclusive custody of the New York County
District Attorney�s Office. She was repeatedly interviewed by state and
federal authorities.
Ms. Joseph, while in the custody of the District Attorney, was recruited as
a "racial informant" for the FBI. She was paid for her services and housed
first in a hotel and then in a furnished apartment, paid for by the District
Attorney. Pauline Joseph, a diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic, became
the prosecution�s star witness in the case.
Dhoruba Bin Wahad was indicted for the attempted murder of Officers
Curry and Binetti on July 30, 1971. Although the NYPD and FBI
continuously interviewed Ms. Joseph, and prepared written memoranda of
those interviews, the Assistant District Attorney represented that, except
for a one paragraph statement made on the night of her commitment and
her grand jury testimony, there were no prior statements. The text of Ms.
Joseph�s initial phone call was withheld by the prosecution through two
trials. No notes of memoranda of the initial, exculpatory interviews by
Lieutenant Sauer and Detective Cooper were ever provided to Bin Wahad.
Neither were reports of subsequent interiews during the two years she
was in custody. After three trials, Dhoruba Bin Wahad was convicted of
attempted murder and sentenced by Justice Martinisto to the maximum
penalty, 25 years to life.
In December 1975, after learning of Congressional hearings which
disclosed the FBI's covert operations against the BPP, Dhoruba Bin
Wahad filed a lawsuit in Federal District Court, charging that he had been
the victim of numerous illegal and unconstitutional actions designed to
"neutralize" him, including the frame-up in the Curry-Binetti case.
In 1980, the FBI and NYPD were ordered by the Court to produce their
massive files on Mr. Bin Wahad and the BPP, that they had claimed did
not exist. The FBI and NYPD documents revealed that Mr. Bin Wahad
was indeed a target of FBI/NYPD covert operations and, for the first time,
depicted the FBI's intimate involvement in the Curry-Binetti investigation.
The "Newkill" file, which was finally produced in unredacted form in 1987,
after 12 years of litigation, contains numerous reports which should have
been provided to Dhoruba Bin Wahad during his trial.
In a decision announced December 20, 1992, Justice Bruce Allen of the
New York State Supreme Court ordered a new trial. The court
exhaustively analyzed the prosecution�s circumstantial case, particularly
the testimony of Pauline Joseph. The court found that the inconsistencies
and omissions in the prior statements contradicted testimony "crucial to
establishing the People�s theory of the case". The inconsistencies, said
the Court "went beyond mere details" and involve "what one would expect
to have been the most memorable aspects of [the night of the shooting]".
On January 19, 1995, the District Attorney moved to dismiss the
indictment, acknowledging that they could not prove their case. The
indictment was dismissed. After more than 20 years in prison, Mr. Bin
Wahad is at liberty today, residing in Accra, Ghana.
The COINTELPRO off-shoot "Newkill" and later "Chesrob" (an FBI
acronym named after Assata Shakur, aka Joanne Chesimard) had other
targets as well. Members of the Black Panther Party forced underground
by Cointelpro-instigated violence were hunted down by local and federal
law enforcement officials. In the three years after the 1971 BPP split, BPP
members, Harold Russsel, Woody Green, Twyman Meyers and Zayd
Shakur were killed during confrontations with law enforcement. Others
were captured and charged with crimes. All were tried at a time when the
public (and juries) knew nothing of COINTELPRO. During these trials, as
in the trials of Dhoruba Bin Wahad and Geronimo Pratt, exculpatory
evidence was withheld and other violations of the United States
Constitution were committed. However, post-conviction motions on behalf
of these former BPP members were unsuccessful and they remain in
prison today. They include Anthony Jalil Bottom, Herman Bell, Robert
Seth Hayes, Sundiata Acoli, Abdul Majid and Bashir Hameed. Two of
these former BPP members died while in prison: Albert Nuh Washington
in 2000 and Teddy Jah Heath in 2001. Both spent over 25 years in prison
but were denied compassionate release even in their last days.
Marshall Eddie Conway
In 1970, Marshall Eddie Conway was Minister of Defense of the Baltimore
chapter of the Black Panther Party. He was also employed by the United
States Postal Service. Unbeknownst to Conway, some of the founding
members of the Baltimore chapter were undercover officers with the
Baltimore Police Department, who reported daily on his activities in the
chapter. At the same time, the Federal Bureau of Investigation began its
own investigation of Conway, recording his whereabouts, contacting his
employers at the Post Office and maintaining "liaison" with the Baltimore
Police Department.
On April 23, 1970, a Baltimore Police officer was shot and killed. Later that
night, another officer named Nolan was fired upon by an unapprehended
Black male. Two men arrested at the scene of the first shooting were
allegedly associates of members of the Baltimore BPP chapter. Because
of this, the police attributed both incidents to the BPP. Not surprisingly,
Nolan then claimed that a picture of Conway, a well-known BPP member,
resembled the unapprehended shooter. The next day, Conway was
arrested while working at the Post office. He was charged with both the
homicide and the attempted homicide of Nolan. Conway was held without
bail.
Conway petitioned the court to have either Charles Garry or William
Kunstler, two attorneys who consistently represented party members,
represent him at his trial. Although both offered their services free of
charge, the court denied Conway�s request. Instead, a lawyer was
appointed who performed no pre-trial investigation and never met with
Conway. Deprived of his rights, Conway chose to absent himself from
much of his January, 1971 trial.
But the state�s case, relying solely upon Nolan�s equivocal and highly
suspect photo identification, was shaky. To buttress their case, the state
called one Charles Reynolds, a known jailhouse informant. He ultimately
testified that while he shared a cell with Conway pre-trial, Conway made
admissions to him. In fact, as was verified by the court transcript, Conway
loudly objected when Reynolds was placed in his cell because everyone
knew he was an informant. Reynolds, who was a fugitive from Michigan,
was promised release if he testified. When the trial was over, he got his
wish.
Represented by inadequate counsel and tried at a time when the
existence of COINTELPRO was not known, Conway was convicted and
sentenced to life imprisonment. All appeals have been denied and he has
been denied parole, as are all "lifers" in the State if Maryland. He has now
been incarcerated for over 31 years and is probably the longest held
political prisoner in the United States, if not the world.
Justice Hangs in the Balance
Although COINTELPRO was first exposed during the Watergate period,
and incomparably more serious than anything charged against Nixon, it
was virtually ignored by the national press and journals of opinion. A
review of these programs demonstrates the relative insignificance of the
charges raised against Nixon and his associates, specifically, the charges
presented in the Congressional Articles of Impeachment. 124
In the early 1970s, there occurred a seemingly endless series of
revelations about governmental transgressions. A "credibility gap" was
engendered by the federal executive branch having been caught lying too
many times, too red-handedly and over too many years in its efforts to
dupe the public into supporting the U.S. war in Southeast Asia. This had
reached epic proportions when Daniel Ellsberg leaked the "Pentagon
Papers," a highly secret government documentary history of official
duplicity by which America had become embroiled in Indochina, and
caused particularly sensitive excerpts to be published in the New York
Times. 125
Then on March 8, 1971, a group calling itself the Citizen's Commission to
Investigate the FBI, broke into an FBI office in a small town called Media,
Pennsylvania. They subjected the FBI to what the FBI has been habitually
subjecting political dissidents to throughout the course of its history. That
is, in Bureau parlance, a black bag job. The information they obtained was
widely distributed through left and peace movement channels, and
summarized the following week in the Washington Post. 126
An analysis of the documents in this FBI office revealed that 1 percent
were devoted to organized crime, mostly gambling; 30 percent were
"manuals, routine forms, and similar procedural matter"; 40 percent were
devoted to political surveillance and the like, including two cases involving
right-wing groups, ten concerning immigrants, and over 200 on left or
liberal groups. Another 14 percent of the documents concerned draft
resistance and "leaving the military without government permission." The
remainder - only 15% - concerned bank robberies, murder, rape, and
interstate theft. 127
"Among the 34 cases [of infiltration] for which some information is
available, 11 involved white campus groups, 11, predominantly white
peace groups and/or economic groups; 10, black and Chicano groups;
and two right-wing groups." Furthermore, "in two-thirds of the 34 cases
considered here, the specious activists appear to have gone beyond
passive information gathering to active provocation." 128
One year later, the political scandal known as Watergate began to unravel,
when five men were arrested for breaking into the headquarters of the
Democratic National Committee, located in the Watergate apartment and
office complex in Washington, D.C. It was soon discovered that one of the
men was employed by the Committee to Re-elect the President (CRP or
CREEP) and that the break-in had been planned by two others with close
ties to the White House.
In this peculiar and potentially volatile set of circumstances, a government-
wide effort was undertaken to convince the public that its institutions were
fundamentally sound, albeit in need of fine-tuning and a bit of
housecleaning. It was immediately announced that U.S. ground forces
would be withdrawn from Vietnam as rapidly as possible. Televised
congressional hearings were staged to "get to the bottom of Watergate," a
spectacle which soon led to the resignations of a number of Nixon officials,
the brief imprisonment of a few of them, and the eventual resignation of
the president himself.
The ousting of Richard Nixon for his misdeeds on August 9, 1974 was
described in the nation's press as "a stunning vindication of our
constitutional system." 129 Yet the Watergate affair -- allegedly the
media's finest hour -- merely demonstrated their continued subservience
to power and official ideology. Until the dust had settled over Watergate,
there was virtually no mention of the government programs of violence
and disruption or comment concerning them, and even after the
Watergate affair was successfully concluded, there has been only
occasional discussion.
Beginning in 1974, the Senate held hearings to investigate COINTELPRO
and other intelligence agency abuses. No other congressional
investigation into these types of matters has been so extensive, either
before or since.
The Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with
Respect to Intelligence Activities, commonly known as the Church
committee, after Chairman Frank Church, produced a extensive series of
reports entitled, "Intelligence Activities and the Rights of Americans,"
encompassing not only COINTELPRO, but also a wide variety of other
subjects, including electronic surveillance by the National Security Agency,
domestic CIA mail opening programs, the misuse of the IRS, the
assassination of President Kennedy, covert actions abroad, assassination
plots involving foreign leaders, and various topics related to military
intelligence.
The Church committee found that COINTELPRO, presumably set up to
protect national security and prevent violence, actually engaged in other
actions "which had no conceivable rational relationship to either national
security or violent activity. The unexpressed major premise of much of
COINTELPRO is that the Bureau has a role in maintaining the existing
social order, and that its efforts should be aimed toward combating those
who threaten that order."
This meant that the Bureau would take actions against individuals and
organizations simply because they were critical of government policy. The
Church committee report gives examples of such actions, violations of the
right of free speech and association, where the FBI targeted people
because they opposed U.S. foreign policy, or criticized the Chicago police
actions at the 1968 Democratic National Convention. The documents
assembled by the Church committee "compel the conclusion that Federal
law enforcement officers looked upon themselves as guardians of the
status quo" and cite the surveillance and harassment of Martin Luther King
Jr. as an example of this.
With regard to COINTELPRO, the Church committee's report was based,
it says, on a staff study of more than 20,000 pages of Bureau documents,
and included depositions of many of the Bureau agents involved in the
programs. The FBI eventually acknowledged having conducted 2,218
separate COINTELPRO actions from mid-1956 through mid-1974. These,
the bureau conceded, were undertaken in conjunction with other
significant illegalities: 2,305 warrantless telephone taps, 697 buggings,
and the opening of 57,846 pieces of mail. 130 This itemization, although
an indicator of the magnitude and extent of FBI criminality, was far from
complete. The counterintelligence campaign against the Puerto Rican
independence movement was not mentioned at all, while whole categories
of operational techniques - assassinations, for example, and obtaining
false convictions against key activists - were not divulged with respect to
the rest. There is solid evidence that other sorts of illegality were
downplayed as well.
The FBI's quid pro quo for cooperating in this charade seems to have
been that none of its agents would actually see the inside of a prison as a
result of the "excesses" thereby revealed. 131 The result was that
"The Justice Department has decided not to prosecute anyone in
connection with the Federal Bureau of Investigation's 15-year campaign to
disrupt the activities of suspected subversive organizations." 132
J. Stanley Pottinger, head of the Civil Rights Division, reported to the
attorney general that he had found "no basis for criminal charges against
any particular individuals involving particular incidents." The director of the
FBI also made clear that he saw nothing particularly serious in the
revelations of the Church and Pike Committees. There is as yet no public
record or evidence of any systematic investigation of these practices. The
press paid little heed to the record that was being exposed during the
Watergate period and even since has generally ignored the more serious
cases and failed to present anything remotely resembling an accurate
picture of the full record and what it implies.
The object of all this muscle-flexing was, of course, to create a perception
that congress had finally gotten tough, placing itself in a position to
administer appropriate oversight of the FBI. It followed that citizens had no
further reason to worry over what the Bureau was doing at that very
moment, or what it might do in the future.
In 1975 the Senate Select Committee concluded that in order to complete
its (re)building of the required public impression, it might be necessary to
risk going beyond exploration of the Bureau's past counterintelligence
practices and explore ongoing (i.e.: ostensibly post-COINTELPRO) FBI
conduct vis a vis political activists. Specifically at issue in this connection
was what was even then being done to the American Indian Movement,
and hearings were scheduled to begin in July. But this is where the
Bureau, which had been reluctantly going along up to that point, drew the
line. The hearings never happened. Instead, they were "indefinitely
postponed" in late June of 1975, at the direct request of the FBI. 133
The Church committee cites the testimony of FBI director Clarence M.
Kelley as indication that even after the official end of COINTELPRO,
"faced with sufficient threat, covert disruption is justified." 134
The Legacy of COINTELPRO
The repression of dissident groups can be traced far back into US history,
at least to the passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts, by which "the
Federalists sought to suppress political opposition and to stamp out
lingering sympathy for the principles of the French Revolution," or to the
judicial murder of four anarchists for "having advocated doctrines" which
allegedly lay behind the explosion of a bomb in Chicago's Haymarket
Square after a striker had been killed by police in May 1886. 135 The
Pinkerton Detective Agency, a private investigating agency of the
ninteenth century, made extensive use of informants, strike-breakers and
provocateurs.
During the first World War, when the long-time, powerful head of the FBI,
J. Edgar Hoover led the Bureau of Investigation, there was a "mass
deprivation of rights incident to the deserter and selective service violator
raids in New York and New Jersey in 1918..." 136 What happened is that
35 Bureau Agents assisted by police and military personnel and a "citizens
auxiliary" of the Bureau, "rounded up some 50,000 men without warrants
of sufficient probable cause for arrest."
In 1920 the Bureau, along with Immigration Bureau agents, carried on the
"Palmer Raids" (authorized by Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer), which,
in 33 cities rounded up 10,000 persons. The Church Committee report 137
talks of "the abuses of due process of law incident to the raids," quoting a
scholarly study 138 that these raids involved "indiscriminate arrests of the
innocent with the guilty, unlawful seizures by federal detectives..." and
other violations of constitutional rights.
The Church Committee cites a report of distinguished legal scholars 139
made after the Palmer Raids, and says the scholars "found federal agents
guilty of using third-degree tortures, making illegal searches and arrests,
using agents provocateurs...."
Attorney General Palmer justified his actions "to clean up the country
almost unaided by any virile legislation" on grounds of the failure of
Congress "to stamp out these seditious societies in their open defiance of
law by various forms of propaganda":
Upon these two basic certainties, first that the "Reds" were criminal aliens,
and secondly that the American Government must prevent crime, it was
decided that there could be no nice distinctions drawn between the
theoretical ideals of the radicals and their actual violations of our national
laws. Palmer's "information showed that communism in this country was
an organization of thousands of aliens, who were direct allies of Trotzky."
Thus "the Government is now sweeping the nation clean of such alien
filth," with the overwhelming support of the press, until they perceived that
their own interests were threatened. 140
Elsewhere he described the prisoners as follows:
Out of the sly and crafty eyes of many of them leap cupidity, cruelty,
insanity, and crime; from their lopsided faces, sloping brows, and
misshapen features may be recognized the unmistakable criminal type.
Palmer's declared purpose was "to tear out the radical seeds that have
entangled American ideas in their poisonous theories." 141
One early FBI target was Marcus Garvey, founder of the Universal Negro
Improvement Association. Under his leadership, UNIA, which to this day
remains the largest organization of African Americans ever assembled,
devoted itself mainly to the realization of various "bootstrapping" strategies
(i.e., undertaking business ventures as a means of attaining its twin goals
of black pride and self-sufficiency).
Nonetheless, despite UNIAs explicitly capitalist orientation, or maybe
because of it, Hoover launched an inquiry into Garvey's activities in
August 1919. When this initial probe revealed no illegalities, Hoover,
railing against Garvey's "pro-Negroism," ordered that the investigation be
not only continued but intensified. UNIA was quickly infiltrated by
operatives recruited specifically for the purpose, and a number of
informants developed within it. Still, it was another two years before the
General Intelligence Division was able to find a pretext - Garvey's
technical violation of the laws governing offerings of corporate stock -
upon which to bring charges of "mail fraud." Convicted in July 1923 by an
all-white jury, the UNIA leader was first incarcerated in the federal prison
at Atlanta, then deported as an undesirable alien in 1927. By then, the
organization he'd founded had disintegrated. Hoover, in the interim, had
vowed to prevent anyone from ever again assuming the standing of what
he called a "Negro Moses."
World War II brought a return of the FBI to counterintelligence operations
as President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued a series of instructions
establishing the basic domestic intelligence structure for the federal
government. Roosevelt was advised by Hoover to proceed with the utmost
degree of secrecy:
In considering the steps to be taken for the expansion of the present
structure of intelligence work, it is believed imperative that it proceed with
the utmost degree of secrecy in order to avoid criticism or objections
which might be raised to such an expansion by either ill-informed persons
or individuals having some ulterior motive ... Consequently, it would seem
undesirable to seek any special legislation which would draw attention to
the fact that it was proposed to develop a special counterespionage drive
of any great magnitude. 142
According to William C. Sullivan, Hoover's assistant for many years:
Such a very great man as Franklin D. Roosevelt saw nothing wrong in
asking the FBI to investigate those opposing his lend-lease policy -- a
purely political request. He also had us look into the activities of others
who opposed our entrance into World War II, just as later Administrations
had the FBI look into those opposing the conflict in Vietnam. It was a
political request also when he [Roosevelt] instructed us to put a telephone
tap, a microphone, and a physical surveillance on an internationally known
leader in his Administration. It was done. The results he wanted were
secured and given to him. Certain records of this kind ... were not then or
later put into the regular FBI filing system. Rather, they were deliberately
kept out of it. 143
The passage in 1940 of the Smith Act, made "sedition" a peacetime as
well as a wartime offense. The doctrine was laid out clearly by Supreme
Court Justice Robert H. Jackson in his opinion upholding of the Smith Act
on the grounds "that it was no violation of free speech to convict
Communists for conspiring to teach or advocate the forcible overthrow of
the government, even if no clear and present danger could be proved."
For if the clear and present danger test were applied, Jackson argued, "it
means that Communist plotting is protected during its period of incubation;
its preliminary stages of organization and preparation are immune from
the law, the Government can move only after imminent action is manifest,
when it would, of course, be too late." Thus there must be "some legal
formula that will secure an existing order against revolutionary
radicalism.... There is no constitutional right to `gang up' on the
Government." Opposition tendencies, however minuscule, must be nipped
in the bud prior to "imminent action."
Hoover claimed that in 1940, "advocates of foreign isms" had succeeded
in boring into every phase of American life, masquerading behind front
organizations. 144 In 1939, Hoover told the House Appropriations
Committee that his General Intelligence Division had compiled extensive
indices of individuals, groups, and organizations engaged in subversive
activities, in espionage activities, or any activities that are possibly
detrimental to the internal security of the United States.. . . Their
backgrounds and activities are known to the Bureau. These indexes will
be extremely important and valuable in a grave emergency. 145
After World War II, the FBI's attention turned from fascism to communism.
This was the beginning of the Cold War. In March of 1946, Hoover
informed Attorney General Tom Clark that the FBI had
found it necessary to intensify its investigation of Communist party
activities and Soviet espionage cases and it was taking steps to list all
members of the Communist party and any others who might be dangerous
in the event of a break with the Soviet Union, or other serious crisis
involving the United States and the USSR.. . . It might be necessary in a
crisis to immediately detain a large number of American citizens. 146
As for the Communist party, "ordinary conspiracy principles" sufficed to
charge any individual associated with it "with responsibility for and
participation in all that makes up the Party's program" and "even an
individual," acting alone and apart from any "conspiracy," "cannot claim
that the Constitution protects him in advocating or teaching overthrow of
government by force or violence." 147
In 1948, the Mundt-Nixon bill, calling for the registration of the Communist
party, was reported out of Nixon's House Committee on Un-American
Activities. Senate liberals objected, and after a Truman veto they
proposed as a substitute "the ultimate weapon of repression:
concentration camps to intern potential troublemakers on the occasion of
some loosely defined future 'Internal Security Emergency'," 148 including,
as one case, "insurrection within the United States in aid of a foreign
enemy." 149
This substitute was advocated by Benton, Douglas, Graham, Kefauver,
Kilgore, Lehman, and Humphrey, then a freshman senator. Humphrey
later voted against the bill, though he did not retreat from his concentration
camp proposal. In fact, he was concerned that the conference committee
had brought back "a weaker bill, not a bill to strike stronger blows at the
Communist menace, but weaker blows." The problem with the new bill
was that those interned in the detention centers would have "the right of
habeas corpus so they can be released and go on to do their dirty
business." 150
In 1949 the attorney general's list was established, excluding members of
"communist front organizations" from federal employment, since their
influence on government policies would be such that those policies will
either favor the foreign country of their ideological choice or will weaken
the United States government domestically or abroad to the ultimate
advantage of the ... foreign power. Consequently, [Mr. Hoover] urged that
attention be given to the association of government employees with front
organizations. These included not only established fronts but also
temporary organizations, spontaneous campaigns, and pressure
movements so frequently used by subversive groups. If a disloyal
employee was affiliated with such fronts, he could be expected to
influence government policy in the direction taken by the group. 151
The first formal COINTELPRO, aimed at the U.S. Communist Party,
commenced on August 28, 1956. Although this was the first instance in
which the Internal Security Branch was instructed to employ the full range
of extralegal techniques developed by the bureau's counterintelligence
specialists against a domestic target in a centrally coordinated and
programmatic way, the FBI had conducted such operations against the CP
and to a lesser extent the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) on an ad hoc
basis at least as early as 1941.
Instructively, Hoover began at the same time to include a section on
"Negro Organizations" in reports otherwise dedicated to "Communist
Organizations" and "Axis Fifth Columnists." In 1954 there was also the
Communist Control Act, a statute outlawing the CP and prohibiting its
members from holding certain types of employment.
Viewed against this backdrop, it is commonly believed that, however
misguided, COINTELPRO-CPUSA was in some ways well intended,
undertaken out of a genuine concern that the CP was engaged in spying
for the Soviet Union. Declassified FBI documents, however, reveal quite
the opposite. While espionage and sabotage "potentials" are mentioned
almost as afterthoughts in the predicating memoranda, unabashedly
political motives take center stage. The objective of the COINTELPRO
was, as Internal Security Branch chief Alan Belmont put it at the time, to
block the CP's "penetration of specific channels of American life where
public opinion is molded" and to prevent thereby its attaining "influence
over the masses."
From the outset, considerable emphasis was placed on intensifying the
bureau's long-standing campaign to promote factional disputes within the
Party. To this end, the CP was infiltrated more heavily than ever before. It
has been estimated that by 1965 approximately one-third of the CP's
nominal membership consisted of FBI infiltrators and paid informants,
while bona fide activists were systematically snitch jacketed. A formal
"Mass Media Program" was also created, "wherein derogatory information
on prominent radicals was leaked to the news media."
The programs directed against the Communist party continued through
the 1960s, with such interesting innovations as Operation Hoodwink from
1966 through mid-1968, designed to incite organized crime against the
Communist party through documents fabricated by the FBI, evidently in
the hope that criminal elements would carry on the work of repression and
disruption in their own manner. 152
In October 1961, the "SWP Disruption Program" was put into operation
against the Socialist Workers Party. The grounds offered, in a secret FBI
memorandum, were the following: the party had been "openly espousing
its line on a local and national basis through running candidates for public
office and strongly directing and/or supporting such causes as Castro's
Cuba and integration problems...in the South." The SWP Disruption
Program, put into operation during the Kennedy administration, reveals
very clearly the FBI's understanding of its function: to block legal political
activity that departs from orthodoxy, to disrupt opposition to state policy, to
undermine the civil rights movement.
CISPES
The FBI has continued to violate the constitutional rights of citizens
through the 1980's, up to 1990, as revealed by Ross Gelbspan in his book
Break-Ins, Death Threats And The FBI. Utilizing thousands of pages of
FBI documents secured through the Freedom of Information Act,
Gelbspan found that activists who opposed U.S. policy in Central America
"experienced nearly 200 incidents of harassment and intimidation, many
involving...break-ins and thefts or rifling of files." Gelbspan�s intent was
to "add a small document to the depressingly persistent history of the FBI
as a national political police force."
During the 1980's as the FBI waged an "active measures" campaign
against the Committee In Solidarity with the People of El Salvador
(CISPES), a former FBI informant, Frank Varelli, became disillusioned with
the Bureau's attempt to destroy CISPES. Acting on disinformation
supplied by the murderous Salvadoran National Guard, false information
was forwarded by the FBI to the Defense Intelligence Agency.
The National Guard claimed that one FMLN coalition member, the Armed
Revolutionary Group (GAR), "were to promote in North America a strong
and violent campaign of agitation and propaganda on behalf of FMLN-
FDR, having obtained immediate support from different sectors of North
American society. Among the groups providing support were labor unions,
Gay Power groups, Pro- Abortion groups, groups involved in the women's
liberation movement, and organizations that are opposed to the
strengthening of the military forces of the US." 153
Although not a shred of evidence existed linking these North American
organizations to the GAR, the groups were included in the National Guard
communique -- at the direct request of the FBI.
According to Varelli, "Can you imagine if gay rights groups, abortion rights
groups, the Equal Rights Amendment groups were known to support a
group that had killed more than 20 police and soldiers in a year?" The
informant added, "Once the FBI had this data in their files, they could
proceed to investigate all these other groups. What is even worse, the FBI
knew that this material from the National Guard was strictly disinformation.
But they passed the same material along to the Secret Service, the
Defense Intelligence Agency and other agencies in the intelligence
community without alerting them to the fact that it was completely
fabricated." 154
The FBI found it "imperative to formulate some plan of attack against
CISPES," not because of its suspected involvement in terrorism or any
other criminal activity, but because of its association with "individuals
[deleted] who defiantly display their contempt for the U.S. government by
making speeches and propagandizing their cause." In plain English,
CISPES was politically objectionable to the Bureau - no more, or less -
and was therefore deliberately targeted for repression. 155
The investigation was ultimately expanded to include not only CISPES
itself, but nearly 2000 organizations and individuals with which CISPES
had some sort of interactive relations. This included pastors of local
churches who were sympathetic to the Salvadorean peasantry, and Duke
University, which provided meeting space.
The Bureau admits it paid Varelli from 1981 to 1984 to infiltrate CISPES.
Varelli has testified that the FBI's stated objective was to "break" CISPES.
He recounts a modus operandi straight out of the annals COINTELPRO -
from break-ins, bogus publications and disruption of public events to
planting guns on CISPES members and seducing CISPES leaders in
order to get blackmail photos for the FBI. 156
Alerted by Varelli's disclosures, the Center for Constitutional Rights
obtained a small portion of the Bureau's CISPES files and released them
to the press. The files show the U.S. government targeting a very broad
range of religious, labor and community groups opposed to its Central
America policies. They confirm that the FBI's objective was to attack and
"neutralize" these groups. 157 Mainstream media coverage of these
revelations elicited a flurry of congressional investigations and hearings.
Publicly exposed, the FBI tried to scapegoat the whistle blower. Its in-
house investigation found Varelli "unreliable" and held that his reports of
CISPES terrorism were false. The Bureau denied any violation of the
constitutional rights of U.S. citizens or involvement in the hundreds of
break-ins reported by Central America activists. A grand total of six agents
received "formal censure" and three were suspended for 14 days. FBI
Director William Sessions declared the case closed, a mere "aberration"
due to "failure in FBI management." 158
The Judi Bari Bombing
There is no better example than the Judi Bari "boom and bust" case to
show that the FBI kept on well into the 1990s using covert action tactics
against political movements and activists which they perceived as threats
to the established order. One can make a case that the FBI is still using
such tactics in the Bari case in 2001.
The car bombing of Judi Bari and Darryl Cherney on May 24, 1990 made
headlines across the nation. At the FBI's instigation, Oakland California
police immediately arrested the two nonviolent environmental leaders and
told the media that they were terrorists blown up by their own bomb. For
the next two months, the FBI and police held a series of press
conferences where they dribbled out false evidence of the pair's guilt to
feed a drumbeat of sensational media coverage.
But there was clear evidence that Bari was targeted because of her leftist
environmental and labor organizing. Someone wanted to stop the two
Northern California Earth First! leaders, the organizers of Redwood
Summer, the largest ever campaign of nonviolent protests against
corporate liquidation logging of the redwoods.
After two months, the Alameda County District Attorney declined to file
any charges, citing lack of evidence against the pair. There is evidence,
though, from the FBI's own files, that agents falsified evidence,
suppressed exonerating evidence, and conspired with Oakland police to
frame the two bombing victims. Moreover, the records show that the FBI
stubbornly refused to do a genuine investigation of the bombing, and
failed to pursue real evidence and leads turned over to them, such as
fingerprints or death threats Bari received.
Bari, the mother of two young daughters, was nearly killed when the
powerful motion-triggered pipe bomb wrapped with nails for shrapnel
effect blew up directly under her driver's seat. The bomb caused horrifying
maiming and crippling injuries, leaving her with a paralyzed right foot and
unending pain for the rest of her life.
Bari and Cherney were on an organizing tour for their campaign, which at
first they called Mississippi Summer in the Redwoods in homage to the
civil rights movement that inspired it. The idea was to have mass
nonviolent civil disobedience to delay the cutting of redwoods long enough
to let voters decide the issue in November 1990, when two statewide
timber reform initiatives would be on the ballot. The call went out to
college students across America: Come to Northern California and save
the redwoods.
In the June 10, 1990 San Francisco Examiner, writer Jane Kay raised the
issue of law enforcement interest:
"Environmental activism is the new target of political suspicion and
surveillance, and law enforcement agencies are stepping up action
against those who demand radical change. Calling them agitators,
outsiders, the mafia and extremists, local, state and federal investigators
and prosecutors say they suspect them of violent acts -- or the potential
for them. They have responded in the last year with arrests, searches,
seizures and questioning."
FBI files contained evidence of Bari and Cherney's innocence, but not until
three years after the bombing did the FBI begin (grudgingly) to disclose
that evidence, and then only under court order and Congressional
pressure. A year after the bombing, with no progress in the official
investigation, and with the FBI still telling the media that there were no
other suspects but Bari and Cherney, the pair filed a federal civil rights suit
against the FBI and Oakland Police, charging them with conspiring "to
suppress, chill and 'neutralize' their constitutionally protected activities in
defense of the environment."
Now Bari and Cherney could investigate the bombing themselves, using
civil discovery and subpoena power to compel the FBI and police to turn
over files and evidence and to submit to questioning under oath. Ten
years later, their charges are supported by over 20,000 pages of evidence,
including FBI files and the testimony of over 70 FBI agents and police
officers. The evidence of police misconduct is strong enough that the suit
has survived repeated motions by the FBI and Oakland to dismiss it.
Bari and Cherney discovered that police crime scene photos clearly
showed that the bomb ripped a two foot by four foot hole in the floorboard
centered directly under the driver's seat. FBI files revealed that a top
explosives expert, agent David R. Williams, inspected the bombed car
three weeks after the explosion and showed the local agents that the
bomb had been completely hidden under the driver's seat. He told them
the bomb was detonated by a motion trigger, and had functioned as
designed rather than exploding accidentally.
That put the lie to FBI statements that the bomb was on the back seat
floorboard where they would have seen it -- the principal claim used to
justify arresting Bari and Cherney for possession and transportation of an
explosive device. Knowing full well from their own expert's testimony that
Bari and Cherney were innocent victims, the FBI and Oakland police
continued to lie to the media for another five weeks, saying they had
plenty of evidence they were the bombers.
Bari's last work in her life was to oversee a crucial phase of her lawsuit so
that her legal team could take the case to trial on behalf of her children, to
clear her name, and to secure the rights of all activists to be free from FBI
interference with their constitutional rights. Although she died of cancer on
March 2, 1997, the suit is continued by Bari's estate and Cherney.
Bari felt sure as soon as it happened that timber interests were behind the
bombing. She told investigating officers in the hospital that she began
receiving death threats soon after she had announced plans for Redwood
Summer. Police found copies of written threats in her bombed car.
Perhaps the key incident that made her the target of the bomb attack was
her demand for government seizure of timber corporation property. Bari
appeared in a coalition with Louisiana Pacific workers before an April 3,
1990 meeting of Mendocino County's Board of Supervisors. LP had closed
several sawmills as the trees were used up, leaving many of their workers
jobless. Bari demanded that the county use eminent domain powers to
seize LP corporate timberlands and turn them over to the workers.
Her property seizure demand and her coalition with disgruntled timber
workers certainly focused negative timber industry attention on Bari, and
probably the FBI's too. A local paper published a large front page photo of
Bari from the board meeting. A copy of that photo with the circle and cross
hairs of a rifle scope drawn over her face was the most frightening death
threat Bari received, she said. The photo was smeared with excrement
and stapled to the door of the Mendocino Environmental Center along with
a yellow ribbon, the symbol of timber industry support groups opposed to
Redwood Summer and Proposition 130, the "Forests Forever" initiative on
the November ballot.
If the "Forests Forever" initiative, Prop. 130, had passed in the fall 1990
election, the three big logging corporations of the redwood region --
Georgia Pacific, Louisiana Pacific and Pacific Lumber -- would have lost
billions of dollars. It would have put an end to unsustainable liquidation
logging and clearcutting, and ended industry control over the board that
wrote timber regulations.
With an enormous financial motive to defeat the initiative, the corporations
hired the giant public relations firm Hill & Knowlton to manage a PR
campaign to turn public opinion against the initiative. An important part of
the campaign was to derail Redwood Summer. It was drawing media
attention to the overlogging, which would work in favor of Prop.130.
There were many signs of an orchestrated COINTELPRO-like campaign
of harassment and intimidation against Bari and other environmentalists in
the weeks before the bombing. Someone cooked up counterfeit EF! flyers
and press releases calling for violence and sabotage during Redwood
Summer, and Pacific Lumber and Louisiana Pacific knowingly distributed
the fakes to workers, community members and media in a move
calculated to deceive people about EF!'s nonviolent intentions and create
an atmosphere of hatred and violence toward environmentalists.
As the FBI and police smeared Bari, Cherney and Earth First! as terrorists
after the bombing, the PR company quickly put out propaganda falsely
labeling Prop. 130 "the Earth First! initiative," and calling it "too extreme."
By some reports, they spent up to $20 million by the time voters defeated
the initiative by a narrow margin.
FBI records obtained through the Freedom of Information Act show that
the FBI infiltrated and spied on Earth First! almost from its beginning in
1980, with the earliest known FBI report on it dated 1981. Heavily
censored FBI documents obtained through Bari's suit indicate weekly
meetings in spring 1990 between an FBI agent and a secret informant in
Northern California. Deposition testimony by Oakland Police Department
officers and FBI agents states the FBI had an informant on EF! leaders,
and the FBI told OPD that Cherney and Bari were already "the subjects of
an investigation in the terrorist field" when they were bombed. They could
have been under surveillance when the bomb was placed.
Just before the Bari bombing, the FBI was wrapping up "Operation
Thermcon" in Arizona, a 3-year covert operation employing over 50 FBI
agents designed to entrap and discredit EF! and its co-founder Dave
Foreman as explosive-using terrorists. The FBI infiltrated a tiny Arizona
EF! group with an undercover agent provocateur, won their trust over a
couple of years, and tried to persuade them to use thermite, an explosive
incendiary, to take down a power line. The activists refused the FBI
infiltrator's offer to provide explosives, and he settled for providing them
with a cutting torch instead. The FBI provocateur provided the equipment,
trained the activists in its use, chose the target, drove them to the site, and
joined an FBI strike team in busting them in the act on May 31, 1989,
almost a year to the day before the Bari bombing. Foreman was not
directly involved, but was charged with conspiracy for providing $100 to
the group. The resulting "Arizona Five" trial ended in plea bargains in
August, 1991, with prison sentences for two of the activists, and with
probation and fines for the others, including Foreman. Note that the Bari
bombing came midway between the arrest and the trial in the Thermcon
case.
Thermcon was the FBI's code name meaning "thermite conspiracy," but
there was no thermite involved except in the FBI scheme to tie EF! to
explosives despite the fact they have never advocated or used explosives
in their entire history. The FBI had a public relations goal in Thermcon, to
deceive the public into believing EF! were violent extremists so as to
neutralize their effectiveness and isolate them from public support. It was
a classic COINTELPRO against Earth First!
The true goal of Thermcon was revealed when Michael Fain, the FBI's
undercover agent provocateur in the case, accidentally left his body wire
running and recorded his conversation with other agents. On the tape,
Fain is heard to say, "I don't really look for them to be doing a lot of hurting
people. (Foreman) isn't really the guy we need to pop -- I mean in terms of
an actual perpetrator. This is the guy we need to pop to send a message.
And that's all we're really doing. . . . Uh-oh! We don't need that on tape!
Hoo boy!" The FBI's true goal was to "send a message" to the public that
Earth First! was a terrorist group.
Bari and Cherney's investigation turned up several connections between
the timber industry and the FBI, including a chummy "Dear Bill" letter sent
to FBI Director William Sessions by a board member of Maxxam, which
owns Pacific Lumber.
Louisiana Pacific had an FBI connection that directly involved bombs. One
month before the Bari bombing, the FBI conducted a bomb investigator
school in Humboldt County. FBI terrorist squad bomb expert Frank Doyle
blew up cars with pipe bombs on a Louisiana Pacific logging site, then his
students practiced investigating. Louisiana Pacific was the company
whose timberlands Bari asked the government to seize, after which she
immediately began receiving death threats.
There is the mystery of another bomb at an LP sawmill in Cloverdale,
California, about an hour's drive south of Bari's home. Two weeks after the
FBI bomb school (and two weeks before Bari's car exploded), a partly-
exploded firebomb was found. That bomb, a pipe bomb next to a can of
gasoline, failed to fully explode or to ignite the gasoline. A cardboard sign
near the firebomb bore the words, "LP screws millworkers," a message
that could be associated with Bari. A cardboard sign next to a firebomb
makes no sense, unless it was designed to fail and to leave evidence that
could be used to help to frame Bari for the Oakland bomb two weeks later.
The FBI lab found that the Cloverdale and Oakland bombs matched
exactly in components and construction method, and were built by the
same person(s). This same type of bomb was studied at the FBI bomb
school two weeks earlier, according to testimony of an Oakland officer
who was there. Investigators found a usable fingerprint on the cardboard
sign, but there is no record that the FBI ever tried to match the print to Bari
or Cherney, or to anyone else.
Less than an hour after the Oakland explosion, none other than Special
Agent Frank Doyle, the bomb school instructor, took charge of the bomb
scene investigation. There were at least five of his bomb school students
at the scene, and they were overheard on a videotape joking about the
scene being the "final exam." Since he was the FBI's terrorist squad bomb
expert and their instructor the other FBI and Oakland bomb investigators
who were at the scene first deferred to his pronouncements about the
evidence.
It was Doyle who overruled the Oakland sergeant who got there first and
said the bomb was under the driver's seat and that he could see the
pavement under the car through the hole in the seat bottom. It was Doyle
who falsely said the bomb was on the floor behind the driver's seat where
it would have been easily seen. It was also Doyle who falsely claimed that
two bags of nails found in the back of Bari's car matched nails taped to the
bomb for shrapnel effect, when in fact they were not even the same type,
and were clearly different to the naked eye. (Bari worked as a carpenter,
and always had tools and nails in the car.)
Other officers on the scene testified that Doyle argued with them, and
quoted him saying, "I've been looking at bomb scenes for 20 years, and
I'm looking at this one, and I'm telling you you can rely on it. This bomb
was visible to the people who loaded the back seat of this car."
Exactly three weeks later, when Supervisory Special Agent David R.
Williams -- the FBI crime laboratory's top explosives expert -- inspected
the bombed car, he pointed out to Doyle that impact marks left by the pipe
bomb's end caps on the transmission tunnel and driver's door, combined
with the location of the hole in the floorboard and the damage to the seat
cushion, clearly proved the bomb was under the driver's seat, not in the
back where Doyle had said.
Despite this early clear evidence that Bari was the target of attempted
murder, the FBI and Oakland PD continued telling the media and the court
that Bari and Cherney were their only suspects, and fabricating other
stories about nails from the bomb matching nails found in Bari's house.
Repetition is a fundamental of the "Big Lie" propaganda technique,
maintaining a drumbeat of false information until it is accepted by the
media and the public as the truth. There can be no doubt that the FBI was
knowingly lying about the evidence.
M. Wesley Swearingen, a retired career FBI agent with first-hand inside
knowledge of COINTELPRO wrote in his book "FBI Secrets -- An Agent's
Expose:
"(COINTELPRO) is still in operation today, but under a different code
name. The operation is no longer placed on paper where it can be
discovered through the release of documents under the Freedom of
Information Act. � A clear example of the FBI's continued COINTELPRO
is in the FBI's alleged involvement in the 1990 bombing of the vehicle
occupied by Judi Bari and Darryl Cherney ... which was an effort to
neutralize Judi Bari."
There could hardly have been a more ideal location than Oakland for an
FBI covert operation against Bari. The media coverage of the Oakland
bombing was far more extensive, and was far more easily manipulated by
the FBI, than if it had happened in Mendocino or Humboldt Counties
where Bari lived and spent nearly all of her time. Oakland was the home of
the Black Panther Party for Self Defense, which bore the brunt of the most
extreme COINTELPRO of all, including multiple assassinations and frame-
ups of its leaders. The Oakland Police Department has a long history of
cooperating with the Bureau in targeting progressive and radical groups.
In deposition in the Bari case, OPD intelligence division chief Kevin
Griswold admitted that his department keeps files on over 300 political
groups and individuals in the Bay Area. Griswold said the Oakland Police
have spied on EF! since 1984, and had their own informant inside EF! who
reported back to Griswold on plans for upcoming demonstrations. This
even though EF! is not based in Oakland and was not active there prior to
the Bari bombing. Griswold said he shares information from his spies with
the FBI. Encouraging and tapping into political spying operations run by
local police like Oakland's was one of the key ways the FBI got around the
Attorney General's guidelines that barred the bureau from purely political
spying.
The special agent in charge of the FBI's San Francisco office at the time of
the bombing was Richard W. Held, a 26-year veteran of the FBI's
COINTELPRO "dirty tricks" campaigns against the Black Panthers,
American Indian Movement and Puerto Rican independence activists.
Under deposition under oath in the Bari case, Held claimed he was
unaware of the details of the Bari-Cherney case, and implied that it was
not important enough to merit his attention. But files in the San Francisco
FBI office contained a memo from Washington ordering his office to
provide weekly reports on the Bari case so that headquarters could
respond to the "numerous inquiries" they were getting from the media.
Held's testimony was also contradicted by FBI agents under his command
who said in their depositions that they briefed him daily on the case.
The unraveling of the frame-up of Bari and Cherney may have brought an
early end to Held's 25-year FBI career. It is a strong tradition in the FBI not
to embarrass the bureau. Held announced his early resignation from the
FBI in May of 1993, the day before Bari held a press conference with the
newly released Oakland Police crime scene photos exposing the FBI lies
about the location of the bomb. Held told reporters he resigned because
he expected reassignment to a new post and didn't want to move his
family. His father, Richard G. Held, had risen to the high post of Deputy
Director of the FBI, and Held's career track was headed for the top as well.
He told reporters his mother cried when he told her he was resigning, so
clearly Held's FBI career was very important to him and his family, and it
seems unlikely he would end it early just to avoid a relocation.
Other cases have come to light where the FBI allegedly used bombs to
frame radicals twenty years before the Bari bombing. FBI agent
provocateur David Sannes was used to get radicals in Seattle to use
bombs so that they could be arrested and discredited. When he learned
that the FBI wanted him to set up one bomber to die in a booby-trapped
explosion, he refused to go along and went public.
Sannes said in an interview on WBAI radio "My own knowledge is that the
FBI along with other Federal law enforcement agencies has been involved
in a campaign of bombing, arson and terrorism in order to create in the
mass public mind a connection between political dissidence of whatever
stripe and revolutionaries of whatever violent tendencies."
Though the Seattle cases happened in the early 1970s, just before the
supposed termination of COINTELPRO, the goal of the FBI's Operation
Thermcon at the time of the Bari bombing 20 years later was to connect
well-known Earth First! leaders with the use of explosives in the public
mind, the same FBI strategy Sannes exposed in the Seattle cases.
Until the Bari-Cherney suit finally has its day in court, beginning October 1,
2001, many questions will lie unanswered. But it seems more rational than
paranoid to believe there was an FBI and corporate timber connection to
the bombing. Both timber and the FBI had ample motives, history, means
and opportunity to bomb Bari. There are also FBI connections to both
Maxxam/Pacific Lumber and Louisiana Pacific -- even involving bombs, in
LP's case.
Big Timber's PR firm may have planned the bombing and arranged the
FBI cooperation in the frame-up, but it meshed perfectly with the FBI's
own Operation Thermcon to neutralize Earth First! by trying to connect its
best known leaders to explosives, first Dave Foreman, then Judi Bari and
Darryl Cherney.
Judi Bari was the redwood timber industry's most outspoken, brilliant, and
effective opponent. The industry would go to any length to defeat Prop.
130, because billions of dollars were at stake. Framing Judi Bari for a
bombing would serve that goal. It would be used to demonize Earth First!
as violent extremists. Then voters could be turned against the initiative by
falsely linking it with Earth First!. And that's exactly what they did.
The bombing was expertly planned, including the Cloverdale sawmill
bomb which the FBI immediately cited as evidence of Bari's guilt in her
own bombing. Both bombs were expertly conceived and built, according to
the FBI's top expert, and the one in Bari's car functioned as designed.
Because of that, Bari believed the bombing was a professional hit.
The bombing happened in the midst of a sophisticated psychological
warfare blitz of disinformation, intimidation and death threats, while Bari
was organizing the biggest mass demonstrations against corporate
overlogging in history, while she was taking on multi-billion dollar
corporations and threatening their bottom line, and while she was building
a coalition between timber workers and environmentalists by pointing to
the corporations as the problem. She had also led Earth First! in her
region to disavow tree-spiking and equipment sabotage, and insisted that
a strict non-violence code be adhered to during Redwood Summer. The
fact that Bari was an outspoken advocate of nonviolence gave all the more
sensational impact to framing her as a terrorist bomber.
In depositions the FBI agents involved in the Bari investigation admitted
that they never found any evidence whatsoever that she built the bomb
that nearly killed her, or any other bomb, But the FBI has never issued any
statement of exoneration or any apology. Not only has the FBI not
retracted their false charges, they continue to repeat them. Speaking to
students at an October 1999 Humboldt State University recruiting event,
FBI agent Candice DeLong told the students: "Judi Bari was a terrorist.
They were carrying that bomb." The FBI recently spent $200,000 of the
taxpayers' money paying a U. S. Air Force laboratory to do simulation
experiments aimed at showing that the bomb could have been in the back
seat of Bari's car after all.
Regardless who bombed Bari, it is plainly evident that FBI agents made a
determined effort to frame her for it. After years of delay by the FBI, Bari's
civil rights suit is set for trial beginning October 1, 2001 in federal court in
Oakland.
Footnotes
1 Civil Liberties, no. 273, December 1970; publication of the ACLU.

2 Race, Reform and Rebellion, Marable, pp. 102-3. For more on the Detroit rebellion, see
Hersey, John, The Algiers Motel Incident, Alfred A. Knopf Publishers, New York, 1968. Of
related interest, see Hayden, Tom, Rebellion in Newark: Official Violence and Ghetto
Response, Vintage Books, New York, 1967; and Gilbert, Ben W., et. al., Ten Blocks From
the White House: Anatomy of the Washington Riots of 1968, Frederick A. Praeger
Publishers, New York, 1968. For an overall appraisal of the motivations underlying the
urban rebellions from the perspective of a former CORE field secretary, see Wright,
Nathan Jr., Black Power and Urban Unrest: Creative Possibilities, Hawthorn Books, Inc.,
New York, 1967. In general, see Boesel, David, and Peter H. Rossi (eds.), Cities Under
Siege: An Anatomy of the Ghetto Riots, 1964-1968, Basic Books, New York, 1971.

3 Hoover, statement, July 26, 1950 (Harry S. Truman Library, Bontecore Papers), from
Ideological Warfare: The FBI's Path Toward Power, Frank M. Sorrentino, Associated
Faculty Press, Inc. 1985.

4 See Memorandum from F.J. Baumgardner to W.C. Sullivan, October 1, 1964;
Memorandum from Sullivan to A. Belmont, August 30, 1963; J. Edgar Hoover, chairman,
Interdepartmental Intelligence Conference Report to McGeorge Bundy, special assistant
to the President, July 25, 1961, enclosing IIC, Status of U.S. Internal Security Programs,
July 1, 1960, through June 30, 1961. From Ideological Warfare, op. cit.

5 Special Report of Interagency Committee on Intelligence (Ad Hoc), Chairman J. Edgar
Hoover, along with the directors of the CIA, DIA, and NSA, prepared for the President,
June 25, 1970, marked "Top Secret." A censored version was later released. Quotes are
from Book 7, Part 1: Summary of Internal Security Threat.

6 C. Gerald Fraser, "F.B.I. Action in 1961 Called Still Harmful to Hopes of Blacks," New
York Times, April 6, 1974. See also Jesse Jackson and Alvin Poussaint. "The Danger
Behind FBI Obstruction of Black Movements," Boston Globe, April 2, 1974.

7

8 Nerve War Against Individuals, forwarded to CIA station in Guatemala City on June 9,
1954 http://www.parascope.com/ds/articles/nervewardoc.htm
9

10 John Kifner, "F.B.I. Gave Chicago Police Plan of Slain Panther's Apartment," New
York Times, May 25, 1974. Although the act of FBI involvement in the Hampton
assassination, along with other details of this major state crime, was not widely publicized
outside of Chicago, nevertheless there were a few reports, such as this one. There can
be no excuse for the general silence on this matter, which alone overshadows the entire
Watergate Affair by a substantial margin.

11 On the significance of the threat, both actual and potential, as perceived at high levels
of policy planning, see Noam Chomsky's review of some of the evidence contained in the
"Pentagon Papers" in _For Reasons of State_, chapter 1. For discussion of the impact on
the American expeditionary force, see David Cortright, _Soldiers in Revolt_, Doubleday,
1975).

12 January 22, 1969 memo from SAC, Chicago, to Director Hoover, cited in The
COINTELPRO Papers, by Ward Churchill and Jim Vander Wall, South End Press.

13 Kelly's memorandum is reproduced in U.S. Department of Justice, Report of the
Justice Department Task Force to Review FBI Martin Luther King, Jr., Security and
Assassination Investigations, Washington, D.C., January 11, 1977.

14 Cross is mentioned in a memorandum from Atlanta agent Robert A. Murphy to J.
Stanley Pottinger, at FBI headquarters, in July 1958. Interestingly, Murphy suggests the
"SWP connection" is not a sufficient basis from which to undertake a COMINFIL
investigation. Pottinger apparently did not agree; see Pottinger, J. Stanley, "Martin Luther
King Report" (to U.S. Attorney General Edward H. Levi), U.S. Department of Justice,
Washington, D.C., April 9,1976.

15 The King file was opened by the New York rather than Atlanta field office. It should be
noted that although the Bureau has always maintained that there was no COMINFIL
activity directed at King and the SCLC during the 1950s, the code prefixed to the files on
both was "100," indicating they were viewed as "internal security" or "subversive" matters.
The numerical file prefix for material accruing from what was considered an investigation
of civil rights activities per se would have been "44."

16 See U.S. Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, FBI Statutory Charter - Appendix to
Hearings Before the Subcommittee an Administrative Practice and Procedure, Part 3,
95th Congress, 2d Session, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1979,
pp. 33-73.

17 Concerning King see Lee v. Kelly, Civil Action No. 76-1185, U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia, "Memorandum Opinion and Order" (by U.S. District Judge John
Lewis Smith, Jr.), January 31, 1977. Certain of the information on both King and Walker
was attributed by FBI Associate Director Cartha D. DeLoach to NAACP head Roy
Wilkens (see report on the SCLC from Atlanta agent Robert R. Nichols to DeLoach,
dated July 1961). Wilkens later vehemently denied any such interaction between himself
and the Bureau; see Lardner, George Jr., 'Wilkens Denies Any Link to FBI Plot to
Discredit King," Washington Post, May 31, 1978.

18 Levison's CP membership was never established although it was demonstrable that
he maintained dose relations with party members from roughly 1949 through '54. The
speech attributed to Wofsy was actually drafted by Levison and can be found in
Proceedings of the Fourth Constitutional Convention of the AFL-CIO, Vol. 1, American
Federation of Labor - Congress of Industrial Organizations, Washington, D.C., 1962, pp.
282-9. Levison also had much to do with the preparation of the manuscript for King's first
book Stride Toward Freedom (Harper and Brothers Publishers, New York, 1958); see
King, Coretta Scott, My Life With Martin Luther King, Jr., Holt, Rinehart and Winston
Publishers, New York, 1969.

19 Such Bureau activities with regard to Levison were nothing new and seem to have
stemmed largely from reports coming from "Solo," two brothers - Jack and Morris
(Chilofsky) Childs - who served from as early as 1951 as highly placed FBI informants
within the CP, USA. It was they who appear to have originally 'linked" Levison to the party
even though they could never attest to his actual membership and essentially stopped
referring to him by early 1954. J. Edgar Hoover's predictable (and quite unsubstantiated)
response was to declare Levison a "secret" CP member; see Garrow, op. cit., pp. 21-77.

20 Memorandum, SAC, New York, to Director, FBI, captioned "Martin Luther Kin& Jr.,
SM-C," and dated June 21, 1962. Shortly thereafter, the New York field office began to
openly affix a COMINFIL caption to correspondence concerning King and the SCLC. The
Atlanta field office followed suit on October 23. The designation was officially approved
by FBI headquarters supervisor R.J. Rampton in identical letters to the SACs on the latter
date.

21 Targeting the SCLC under COINTELPRO-CP, USA was first proposed by the SAC,
New York in a memorandum to Hoover dated September 28,1962. The operation was
approved by memo in an exchange between Assistant Director William C. Sullivan and
one of his aides, Fred J. Baumgardner, on October 8. The initial five newspapers
selected for purposes of surfacing the anti-King propaganda were the Long Island Star-
Journal, Augusta (GA) Chronicle, Birmingham (AL) News, New Orleans Times-Picayune,
and the St. Louis Globe Democrat (where the reporter utilized in spreading the lies was
Patrick J. Buchanan, later part of the White House press corps under Presidents Nixon
and Reagan, as well as a current host on the Cable News Network Crossfire program).

22 The ELSURS authorization was signed by Kennedy on October 10, 1963 and
provided to FBI liaison Courtney A. Evans. The attorney general's main concern, detailed
in the minutes of his meeting with Evans, seems to have been not that the bugging and
tapping of King and the SCLC for purely political purposes was wrong but that it might be
found out. Once Evans convinced him that this was genuinely improbable, "the Attorney
General said he felt [the FBI] should go ahead with the technical coverage of King on a
trial basis, and to continue if productive results were forthcoming." See Denniston, Lyle,
"FBI Says Kennedy OKed King Wiretap," Washington Evening Star, June 18,1969. Also
see OLeary, Jeremiah, "King Wiretap Called RFK's Idea," Washington Evening Star,
June 19, 1969. Concerning continuation of the taps after the "trial period" had concluded,
see Rowan, Carl, "FBI Won't Talk about Additional Wiretappings," Washington Evening
Star, June 20,1969.

23 The New York SAC reported in a memorandum to Hoover, dated November 1, 1963,
and captioned 'Martin Luther Kin& Jr., SM-C; CIRM (JUNE)," that his agents had tapped
all three SCLC office lines in his area of operations, with coverage on two lines beginning
October 24. He also recommended installation of a tap on the residence line of civil rights
leader Bayard Rustin; the tap was approved and installed in early January 1964. On
November 27,1963, the Atlanta SAC informed Hoover by a memo captioned "COMINFIL,
RM; Martin Luther Kin& Jr., SM-C (JUNE)," that Atlanta operatives had tapped King's
home phone and all four organizational SCLC lines in that city as of November 8.

24 For its disinformation campaign, the Bureau made ample use of "friendly media
contacts" such as the nationally syndicated columnist Joseph Alsop, who proved quite
willing to smear King in print on the basis of FBI "tips" lacking so much as a shred of
supporting evidence. Concerning the IRS, as Garrow (op. cit.) notes at p. 114, 'in mid-
March [1964) the Internal Revenue Service reported that despite careful scrutiny it had
been unable to discover any violations in either King's or SCLC's tax returns. Director
Hoover scrawled 'what a farce' on the margin when the disappointing memo reached his
desk."

25

26 The instructions by Sullivan to Whitson and others are summarized in a memorandum
from a member of the Internal Security Section named Jones to FBI Associate Director
Cartha D. DeLoach on December 1, 1964, captioned simply 'Martin Luther King, Jr." For
further information, see Lardner, George, Jr., "FBI Bugging and Blackmail of King Bared,
Washington Post, November 19,1975. Also see Horrock, Nicholas M., "Ex-Officials Say
FBI Harassed Dr. King to Stop His Criticism," New York Times (March 9,1978), and
Kunstler, William, "Writers of the Purple Page," The Nation (No. 227, December 30,
1978).

27 Garrow, op. cit., p. 127. It appears DeLoach had to content himself with the
"contributions" of right-wing hacks like Victor Riesel. However, Bureau efforts to place the
"story" in more respectable quarters are known to have included overtures to - at the very
least -reporters John Herbers of the New York Times, James McCartney of the Chicago
Daily News, David Kraslow of the Los Angeles Times, Eugene Patterson of the Atlanta
Constitution, Lou Harris of the Augusta Chronicle, and syndicated columnist Mike Royko.
Herbers appears to have passed word of what was happening to civil rights leader James
Farmer, who confronted DeLoach with the matter during an appointment on December 2,
1964.

28 There are serious questions concerning the possibility that the FBI might have been
involved in the assassination of Martin Luther King. See, for example, Lane, Mark, and
Dick Gregory, Code Name "Zorro:" The Assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr.,
Prentice-Hall Publishers, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1977. Also see Lawson, James, "And the
Character Assassination That Followed," Civil Liberties Review, No. 5, July-August 1978.
Of further interest, see Lewis, David L., King: A Biography, University of Illinois Press,
Urbana, 1979, especially pp. 399-403.

29 Gid Powers, Richard, Secrecy and Power: The Life of J. Edgar Hoover, The Free
Press, New York, 1987, p. 4,58.

30 Churchill, Ward, The COINTELPRO Papers,
http://www.derechos.net/paulwolf/cointelpropapers/copap4.htm

31 Ibid.

32 Ibid.

33 Ibid.

34 For a review of some of these actions, see Dave Dellinger, More Power than We
Know (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1975); Gary T. Marx, "Thoughts on a Neglected
Category of Social Movement Participant: The Agent Provocateur and the Informant,"
American Journal of Sociology, vol. 80, no. 2 (September 1974, pp. 402-42).
35 Ward Churchill and Jim Vander Wall, Agents of Repression: The FBI's Secret Wars
Against the Black Panther Party and the American Indian Movement, South End Press,
Boston, MA, 1990.

36 Churchill, Ward, The COINTELPRO Papers,
http://www.derechos.net/paulwolf/cointelpropapers/copap7a.htm

37 Kunstler, William, My Life as a Radical Lawyer

38 Voices From Wounded Knee, 1973, (Institute for Policy Studies, Washington, D.C.,
1974)p. 81. Warner and Potter were specifically ordered to wear civilian clothes, in order
to hide the fact of direct military participation at Wounded Knee. They arranged for supply
sergeants, maintenance personnel and medical teams to be present on the federal
perimeter throughout the 71-day siege, all similarly attired in civilian garb. Further, the
colonels placed a special army assault unit to be placed on 24-hour-a-day alert at Ft.
Carson, Colorado for the duration of the siege. See The Nation, November 9,1974. Also
see University Review, the same month.

39 Churchill, Ward, The COINTELPRO Papers,
http://www.derechos.net/paulwolf/cointelpropapers/copap7b.htm

40

41 Dave Dellinger, More Power than We Know (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1975)
Many such cases have been exposed throughout the country.

42 For information on these and other FBI actions in Seattle, see Dellinger, op. cit., and
Frank J. Donner, "Hoover's Legacy," Nation, June 1, 1974.

43 John M. Crewdson, "Ex-Operative Says He Worked for F.B.I. To Disrupt Political
Activities up to '74," New York Times, February 24, 1975.

44 Donner Frank Donner, Protectors of Privilege: Red Squads and Police Repression in
Urban America, University of California Press, Berkeley, 1990, p. , P. 207

45 Ibid.

46 Michael Novick, "BLUE BY DAY, WHITE BY NIGHT: Organized White Supremacist
Groups in Law Enforcement Agencies," People Against Racist Terror (PART), PO BOX
1990, Burbank, CA 91507, Revised and Updated, February 1993, p. 4

47 Ken Lawrence, "Vigilante Repression," Covert Action Information Bulletin, Washington,
D.C., Number 31, Winter 1989

48 Michael Novick, White Lies, White Power. The Fight Against White Supremacy and
Reactionary Violence, Common Courage Press, Monroe, Maine, 1995, PP. 35-57

49 For an insider's account of FBI racism and misogyny, particularly the Bureau's role in
the frame-up of Black Panther Party leader Geronimo ji Jaga [Pratt] see: M. Wesley
Swearingen, FBI Secrets: An Agent's Expose, South End Press, Boston, 1995

50 For a discussion of the nature of the FBI's "White Hate Groups" COINTELPRO see:
Donner 1980, PP. 204-211
51 Donner Frank Donner, Protectors of Privilege: Red Squads and Police Repression in
Urban America, University of California Press, Berkeley, 1990, p. 206

52 Frank Donner, Protectors of Privilege: Red Squads and Police Repression in Urban
America, University of California Press, Berkeley, 1990, p. 309

53 National Lawyer's Guild, Counterintelligence: A Documentary Look at America's
Political Police, Volume One, Chicago, 1978, p. 7

54 "Documents detail FBI-Klan links in early rights strife," Chicago Tribune, August
2,1978

55 Howell Raines, "Police Given Data on Boast by Rowe, The New York Times, July 14,
1978

56 Churchill and Vander Wall, The COINTELPRO Papers, p. 369

57 Elizabeth Wine, "Blacks Hope for Best as Feds Reopen Bombing Case," Reuters, July
21, 1997

58 The COINTELPRO Papers, p. 170

59 Donner, Protectors of Privilege, p. 214

60

61 Churchill And Vander Wall, op. cit., p. 182

62 Frank Donner, PROTECTORS OF PRIVILEGE: Red Squads and Police Repression
in America, University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1990, p. 360

63 ibid.

64 ibid.

65 Novick, op. cit., p. 4

66Donner, op. cit., p. 361

67 ibid.

68 ibid.

69 ibid.

70 Novick, op. cit., p. 4

71 Ridgeway, op. cit. pp. 76-81

72 Peter Biskind, "The FBI's Secret Soldiers," New Times, Volume 6, Number 1, January
9, 1976, pp. 21-22
73 Everett R. Holles, "A.C.L.U. Says F.B.I. Funded `Army To terrorize Antiwar
Protesters'," N.Y. Times, June 27, 1975. Information and quotes are from the 18-page
single-space report submitted to the Senate Select Committee on June 27, 1975, unless
otherwise indicated. See also Steven V. Roberts, "F.B.I. Informer Is Linked to Right-Wing
Violence, N.Y. Times, June 24, 1974.

74 Biskind, op. cit., P. 21

75 ibid.

76 CARIC, op. cit., PP. 5-6

77 Biskind, op. cit., P. 23

78 Ibid.

79 Ibid.

80 CARIC, op. cit., p. 6

81 Churchill and Vander Wall, op. cit., p. 182. Also, Godfrey "has testified in a California
court that the bureau gave him $10,000 to $20,000 worth of weapons and explosives for
use by the [SAO] in addition to his $250-a-month salary as an informant." John M.
Crewdson, "Kelley Discounts F.B.I.'s Link to a Terrorist Group," N.Y. Times, January 12,
1976.

82 Biskind, op. cit., P. 25

83

84 The Bureau was also busy trying to split up the SNCC leadership during this period. In
Agents, op. cit., at p. 50, a document is reproduced proposing a bogus letter designed to
achieve this effect vis a vis H. Rap Brown, Stokely Carmichael and James Forman.

85 See Newton, Huey P., To Die for the People, Vintage Books, New York, 1972, p. 191.

86 Current Political Prisoners - Victims of COINTELPRO, roundtable dicsussion of
Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, September 14, 2000
http://www.house.gov/mckinney/news/if_000914_humanrights.htm

87 Churchill, Ward, The COINTELPRO Papers,
http://www.derechos.net/paulwolf/cointelpropapers/copap4.htm

88 Ibid.

89 Ibid.

90 Ibid.

91 Ibid.

92
93 Churchill, Ward, The COINTELPRO Papers,
http://www.derechos.net/paulwolf/cointelpropapers/copap5a.htm

94 Summary, p. 5.

95 The "Key Black Extremist" tag seems to have been adopted for local use by the LA
office COINTELPRO group from at least as early as January 20, 1969, based upon
internal office memos. A memo from SAC, Los Angeles to the Director, dated 4/21/69
and captioned BLACK PANTHER PARTY-ARRESTS, RESTS, RACIAL MATTERS,
recommended placing both Pratt and his second in command, Roger Lee Lewis, in the
National Security Index.

96 Durden-Smith, op. cit., pp. 145-46.

97 This is readily borne out in a Bureau document, LA 157-3436 which, in Section V
(MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS RELATING TO ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATED WITH THE BPP),
describes how Pratt and several other Panthers, in a private residence, had sawn off the
barrels of "15 to 20 weapons" (a legal act, so long as resulting barrel length is not less
than 18 inches) during January of 1969; for no apparent reason, it stated that "it was
believed the weapons were obtained in a burglary." The document then goes on to
itemize other legal activities in which Pratt had engaged, such as target practice in the
Mojave Desert, travel to and from Kansas City, providing a guided tour of the local BPP
office for Angela Davis, etc. This is intermixed with suggestions (no reference to evidence
of any sort) that Pratt illegally possessed at least one .45 caliber submachinegun and
engaged in other criminal behavior.

98 Memo from SCA, Los Angeles to the Director, FBI, dated 5/6/69 and captioned
ELMER PRATT, BR--CONSPIRACY states, "As the Bureau is aware, Los Angeles is
investigating one bank robbery committed by persons known to be involved in 'US'
[several words deleted] UNSUBS 131; BANK OF AMERICA, NT & SA, Jefferson HUI
Branch, 3320 South Hill Street, Los Angeles, California, 1/10/69, BR')." The document
then goes on, for no logical reason, to announce that BPP members "have possibly been
involved in bank robbery matters in the Los Angeles area," singles Pratt out by name in a
heavily deleted passage, and ends with the observation that, "A bank robbery conspiracy
case is being opened in the Los Angeles Office on ELMER PRATT ... appropriate
investigation to attempt to develop a conspiracy case will be conducted [emphasis
added]." In a memo to the Director dated 6/5/69 and captioned "ELMER PRATT, BR--
CONSPIRACY," the SAC, Los Angeles, eventually acknowledged that the matter was
being dropped because "no information has been developed to indicate that any Black
Panther Party (BPP) members have been plotting bank robberies in Los Angeles or
elsewhere." The document concludes that the "captioned case is ... subject to being
reopened at any time information is received to indicate that Pratt or other members of
the BPP are plotting or are responsible for bank robberies."

99 Los Angeles office Field Report, LA 157-3553, dated 5/14/69. The character of the
case reported upon is described as, "RM-SMITH ACT OF 1940; SEDITIOUS
CONSPIRACY AND INSURRECTION."The document was circulated to 8 Bureau offices,
the Norton Air Force Base Office of Strategic Intelligence, 115th Military Intelligence
Group, and the Secret Service in its initial distribution.

100

101 Summary at p. 6.
102 See Counterintelligence Report from the SAC, Los Angeles, to Director, FBI, (LA
157-17511), dated 6/3/69 and captioned "COUNTERINTELLIGENCE PROGRAM,
BLACK NATIONALIST-HATE GROUPS, RACIAL INTELLIGENCE (BLACK PANTHER
PARTY)." As to the younger Held's position in the LA-COINTELPRO operation, see
Swearingen deposition, op. cit., p. 1: "1 knew RICHARD WALLACE HELD as head of the
COINTELPRO section in Los Angeles [during this period]."

103 Durden-Smith, op. cit., p. 136, quotes Tackwood describing Cotton Smith before the
raid, "cutting up this cardboard and making this budding, and he's putting little dolls with
names on them, where they were, and associations and such and such." The LA version
of the O'Neal floorplan in Chicago was thus apparently in three dimensions.

104 Although not so straightforward as the Chicago memoranda in the aftermath of the
HamptonClark assassinations, a memo from SAC, Los Angeles to Director, FBI, dated
12/8/69 and captioned BLACK PANTHER PARTY, ARRESTS-RACIAL MATTERS,
indicates the Bureau was directly involved in the LA raid and that the local FBI office
sought credit for this "success." Among the BPP members listed in this document as
having been arrested on (spurious) attempted murder charges and other offenses as a
result of Bureau/police efforts on 12/8 are Robert Bryan, Roland Freeman, Craig Williams,
Jackie Johnson, Wayne L. Pharr, Isiah Houston, Elmer Pratt, Sandra Lane Pratt (wife),
Willie Stafford, Tommy E. Williams, Renee Moore, Paul Redd, Albert Armor, Melvin Smith
and George Young. The situation seems to have sparked substantial interest at the very
highest levels of the FBI, as is indicated by a memo on the matter between national
COINTELPRO head W.C. Sullivan and his primary operational coordinator, G.C. Moore,
dated 12/17/69, in which Moore expresses delight that, "Both Pratts were arrested for
their participation in the shooting battle with the Los Angeles Police Department on 12-8-
69."

105 Churchill, Ward, The COINTELPRO Papers,
http://www.derechos.net/paulwolf/cointelpropapers/copap5a.htm

106 See "63 Verdicts End Panther Trial", Los Angeles Times, December 24, 1971.

107 The Glass House Tapes, op. cit., pp. 104-105.

108 Summary at pp. 1-2.

109 Richardson, Lee, "Ex-FBI Agent Exposes Use of Informants to Destroy the BPP,"
Freedom Magazine, 18:5, January 1985, P. 31.

110 Summary at P. 3; this was a matter raised in a motion for retrial by Johnnie Cochran,
which was denied by trial judge Kathleen Parker.

111 Ibid. at p. 2.

112 Ibid. at pp. 91-93.

113 On prosecution presentation, see ibid. at pp. 2-3; on Newton faction refusal to testify
for Pratt, see pp. 94-96.

114 AIRTEL from SAC, Los Angeles, to Acting Director, FBI, dated 7/18/72 (caption
deleted), from The COINTELPRO Papers.
115 An "URGENT" Teletype, sent at 1:26 PM, 7-28-72, from the Los Angeles Field Office
to the Acting Director, FBI, and reading, "LOS ANGELES SHERIFF'S OFFICE
INTELLIGENCE, ADVISED INSTANT DATE ELMER GERARD PRATT FOUND GUILTY
FIRST DEGREE MURDER ... DETAILS TO FOLLOW," gives some indication of the
ownership and priority the Bureau felt in this case, from The COINTELPRO Papers.

116 See Amnesty International, Proposal for a commission of inquiry into the effect of
domestic in telligence activities on criminal trials in the United States of America,
Amnesty International, New York, 1980, p. 29: "[The defense obtained] over 7,000 pages
of FBI surveillance records dated after 2 January 1969. Elmer Pratt claimed earlier
records would reveal that he was at a meeting in Oakland at the time of the murder on 18
December 1968 but the FBI's initial response to this was that there had been no
surveillance before 1969. This was later shown to be untrue."

117 See Elmer G. Pratt v. William Webster, et al., United States Court of Appeals in the
District of Columbia (No. 81 1907) for presentation of the case, and Pratt v. Webster; et.
al. (508 F. Supp. 751 [19811) for the ruling. The federal "national security" argument may
be found in the reply brief (No. 81-1907).

118 For Judge J. Dunn's dissenting remarks, see his minority opinion In Re: Pratt, 112
Cal. App. 3d. 795,-Cal. Rptr. (Crim. No. 3 7534. Second Dist., Div. One. 3 December
1980); hereinafter referred to as "Minority' and "Majority. "

119 Proposal for a commission of inquiry into the effect of domestic in telligence activities
on criminal trials in the United States of America, op. cit., pp. 107-110. Informant Reports
and related memoranda on file.

120 Summary at p. 15.

121 Proposal for a commission of inquiry into the effect of domestic in telligence activities
on criminal trials in the United States of America, op. cit., p. 25.

122 The document also posits "the absolute necessity for intensive investigative efforts in
[political] matters."

123 Select Committee, Final Report, Book III, OP. cit., p. 517.

124 See New York Times, August 4, 1974, for documents and commentary.

125 This led directly to one of the three post-1971 "COINTELPRO-type" operations:"The
leaking of derogatory information about Daniel Ellsberg's lawyer to Ray McHugh, chief of
the Copley News Service." (Spying on Americans, op. cit., p. 151).

126 The break-in at the Media resident agency, which occurred on the night of March 8,
1971, compromised the secrecy of COINTELPRO and thereby set in motion a process of
high level "re-evaluation" of the program's viability. This led to an April 28 memorandum
from Charles D. Brennan, number two man in the COINTELPRO administrative hierarchy,
to his boss, FBI Assistant Director William C. Sullivan. Brennan recommended the
acronym be dropped, but that the activities at issue be continued under a new mantle
"with tight procedures to insure absolute secrecy." Hoover's famous "COINTELPRO
termination" memo of the following day was merely a toned-down paraphrase of the
Brennan missive. In another connection, it should be noted that publication of the
COINTELPRO documents taken from the Media office was not in itself sufficient to cause
the FBI to admit either the long-term existence or the dimension of its domestic
counterintelligence activities. Instead, this required a suit brought by NBC correspondent
Carl Stern after the reporter had requested that Attorney General Richard Kleindienst
provide him with a copy of any Bureau document which "(i) authorized the establishment
of Cointelpro - New Left, (ii) terminated such program, and (iii) ordered or authorized any
change in the purpose, scope or nature of such program" on March 20,1972. Kleindienst
stalled until January 13, 1973 before denying Stern's request. Stern then went to court
under provision of the 1966 version of the FOIA, with the Justice Department counter-
arguing that the judiciary itself "lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of the complaint."
Finally, on July 16, 1973 U.S. District Judge Barrington Parker ordered the documents
delivered to his chambers for in camera review and, on September 25, ordered their
release to Stern.

The Justice Department attempted to appeal this decision on October 20, but abandoned
the effort on December 6. On the latter date, Acting Attorney General Robert Bork
released the first two documents to Stern, an action followed on March 7,1974 by the
release of seven more. By this point, there was no way to put the genie back in the bottle,
and the Senate Select Committee as well as a number of private attorneys began to force
wholesale disclosures of COINTELPRO papers.

127 Examples abound. Early instances come with Jimmy Carter's Executive Order 12036,
signed on January 24,1978, which moved important areas of
intelligence/counterintelligence activity under the umbrella of "executive restraint" rather
than effective oversight, and the electronic surveillance loopholes imbedded in S. 1566, a
draft bill allegedly intended to protect citizens' rights from such police invasion of privacy,
which passed the senate by a vote of 99-1 on April 20,1978. This was followed on
December 4,1981 by Ronald Reagan's Executive Order 12333, expanding the range of
activities in which U.S. intelligence agencies might "legally" engage. Then there was the
Intelligence Identifies Protection Act of 1982 which made it a "crime" to disclose the
identities of FBI informants, infiltrators and provocateurs working inside domestic political
organizations. And, in 1983, Reagan followed up with Executive Order 12356, essentially
allowing agencies such as the FBI to void the Freedom of Information Act by withholding
documents on virtually any grounds they choose. Arguably, things are getting worse, not
better.

128 For analysis and texts of the Media documents, see Paul Cowan, Nick Egleson, and
Nat Hentoff, State Secrets (Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1973).

129 Henry Steele Commager, "The Constitution Is Alive and Well," New York Times,
August 11, 1974. Commager, who has been forceful in defense of civil liberties and
opposition to the Indochina war, states that prior to Nixon, "no President has ever
attempted to subvert" the Constitution or "challenged the basic assumptions of our
constitutional system itself." But "the system worked" and the challenge was defeated.

130

131 The classic articulation of how this was rationalized came in the 1974 Justice
Department report on COINTELPRO produced by an "investigating committee" headed
by Assistant Attorney General Henry Peterson. After reviewing no raw files (innocuously
worded FBI "summary reports" were accepted instead), but still having to admit that
many aspects of COINTELPRO violated the law, the Peterson committee nonetheless
recommended against prosecuting any of the Bureau personnel involved. "Any decision
as to whether prosecution should be undertaken must also take into account several
other important factors which bear on the events in question. These factors are: first, the
historical context in which the programs were conceived and executed by the Bureau in
response to public and even Congressional demands for action to neutralize the self-
proclaimed revolutionary aims and violence prone activities of extremist groups which
posed a threat to the peace and tranquility of our cities in the mid and late sixties; second,
the fact that each of the COINTELPRO programs were personally approved and
supported by the late Director of the FBI; and third, the fact that the interference with First
Amendment rights resulting from individual implemented program actions were
insubstantial." The Senate Select Committee and other bodies went rather further in their
research and used much harsher language in describing what had happened under
COINTELPRO auspices, but the net result in terms of consequences to the Bureau and
its personnel were precisely the same: none.

132 "Charges Over F.B.I.'s Tactics on Subversive Suspects Barred," Washington Star-
News; New York Times, January 4, 1975.

133 For an in-depth analysis of the disinformation campaign at issue, see Weisman, Joel
D., "About that 'Ambush' at Wounded Knee," Columbia Journalism Review, September-
October 1975.

134

135 David Brion Davis, ed., _The Fear of Conspiracy_ (Ithaca: Cornell University Press,
1971). A fifth committed suicide before the sentence of death could be executed. Three
others were sentenced to hanging as well, but were not executed. No proof was offered
that any of the eight had been involved in the bomb-throwing.

136

137

138

139

140 See excerpts from Palmer in Davis, _op. cit._ On the role of the press, see Levin,
_op. cit._.

141 See excerpt in Davis, op.cit.

142

143

144 Proceedings of the Federal-State Conference on Law Enforcement Problems of
National Defense, August 5-6, 1940. From Ideological Warfare, op. cit. p. 44.

145 U.S. Congress, House, House Committee on Appropriations, First Deficiency
Appropriations Bill, Hearing, February 19, 1941, pp. 188-89. 77th Congress, 1st session.
From Ideological Warfare, op. cit. p. 43.

146 Personal and confidential memorandum from Hoover to Attorney General Tom Clark,
March 8, 1946. Ibid., p. 44-45.
147

148

149

150

151

152

153 Ross Gelbspan, "Break-ins, Death Threats and the FBI: The Covert War Against the
Central American Movement," South End Press, Boston, MA, 1991, pp. 71-72

154 Ibid.

155 For further information on the FBI's anti-CISPES operations, see Buitrago, Ann Mari,
Report on CISPES Files Maintained by the FBI and Released under the Freedom of
Information Act, FOIA, Inc., New York, January 1988.

156 U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Civil
and Constitutional Rights, Break-Ins at Sanctuary Churches and Organizations Opposed
to Administration Policy in Central America, Serial No. 42, 100th Congress, 1st Session,
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1988, Hearing of February 19 20,1987,
pp. 432 ff. Also see Harlan, Christi, "The Informant Left Out in the Cold," Dallas Morning
News, April 6,1986, Gelbspan, Ross, "Documents show Moon group aided FBI," Boston
Globe, April 118,1988; and Ridgeway, James, "Spooking the Left," Village Voice, March
3, 1987. For more on Varelli's role and the FBI's attempt to scapegoat him, see Gelbspan,
Ross, "COINTELPRO in the'80s: The 'New' FBI," Covert Action Information Bulletin, No.
31 (Winter 1989), pp. 14-16.

157 See, for example, the FBI teletype on p. 18. Also see Buitrago, Report on CISPES
Files Maintained by FBI Headquarters and Released Under the Freedom of Information
Act, Fund for Open Information and Accountability, Inc., New York, 1988; Groups
Included in the CISPES Files Obtained from FBI Headquarters, Center for Constitutional
Rights, 1988; Ridgeway, James, "Abroad at Home: The FBI's Dirty War," Village Voice,
February 9, 1988.

158 U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Civil
and Constitutional Rights, CISPES and FBI Counter-Terrorism Investigations, Serial No.
122, 100th Congress, 2nd Session, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.,
1989, Hearing of September 16,1988, pp. 116-27. The changing public positions taken by
Webster and Sessions concerning the FBI's CISPES operations are well traced in
Buitrago, Ann Mari, "Sessions' Confessions," Covert Action Information Bulletin, No. 31
(Winter 1989), pp. 17-19.

Bibliography
Books
The COINTELPRO Papers: Documents From the FBI's Secret Wars Against Dissent in
the United States, by Ward Churchill & Jim Vander Wall, South End Press
Agents of Repression: The FBI's Secret Wars Against the Black Panther Party and the
American Indian Movement, by Ward Churchill & Jim Vander Wall, South End Press
COINTELPRO: The FBI's Secret War on Political Freedom, by Nelson Blackstock,
Pathfinder, 1975
FBI Secrets: An Agent's Expose, by M. Wesley Swearingen, South End Press
War at Home: Covert Action Against U.S. Activists and What We Can Do About It by
Brian Glick, South End Press
In the Spirit of Crazy Horse by Peter Matthiessen, 1991, Viking Press
Break-ins, Death Threats and the FBI: The Covert War Against the Central America
Movement, by Ross Gelbspan, 1991, South End Press
Are You Now or Have You Ever Been in the FBI FILES: How to Secure and Interpret
Your FBI Files by Ann Mari Buitrago and Leon Andrew Immermann, Grove Press Inc.
All Power to the People! The Black Panther Party and Beyond, video by the Electronic
News Group
Vincent, Ted, Black Power and the Garvey Movement, Nzinga Publishing House,
Oakland, CA, 1987.
Cronon, E. Davis, Black Moses: The Story of Marcus Garvey and the United Negro
Improvement Association, University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, 1955.
Frank J. Donner, The Age of Surveillance: The Aims and Methods of America's Political
Intelligence System, New York: Knopf, 1980
Ideological Warfare: The FBI's Path Toward Power, Frank M. Sorrentino, Associated
Faculty Press, Inc. 1985.
Robert J. Goldstein, Political Repression in Modern America, Cambridge: Schenkman,
1978
Morton H. Halperin et. al., The Lawless State, New York: Penguin, 1976
Kenneth O'Reilly, Racial Matters, New York: Free Press, 1989
Hersey, John, The Algiers Motel Incident, Alfred A. Knopf Publishers, New York, 1968
Hayden, Tom, Rebellion in Newark: Official Violence and Ghetto Response, Vintage
Books, New York, 1967
Gilbert, Ben W., et. al., Ten Blocks From the White House: Anatomy of the Washington
Riots of 1968, Frederick A. Praeger Publishers, New York, 1968
Wright, Nathan Jr., Black Power and Urban Unrest: Creative Possibilities, Hawthorn
Books, Inc., New York, 1967.
Boesel, David, and Peter H. Rossi (eds.), Cities Under Siege: An Anatomy of the Ghetto
Riots, 1964-1968, Basic Books, New York, 1971
Paul Cowan, Nick Egleson, and Nat Hentoff, State Secrets, Holt, Rinehart and Winston,
1973
Chomsky, Noam, For Reasons of State, New York: Pantheon, 1973
Chomsky and E.S. Herman, Counterrevolutionary Violence: Bloodbaths in Fact and
Propaganda (New York: Warner Modular, 1973), suppressed by order of the parent
conglomerate (Warner Brothers) but available in French (Bains de Sang, Paris:
Seghers/Laffont, 1974)
Chomsky and Herman, The Political Economy of Human Rights (Boston: South End
Press, 1979).
Herman and Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent (New York: Pantheon, 1988).
Zinn, Howard, A People's History of the United States, Harper and Row Publishers, New
York, 1980.
Johnson, Loch, A Season of Inquiry. The Senate Intelligence Investigation, University of
Kentucky Press, Lexington, 1985
Hersh, Seymour, The Price of Power, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1983, p. 295
Barry, John M., The Ambition and the Power: The Fall of Jim Wright, A True Story of
Washington, Viking, New York 1989
David Brion Davis, ed., The Fear of Conspiracy, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1971
Murray B. Levin, Political Hysteria in America: the Democratic Capacity for Repression,
New York: Basic Books, 1972
Max Lowenthal, The Federal Bureau of Investigation, William Sloane Associates, Inc.,
1950
Novick, Michael, Blue by Day, White by Night: Organized White Supremacist Groups in
Law Enforcement Agencies, People Against Racist Terror (PART), PO BOX 1990,
Burbank, CA 91507, Revised and Updated, February 1993
Novick, Michael, White Lies, White Power: The Fight Against White Supremacy and
Reactionary Violence, Common Courage Press, Monroe, Maine, 1995
Donner, Frank, Protectors of Privilege: Red Squads and Police Repression in Urban
America, University of California Press, Berkeley, 1990
National Lawyer's Guild, Counterintelligence: A Documentary Look at America's Political
Police, Volume One, Chicago, 1978
Newton, Huey P., To Die for the People, Vintage Books, New York, 1972, p. 191.
King, Coretta Scott, My Life With Martin Luther King, Jr., Holt, Rinehart and Winston
Publishers, New York, 1969
Lane, Mark, and Dick Gregory, Code Name "Zorro:" The Assassination of Martin Luther
King, Jr., Prentice-Hall Publishers, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1977.
Lewis, David L., King: A Biography, University of Illinois Press, Urbana, 1979.
Gid Powers, Richard, Secrecy and Power: The Life of J. Edgar Hoover, The Free Press,
New York, 1987
Tom Burghardt, "Paramilitary Violence and the State: The 'Public-Private Partnership' in
Political Repression," Toronto, Antifa Forum, Number 3, 1998.
Nicholas Wilson, "The Judi Bari Bombing Revisited: Big Timber, Public Relations and the
FBI," The Albion Monitor, http://www.monitor.net/monitor/9905a/jbrevisited.html
Government Reports and Newspaper Articles
Final Report of the Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to
Intelligence Activities of the United States Senate, Ninety Fourth Congress, First Session,
U.S. Government Printing Office, No. 94-755, April 14, 1976, Vol 1-6.
Hearings Before the Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect
to Intelligence Activities of the United States Senate, Ninety Fourth Congress, First
Session,
U.S. Government Printing Office, Sept. 16 - Dec. 5, 1975, Vol 1-7.
U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on Assassinations, Hearings on the Investigation of the
Assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr., Vol. 6, 95th Congress, 2d Session, U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1978
U.S. Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, FBI Statutory Charter - Appendix to Hearings
Before the Subcommittee an Administrative Practice and Procedure, Part 3, 95th
Congress, 2d Session, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1979
U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Civil and
Constitutional Rights, Break-Ins at Sanctuary Churches and Organizations Opposed to
Administration Policy in Central America, Serial No. 42, 100th Congress, 1st Session,
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1988, Hearing of February 19 20,1987,
pp. 432
U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Civil and
Constitutional Rights, CISPES and FBI Counter-Terrorism Investigations, Serial No. 122,
100th Congress, 2nd Session, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1989,
Hearing of September 16,1988
Proposal for a commission of inquiry into the effect of domestic intelligence activities on
criminal trials in the United States of America, Amnesty International, New York, 1980
Special Report of Interagency Committee on Intelligence (Ad Hoc), Chairman J. Edgar
Hoover, along with the directors of the CIA, DIA, and NSA, prepared for the President,
June 25, 1970,
Gary T. Marx, "Thoughts on a Neglected Category of Social Movement Participant: The
Agent Provocateur and the Informant," American Journal of Sociology, vol. 80, no. 2,
September 1974
Weisman, Joel D., "About that 'Ambush' at Wounded Knee," Columbia Journalism
Review, September-October 1975.
See "63 Verdicts End Panther Trial", Los Angeles Times, December 24, 1971.
Richardson, Lee, "Ex-FBI Agent Exposes Use of Informants to Destroy the BPP,"
Freedom Magazine, January 1985
"Charges Over F.B.I.'s Tactics on Subversive Suspects Barred," Washington Star-News;
New York Times, January 4, 1975.
Hill, Robert A., "The Foremost Radical of His Race: Marcus Garvey and the Black Scare,
1918-1920," Prologue, No. 16, Winter 1984.
Frank Wilkinson, The Era of Libertarian Repression - 1948 to 1973: from Congressman to
President, with Substantial Support from the Liberal Establishment, University of Akron,
1974; reprinted from the University of Akron Law Review.
Nicholas M. Horrock, "The F.B.I.'s Appetite for Very Small Potatoes," New York Times,
March 23, 1975.
C. Gerald Fraser, "F.B.I. Action in 1961 Called Still Harmful to Hopes of Blacks," New
York Times, April 6, 1974.
Jesse Jackson and Alvin Poussaint, "The Danger Behind FBI Obstruction of Black
Movements," Boston Globe, April 2, 1974
Henry Steele Commager, "The Constitution Is Alive and Well," New York Times, August
11, 1974
John M. Crewdson, "Black Pastor Got F.B.I. Threat in '69," New York Times, March 17,
1975
Vin McLellan, "FBI Heists Names of 1970 Student Strikers," Boston Phoenix, March 5,
1974
John Kifner, "F.B.I. Gave Chicago Police Plan of Slain Panther's Apartment," New York
Times, May 25, 1974.
John Kifner, "Security Aide for Indians Says He Was F.B.I. Informer," New York Times,
March 13, 1975
              Harry Kelly, "FBI spurred gang fight in Chicago, Senate says," Chicago Tribune,
              November 20, 1975.
              Harlan, Christi, "The Informant Left Out in the Cold," Dallas Morning News, April 6,1986
              Ridgeway, James, "Abroad at Home: The FBI's Dirty War," Village Voice, February 9,
              1988
              "Documents detail FBI-Klan links in early rights strife," Chicago Tribune, August 2,1978
              Raines, Howell, "Police Given Data on Boast by Rowe, The New York Times, July 14,
              1978
              Elizabeth Wine, "Blacks Hope for Best as Feds Reopen Bombing Case," Reuters, July 21,
              1997
              Biskind, Peter, "The FBI's Secret Soldiers," New Times, January 9, 1976
              Everett R. Holles, "A.C.L.U. Says F.B.I. Funded `Army To terrorize Antiwar Protesters',"
              N.Y. Times, June 27, 1975
              Steven V. Roberts, "F.B.I. Informer Is Linked to Right-Wing Violence, N.Y. Times, June
              24, 1974
              John M. Crewdson, "Kelley Discounts F.B.I.'s Link to a Terrorist Group," N.Y. Times,
              January 12, 1976.
              Churchill, Ward, and Jim Vander Wall, "COINTELPRO Against the Black Panthers: The
              Case of Geronimo Pratt," Covert Action Information Bulletin, No. 31, January 1989
              U.S. Department of Justice, Report of the Justice Department Task Force to Review FBI
              Martin Luther King, Jr., Security and Assassination Investigations, Washington, D.C.,
              January 11, 1977
              Pottinger, J. Stanley, "Martin Luther King Report" (to U.S. Attorney General Edward H.
              Levi), U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., April 9,1976
              Goldstein, Robert Justin, "The FBI's Forty Year Plot," The Nation, No. 227, July 1, 1978
              "An American Gulag? Summary Arrest and Emergency Detention of Political Dissidents
              in the United States," Columbia Human Rights Law Review, No. 10, 1978
              Denniston, Lyle, "FBI Says Kennedy OKed King Wiretap," Washington Evening Star,
              June 18,1969.
              OLeary, Jeremiah, "King Wiretap Called RFK's Idea," Washington Evening Star, June 19,
              1969.
              Rowan, Carl, "FBI Won't Talk about Additional Wiretappings," Washington Evening Star,
              June 20,1969.
              Jacobs, James, "An Overview of National Political Intelligence," University of Detroit
              Journal of Urban Law, No. 55, 1978.
              Lardner, George, Jr., "FBI Bugging and Blackmail of King Bared, Washington Post,
              November 19,1975.
              Horrock, Nicholas M., "Ex-Officials Say FBI Harassed Dr. King to Stop His Criticism,"
              New York Times, March 9,1978
              Kunstler, William, "Writers of the Purple Page," The Nation, No. 227, December 30, 1978.
              Lawson, James, "And the Character Assassination That Followed," Civil Liberties Review,
              No. 5, July-August 1978.
http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/cointelpro/coinwcar3.htm
    HOME › SPY FILES


    More About FBI Spying
    Share

   Print
   Email
   Facebook
   Twitter
   Share
    Bookmark & ShareX


   Google
   Delicious
   Digg
   Reddit
   StumbleUpon
   Technorati
   Current
   Permalink
    January 22, 2013


    The FBI has a long history of abusing its national security surveillance powers. The potential for abuse is once again
    great, particularly given that the lines between criminal investigations and foreign intelligence operations have been
    blurred or erased since 9/11. As a result, intrusive surveillance tools originally developed to target Soviet spies are
    increasingly being used against Americans.


    COINTELPRO. During the Cold War, the FBI ran a domestic intelligence/counterintelligence program called
    COINTELPRO that quickly evolved from a legitimate effort to protect the national security from hostile foreign threats
    into an effort to suppress domestic political dissent through an array of illegal activities. COINTELPRO targeted
    numerous non-violent protest groups and political dissidents with illegal wiretaps, warrantless physical searches and
    an array of other dirty tricks. The FBI used the information it gleaned from these improper investigations not for law
    enforcement purposes, but to "break up marriages, disrupt meetings, ostracize persons from their professions and
    provoke target groups into rivalries that might result in deaths." The Church Committee, a Senate Select Committee
    that investigated COINTELPRO in the 1970s, found that a combination of factors led law enforcers to become law
    breakers. One factor was their perception that traditional law enforcement methods were ineffective in addressing the
    security threats they faced. Another was their easy access to damaging personal information as a result of "the
    unrestrained collection of domestic intelligence." Unfortunately, these factors are all present again today as the FBI
    seeks to transform itself into an internal intelligence agency dedicated to preventing future acts of terrorism.


    Reforms Undone. The Church Committee's exposure of the FBI's COINTELPRO abuses led to a series of reforms,
    including laws designed to regulate government surveillance and internal guidelines (Attorney General's Guidelines)
    which limited the FBI's investigative authority and spelled out the rules that govern law enforcement operations.
    These reasonable limits have been either abandoned or ignored since 9/11, however, through legislation like the USA
    Patriot Act, through amendments to the AG Guidelines, and through an expansion of powerful Joint Terrorism Task
    Forces (JTTF) that operate with virtually no public accountability.
Patriot Act. With the enactment of the USA Patriot Act Congress expanded the FBI's authority to make secret
demands for personal information and records about not just suspected terrorists or spies but about anyone the FBI
deemed merely "relevant" to an FBI investigation. Not surprisingly, a series of five audits by the Department of
Justice Inspector General confirmed widespread FBI mismanagement, misuse and abuse of this unchecked authority,
which is now used, more often than not, to target Americans. For more on the Patriot Act, see the ACLU's extensive
page on that issue.


Attorney General Guidelines. The AG Guidelines underwent four separate changes under the Bush administration,
all of which gave the FBI increased surveillance authorities with reduced oversight. Attorney General John Ashcroft
first amended the guidelines in 2002 to expand the investigative techniques the FBI could use during preliminary
inquiries (which require less evidence of wrongdoing to initiate than a full investigation), and to increase the time
limits to 180 days with the possibility of two or more 90-day extensions. The Ashcroft guidelines also allowed FBI
agents to "visit any place and attend any event that is open to the public, on the same terms and conditions as
members of the public generally." The FBI later claimed this authority did not require the FBI agents attending public
meetings to identify themselves as government officials.


Attempting to assuage concerns that the FBI would misuse this expanded authority by targeting First Amendment-
protected activity, FBI Director Robert Mueller told Congress in 2002 that the FBI did not have plans to infiltrate
mosques. Nonetheless, in the ensuing years there was a sharp increase in the FBI's controversial use of informants
as agents provocateur in religious settings, including in Miami, New York, and northern and southern California. In
2009 Director Mueller defended these tactics, saying the FBI would not "take [its] foot off the pedal of addressing
counterterrorism."


In 2005 the Department of Justice Inspector General (IG) audited the FBI's compliance with AG Guidelines and found
significant deficiencies: 53 % of the audited preliminary inquiries that extended beyond the initial 180-day
authorization period did not contain necessary documentation authorizing the extension, and 77% of those that
extended past the first 90-day extension period lacked the required authorizations. The IG was unable to determine
whether or how frequently agents attended public events, however, because the FBI failed to keep records of such
activity.


The final and most dramatic changes to the AG Guidelines were made in December 2008, in the Bush
Administration's final month in office. Then-Attorney General Michael Mukasey instituted new guidelines that
authorize the FBI to conduct investigations called "assessments" without requiring any factual predicate suggesting
the target of the investigation is involved in illegal activity or threats to national security. The Mukasey guidelines
allow the FBI to utilize a number of intrusive investigative techniques during these assessments, including physical
surveillance, retrieving data from commercial databases, recruiting and tasking informants to attend meetings under
false pretenses, and engaging in "pretext" interviews in which FBI agents misrepresent their identities in order to elicit
information. "Assessments" can even be conducted against an individual simply to determine if he or she would be a
suitable FBI informant. Nothing in the new AG Guidelines protects entirely innocent Americans from being thoroughly
investigated by the FBI for no good reason. The new Guidelines explicitly authorize the surveillance and infiltration of
peaceful advocacy groups in advance of demonstrations, and they do not clearly prohibit using race, religion, or
national origin as factors in initiating assessments.


Use of Race and Ethnicity. An internal FBI guide to implementing the new AG Guidelines, called the Domestic
Investigations and Operations Guide (DIOG), contains startling revelations about how the FBI is using race and
ethnicity in conducting assessments and investigations. First, the DIOG says that investigative and intelligence
collection activities must not be based "solely on race." But the Department of Justice's 2003 Guidance on the Use of
Race in Federal Law Enforcement, which is binding on the FBI, says race can't be used "to any degree" absent a
specific subject description. There is a huge difference between using race as a factor and using race as the sole
factor.


Moreover, the DIOG then goes on to describe the authorized uses of race and ethnicity for FBI agents, which include:

"Collecting and analyzing" racial and ethnic community demographics. The FBI, according to the document, is
authorized to "identify locations of concentrated ethnic communities in the Field Office's domain, if these locations will
reasonably aid in the analysis of potential threats and vulnerabilities, and, overall, assist domain awareness for the
purpose of performing intelligence analysis… Similarly, the locations of ethnically-oriented businesses and other
facilities may be collected…" (DIOG page 32)
"Geo-mapping" of racial and ethnic demographics. "As a general rule, if information about community
demographics may be collected it may be 'mapped.'" (DIOG page 33)

Collecting "specific and relevant" racial and ethnic behavior. Though the DIOG prohibits "the collection of
cultural and behavioral information about an ethnic community that bears no relationship to a valid investigative or
analytical need," it allows FBI agents to consider "focused behavioral characteristics reasonably believed to be
associated with a particular criminal or terrorist element of an ethnic community," as well as "behavioral and cultural
information about ethnic or racial communities" that may be exploited by criminals or terrorists "who hide within those
communities." (DIOG page 33-34).


It is hard to imagine how any U.S. law enforcement agency would consider collecting and mapping racial and ethnic
community demographics an appropriate use of its resources (or, for that matter, consistent with its obligation to not
only follow but enforce U.S. civil rights laws). In fact, in 2007 the Los Angeles Police Department abandoned a similar
plan to map LA's Muslim community in the face of public outrage. The FBI hotly contested a 2007 report from
Congressional Quarterly's Jeff Stein that the FBI had tracked San Francisco falafel sales to try and find Iranian
terrorists, but the DIOG certainly confirms that the FBI considers ethnic behavior and ethnic-oriented businesses fair
targets for surveillance (and Stein stood by his story).


Data Mining. The FBI is sweeping up incredible amounts of information about innocent Americans through
unchecked data collection and data mining programs. According to documents obtained by Wired magazine in 2009,
an arm of the FBI called the National Security Branch Analysis Center (NSAC) has collected 1.5 billion records from
public and private sources in a massive data mining operation. The records collected by the FBI include financial
records from corporate databases, such as hotel and rental car company transactions; millions of "suspicious activity
reports" from financial institutions; millions of records from commercial data aggregators; a multitude of law
enforcement and non-law enforcement government databases; and public information gleaned from telephone books
and news articles. The NSAC records include data from the FBI's Investigative Data Warehouse, which was identified
in a Department of Justice Inspector General reports as the depository for information collected by the FBI through
National Security Letters (NSLs) and illegal exigent letters.


The FBI has also established a new database called eGuardian to collect and share suspicious activity reports with
the federal intelligence agencies, the Department of Homeland Security, fusion centers, the military and state and
local law enforcement.


« Back to FBI | Go To Spy Files »

http://www.aclu.org/spy-files/more-about-fbi-spying
Revealed: how the FBI coordinated the
crackdown on Occupy
New documents prove what was once dismissed as paranoid fantasy: totally integrated corporate-
state repression of dissent




           
           o   Naomi Wolf
           o   guardian.co.uk, Saturday 29 December 2012 09.58 EST
           o   Jump to comments (698)




Police used teargas to drive back protesters following an attempt by the Occupy supporters to
shut down the city of Oakland. Photograph: Noah Berger/AP

It was more sophisticated than we had imagined: new documents show that the violent
crackdown on Occupy last fall – so mystifying at the time – was not just coordinated at the level
of the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, and local police. The crackdown, which
involved, as you may recall, violent arrests, group disruption, canister missiles to the skulls of
protesters, people held in handcuffs so tight they were injured, people held in bondage till they
were forced to wet or soil themselves –was coordinated with the big banks themselves.

The Partnership for Civil Justice Fund, in a groundbreaking scoop that should once more shame
major US media outlets (why are nonprofits now some of the only entities in America left
breaking major civil liberties news?), filed this request. The document – reproduced here in an
easily searchable format – shows a terrifying network of coordinated DHS, FBI, police, regional
fusion center, and private-sector activity so completely merged into one another that the
monstrous whole is, in fact, one entity: in some cases, bearing a single name, the Domestic
Security Alliance Council. And it reveals this merged entity to have one centrally planned,
locally executed mission. The documents, in short, show the cops and DHS working for and with
banks to target, arrest, and politically disable peaceful American citizens.

The documents, released after long delay in the week between Christmas and New Year, show a
nationwide meta-plot unfolding in city after city in an Orwellian world: six American
universities are sites where campus police funneled information about students involved with
OWS to the FBI, with the administrations' knowledge (p51); banks sat down with FBI officials
to pool information about OWS protesters harvested by private security; plans to crush Occupy
events, planned for a month down the road, were made by the FBI – and offered to the
representatives of the same organizations that the protests would target; and even threats of the
assassination of OWS leaders by sniper fire – by whom? Where? – now remain redacted and
undisclosed to those American citizens in danger, contrary to standard FBI practice to inform the
person concerned when there is a threat against a political leader (p61).

As Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, executive director of the PCJF, put it, the documents show that
from the start, the FBI – though it acknowledges Occupy movement as being, in fact, a peaceful
organization – nonetheless designated OWS repeatedly as a "terrorist threat":

"FBI documents just obtained by the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund (PCJF) … reveal that
from its inception, the FBI treated the Occupy movement as a potential criminal and terrorist
threat … The PCJF has obtained heavily redacted documents showing that FBI offices and
agents around the country were in high gear conducting surveillance against the movement even
as early as August 2011, a month prior to the establishment of the OWS encampment in Zuccotti
Park and other Occupy actions around the country."

Verheyden-Hilliard points out the close partnering of banks, the New York Stock Exchange and
at least one local Federal Reserve with the FBI and DHS, and calls it "police-statism":

"This production [of documents], which we believe is just the tip of the iceberg, is a window into
the nationwide scope of the FBI's surveillance, monitoring, and reporting on peaceful protestors
organizing with the Occupy movement … These documents also show these federal agencies
functioning as a de facto intelligence arm of Wall Street and Corporate America."

The documents show stunning range: in Denver, Colorado, that branch of the FBI and a "Bank
Fraud Working Group" met in November 2011 – during the Occupy protests – to surveil the
group. The Federal Reserve of Richmond, Virginia had its own private security surveilling
Occupy Tampa and Tampa Veterans for Peace and passing privately-collected information on
activists back to the Richmond FBI, which, in turn, categorized OWS activities under its
"domestic terrorism" unit. The Anchorage, Alaska "terrorism task force" was watching Occupy
Anchorage. The Jackson, Mississippi "joint terrorism task force" was issuing a "counterterrorism
preparedness alert" about the ill-organized grandmas and college sophomores in Occupy there.
Also in Jackson, Mississippi, the FBI and the "Bank Security Group" – multiple private banks –
met to discuss the reaction to "National Bad Bank Sit-in Day" (the response was violent, as you
may recall). The Virginia FBI sent that state's Occupy members' details to the Virginia terrorism
fusion center. The Memphis FBI tracked OWS under its "joint terrorism task force" aegis, too.
And so on, for over 100 pages.

Jason Leopold, at Truthout.org, who has sought similar documents for more than a year, reported
that the FBI falsely asserted in response to his own FOIA requests that no documents related to
its infiltration of Occupy Wall Street existed at all. But the release may be strategic: if you are an
Occupy activist and see how your information is being sent to terrorism task forces and fusion
centers, not to mention the "longterm plans" of some redacted group to shoot you, this document
is quite the deterrent.

There is a new twist: the merger of the private sector, DHS and the FBI means that any of us can
become WikiLeaks, a point that Julian Assange was trying to make in explaining the argument
behind his recent book. The fusion of the tracking of money and the suppression of dissent
means that a huge area of vulnerability in civil society – people's income streams and financial
records – is now firmly in the hands of the banks, which are, in turn, now in the business of
tracking your dissent.

Remember that only 10% of the money donated to WikiLeaks can be processed – because of
financial sector and DHS-sponsored targeting of PayPal data. With this merger, that crushing of
one's personal or business financial freedom can happen to any of us. How messy, criminalizing
and prosecuting dissent. How simple, by contrast, just to label an entity a "terrorist organization"
and choke off, disrupt or indict its sources of financing.

Why the huge push for counterterrorism "fusion centers", the DHS militarizing of police
departments, and so on? It was never really about "the terrorists". It was not even about civil
unrest. It was always about this moment, when vast crimes might be uncovered by citizens – it
was always, that is to say, meant to be about you.

• This article originally referred to a joint terrorism task force in Jackson, Michigan. This was
amended to Jackson, Mississippi at 4pm ET on 2 January 2012

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/29/fbi-coordinated-crackdown-occupy



Comments for this discussion are now closed.

                           50                                 oldest first     p/3cnxt
698 comments. Showing               conversations, sorted
                                               ‹ Prev

                                                      1
                                                      2
                                                      3
                                                     …6

                                                     Next ›


    longshireman

    29 December 2012 3:07pmLink to this comment




    246

    Yes, but have you actually listened to what some of the Occupy people have to say?

    No wonder the FBI was involved.

    The fact is that it failed because nobody was feelin' it. Even though the media elite threw all
    their weight behind it trying to create the impression that it was a world wide phenomenon here
    to stay.

    People don't like today's banking, this is true, but they also distrust melodrama, such as the
    case of your own police ordeal and the way you portrayed it as a journalist.

              o   Report
              o   Share this comment on Twitter
              o   Share this comment on Facebook


          o

                      WaitForPete

                      29 December 2012 3:45pmLink to this comment




                      834

                      I see the stooges are on high alert for this one.

                      So did YOU hear what Occupy had to say, or was their voice drowned up.

                     Report
                     Share this comment on Twitter
                     Share this comment on Facebook


          o

                      NeverMindTheBollocks

                      29 December 2012 3:58pmLink to this comment
        138

        You are absolutely right.

        And the hyperbole that this group and its supporters need to frequently
        indulge in only serves to indict these people more and more.

        First there is the hyperbole about themselves and the myths they seek to
        create about themselves. Then there is the distortion about the lawful and fair
        way that they were handled by both law enforcement and those whose
        property they were using.

        Perhaps if they actually had achieved anything then they would not need to
        distort the truth the way they do. Such CIFs are just the dead-cat bounces of
        a failed group who continue to be frustrated by their own failures, but refuse
        to see how they themselves are responsible.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        TheGreatRonRafferty

        29 December 2012 4:08pmLink to this comment




        997

        No-one but no-one can defend this unless they are under the control of the
        FBI, the banks, big business or are complete right-wing dolts.

        However, any thought that this is a one-off is also completely naive. We have
        been saying for long enough in the UK that this is what has happened in the
        UK. The current "government" is screwing up the UK population as fast as is
        possible. But the UK only follows America's lead in all things bad.

        It is a case of us and them. Unless "us" stops "them" things will get
        continually worse.

        And weird that there are so many recommends for 1984-ism in such a short
        time. Mr Goebbels would be proud.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        edwardrice

        29 December 2012 4:15pmLink to this comment
        985

        @NeverMindTheBollocks - Your user name is fitting. Your comment is
        Bollocks.

        Does it not bother you that state security services have merged with the
        bankers.

        Who would welcome such a thing apart from fascists?

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        BandB

        29 December 2012 4:32pmLink to this comment




        196

        What did Occupy have to say that was so worrying to the powers that be?

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        NeverMindTheBollocks

        29 December 2012 4:48pmLink to this comment




        71

        @edwardrice - how fitting.

        A reply to a comment about the hyperbole that this group repeatedly indulges
        in that contains hyperbole itself.

        Thanks for your assistance in demonstrating so eagerly this trait of this group
        and its supporters, like yourself.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        minutemen

        29 December 2012 4:53pmLink to this comment




        This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our
        community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our
        FAQs.



o

        NeverMindTheBollocks

        29 December 2012 5:02pmLink to this comment




        79

        @minutemen - yet another characteristic of this group and their supporters:
        indulging in name-calling and insults

        A very clear demonstration of another reason why they failed so badly. And
        failed so badly to get support from the 99% that they claimed to represent.

        Once again, thanks for helping to prove my point.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        bifess

        29 December 2012 5:10pmLink to this comment




        647

        @NeverMindTheBollocks -

             yet another characteristic of this group and their supporters:
             indulging in name-calling and insults
           A very clear demonstration of another reason why they failed so
           badly. And failed so badly to get support from the 99% that they
           claimed to represent.

           Once again, thanks for helping to prove my point.

        As i understand it the occupy movement was against crony capitalism.

        What is hyperbolic about wanting to see.

        A fair banking system where banks are not allowed to run uncontrolled?

        A fair society for all?

        To enusre the rich and multinational corporations pay the tax that they owe
        rather than being allowed to evade and avoid.

        The occupy movement may have had it's bad points but it's core message as
        i understand it was not hyperbolic.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        mikedow

        29 December 2012 5:17pmLink to this comment




        310

        @NeverMindTheBollocks - Hyperbollocks!

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        AView

        29 December 2012 5:18pmLink to this comment




        582

        @longshireman:

        "People don't like today's banking, this is true, but they also distrust
        melodrama"
        Precisely - those protesters, what with their marching, flag waving,
        campaigning and open displays of emotion which we all have to endure. And
        then they have the audacity to not thank the authorities when they are maced,
        manhandled and aggressively removed! How melodramatic indeed.

        What has the world come to! It's a disgrace. As I've always said - every major
        change in the status quo throughout history has been achieved by not being
        all melodramatic like this. It's been achieved by doing nothing, lest you get
        mocked by someone on an internet forum.

        And to @NeverMindTheBollocks I say hear, hear! The fact that they didn't
        "achieve anything" does indeed render all their claims baseless.

        I think we can all agree: The system is - depending on your view - either in
        need of repair or rotten to the core. Either way, the solution is to do nothing.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        MaximusG

        29 December 2012 5:24pmLink to this comment




        173

        The truth is that the whole political establishment in the West, including
        newspapers and especially the Guardian, is still constructed around the false
        cleavage of left/right ie "the destitute worker" vs "the plutocratic capitalists".
        The fact is this is a load of guff left over from the 19th/20th Century that
        bears no resemblance to the problems faced by most of us today and holds
        absolutely no significance for those of us who grew up post-Cold War.

        That is why there is political malaise; we have two parties that represent two
        sides of a "battle" that no longer exists. Sure, there are one or two super-rich
        guys and one or two incredibly poor people in Western nations, but the real
        99% are the people who sit in the middle and don't particularly identify with
        either camp.

        So every time we hear some right-winger banging on about "lefties" or
        "jobsworths" or "socialists" every time public service is mentioned, we just
        sigh. Likewise, when the Guardian and Occupy and other leftist organisations
        try and construe the political situation as this Dickensian dystopia where the
        poor are enslaved and oppressed by a class of cackling fatcats and paint
        everything private in a negative light we sigh. It's all a load of redundant crap
        that means nothing to the majority of the current generation, perpetuated
        only because interests like our political parties and newspapers depend on
        its continued existence for their own succour. Without "evil capitalists" to
        bitch about, where would the Guardian be? Well the answer lies in its
        declining sales... nowhere.
        There is no class war anymore in the West, you will never change things
        pretending there is. People were angry about the banking crisis not because
        they felt part of some class struggle against the capitalist bankers, but
        because they felt ripped off. The two are not the same, and that's why
        nobody liked Occupy and their pious Cold War hogwash about 99% vs 1%,
        trying to place the events within the context of some wider struggle vs the
        rich.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        debt2zero

        29 December 2012 5:34pmLink to this comment




        239

        @BandB -

           What did Occupy have to say that was so worrying to the powers
           that be?

        Amongst other things an end to the collusion between big money,
        corporations etc and politicians, I believe.

        That the message so powerfully came out they they had no goals or aims
        was a very successful 'dampening down' of something which resonated with
        every ordinary person. Obviously there was a motivation to get so many
        people successfully (dis) organized into one peaceful protest movement.
        People understood. Polls taken at the time had the majority in agreement
        with their points of grievance.

        Those polls were about something that a lot of folk felt quite strongly enough
        to start sending them food parcels etc.

        And something enough to frighten the powers that be , to systematically shut
        it down, if you can term it as such.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        NeverMindTheBollocks

        29 December 2012 5:38pmLink to this comment
        33

        @mikedow - thanks for your reply and meaningful contribution to this
        discussion.

        The use of name-calling, etc for getting the actual 99% to support these
        people has already been discussed. But thanks for your continued efforts to
        do so.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        martinusher

        29 December 2012 5:48pmLink to this comment




        305

        @NeverMindTheBollocks - I suggest re-reading your post and thinking about
        exactly what you wrote. Then think about how you'd go about countering this
        type of protest. You'll see that your note is a textbook example of how to deal
        with it. You would want to first isolate the protesters from the mass of
        everyday people, focusing on the weird and distasteful (unhygenic, eccentric,
        threatening, just a bunch of kids and weirdos -- you should be able to find
        what you're looking for in a large group). Once you've got rid of the
        immediate problem you then marginalize the protest by claiming it was
        'irrelevant', 'didn't achieve anything' -- just a bunch of kids letting off steam.

        I could go into this in more detail but you get the general idea. Its actually
        how propaganda works (and you know its in play because you'll never find
        anyone talking about the platforms and ideas that were in play, just
        expressing gut feelings).

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        debt2zero

        29 December 2012 5:49pmLink to this comment




        219
        @MaximusG -

        "the destitute worker" ... you obviously haven't read the Telegraph comments
        of late. Plenty of those 'in the middle' bemoaning how everything they earn
        save the little for food & shelter gets sucked out of their wallets by price rises,
        increased duties, taxes etc.

        Anyhow leaving such subtleties behind ...

        What we experience now is not capitalism as practised according to the book.
        Not at all. It is a oligarchic system of corruption, favour and benefit, steered
        by the needs of greed. It is one rule for the many and barely none for the few.

        That is an important differentiation.

        I for one am a supporter of capitalism, if that means free and open trade,
        whose excesses are reined in by responsible government and legislation. But
        I'm also see that what the Occupy Movement had protest for was corruption,
        favouritism, and greed run amok.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        slaveofgod

        29 December 2012 5:50pmLink to this comment




        247

        @NeverMindTheBollocks - Why are you so anti-Occupy? You never miss an
        opportunity to knock it. What can be so bad about people trying to make
        themselves heard in a crazy world? Does the implications of this article not
        worry you?

        Its like you read an article about Occupy back at the beginning, you formed a
        negative opinion about it and you'll be damned if you'll move from it.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        HassledinHastings

        29 December 2012 5:57pmLink to this comment
        This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our
        community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our
        FAQs.



o

        debt2zero

        29 December 2012 6:04pmLink to this comment




        21

        @MaximusG -

        My apologies. Ignore my comment above. I misread your post. I have now
        read it properly and whole-heartedly agree with your point.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        mikedow

        29 December 2012 6:16pmLink to this comment




        87

        @NeverMindTheBollocks - Are you going to whinge about having your table
        turned on you?

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        worried

        29 December 2012 6:17pmLink to this comment




        42
        @martinusher -
        "I could go into this in more detail but you get the general idea. Its actually
        how propaganda works (and you know its in play because you'll never find
        anyone talking about the platforms and ideas that were in play, just
        expressing gut feelings)."
        Excellent comment;
        All on here should apply it to every subject ATL ....as well as the ensuing
        comments.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        DexterDoolittle

        29 December 2012 6:33pmLink to this comment




        115

        @TheGreatRonRafferty -

        It is the New World Order. It seems now that certain politicians are selected
        by the Bilderburgs, the Trilateral Commission and other organisations for
        rapid promotion if they obey the tenets of the financially dominant. This
        explains why Bill Clinton made a sharp right turn during his Presidency, why
        Tony Blair agreed to the US led invasion of Iraq despite huge opposition from
        the general population and why Hillary Clinton voted for the same invasion.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        NeverMindTheBollocks

        29 December 2012 6:33pmLink to this comment




        28

        @mikedow - by all means, try using something other than name-calling and
        insults to attempt to support this group. That would be a refreshing change.

        And as with my polite reply to this comment and your previous comment, I
        promise you I will not whinge. There is hardly a need to indulge in such
        behaviour -- an approach that I'd encourage others to follow too.
       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        alkopop79

        29 December 2012 6:58pmLink to this comment




        209

        @edwardrice - It's terrible to see that so many commenters find it natural that
        banks cooperate with the police. It's fascism, indeed.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        mikedow

        29 December 2012 7:18pmLink to this comment




        145

        @NeverMindTheBollocks - Mock obsequiousness doesn't work.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        BWhale

        29 December 2012 7:45pmLink to this comment




        100

        'If voting changed anything they'd ban it', is as much a truism as 'if your
        protests may change something they'll attack it violently...' as our students
        found out in 2010
        And we are giving Theresa May powers to track every phonecall and email
        we ever make?????

        Yup, 'if you got nothing to hide...." etc etc.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        chrigid

        29 December 2012 8:36pmLink to this comment




        106

        Longshireman--what are you so afraid of that you have to make up stories?
        The media ignored the hell out of OWS for next to forever and, when finally
        forced to acknowledge its existence, belittled and mocked the hell out of it. I
        wouldn't be surprised if there's a document somewhere showing banks, FBI,
        Homeland Security, and the media united in defense of the status quo.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        Cyprover

        29 December 2012 8:38pmLink to this comment




        48

        @MaximusG - I thank you for your post. I read most of the postings before
        returning to yours and, discounting the usual Ya - Boo ones, recommending
        it

        I agree with most of your points, despite your youth. I not only grew up in the
        cold war era but lived, worked and brought up my children in those years and
        fully agree with you that the concept of a "class war" is dead and gone.

        What, however, I feel is the case is that there is a substantial proportion of
        the British (and even more so in the USA) population who believe that the
        accumulation of wealth equates with "class".

        That those who have accumulated vast fortunes through inheritance and tax
        evasion (whoops! Sorry tax avoidance) should, somehow, feel superior to
        those of us who have worked and paid all due tax is anathema to me and is
        at the root of this so-called "class war"

        I am afraid that you lost your, otherwise excellent, argument in your last
        paragraph. It is the 99% of those who cannot participate in the global
        gambling game that constitutes today's banking system who are the losers.

        Some of them may well be "Upper Class".

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        roachclip

        29 December 2012 8:53pmLink to this comment




        47

        @MaximusG -

        Just because you don't appear to have the insight or imagination to see
        through the bollocks the powers that be are tryng to persuade us about, don't
        assume that everyone else thinks like you do.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        bifess

        29 December 2012 8:54pmLink to this comment




        142

        @NeverMindTheBollocks -

             @mikedow - by all means, try using something other than name-
             calling and insults to attempt to support this group. That would be
             a refreshing change.

             And as with my polite reply to this comment and your previous
             comment, I promise you I will not whinge. There is hardly a need
             to indulge in such behaviour -- an approach that I'd encourage
             others to follow too.
        Why did you ignore the response i left to your post?

        It appears to me that your smear against the occupy movement is smeared
        in the very same hyperbole that you accuse the occupy movement of.

        Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

        When confronted with a rational argument you dissapear.

        Why?

        I originally posted

            As i understand it the occupy movement was against crony
            capitalism.

        Can i take it by your lack of a response to my comment that you are indeed
        in favor of crony capitalism or is that me being hyperbolic?

        If you are not in favor of it then why is it that you are so dead set against the
        movement?

        Do you have a rational argument or not?

        The occupy movement may not have achieved much in your eyes but one
        thing is for sure. They have achieved something.

        They have managed to get lots and lots of people talking about crony
        capitalsim. Thye have opened people's eyes to the abuses of crony
        capitalism.

        It looks like they have achieved far more than you have to me.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        sarahsmith232

        29 December 2012 8:56pmLink to this comment




        8

        @MaximusG -
        i got the impression that whole Occupy thing wass quite big over there in
        America and as other people wrote, the left-wing media here tried the
        hardest to turn it into a global movement, 'course, didn't happen here, unless
        you count the 3 on a good night that were out there protesting at St.Paul's. v.
        diff' type of problems here, all that talk about the 1%, what 1%, we don't have
        any, we only have 6 to 8 thousand people earning 1 million here, jesus, wow,
        so many! how can anyone be expected to carry on knowing theere are just a
        handful of people earning good money in this country.
        i liked your point about the Guardian losing money 'cause they're just stilll
        clinging to the old Marxist line about the clear cut, obviously spotted, down
        trodden w.class type. 'course, one that went out with the Arc.
        but would you agree, i'm guessing you wouldn't, that the prob's now are to do
        with issues around welfare, it's unfairness, the effects on people
        psychologically, the way that the middle-classes are being decimated to pay
        for people to be unemployed or to work for only 16hrs and then expect to
        claim £35/45,000 per year from other tax-payers. that is the burning issue in
        this society. that's way the Guardian is irrelevant and why the 'Occupy' thing
        was nothing but a media-generated damp squib in this country.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        chemicalscum

        29 December 2012 9:15pmLink to this comment




        106

        @BandB -

             What did Occupy have to say that was so worrying to the powers
             that be?

        The truth.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o   Guardian contributor

        iwouldprefernotto

        29 December 2012 10:17pmLink to this comment




        65

        @debt2zero -

             I for one am a supporter of capitalism, if that means free and
             open trade, whose excesses are reined in by responsible
             government and legislation. But I'm also see that what the
             Occupy Movement had protest for was corruption, favouritism,
             and greed run amok.
        This, this, oh a thousand times this.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        absitreverentiavero

        29 December 2012 11:43pmLink to this comment




        16

             The fact is that it failed because nobody was feelin' it

        Quite right. And nowhere was this more clearly demonstrated than in London,
        where 90% of the tents were incontrovertibly shown to have been left empty
        by the so-called "protesters" overnight, when the chill of the night found the
        limits of their convictions.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        quinnjin

        30 December 2012 12:23amLink to this comment




        This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our
        community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our
        FAQs.



o

        quinnjin

        30 December 2012 12:31amLink to this comment




        109
        You can't seriously be defending the right of the state in cohoots with terroist
        bankers to threaten to shoot those who speak out about there corruption and
        demand something be done about it? What kind of psychopathic moron are
        you? Go slither back under the rock you came out from under you piece of
        human filth.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        canubelievethat

        30 December 2012 2:24amLink to this comment




        56

        @NeverMindTheBollocks -
        Is hyperbole ypur word for the day or were you told to use that word as often
        as you can?

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        Renegade98

        30 December 2012 6:17amLink to this comment




        16

        The world is in for a rude awakening!

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        patcon

        30 December 2012 6:19amLink to this comment
        51

        "nobody was feelin' it"? Just how big does a protest need to be before you
        qualify it as "everybody was feelin it"? Occupy may have died for other
        reasons, but a big part of that was because it became disembodied after
        dialogue was evicted from the public commons. (Insert comment about how
        some parks were private or ambiguously public, but that's not my point.)

        And is regards to the media creating a false impression of it being a
        "worldwide phenomenon", I might have been of a similar mind until I
        unknowingly walked through an Occupy Gothenburg rally while attending a
        conference in Sweden. Maybe you would have been equally struck if you'd
        been 6000km away from the coast of North America, on totally unrelated
        business, and just randomly wandered into a supporting protest while being a
        tourist in a small Swedish city...

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        patcon

        30 December 2012 6:24amLink to this comment




        1

        @sarahsmith232 - Fair point about your own country's inequality not being a
        concern for you. Might say you still have some skin in the game if power gets
        concentrated in the USA though. American political power affords quite the
        reach...

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        nevertheless333

        30 December 2012 7:45amLink to this comment




        45

        What an idiot, what the -occupy movement was saying-, really, that is why
        the FBI got involved? The media played down the seriousness of the Occupy
        movement, while playing up the Tea Party idiots. Now the Tea Party is a
        corporate shill while the Occupy movement is against corporate domination
        and corruption of American life, who do you think the corporate media is
        going to support, the Occupy movement you say, WRONG!

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        Bryant Amper

        30 December 2012 8:45amLink to this comment




        15

        @NeverMindTheBollocks - The Fed has adopted what amounts to "the roach
        motel" of monetary policy. If the Fed actually raised rates as a result of one
        of its movable goal posts being hit, the result could be a much greater
        financial crisis than the one we lived through in 2008. The bond bubble would
        burst, interest rates and unemployment would soar, housing prices would
        collapse, banks would fail, borrowers would default, budget deficits would
        swell, and there would be no way to finance another round of bailouts for
        anyone, including the Federal Government itself.

        In order to generate phony economic growth and to "pay" our country's debts
        in the most dishonest manner possible, the Federal Reserve is 100%
        committed to the destruction of the dollar. Anyone with wealth in the U.S.
        dollar should be concerned that economic leadership is firmly in the hands of
        irresponsible bureaucrats who are committed to an ivory tower version of
        reality that bears no resemblance to the world as it really is.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        chadders

        30 December 2012 10:50amLink to this comment




        152

        @sarahsmith232 - hi Sarah. Your post made me despair. Please indulge me.
        There is no left wing, no reds under the bed, no Marxists in positions of
        power in government or in the press.
        The guardian is slightly to the left of the British centre but not really anything
        other than liberal. The BBC is the voice of the British establishment with a
        chartered requirement to be impartial in its news reporting.
        I'm not sure where you are posting from. If you are an American poster then
        it's possible that you would view some of our News Organisations as left
        wing, but that's a perspective thing. American political and public discourse
        seems to me to operate so far to the right as to make us completely divided
        on our definitions. I hope I'm not labouring the point but right of centre
        politicians in the Uk would be seen as liberals when compared to members of
        the mainstream Republican Party.
        I'm old enough to see that this is getting worse, America and the Uk are
        drifting, sliding or whooping to the right economically. The Chicago school
        are predominant in our mainstream political parties and they have gutted
        both civic life and our public services. We are run by objectivists, they have
        privatised our water, our electricity, our gas, our trains, our hospital
        building,hospital services, care of our mentally ill and they are looking very
        closely at our prisons, our police service and our armed forces. This has
        been a long project and its gone hand in hand with a hegemonic attack on
        organised workers and public service under the guise of efficiency. It's a
        scam, conducted with the collusion of the press and like the scam that is our
        banking system it is designed for one thing and that is to suck money up from
        the middle and the poor to the super rich. What is being reported above is
        just another step along the line to dystopia and as long as people are
        prepared to believe that this is the fault of the poor or that we have " moved
        on" we are goosed because these have been the opening shots only. Wake
        up.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        tintinscockring

        30 December 2012 12:35pmLink to this comment




        23

        @sarahsmith232 - Oh absolutely. `you have nailed it. the problems in the UK
        are entirely down to the unemployed and the corrosive effect of welfare upon
        wealth creators. That and immigration, naturally.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        NeverMindTheBollocks

        30 December 2012 1:42pmLink to this comment
        11

        @mikedow - more of your wrong misinterpretation of people's comments and
        intentions doesn't work either.

        Has there been even one person you have ever tried your version of charm
        on that you have managed to convince by this behaviour?

        Once again, we are seeing more of the reasons why this group and their
        supporters failed to get support from the actual 99%.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        nekiuk

        30 December 2012 2:17pmLink to this comment




        44

        @NeverMindTheBollocks - Are you blind and deaf? Or just in denial?

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        nekiuk

        30 December 2012 2:25pmLink to this comment




        @BandB - 99%

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        bifess
30 December 2012 3:28pmLink to this comment




53

@NeverMindTheBollocks -

     I promise you I will not whinge. There is hardly a need to indulge
     in such behaviour

Nope you won't whinge you just choose to ignore any post that offers a
rational argument to refute your claim that the occupy movement was
hyperbolic.

     more of your wrong misinterpretation of people's comments and
     intentions doesn't work either.

     Has there been even one person you have ever tried your version
     of charm on that you have managed to convince by this
     behaviour

What about your own possible misinterpretation of people's comments and
intentions?

Is it not at all possible that you have misunderstood what the occupy
movement was all about?

Have you just lapped up the right wing coverage of this event without at least
giving the core message behind the movement some rational thought?

After being presented with a rational argument against your claim has there
even been one person that you have responded to?

     Once again, we are seeing more of the reasons why this group
     and their supporters failed to get support from the actual 99%

Once again people like yourself show me exactly what is wrong with modern
society. All too willing to spread untruths and/or accustaions to support your
opinion but as soon as you are presented with rational well thought out facts
you run a mile.

Attempt to distort the truth as much as you like but it won't stop the majority
of people getting to the truth.

The core message of the occupy movement was not hyperbolic and you
know it.

Can you give me even one example with proof of an occupy claim that was
hyperbolic like you claim the occuy movement is?

Your continued silence to my response to your claim that the occupy
movement was hyperbolic just appears to make me think that you believe
you have lost the debate. So you choose to attempt to turn the debate in your
favor by ignoring the facts and accusing people of not understanding other
people's comments and intentions whilst ignoring any rational arguments.
       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        Jan-Kamil Rembisch

        30 December 2012 4:05pmLink to this comment




        80

        @NeverMindTheBollocks - The reason evil triumphs is through the existance
        of people like you. Cowards, butt lickers, stooges', minions. THey cheer on
        bullies, vote for Hitler, Stalin; the Ayatolalah; the Pharoah, Caeser, and get a
        real kick at seeing littel people get nobbled.
        The more brutal, the more illegal, the more cowardly; the more they approve.
        It's a very common theme around here. Helping for free; their own slave
        masters; hoping for a word of praise or may be just a pat on the head;
        'There's a good doggy!; attack!!'

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        James Hintze

        30 December 2012 5:18pmLink to this comment




        2

        Perhaps you could refresh my memory. Would you provide some examples
        of what OWS said?

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        peluge

        30 December 2012 5:41pmLink to this comment
        3

        @canubelievethat - It's meant to make the poster seem reasonable and
        much less likely to indulge in melodramatic hyperbole than those damned
        kids with their topless girls and pepper spray love-ins. Ineffective, but I
        suppose meant for casual readers who are leaning sympathetic toward the
        Occupy movement, to yank them back to "reality"?

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        RicardoFloresMagon

        30 December 2012 5:41pmLink to this comment




        49

        @BandB -

             What did Occupy have to say that was so worrying to the powers
             that be?

        Occupy said many things, much of it contradictory, because it was thousands
        of people, all with different backgrounds and viewpoints, some of which
        overlapped, some of which didnt.

        So I dont think it was particularly something that "Occupy had to say", rather
        than what it was: a massive place for communication and political discussion
        outside of the established framework of controlled and managed debate.

        People talking to each other about fundamental issues like how economics,
        politics and society is structured without the mediation of the major parties or
        the corporate media must have scared the sh-t out of them.

        This may not be it, and the authorities may have just fundamentally
        misunderstood what Occupy was about, and simply freaked out. But given
        the US govt history with regards to social movements, this response was not
        that surprising. At least nobody got assassinated in his sleep in a hail of
        bullets, like in '69.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        ramsalita

        30 December 2012 5:57pmLink to this comment
        72

        @NeverMindTheBollocks - It's not hyperbole if it's true. This FOI request
        response demostrates that there was mass surveillance of people who
        participate/d in the Occupy Movement, which is a non violent protest and
        expression of myriad ideas for alternative social/political/economic
        organisation. That's not hyperbole. It doesn't matter if you agree with Occupy
        as a whole, in part, or not at all. The fact that state, police and corporate
        interest collaborated to surveil and suppress a non violent expression of
        dissent is not consistent with the democracy which we purport to support. If
        you support the suppression of non violent dissent then you are, by definition,
        not in favour of democracy. Fact. That's not hyperbole either. Hyperbole is an
        exaggeration. This is a statement of evidenced fact.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        kingharvest

        30 December 2012 6:00pmLink to this comment




        20

        What the gentleman fails to take into consideration is that the very forces he
        is praising are also trolling public opinion sites such as this one and collecting
        data on those they perceive to be 'agitators.'

        Now he would likely reply that they would not bother with him because he is
        'on their side' but I would wager he has said something, somewhere, that
        could be taken the wrong way.

        But in truth, they don't care so much about what he says, but simply that he
        says. People who speak out are suspect, don't you know.

        Too late to scrub it clean now, old chap. You are one of us.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        Safrabro

        30 December 2012 6:05pmLink to this comment
        9

        @chadders - very well said indeed.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        tlsmith63

        30 December 2012 6:10pmLink to this comment




        24

        People weren't feeling it? Well, they had better start feeling it, or more of their
        rights will be taken away. Do you like the idea of the banks, the very people
        who wrecked the economy, investigating & threatening people? I don't.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        tlsmith63

        30 December 2012 6:13pmLink to this comment




        26

        @NeverMindTheBollocks - And what is the Tea Party about? Name-calling &
        insults. They weren't investigated, were they? You can easily tell who is in
        with the establishment & who isn't by observing who is investigated & who
        isn't. The Tea Party people aren't rebels. The are the establishment.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        tlsmith63
        30 December 2012 6:19pmLink to this comment




        13

        @chadders - The right-wingers in the US have gone so completely over the
        edge that they would see Reagan as a socialist if he were around today.
        Even moderate Republicans are sick of the people who run their party (into
        the ground, I would say) today.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        mikio44

        30 December 2012 6:29pmLink to this comment




        26

        @NeverMindTheBollocks - "more of your wrong misinterpretation of people's
        comments and intentions doesn't work either.

        Has there been even one person you have ever tried your version of charm
        on that you have managed to convince by this behaviour?

        Once again, we are seeing more of the reasons why this group and their
        supporters failed to get support from the actual 99%."

        All of these posts and not one word about the substantive matters at hand.
        All you have is an endless slagging off of the people involved, not one word
        about the issues. Sounds like you don't actually have an argument more
        sophisticated than saying "you're wrong because I don't like you" over and
        over again. If you support the police state then at least have the sack to
        openly admit it and argue for it.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        tlsmith63

        30 December 2012 6:56pmLink to this comment
        14

        @debt2zero - What we have now definitely isn't capitalism. It's nothing like
        the capitalism I grew up with. What's ironic is that the rich & right-wingers go
        on & on about hating socialism, but everything they are doing will probably
        bring it about. They are giving capitalism a bad name. Who wants to support
        something that rewards the rich & makes you suffer? If they want people to
        support capitalism they need to make it work for everyone. They aren't doing
        this.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        Daniel Werst

        30 December 2012 6:59pmLink to this comment




        14

        @NeverMindTheBollocks - "hyperbole" like that the state serves the banks?
        wonder where they would get that from

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        Briar

        30 December 2012 7:20pmLink to this comment




        18

        @MaximusG - You can deny it as much as you like. For those living beyond
        the limits of the so-called middle class (who have sold out and now exist as
        overseers or propagandists on behalf of the boss class), classes still exist,
        just as much as the world is still round.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o
        marty660

        30 December 2012 8:01pmLink to this comment




        5

        "Yes, I think the society must take every means at its disposal to defend itself
        against the emergence of a parallel power which defies the elected power in
        this country and I think that goes to any distance. So long as there is a power
        in here which is challenging the elected representative of the people I think
        that power must be stopped and I think it's only, I repeat, weak-kneed
        bleeding hearts who are afraid to take these measures."
        - Pierre Elliott Trudeau

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        Samson12

        30 December 2012 9:07pmLink to this comment




        4

        @Bryant Amper - It would be truer to say that the dollar was destroyed and
        we are now living out that destruction in slow motion.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        maiaH

        30 December 2012 10:22pmLink to this comment




        @debt2zero - best comment ever (ok, third or fourth)

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook
o

        mikedee

        31 December 2012 6:15amLink to this comment




        28

        @Cyprover @MaximusG -

             "There is no class war anymore in the West, you will never
             change things pretending there is."

        Really? No class war you say. According to the US census there are 46
        million Americans living in poverty. This is the highest rate in 20 years.

        Further, inequality is now so high according to Forbes magazine it is
        threatening to damage the US economy. They state "The Congressional
        Budget Office recently reported that between 1979 and 2007 the top 1% of
        households doubled their share of pretax income while the share of the
        bottom 80% fell." You criticize the notion of a class war as if it is a political
        invention. Look at the facts. Look at the statistics. It isn't an invention of
        political ideologues, it is demonstrably true that the gap between rich and
        poor has risen over the last three decades.

        Further, the evidence points to rising inequality being linked to real social
        harms. Wilkinson and Picket's groundbreaking research in this area shows a
        clear correlation between greater inequality and higher mental health rates;
        higher crime rates and higher mortality rates. This isn't speculation, this is
        documented research.

        It is easy to cast aspersions without evidence. There seems to be good
        evidence that both inequality and poverty are at very high levels in the West
        now compared to the last few decades, and this is correlated with real social
        harms.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        RJSteele

        31 December 2012 7:00amLink to this comment




        20
        @NeverMindTheBollocks - To what hyperbole/myths of OWS are you
        referring? You don't say. But, there is at least one ridiculous myth in which
        you believe deeply. That is the myth that the Occupy movement doesn't have
        legitimate grievances. That the disparities in income, education, housing, etc.
        in our country are primarily--if not solely--the fault of the great unwashed
        masses themselves, who simply lack the gumption to pull themselves up by
        their bootstraps.

        That America is controlled now by a cabal of extremely powerful, interwoven
        factions--corporate, governmental, financial and military--that decides who
        dances and who doesn't, has not seemed to have seeped into your
        consciousness quite yet.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        ParaffinLamp

        31 December 2012 8:22amLink to this comment




        6

        @chadders -

        Exactly, wish I could recommend twice.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        BrotherPhil

        31 December 2012 9:25amLink to this comment




        8

        @NeverMindTheBollocks - You can't answer what he had to say, then?

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o
        BrotherPhil

        31 December 2012 9:29amLink to this comment




        4

        @bifess - Poor chap can't understand anything that hasn't been put in words
        of one syllable by Fox News.

        (I shall now try to refrain from ad hominem arguments, as there are plenty of
        real ones to make).

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        HarryTheHorse

        31 December 2012 11:40amLink to this comment




        12

             Yes, but have you actually listened to what some of the Occupy
             people have to say?

        OK, sonny. YOU tell us what the Occupy people were saying that would
        justify the waste of FBI resources infiltrating them?

        We are waiting

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        TimJag

        31 December 2012 11:46amLink to this comment




        8
        @NeverMindTheBollocks - some people are worthy of entering into
        discussion with - your just pompous. I'd recommend turning your computer
        off and going forva walk.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        ivanpope

        31 December 2012 12:12pmLink to this comment




        13

        @AView -

             open displays of emotion which we all have to endure


        Oh, you poor lamb. You had to endure open displays of emotion. Good thing the FBI
        got involved then, no knowing where that might have ended.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        Dryhtscipe

        31 December 2012 1:07pmLink to this comment




        3

        @NeverMindTheBollocks - Has your account been hijacked?

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        IgorBeaver

        31 December 2012 2:18pmLink to this comment
        9

        @DexterDolittle - Noting their antics I wonder whether some of the Occupy
        people are not government sanctioned agents provocateur. This is not as
        farfetched as it seems. It all works hand in glove with such ephemeral liberal
        sellouts like Dianne Feinstein, and the current "democratic" administration
        making surveillance of the gullible american public a reality. This is all for
        security and "our own good". To "save the republic" we will eventually give
        up our freedom to Big Brother.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        Whit Blauvelt

        31 December 2012 4:18pmLink to this comment




        18

        Did Occupy fail? Or was it the reason we aren't about to have President
        Romney? Many Democrats ran on Occupy themes; while Republicans found
        their usual lies less effective because undercut by a fresh focus on their
        toadying to the richest. When Elizabeth Warren was featured at the
        Democratic Convention, giving a speech out of Occupy's handbook, much of
        the press viewed it as risky and foolish. She was predicted a loser who would
        take Obama down with her. And what happened?

        Granted, this was Obama's government in collusion with the bankers against
        Occupy. Irony, like the poor, and like corruption among the rich, will never
        leave us. Still, Occupy Sandy has demonstrated itself the most effective relief
        organization in New York. Occupy still has much good to accomplish, and it
        will.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        Trevor Zion Bauknight

        31 December 2012 4:31pmLink to this comment
        @BandB - Take your money elsewhere.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        Jason Brown

        31 December 2012 9:36pmLink to this comment




        6

        @NeverMindTheBollocks - Maybe he just doesn't like fascist garbage? I
        know, it's in insult therefore you can't defend your own idiotic beliefs. It is
        beyond irrelevant but, then again, authoritarians assholes don't care as long
        as they can "prove" that their dangerous thinking is magically right because
        someone called them out for being a piece of shit. Scum.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        Steve Joseph

        01 January 2013 2:42amLink to this comment




        1

        @edwardrice - you think the various services just started working for the
        bankers? ROFL....Before name calling you my friend may want to take a
        quick course in history or at the very least research the history of the bankers.
        DISCLAIMER: it's pretty depressing.

        Everyone works for the bankers whether they know it or not. Does that make
        us all Facists or innocent sheep lead to the slaughter by their slight of hand?

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        Patt Reid
        01 January 2013 2:40pmLink to this comment




        6

        "the fact that it failed".. really? Clearly your head is just as deep in the sand
        as it was before Occupy came to town, but that is not true of others. What did
        the T-Party (or any other movement) accomplish in 3 months? Occupy was
        the wakeup call. Now the real work has begun. There's a reason the various
        groups of Occupy call themselves working groups, because they are out
        there working. We see their presence in fighting foreclosures, finding homes
        for the homeless, banking groups that are working to set up peoples banks,
        the "Strike Debt" rolling jubilee and they came to the rescue immediately
        after Hurricane Sandy, long before FEMA or any other groups came to help.

        If you are not concerned when there is collusion between the government
        and big banks to thwart peaceable disruption to the status quo, they you will
        deserve what you reap. If you doubt that the banks are running not just our
        country, but most all countries, you are deluding yourself. It's a sorry day
        when people of an allegedly 'free country' are forbidden their right to
        assemble, to speak freely and protest their government. It points up one
        thing... we were probably too late, the plutocracy is firmly in place.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        Cardigan

        01 January 2013 2:45pmLink to this comment




        @chadders -

        "There is no left wing, no reds under the bed, no Marxists in positions of
        power in government or in the press."

        You are obviously unaware of the Socialist International, (London HQ), of
        which the Labour Party is a member. The full list is here:
        http://www.socialistinternational.org/viewArticle.cfm?ArticlePageID=931

        Hilary Benn is currently a member of the SI commission for a Sustainable
        World Society, (aka World Socialism). SI President is George Papandreou,
        look what a wonderful job he did in Greece. Neil Kinnock is a former vice-
        president and now honorary president, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown have
        both been SI vice-presidents.Gordon Brown was replaced as a v-p by Harriet
        Harman.

        Socialist International is also closely linked with the Fabian Society, (HQ in
        London), which in effect gave birth to the Labour Party. The Miliband family
                      have been heavily Fabian and Ralph Miliband was a committed Marxist at
                      the LSE.

                     Report
                     Share this comment on Twitter
                     Share this comment on Facebook


          o

                      Cardigan

                      01 January 2013 2:46pmLink to this comment




                      @chadders -

                      "There is no left wing, no reds under the bed, no Marxists in positions of
                      power in government or in the press."

                      You are obviously unaware of the Socialist International, (London HQ), of
                      which the Labour Party is a member. The full list is here:
                      http://www.socialistinternational.org/viewArticle.cfm?ArticlePageID=931

                      Hilary Benn is currently a member of the SI commission for a Sustainable
                      World Society, (aka World Socialism). SI President is George Papandreou,
                      look what a wonderful job he did in Greece. Neil Kinnock is a former vice-
                      president and now honorary president, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown have
                      both been SI vice-presidents.Gordon Brown was replaced as a v-p by Harriet
                      Harman.

                      Socialist International is also closely linked with the Fabian Society, (HQ in
                      London), which in effect gave birth to the Labour Party. The Miliband family
                      have been heavily Fabian and Ralph Miliband was a committed Marxist at
                      the LSE.

                     Report
                     Share this comment on Twitter
                     Share this comment on Facebook






    Weatherel

    29 December 2012 3:09pmLink to this comment




    334

    Occupy were one giant unwashed embarrassment. Kudos to the FBI for taking out the trash.
    o   Report
    o   Share this comment on Twitter
    o   Share this comment on Facebook


o

            AhBrightWings

            29 December 2012 3:28pmLink to this comment




            640

            What's embarrassing is a poster who calls people with the courage to
            exercise their fundamental right to "assemble," exercise free speech, and
            protest --rights that are the backbone of democracy --"trash" with zero self-
            awareness about what that statement says about him/her.

           Report
           Share this comment on Twitter
           Share this comment on Facebook


o

            Gazoomplasm

            29 December 2012 3:29pmLink to this comment




            87

            How did you get left behind?

           Report
           Share this comment on Twitter
           Share this comment on Facebook


o

            scientific

            29 December 2012 3:37pmLink to this comment




            59

            Agreed. In order to protest, you need something to protest. They didn't quite
            get that part right. Actually they seemed pretty dumb to me too. I was
        expecting some older political-protest veterans to show up and do some
        "leading", but I guess the grassroots weren't even organized enough to
        attract any, or maybe they stupidly rejected all offers.

        The OWS movement had a good idea, but nothing else. Not even leaders.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        Weatherel

        29 December 2012 3:38pmLink to this comment




        164

        @AhBrightWings -

        If fundamental rights required courage occupy wouldn't have been exercising
        them. Occupy supplanted courage with self parody. Occupy were the
        comedy department of the rank amateur political spectrum.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        longshireman

        29 December 2012 3:43pmLink to this comment




        66

        @AhBrightWings -

             What's embarrassing is a poster who calls people with the
             courage to exercise their fundamental right to "assemble,"
             exercise free speech, and protest --rights that are the backbone
             of democracy --"trash" with zero self-awareness about what that
             statement says about him/her.

        I look forward to your defending of the Westboro Baptist Church for their
        courage to assemble, exercise free speech, and protest --rights that are the
        backbone of democracy.

        What is it with people who think protest is a good thing in and of itself?
        There are plenty of meaningless protests.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        WaitForPete

        29 December 2012 3:46pmLink to this comment




        118

        @longshireman - Whataboutery? So Soon?

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        longshireman

        29 December 2012 3:53pmLink to this comment




        19

        @WaitForPete - Whataboutery? Why then is the NRA mentioned in the next
        post?

        Only in CIF Land!

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        HowardBeale

        29 December 2012 4:01pmLink to this comment




        246
        In supporting corporate fascism, you endorse subversion against freedom
        and the American people. Who is the trash?

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        attila9000

        29 December 2012 4:02pmLink to this comment




        24

        @longshireman - Whataboutery about whataboutery?

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        SpankySpart

        29 December 2012 4:13pmLink to this comment




        29

        @AhBrightWings -

        AhBrightWings
        29 December 2012 3:28 PM
        What's embarrassing is a poster who calls people with the courage to
        exercise their fundamental right to "assemble," exercise free speech,
        and protest --rights that are the backbone of democracy --"trash" with zero
        self-awareness about what that statement says about him/her.

        ------

        As I posted before about Occupy....;

        The right to assemble is not the right to set up semi-permanent
        encampments. If you want to protest you are free to do so but come back
        next day and start again if you wish

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook
o

        edwardrice

        29 December 2012 4:20pmLink to this comment




        298

           Occupy were one giant unwashed embarrassment. Kudos to the
           FBI for taking out the trash.

        Why are right-wingers so obsessed with personal hygiene?

        Every article about Occupy has a comment like this, why?

        Do right-wingers go round Occupy events sniffing the armpits and crotches of
        the protesters?

        Has anyone who has attended an Occupy event noticed individuals
        putting their noses in places that they shouldn't?

        Perhaps this is what FBI informers get up to.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        AhBrightWings

        29 December 2012 4:53pmLink to this comment




        135

           I look forward to your defending of the Westboro Baptist Church
           for their courage to assemble, exercise free speech, and protest -
           -rights that are the backbone of democracy.
           What is it with people who think protest is a good thing in and of
           itself?
           @longshireman -

        Ouch. This has to be the most ridiculous non sequitur I've ever read, and
        that's saying something on these pages. Guess what? When the Westboro
        Baptist "Church" stages one of its abysmal protests more protesters gather to
        protest them, in exactly the way more people gather to drown out the KKK
        when it exercises its right to assemble.

        Welcome to democracy.
       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        minutemen

        29 December 2012 4:54pmLink to this comment




        19

        When the war comes you will be notified. And not pleasantly.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        AhBrightWings

        29 December 2012 5:05pmLink to this comment




        144

        @edwardrice - pure genius. Thanks for this. I've marveled for years about
        this obsession with "dirty" hippies. Freud would have a few pithy things to say
        about projection. The filth of small...er ...minds...and all that.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        slaveofgod

        29 December 2012 5:54pmLink to this comment




        43

        @edwardrice -
        Possible cause - Hatred of anything that challenges the norm mixed up with
        a large stinky dollop of OCD.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        HassledinHastings

        29 December 2012 5:59pmLink to this comment




        61

        Oh my. The trolls and place men are out in force on this one. Keep sticking
        your head in the sand sunshine - or perhaps it's up your ****.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        slaveofgod

        29 December 2012 6:00pmLink to this comment




        45

        @longshireman - meaningless to you, perhaps, but if people go to the
        trouble of protesting you can be pretty sure it will be meaningful to them.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        worried

        29 December 2012 6:30pmLink to this comment




        53
        You are clearly part of the problem. But you don't know it . Which makes you
        even more significant. (!)

        Personally I do not and would not support Occupy.
        But that is nothing to do with the slant of this article which says:
        - that fascism is in play in the USA
        - that there is an unpublished combination of private interest and public
        muscle to stifle 'protest' about said private interest
        - that public muscle is working to reduce ' freedom to protest' in general
        - that public muscle is giving out the information used in this article to put the
        fear of god into anyone who might be or might be thinking of being an
        'Occupy person'

        So dear sir, before you pay your trash collector, how about thinking about the
        premises of this article a,d giving us your considered point of view on each
        point in the article.
        If I were American I think that I would want the assertions in this article to be
        confirmed or rebutted. Properly.
        Or do you want the entire reading world to 'believe' that the USA is doing all
        of the above things with the intention that this article lends its authorities.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        javelina09

        29 December 2012 7:12pmLink to this comment




        27

        @edwardrice - The informers are probably having sex with the dirty hippies,
        so they're better qualified than anyone to tell us how nasty they are. I'm sure
        they wash up well before they go collect their checks for being manipulative
        scumbags.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        WellAppointedDandy

        29 December 2012 7:20pmLink to this comment




        74
        Trolly troll, you need to get yourself a jobby job.

        By which I mean to say, if you're not being paid by the banks for spouting
        such drivel, then you're at a level below that of the useful idiot.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        chrigid

        29 December 2012 8:08pmLink to this comment




        35

        So now the FBI is the Department of Hygiene and Protocol. I don't think this
        is what we pay them to do.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        chrigid

        29 December 2012 8:14pmLink to this comment




        44

        @SpankySpart - The Bill of Rights doesn't say anything about occupying
        space, the amount of time you can spend protesting, inconveniencing others,
        etc, etc. What are you all so afraid of?

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        chrigid

        29 December 2012 8:38pmLink to this comment
        6

        @worried - click the blue link early in the article.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        roachclip

        29 December 2012 9:05pmLink to this comment




        116

        @SpankySpart -

             The right to assemble is not the right to set up semi-permanent
             encampments. If you want to protest you are free to do so but
             come back next day and start again if you wish

        Says who?

        Who or what gives you the right to decide how people protest?

        Typical right-wing assumption that it is them who should have over everyone
        else.

        Well fuck off, because you don't tell me what to do.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        quinnjin

        30 December 2012 12:27amLink to this comment




        21

        @Weatherel - Well in case hadn't notice, the so called political
        "professionals" are a corrupt bunch of self serving jerks, who have turned
        democracy into a complete farce in your country. Amateurism is a badge of
        worthiness in the case of your country, everyone else is corrupt.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        blackcatwhitecat

        30 December 2012 2:12amLink to this comment




        29

        @scientific -

        "In order to protest, you need something to protest."

        An unfair criticism, the Occupy movements were protesting numerous
        (perhaps you could argue too many) issues.

        "I was expecting some older political-protest veterans to show up and do
        some "leading", but I guess the grassroots weren't even organized enough to
        attract any, or maybe they stupidly rejected all offers.
        The OWS movement had a good idea, but nothing else. Not even leaders."

        So basically Occupy could only succeed by copying every other model and
        adhering to a strict hierarchical structure? I recall some other movements did
        try and take over, and some got annoyed that it was to be about Occupy
        rather than their party - others agreed on the umbrella aspect of Occupy,
        some original Occupiers were from those grassroots you mention. Some of
        the networks and connections built will remain and grow. Just because a
        movement seems to have failed, and has been depicted as a failure in the
        main stream media, does not mean the ideas will die completely. Seeing as
        broken and deeply unequal economies/societies were a motivation for
        Occupy, I do not think the protesting ideas will evaporate, and consequent
        future calls for action will be answered.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        TroubleCameCalling

        30 December 2012 3:56amLink to this comment




        84

        Occupy was largely a symbolic gesture. The fact that it was overwhelmingly
        non-violent for example.
        The authoritarian state hand-in-hand with corporate capitalism had defeated
        this movement before it began. Chants, placards, teach-ins and bongos are
        no match for a secret police intent on subverting the protesters civil rights
        and a paramilitary police granted license to do with them as they wish.

        Under the pressure of events however symbols give way to gestures made in
        deadly earnest, phoney wars become real ones.

        If the forces Occupy sought to counter are not checked then there may come
        a time when the turds who applauded the cracking of skulls have cause to
        look back on this movement and the dead freedoms it sought to exercise with
        nostalgia.

        Or may be not.

        Reading some of the above posts one can only conclude that slavery is
        some peoples natural state.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        Huples

        30 December 2012 10:32amLink to this comment




        31

        @scientific - That was the point. Only the media wanted OWS to have
        leaders (to interview these new 'politicians') and a platform (so they could be
        a new party). OWS rightly avoid both these traps yet fell to prolonged and
        aggressive 'policing'.
        I am tired of people knocking OWS but I guess I'll get used to it eventually.
        You attack yourselves at the behest of the media. The empty tents in
        St.Pauls was fictious btw

        OWS was the greatest thing since the Vietnam War protests and is decidely
        NOT dead merely altering tactics due to 'policing'

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        Catherine Patricia Holder

        30 December 2012 1:39pmLink to this comment
        20

        @scientific - It seems to me that the Occupy movement are the only ones
        organised enough to do anything for the people still suffering the effects of
        Sandy. The Government is way too busy destroying the rest of the world to
        do squat for its own people!

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        mschneiderg

        30 December 2012 5:20pmLink to this comment




        10

        @scientific - Agreed, from now on anyone thinking about exercising their
        civic rights should first go directly to you for approval.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        peluge

        30 December 2012 5:47pmLink to this comment




        11

        @scientific - You are being pretty selective about the civil rights movement
        and anti-war protests during the '60s and '70s. People lost their lives to
        support it, including those shot by reps of the government, and it took time
        and sustained protest to facilitate the leadership you thought was missing.
        Too early to declare the nascent movement dead or a failure.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o
        tlsmith63

        30 December 2012 6:29pmLink to this comment




        8

        @blackcatwhitecat - The anger is still there, so if Occupy has "failed",
        something else will take its' place. Personally, I did think Occupy became a
        movement that took on too many issues at once. The number one issue with
        many people is the economy. If a movement came along that was just about
        that, it would do very well. I think so many people supported Occupy at first
        because they thought it was going to do something about the problem of
        economic inequality. There is a huge group out there that is ready to fight
        back. Just give them a movement to be a part of.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        maiaH

        30 December 2012 10:24pmLink to this comment




        4

        @scientific - Why have we sheeple fallen so hard for the establishment's way
        of thinking that we judge worth by having leaders and a hierarchy?
        Presumably with some tough discipline. Anything bearing a resemblance to
        the electorate - a demos without a leader with mere votes - can be rejected
        for that before being rejected for its or its lack of policies?

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        HarryTheHorse

        31 December 2012 11:42amLink to this comment




        8
            @Weatherel - If fundamental rights required courage occupy
            wouldn't have been exercising them. Occupy supplanted courage
            with self parody. Occupy were the comedy department of the
            rank amateur political spectrum.

        Even if that assessment is true, it does not justify the involvement of the FBI.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        Dryhtscipe

        31 December 2012 1:08pmLink to this comment




        4

        @scientific - The lack of leaders was kind of one of the points.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        RoloTomassi

        31 December 2012 3:30pmLink to this comment




        6

        @longshireman - It takes a truly ridiculous individual to see OWS as a
        pointless protest.

        Every single anti-OWS comment here is either apologist nonsense, 1%ers
        defending the indefensible, or utter cluelessness.

        And I really don't care where you fall on that scale.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        Whit Blauvelt
                   31 December 2012 4:21pmLink to this comment




                   7

                   @SpankySpart - Really? Protest must not ever, ever be inconvenient to
                   anyone?

                   Doesn't that reduce our rights to a mere matter of dress up and pretend?

                  Report
                  Share this comment on Twitter
                  Share this comment on Facebook


       o

                   Patt Reid

                   01 January 2013 2:55pmLink to this comment




                   12

                   I'm seeing here so many speaking up that have completely missed the point
                   of Occupy

                   1. the absence of a "leader" and hierarchy was deliberate. It was government
                   by consensus
                   2. The primary focus was the control the banks had over our lives and futures,
                   but with the recognition that "all our grievances are connected", this is why
                   no list of demands.
                   3. You need to not be talking of OWS in the past tense. It's alive and well.

                   We Americans live in a country where consistently the polling of the people
                   calls for quality health care for all, higher taxes on corporations and the
                   obscenely wealthy, no cuts to SS and Medicare, support education for all,
                   stricter gun control etc. Just as consistently the government votes against
                   every demand of we the people. If that does not tell you who's running things,
                   then you need to wipe the cobwebs from your eyes.

                   Another world is possible.

                  Report
                  Share this comment on Twitter
                  Share this comment on Facebook






    3genders
29 December 2012 3:21pmLink to this comment




276

By contrast, the FBI daren't even say 'boo' to real armed anarchist groups like the gun nuts and
their fellow NRA travellers. Only in America!

          o   Report
          o   Share this comment on Twitter
          o   Share this comment on Facebook


      o

                  Gnoway

                  29 December 2012 4:51pmLink to this comment




                  36

                  Hmmm - you not heard about Waco and Ruby Ridge then? DO you intend to
                  lift your head out from under your duvet in the next decade or so?

                 Report
                 Share this comment on Twitter
                 Share this comment on Facebook


      o

                  mikedow

                  29 December 2012 6:19pmLink to this comment




                  21

                  @Gnoway - Kids were involved. Kids and guns go together in the US.

                 Report
                 Share this comment on Twitter
                 Share this comment on Facebook


      o

                  DexterDoolittle

                  29 December 2012 6:36pmLink to this comment
        8

        @mikedow -

        You fail to mention that the kids are the victims.

        There is now apparently some conflicting evidence in the Newtown child
        murders.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        mikedow

        29 December 2012 7:05pmLink to this comment




        7

        @DexterDoolittle - I don't know the details of those two events, but put kids
        in the equation, and people go apeshit, on both sides of the issue.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        HoldenC

        29 December 2012 9:35pmLink to this comment




        20

        @Gnoway - you not heard about Waco and Ruby Ridge then? DO you
        intend to lift your head out from under your duvet

        The original poster mentioned NRA gun nuts, not religious nuts. Perhaps it's
        your head under the duvet.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook
          o

                      Mebabby

                      30 December 2012 5:20amLink to this comment




                      3

                      @HoldenC - what is your head doing under the duvet . Being a religious nut
                      does not mean one cannot be a gun nut. The Branch Davidians had quite a
                      stockpile of weapons. Ruby Ridge refers to a Fed attack on gun nuts, nothing
                      to do with religion.

                     Report
                     Share this comment on Twitter
                     Share this comment on Facebook


          o

                      tlsmith63

                      30 December 2012 6:31pmLink to this comment




                      19

                      They don't investigate the Tea Party, either. They were bringing guns to their
                      rallies, but nothing was done. It proves that the TP is nothing but a tool of the
                      elite.

                     Report
                     Share this comment on Twitter
                     Share this comment on Facebook






    AhBrightWings

    29 December 2012 3:24pmLink to this comment




    417
The crackdown, which involved, as you may recall, violent arrests, group disruption,
canister missiles to the skulls of protesters, people held in handcuffs so tight they were
injured, people held in bondage till they were forced to wet or soil themselves – was
coordinated with the big banks themselves.

Absolutely chilling. If this doesn't make us go Dickinson's "zero at the bone" nothing will. This
has to top the chart for the most disturbing (though not surprising) revelation of the year.

Many of us have been tallying the growing signs of the shift from a democracy to a police state.
Others have countered that at least we still have the right to protest. It seems that fundamental
civil right now has to be struck from the list, too.

Cheated, robbed, spied on, and attacked for protesting those crimes...the only question that
matters now is this: Exactly how bad does it have to get before people stand up and take notice?

         o    Report
         o    Share this comment on Twitter
         o    Share this comment on Facebook


    o

                   mikea1

                   29 December 2012 5:02pmLink to this comment




                   25

                   Its too late,protestors will neither be allowed to stand up, or perish the
                   thought,organise.Game over- the result was never in question.

                  Report
                  Share this comment on Twitter
                  Share this comment on Facebook


    o

                   ataylorusa

                   29 December 2012 6:03pmLink to this comment




                   35

                   I can only recommend that people read the excellent book "Subversives" by
                   Seth Rosenfeld to appreciate the true history and continued thread of actual
                   subversiveness by our own FBI. Does this agency represent fascism in the
                   US - perhaps not totally, perhaps not constantly - yet. But so much of their
                   actions are the exact opposite of what democracy and protection of our
                   freedoms should represent. Of course there are movements and individuals
                   acting to the detriment of those ideals - the shock and shame is that much of
        that is to be found in the actions of supposedly "legitimate" corporate western
        democracy and corresponding law agencies.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        DexterDoolittle

        29 December 2012 6:37pmLink to this comment




        36

        @mikea1 -

        I keep telling my son that the Thought Police are out to get him.
        He thinks I am joking.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        mikea1

        29 December 2012 7:53pmLink to this comment




        1

        @DexterDoolittle - As Eliza MB is wont to say,"foresight is everything".

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        finnkn

        29 December 2012 9:21pmLink to this comment




        10
        @DexterDoolittle - This sounds like deeply responsible parenting. Well done.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        PollitoIngles

        30 December 2012 1:39pmLink to this comment




        44

             “Now I will tell you the answer to my question. It is this. The Party
             seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in
             the good of others; we are interested solely in power, pure power.
             What pure power means you will understand presently. We are
             different from the oligarchies of the past in that we know what we
             are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves,
             were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the
             Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but
             they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They
             pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized
             power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just around the
             corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free
             and equal. We are not like that. We know what no one ever
             seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a
             means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order
             to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to
             establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is
             persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power
             is power. Now you begin to understand me.”
             ― George Orwell, 1984

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        mschneiderg

        30 December 2012 5:22pmLink to this comment




        4
                      Nobody has stripped you of your right to enter a shopping mall, what are you
                      complaining about?

                     Report
                     Share this comment on Twitter
                     Share this comment on Facebook






    honourablebrutus

    29 December 2012 3:30pmLink to this comment




    7

    I have nothing to say.

             o   Report
             o   Share this comment on Twitter
             o   Share this comment on Facebook


         o

                      DexterDoolittle

                      29 December 2012 6:38pmLink to this comment




                      19

                      But you have just informed us that you are British.

                     Report
                     Share this comment on Twitter
                     Share this comment on Facebook






    JohannaFerrour

    29 December 2012 3:31pmLink to this comment




    79
The links between government law/security agencies and big business and mainstream media
(MSM) are nothing new.

However, just because these relationships are age old. doesn't mean there should not be any
questions asked about their influence and operation in our societies.

I would like to see some reporting on the level of grass-roots involvement in Occupy among
blue collar and unemployed Americans. I have a hunch that there was more involvement than
that shown in the MSM.

         o   Report
         o   Share this comment on Twitter
         o   Share this comment on Facebook


   o

                 NeverMindTheBollocks

                 29 December 2012 4:03pmLink to this comment




                 40

                 These links are absolutely shocking!

                 Just imagine government bodies cooperating with the rest of society. Who
                 would have ever thought that could be possible.

                 That's the real revelation here.

                 Well done to these groups from both the private and public sector working
                 together for actual 99%.

                Report
                Share this comment on Twitter
                Share this comment on Facebook


   o

                 edwardrice

                 29 December 2012 4:24pmLink to this comment




                 233

                 @NeverMindTheBollocks -

                      Just imagine government bodies cooperating with the rest of
                      society.

                 The banks are not ''the rest of society''.
        They brought about a world-wide economic melt-down that continues today.
        They have destroyed the lives of millions.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        Gnoway

        29 December 2012 4:53pmLink to this comment




        10

        @edwardrice - Strange those big stone buildings did it with no help from
        people.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        Cappatidda

        29 December 2012 6:32pmLink to this comment




        8

        @Gnoway - Even stranger that no-one moaned about the tidal waves of
        cash or questioned where it was coming from in the previous decade when
        even the most humble of homeowners discovered to their joy that they had
        unwittingly purchased a money-shitting machine*

        Rough with the smooth folks, rough with the smooth.....

        *Copyright Charlie Brooker

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        DexterDoolittle

        29 December 2012 6:40pmLink to this comment
        15

        @Gnoway -

        No it was steel girder buildings, which fell down at free fall speed all by
        themselves, according to the official conspiracy theory.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        roachclip

        29 December 2012 9:09pmLink to this comment




        33

        @Gnoway -

             Strange those big stone buildings did it with no help from people.

        Don't be an idiot, you know precisely who edwardrice is talking about.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        wildworms

        30 December 2012 4:38amLink to this comment




        27

        @JohannaFerrour

             I would like to see some reporting on the level of grass-roots
             involvement in Occupy among blue collar and unemployed
             Americans. I have a hunch that there was more involvement than
             that shown in the MSM.

        There was. As an outside observer who visited one of the sites and spoke
        with several of the participants afterwards, I can assure you that people of all
        ages and all parts of society were involved. The protestors were a lot more
        diverse than reported in the media.

        The only exception I can think of right now is that African-Americans were
        relatively under-represented. An African-American occupier at the site
        complained afterwards that African-Americans were "like flecks of pepper in
        a sea of salt".

        Because of the nature of the protest, a lot of unemployed people joined the
        camp, along with a lot of homeless people, especially homeless families.

        Most of the full-time occupiers who weren't unemployed or homeless seemed
        to be from a blue-collar background.

        Even some of the police officers patrolling the site voiced their heartfelt
        support for occupy, off the record of course (though some other officers were
        hostile). I think this was genuine, not "good cop/bad cop".

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        tlsmith63

        30 December 2012 6:35pmLink to this comment




        3

        @wildworms - And the Occupiers weren't all liberal, either. There were
        libertarians & Ron Paul supporters too. I know there were libertarians at
        Occupy Dallas when I visited their encampment.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        wildworms

        30 December 2012 8:18pmLink to this comment




        @tlsmith63 -
        my impression too

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
                      Share this comment on Facebook






    rjs0

    29 December 2012 3:34pmLink to this comment




    34

    see p 61 here: http://www.justiceonline.org/commentary/fbi-files-ows.html#documents

    1. An identified as of October planned to en Iacks .196
    against protestors in Houston, Texas, if deemed necessary. An indentifiedl had ib7C
    received intelligence that indicated the protesters in New York and Seattle planned similar
    protests in
    Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, and Austin, Texas. planned to gather intelligence against
    the leaders of the protest groups and obtain photographs, then formulate a plan to kill the
    leadership via
    suppressed sniper rifles. (Note: protests continued throughout the weekend with approximately
    6000
    persons in NYC. “Occupy Wall Street” protests have spread to about half of all states in the US,
    over a
    dozen European and Asian cities, including protests in Cleveland l0/6-8/1 1 at Willard Park
    which was
    initially attended by hundreds of protestersSE-CR

    also see p68, 69

               o   Report
               o   Share this comment on Twitter
               o   Share this comment on Facebook


           o

                       tlsmith63

                       30 December 2012 6:39pmLink to this comment




                       18

                       Since I visited Occupy Dallas & talked to the people there, it is very upsetting
                       to me to know that some crazy nutcase group wanted to kill them. These
                       were individuals who cared about what was happening to the US & wanted to
                       do something about it! I think they were great people, & they made me think
                       that not everyone in TX was a crazed right-winger (I am originally from
                       California). Sad that anyone would want to do them harm.
                     Report
                     Share this comment on Twitter
                     Share this comment on Facebook






    INKognito

    29 December 2012 3:35pmLink to this comment




    181

    Be careful Naomi, there are a lot of people like the first two respondents here with an agenda
    your integrity won't surmount.
    When you consider the situation you describe as you describe it I am not surprised in the least,
    we spent hundreds of years moving away from the nobility/serf situation and now some are
    trying to retun us to it.

              o   Report
              o   Share this comment on Twitter
              o   Share this comment on Facebook


          o

                      longshireman

                      29 December 2012 3:58pmLink to this comment




                      24

                      Agenda? We all know there are problems with today's banking.

                      But the paranoia being peddled around here isn't chilling, it's silly.

                      Occupy is a vegetable on life support.

                      It's time to pull the plug, or let the Swiss sort it out.

                     Report
                     Share this comment on Twitter
                     Share this comment on Facebook


          o

                      edwardrice

                      29 December 2012 4:29pmLink to this comment
        206

        @longshireman -

             the paranoia being peddled around here isn't chilling, it's silly.

        When corporations and state security merge to protect the interests of the 1%
        we no-longer have anything resembling a democracy. Instead we have
        inverted totalitarianism.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        longshireman

        29 December 2012 4:48pmLink to this comment




        22

        @edwardrice -

        So the solution is not bathing, growing dreadlocks, and asking rich and
        frightened celebrities to drop by with pizza?

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        blammo

        29 December 2012 5:41pmLink to this comment




        105

        @longshireman - if you could be bothered to spend a couple of minutes
        finding out about the demographic of the people involved in the global
        occupy movement at all levels you might discover that your 'argument' is
        based on pure prejudice.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        AView

        29 December 2012 5:57pmLink to this comment




        71

        @longshireman - Despite responding to a previous post of yours - albeit
        sarcastically - I've suddenly come to the realisation that you are actually just
        a wind up merchant. (The pizza comment was the tipping point).

        I see you are attempting to... Occupy CIF.

        (See what I did there?!)

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        Shyam

        30 December 2012 3:46amLink to this comment




        21

        @longshireman - So all these problems would be solved by a bath and some
        perfume perhaps ? You sir are a genius. Your ideas intrigue me and I would
        like to subscribe to your newsletter.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        tlsmith63

        30 December 2012 6:41pmLink to this comment




        10
                      @longshireman - I have talked to Occupy protesters. They were a lot more
                      diverse than what you describe. Very few of them were unwashed hippies
                      with dreadlocks.

                     Report
                     Share this comment on Twitter
                     Share this comment on Facebook






    JochananHmqbi

    29 December 2012 3:39pmLink to this comment




    19

    It's more pathetic than chilling. The sheer amount of resources spent to "crack down" a
    harmless bunch of drum-circling, bourgeois pseudo-hippies. Might as well have consulted Eric
    Cartman on that...

             o   Report
             o   Share this comment on Twitter
             o   Share this comment on Facebook


         o

                      blackcatwhitecat

                      30 December 2012 2:26amLink to this comment




                      15

                      That's not a bad point, in that the likelihood was that Occupy would implode
                      eventually as more and more questions were asked of it, such as:

                      "what in particular would you so about x/y/z if you think the
                      govt/banks/current system is getting it wrong"?

                      telling the truth that answers take time, was thoroughly ridiculed as Occupy
                      not having a clue. The propaganda campaign against Occupy was pretty
                      effective as these pages demonstrate. Not everyone in Occupy was a bongo
                      playing hippy...but so what if they were? Would people not prefer peace
                      loving hippies to hate filled rip off merchants?

                      However I still see it as chilling that such violence was planned against
                      essentially peaceful individuals and groups.
                     Report
                     Share this comment on Twitter
                     Share this comment on Facebook






    Alfredo Scott Hamill

    29 December 2012 3:41pmLink to this comment




    124

    The fact of the matter is that, on the local level, democracy is alive and well in America, but on
    the national level, there is an element of almost fascist power that is destroying the basic creed
    of the country. You could even start with the NRA and go to extreme right-wingers, but they are
    only the visible part of the iceberg. Americans should be worried and start waking up!

              o   Report
              o   Share this comment on Twitter
              o   Share this comment on Facebook


          o

                      ataylorusa

                      29 December 2012 6:39pmLink to this comment




                      6

                      Well said...

                     Report
                     Share this comment on Twitter
                     Share this comment on Facebook






    wary

    29 December 2012 3:47pmLink to this comment




    103
    so weatherwel - You are a paragon of cowed, bleating citizenship?
    Ever stuck your neck out for something or someone?
    Thought not - perhaps you work for a bank?

               o   Report
               o   Share this comment on Twitter
               o   Share this comment on Facebook






    Nayrbite

    29 December 2012 3:47pmLink to this comment




    148

    Why am I not surprised?

    The US and UK are inexorably moving toward a fascist/police state..if we're not there already in
    all but name.

    Generalissimo Cameron's henchmen are probably even now probing comments on this site.

               o   Report
               o   Share this comment on Twitter
               o   Share this comment on Facebook


          o

                       Gnoway

                       29 December 2012 4:55pmLink to this comment




                       7

                       If they are as weak as yours, do not worry, they will not be interested in you -
                       or - is that the problem :D

                      Report
                      Share this comment on Twitter
                      Share this comment on Facebook






    Nihilistoffhismeds92
    29 December 2012 3:54pmLink to this comment




    61

    The document – reproduced here in an easily searchable format – shows a terrifying
    network of coordinated DHS, FBI, police, regional fusion center, and private-sector
    activity so completely merged into one another that the monstrous whole is, in fact, one
    entity: in some cases, bearing a single name, the Domestic Security Alliance Council.

    Suitably Orwellian name, is it not?

    Faster than you can say "jack-booted thugs" or "badge carrying back-jacks," the FBI and other
    defenders of the faith, ATF I'm looking at you, are trampling on the rights of the dissenters.

    It takes me back to the glory days of Ruby Ridge and Waco.

    Al Hail the FBI, defenders of the faithful!

    Heymat, shiny hat and all.

              o   Report
              o   Share this comment on Twitter
              o   Share this comment on Facebook






    tomkun

    29 December 2012 3:55pmLink to this comment




    126

    If you think that the FBI receives it's wages from the American tax payer, yet they do nothing to
    stop drug barons laundering money thru banks or libor rate fixing... it kind of makes u want to
    invade wall street/the city and crucify bankers, literally. Viva la revolution!

              o   Report
              o   Share this comment on Twitter
              o   Share this comment on Facebook


          o

                       Brainhead

                       29 December 2012 8:15pmLink to this comment
                      1

                      I laughed at four things in that comment. Well done, 4/5, would read again.

                     Report
                     Share this comment on Twitter
                     Share this comment on Facebook






    bobbymac1956

    29 December 2012 3:58pmLink to this comment




    63

    They managed all this and more with a "Communist" in the white house can you imagine the
    scene when eventually America elects a real old fashioned fascist

              o   Report
              o   Share this comment on Twitter
              o   Share this comment on Facebook






    HughManatee

    29 December 2012 4:04pmLink to this comment




    172

    terrorist = any fucker who disagrees with an incumbent government - a new definition?

              o   Report
              o   Share this comment on Twitter
              o   Share this comment on Facebook


          o

                      BrotherPhil

                      31 December 2012 9:45amLink to this comment
                       8

                       No, an old one.

                      Report
                      Share this comment on Twitter
                      Share this comment on Facebook






    kb39remember

    29 December 2012 4:06pmLink to this comment




    77

    whos suprised.

    police in the UK openly admit wanting to use drones if they are not allready, they want to record
    our internet use, the US gov has allready released docs on various internal groups they watch
    including 'freemen' etc who dont believe in the current constitution. Overuse and extension of
    so called 'terrorism' laws

    Basically, fall in line or we will be watching you.

              o   Report
              o   Share this comment on Twitter
              o   Share this comment on Facebook


         o

                       DexterDoolittle

                       29 December 2012 6:47pmLink to this comment




                       27

                       Big Brother is already watching you.

                       It is way past 1984.

                      Report
                      Share this comment on Twitter
                      Share this comment on Facebook


    Jan-Kamil Rembisch

    29 December 2012 4:07pmLink to this comment




    50

    Wow I was told, back when, this was a leftwing paper. I was informed wrongly; It is a pseudo
    'left' paper that promotes the very values it is widely misthought to be against. What do I mean?
    Well tolerance; insight, intelligence, humanity, progressivism etc.
    What do I see. A very clever 'good cop' to the obvious ugly 'bad cop' of trash like the Daily Mail;
    or any other Murdoch trash. The reality is this paper is as much on the side of war, imperialism,
    racism, surveillance, 'red herrings'; etc as the 'bad cop'. The only mainstream paper I read that
    INFORMS me is the more openly 'centrist' New York Times where you can read differing views
    by those involved in decision making as well as humane; thoughtful comments by educated
    thinking readers.
    I am far to the Left of the NYT but I can learn from them. From this pseudo 'trash' paper all I get
    is PC attitude (gays and Women vs Islam), ignorance (all Americans are 'trailer trash' white
    scum; bigotry (all religious people are a threat to humanity; in particular our historical hates
    from the past 1000 years (catholics, Poles such as myself and Yes muslims again!).
    In a Europe of 'the Golden Dawn', Anders Breivik we now add Left wing reasons for racism to
    add along to the Rightwing one's (dirty little 'untermensch', terrorism, stealing our jobs take your
    pick). all at the same time Europe is turning into a police totalitarian nightmare where your
    private life is police business and all activism is criminalised. Combine that with the Gaurdians
    contemp for all notions of Libertarianism (the natural and intelligent fear of Goverment
    overreach) and the US constitution which is the only thing that has prevented US descent into
    full fascism (btw; I am NOT saying the US system is perfect; nothing is).
    Clearest example of this BS!. The Pussy Riot PC garbage. Putin (whio I don't like) rightly shut
    Angela Merkel up when she attempted moralyzing over the issue by pointing out the fact that
    these girls had tried 5 times before to get arrested; like in public, filming themselves stuffing
    chicken bit's up their vagina's. These girls WANTED to get arrested and are also racist against
    non russians and epsecially the hated Jews of today; the Muslims. Then compare what little
    was needed to arrest a man in the UK for burning his own Poppy protesting it's abuse as war
    propaganda.
    SO the D.M.; FOX and the Gaurdian agree on far more than it would seem on the surface
    despite all the hot air and mutual insults (drama): I have read literally 1,000's of hate comments
    here about foreigner and Islam in particular, It's getting all 1930's again. The good North vs the
    'inferior lazy' South, the good 'west' vs we evil Easterners who work too hard.
    At least in the US the racist are in retreat and going nowhere (the GOP will have to take in the
    very conservative hispanics, their racists hate, to have ANY future! US will go left and thanks t
    it's constitution they will have the ability to throw out the excesses of the dying war on Terror,
    drugs etc:
    Europe under the undemocratic oligarchy of the Deutsche Bundesbank interests will deteriorate
    in white vs white racism as the fuel dies out of the anti 'darkies' campaign; because the
    Austerity program and lack of Dmeocracy means national racism is the win, win strategy of the
    Elite and the 'Gaurdian' will do it's job of gaurding THEiR interests while promoting confusion
    and ignorance!
    Time to get out of this hell hole. New York City here I come (wonderful HUMAN place if tough;
    thy won't hate me for workinh hard, believing in my duty to my family and allow me to grow as
human being!!: ( I know I lived and worked there before as a student). Wake up Gaurdian
readers. This paper is making mental SERFS out of you! Tony Blair anyone?!

         o   Report
         o   Share this comment on Twitter
         o   Share this comment on Facebook


   o

                 AhBrightWings

                 29 December 2012 4:11pmLink to this comment




                 81

                 Thanks for this, so true. The vile commentary on this and any article that has
                 to do with truly liberal progressive issues is quite stunning. It's form follows
                 function. No sooner does Wolf or Greenwald comment on how corrupt and
                 petty and dangerous the surveillance state has become, then a chorus of
                 those voicing that very corruption chimes in.

                 Instructive, isn't it? Also disturbing and terrifying. We're in a bad state.

                Report
                Share this comment on Twitter
                Share this comment on Facebook


   o

                 DexterDoolittle

                 29 December 2012 6:51pmLink to this comment




                 48

                 @AhBrightWings - The only difference between the DNC and the
                 Republicans is the issue of gay marriage and abortion, which are both red
                 herrings to distract us from the Washington consensus of extortion and war
                 machinery currently in operation.

                Report
                Share this comment on Twitter
                Share this comment on Facebook


   o

                 kennyboy
                      29 December 2012 7:27pmLink to this comment




                      33

                      I'm sorry, Jan Kamil Rembisch, but your post seems very confused. The
                      quotation on the title page is "Facts are sacred, but opinion is free." I'm not
                      very impressed with the present standards of journalism on the Graun, and
                      its editorial stance is far less radical than it used to be, but the comments
                      BTL seem to represent a span of opinion varying from the professional
                      trollers, who always seem to be first on the scene, to the revolutionary left.
                      Yourself and AhBrightWngs seem to be under a misapprehension that
                      Longshoreman and his ilk are somehow representative of the paper and
                      readership in general. Maybe you should read past the first page.

                     Report
                     Share this comment on Twitter
                     Share this comment on Facebook


          o

                      Silvertown

                      29 December 2012 11:11pmLink to this comment




                      10

                      I have read the Guardian for over 50 years, I have never once thought of it as
                      Left-wing, it has always been of the ‘Liberal Establishment' (in the English
                      sense) and always of the centre-right. The sensible centre-right, but none the
                      less the centre-right.

                     Report
                     Share this comment on Twitter
                     Share this comment on Facebook






    AhBrightWings

    29 December 2012 4:08pmLink to this comment




    183

    @Weatherel - Have you seen the coverage of some of the attacks on the protesters? How
    about the one where the college boy took a canister shot to the head that broke his skull,
    knocked him unconscious, and nearly killed him? When was the last time you saw people
    falling bloodied to the ground surrounded by smoke designed to choke you and, yet, you circled
    back to pick that person up and get him to safety? A crowd of people actually did do that. Did
    you?

    Were you in the circle of college students out in California who had their mouths forced open
    and mace directed down their throats? Were you one of the students vomiting up blood and
    froth? Even so, did you stand firm and refuse to move as you were being beaten, harassed,
    and overwhelmed by an army of armed men your own college president --the person charged
    with your safety-- called in?

    Please do be specific. I'm sure we'd all love details about your courage in the face of imminent
    harm.

             o     Report
             o     Share this comment on Twitter
             o     Share this comment on Facebook






    Jan-Kamil Rembisch

    29 December 2012 4:09pmLink to this comment




    37

    Oh I forget ot say 2 things. Sorry for the length of the previous comment but I had to make the
    point. 2nd bravo to MS Wolff. Don't let the minions grind you down.!

             o     Report
             o     Share this comment on Twitter
             o     Share this comment on Facebook






    ForgetfulCat

    29 December 2012 4:13pmLink to this comment




    89

    I happen to believe that Occupy were a bunch of idiots with no coherent analysis of, or
    alternative to, capitalism. However, that makes this level of conspiracy against them by the
    state and the banks more, not less worrying. If the state was prepared to go to these lengths
    against people who posed no realistic threat, what measures would they feel justified in taking
    against a political movement that actually threatened the status quo?
    Americans are fond of telling us they live in a democracy. It doesn't look that much like it from
    where I'm standing.

             o    Report
             o    Share this comment on Twitter
             o    Share this comment on Facebook


         o

                       Leopold1904

                       29 December 2012 5:05pmLink to this comment




                       21

                       I agree. The Occupy lot - in Scotland anyway - seemed rootless and not
                       perhaps the most strategically aware revolutionaries in the history on the left
                       but Ms Wolf's account of the state response in the US is a shocker.

                      Report
                      Share this comment on Twitter
                      Share this comment on Facebook






    SoberReflection

    29 December 2012 4:13pmLink to this comment




    14

    Sounds like a very efficient response to those wretched Occupy troublemakers.

    Bravo Uncle Sam!

             o    Report
             o    Share this comment on Twitter
             o    Share this comment on Facebook


         o

                       Jan-Kamil Rembisch

                       30 December 2012 3:43pmLink to this comment
        16

        Fascists are always happy at their regimes 'efficiancy' in 'responding' to
        'troublemakers's. They always talk about law and order but they don't
        actually belive in the law at all; as you prove once again here.
        The one thing really better about the US IS the American Constitution and
        intense respct Americans (as opposed to most Europeans) have for the
        importance of Liberty. Most Europeans prefer to be told what to do, what to
        think and how to think. I respect even the Tea Partiers; if only for their
        motivations when it comes ot keeping Goverment off their backs. OWS share
        that as do Amnesty International; Civil Rights Activists and other 'wretched
        troublemakers'; a word used as much by Putin; Morsi, Assad; The Chinese
        Communist Party et al: I love the US ; warts and all.
        You love oppression which makes you either a very rich sadist or a very
        sado/masochistic untermensch. Either way; sober or not your reflections
        (lack of in fact) represent the very values that mad me leave Britain. A nation
        of wanna be Serfs. Nothing makes you and other like you ('Your having a
        Laugh') happier than watching good people, trying to fight injustice, being
        illegally harrased and tormented.
        Following your logic they could go further; like in the US and arrest you for
        burning your own flower. Liberty indeed! And yes right below my coming
        comment: Another fascist who thinks democracy ends at the election. No civil
        rights; no legal boundaries for police harassment.
        Like I said a nation of Serfs! How sad for the wonderful minority of brave
        people wo are not. The only nation of people I know more less interested in
        politics and knowledge is Sweden; the nation of ultimate passivity. But at
        least they have a culture and lifestyle that gives them something to be overly
        self satisfied: like hope and some future.
        YOu lot are like the cowards in the English Private schools who cheer on the
        same bullies who bully them; just getting kicks watching other get beaten up.
        How do I know? Duh; I went to Clifton Collage in the 1970's and 3 boys there
        in my time (74-79) as the direct result of this type of bullying: No prosecution;
        no inquiries as all the boys were 'our nations future leaders'. So you ; *Shirley
        NotMe' (below) and *Yourhavingalaugh' are all in good mutual company!

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        SoberReflection

        31 December 2012 2:31pmLink to this comment




        @Jan-Kamil Rembisch - Wow, that's me well and truly told! I hope you feel
        better for having got that little lot off your chest.

        Anyway, Happy New Year!

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
                      Share this comment on Facebook


         o

                       Jason Brown

                       31 December 2012 9:44pmLink to this comment




                       4

                       @SoberReflection - We get it: you're a coward like large swaths of the public.
                       Shocking, really.

                      Report
                      Share this comment on Twitter
                      Share this comment on Facebook






    ShirleyNotMe

    29 December 2012 4:13pmLink to this comment




    24

    The problem is that you can't be an Occupy'er and a democrat at the same time.

    Obama won an election and is thereby entitled to rule in the name of the electorate. Obama
    chose, on behalf of we, the people, to hose down Wall Street with money borrowed from your
    children and grandchildren.

    Don't like that? Don't vote for crooks, then.

              o   Report
              o   Share this comment on Twitter
              o   Share this comment on Facebook


         o

                       WellAppointedDandy

                       29 December 2012 7:19pmLink to this comment




                       52
        Right, except if corporate money has utterly corrupted both parties and your
        political system does not allow the effective formation of a new party - well in
        that case Obama's election is not terribly legitimate now is it?

        Way to blame the victim, creep. You might as well victim-shame the Soviet
        citizen who voted for the one person on the ballot because otherwise that
        voter would lose his/her job, political rights, possibly their family and freedom.
        Very classy!

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        ShirleyNotMe

        29 December 2012 7:33pmLink to this comment




        14

        @WellAppointedDandy -

             Your political system does not allow the effective formation of a
             new party.

        Of course it does.

             You might as well victim-shame the Soviet citizen who voted for
             the one person on the ballot because otherwise that voter would
             lose his/her job, political rights, possibly their family and freedom.

        Yes, because the US is exactly like stalinist Russia.

        You voted for 'hope' and 'change' and you got what you deserved for not
        bothering to do your homework. You got pwn'ed. Suck it up.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        ShirleyNotMe

        29 December 2012 7:40pmLink to this comment




        5
                      @WellAppointedDandy -

                           Your political system does not allow the effective formation of a
                           new party.

                      Of course it does. But establishing one was too onerous, required too much
                      discipline, too much work, too much reading and too much sacrifice, so you
                      preferred to go with the hopey-changey-boy and his Wall Street backers.

                      You got pwn'ed. Quit whining and suck it up. Yo have only yourself to thank.

                     Report
                     Share this comment on Twitter
                     Share this comment on Facebook


         o

                      Jan-Kamil Rembisch

                      30 December 2012 3:49pmLink to this comment




                      17

                      @ShirleyNotMe -
                      In reality one can only vote for those given. Either way it was Empire. The
                      choice; Nero (Romney) vs Claudius (Obama). The better emporer one; which
                      is a good thing unless you believe it is a good thing to start wars for Israel (vs
                      Iran; Syria, etc); to 'Nation Build' or to let the market repeat 2007 by making
                      NO effort to reign in the markets mad hatters.
                      But your not here to make a serious point or to make things any better. Your
                      a mocker and a hater. Sound and Noise signifying nothing but your empty
                      cold heart. So many sado/masochist saround here:
                      I've had smarter disgussions on FOX!

                     Report
                     Share this comment on Twitter
                     Share this comment on Facebook






    TheStoppedClock

    29 December 2012 4:17pmLink to this comment




    23

    Ah the occupy movement, the last refuge of the malcontents, vagabonds, criminals and
    throwers of obscenities and condoms at Catholic Schoolgirls.
"Occupy Protestors Are Bored With Inequality, So Now They Throw Condoms At Catholic
School Girls"


They were so brave.

        o   Report
        o   Share this comment on Twitter
        o   Share this comment on Facebook


   o

                 Berchmans

                 29 December 2012 4:27pmLink to this comment




                 64

                      ## criminals and throwers of obscenities and condoms ##

                 Did you know during WW2 there were Nazi paratroopers disguised as nuns
                 who caused havoc in our very country ?

                 Its true it really is. I certainly believe it I really do.

                 B

                Report
                Share this comment on Twitter
                Share this comment on Facebook


   o

                 TheStoppedClock

                 29 December 2012 4:38pmLink to this comment




                 20

                 "Did you know during WW2 there were Nazi paratroopers disguised as
                 nuns who caused havoc in our very country ?

                 Its true it really is. I certainly believe it I really do.

                 B"

                 @Berchmans - During war time a lot of myths get mixed up with facts and
                 are generally only believed by the most naive.

                 It even happens in peace time too.
        Like Occupy being anything other than a bunch of spoilt college kids,
        dropouts and criminals who don't know which side their dole cheque is
        buttered on.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        Berchmans

        29 December 2012 4:48pmLink to this comment




        65

        @TheStoppedClock -

             ##Occupy .. a bunch of spoilt college kids ##

        Marx was middle class. So was Lenin.

        . On the news today ( Al Jazeera ) an American union leader was talking
        about the present reality which is a country of serfs and vastly wealthy rulers .
        The divide has never in industrialised history been so pronounced.

        There are outbreaks of drug bingeing that is tearing the heart out of many
        communities. As King Edward ? once said pathetically something must be
        done.


        At least they are not being ground under. Good luck to them.

        B

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        TheStoppedClock

        29 December 2012 5:04pmLink to this comment




        15

        "Marx was middle class. So was Lenin.
        . On the news today ( Al Jazeera ) an American union leader was talking
        about the present reality which is a country of serfs and vastly wealthy
        rulers . The divide has never in industrialised history been so
        pronounced.

        There are outbreaks of drug bingeing that is tearing the heart out of
        many communities. As King Edward ? once said pathetically something
        must be done."

        @Berchmans - And you think remaking western countries on the model of
        Marxism is going to rectify any of that. That's what most of Occupy want or at
        least think they want.

        I mean it's not as if that model hasn't been tried before, and again, and again
        and that never worked out well for anyone least of all the proles or plebs did
        it?

        The only solution for equality of opportunity not outcome is a free well funded
        educational system which all western counties have.

        And within that education system and within society as a whole, must be
        reaffirmed that only good honest hard work gets you anywhere and once
        gotten is usually much more appreciated as it is earned and not handed out
        on a plate.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        Rhiaden

        29 December 2012 5:52pmLink to this comment




        45

        @TheStoppedClock - A free well-funded education system as the
        Scandinavians would understand it, or as the USA would understand it?

        It is interesting that you relate a free education to equality, as those countries
        with the best GINI values give free education through university, and benefits
        that would scare the crap out of Cameron

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        TheStoppedClock
        29 December 2012 6:22pmLink to this comment




        8

        "A free well-funded education system as the Scandinavians would
        understand it, or as the USA would understand it?

        It is interesting that you relate a free education to equality, as those
        countries with the best GINI values give free education through
        university, and benefits that would scare the crap out of Cameron"

        @Rhiaden - I think you might be conflating not having a free educational
        system with the relatively recent removal of EMA and the much longer
        application of Student Loans.

        I am from a working class family (Father a steelworker and Mother a
        Homemaker PT Shop assistant) and was the first of my family to go to
        university.

        When i went to school we didn't have EMA's and i did 2 paper rounds one
        before and one after school plus a Saturday job to help finance the study of
        A-levels as i knew my family could not wholly support me.

        I still consider that i had a free education as did anyone else who went to
        school at around the same time as we never, other than taxes paid by my
        parents, had to put a penny into funding it.

        When i went to university at the age of 25, as i never had the inclination to go
        until i landed a job as a Laboratory Technician, i still had to take out Student
        Loans of about nearly two grand a year.

        Even though i only finished paying that pack about 5 years after i left i still
        consider that i received a free university education, as only a fraction of what
        i had to borrow went to the college and that made up an even much smaller
        fraction of the overall annual cost spent on me by the University.

        When Blair said that nearly everybody should go to university it was only to
        be expected that students should make a nominal contribution and even now
        that is only expected to be slowly paid back when you are earning a relatively
        good income.

        So that still sounds more or less free to me.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        Samson12

        30 December 2012 9:22pmLink to this comment
                        7

                        @TheStoppedClock - Well, I don't think we should dwell on Marx any more
                        than Smith, given the time that has elapsed since they wrote. However, what
                        has happened under 30 years of neo-liberalism hews ever closer to Marx's
                        vision of capitalism. One needn't believe that central planning is desirable or
                        Marx's vision of class is meaningful to see that capitalism is its own worst
                        enemy (and by no means, as Wofd's piece illustrates, as inextricably linked
                        to the freedoms we approve of as it claims).

                        As for education, estimates vary, but 8% of a child's performance is
                        determined by its school. The remaining 92 by background (and to a much
                        smaller extent) peer group. Greater equality of opportunity is impossible
                        without greater equality of outcome. The sooner Tories admit they simply
                        don't care about equality of opportunity the better.

                       Report
                       Share this comment on Twitter
                       Share this comment on Facebook






    WSobchak

    29 December 2012 4:19pmLink to this comment




    21

    That is sinister... and you say these "documents" were "released?" It's almost as if they didn't
    give a flying fuck whether people read them or not, which would make them seem not-remotely-
    sinister... which is exactly what they want you to think!! Ah yes, we got there.

    threats of the assassination of OWS leaders by sniper fire – by whom? Where?


    It's America - pick a trailer park, any trailer park...

    It was always about this moment, when vast crimes might be uncovered by citizens – it was
    always, that is to say, meant to be about you.


    Because "you" are really important. That's why the apparatus of state, military and corporate power are
    working every waking minute to combat the greatest threat to their existence - you.

    Once, it took Woodward and Bernstein to uncover vast crimes, now it's all about you - and you
    didn't even have to spend years in investigative journalism, you just had to read the right books,
    wear the right fashion, learn to juggle, go camping in Zuccotti Park and start a drum circle.
              o   Report
              o   Share this comment on Twitter
              o   Share this comment on Facebook






    MiltonWiltmellow

    29 December 2012 4:21pmLink to this comment




    35

    State security agencies "...coordinated with the big banks themselves."

    Why not?

    Employees in most corporate enterprises work together to foster the interests of those who own
    the company.

    Sen. Dick Durbin, on a local Chicago radio station this week, blurted out an obvious
    truth about Congress that, despite being blindingly obvious, is rarely spoken: “And the
    banks — hard to believe in a time when we’re facing a banking crisis that many of the
    banks created — are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. And they frankly own
    the place.” The blunt acknowledgment that the same banks that caused the financial
    crisis “own” the U.S. Congress — according to one of that institution’s most powerful
    members — demonstrates just how extreme this institutional corruption
    is.http://www.salon.com/2009/04/30/ownership/

    Durbin is a little bit wrong though.

    Bankers represent capital interests.

    They're management rather than ownership. Banks are in the CFO's domain rather than most
    directly in the CEO's domain.

    The State, of course, resides in the province of the COO (aka "president").

    The Corporate States of America act only in the interests of its shareholders (which include
    foreign governments).

    Citizens be damned.

              o   Report
              o   Share this comment on Twitter
              o   Share this comment on Facebook






    DarthArturus
    29 December 2012 4:32pmLink to this comment




    58

    Weatherel
    29 December 2012 3:09
    Occupy were one giant unwashed embarrassment. Kudos to the FBI for taking out the
    trash.

    That's your subjective opinion, which I happen to agree with regarding the vacuousness of a lot
    of their demand and their immaturity as a political movement.

    Objectively, however, I don't care how stupid someone's views are, I will still rigorously defend
    their right to express them, as per Voltaire's famous quote. The very foundation of a liberal
    democracy is based on open discourse and the freedom of expression, subject to certain
    limitations such as advocating violence.

    This attempt by the state to curtail the free expression of their opinion is bad enough. The
    involvement of businesses, which are not subject to the same (theoretical) democratic
    accountability as the state, makes it worse. If this is not an example of corporate fascism, I
    don't know what is.

             o    Report
             o    Share this comment on Twitter
             o    Share this comment on Facebook






    neithereither

    29 December 2012 4:36pmLink to this comment




    33

    Go back to sleep America.

             o    Report
             o    Share this comment on Twitter
             o    Share this comment on Facebook






    ActOfGod

    29 December 2012 4:36pmLink to this comment
    80

    They see themselves as a plutocracy, born to rule with a chilling entitlement that leaves
    ordinary citizens very vulnerable. Worldwide this is taking effect, the only thing that talks is
    money for the few, they will do anything they need to to protect their financial empires, anything.
    These financial hitmen are there to protect the plutocracy, we move now not so slowly to the
    Orwellian vision of a world controlled by a handful of lunatics.
    There are solutions but enough people need to want to change, need to see clearly what is
    happening, because that is the only way out of this.

             o   Report
             o   Share this comment on Twitter
             o   Share this comment on Facebook






    minutemen

    29 December 2012 4:40pmLink to this comment




    66

    Oh well. If the state and corporations want to repress free speech and peaceful protest, I guess
    bombs and murder it is then. Mark my words, a class war is brewing and it will be bloody, and
    we do outnumber the police and their wards.

             o   Report
             o   Share this comment on Twitter
             o   Share this comment on Facebook


         o

                      Spike501

                      29 December 2012 4:49pmLink to this comment




                      10

                      I can't think why the FBI could possibly be involved when fringe organisations
                      (lets not pretend they are mainstream) like Occupy attract supporters with the
                      views you express above.

                      Here's an idea - don't call your major protest, "US Day of Rage"

                      Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        AhBrightWings

        29 December 2012 5:01pmLink to this comment




        108

        @Spike501 - I see. So it's okay to rob people of their homes, to cook the
        books in ways that cost a country trillions of dollars, put thousands of people
        on the streets, cost millions of people their pensions, savings and houses,
        but it's not okay to be angry.

        Why don't we check in with you, Spike, and have you pen a few rallying cries
        for us, ones that pass Ms. Spikette's rules of decorum?

        How about the "We're Really Really Miffed Movement" or "Gosh Darn It,
        We're Kind of Ticked" ? Okay with you, Spike?

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        CrypticMirror

        29 December 2012 5:01pmLink to this comment




        59

        @Spike501 - While it is right that people talking about days of rage, and
        possibly of blowing airports sky high if they don't get their shit together,
        should be examined. We also expect those in charge to be smart enough to
        know the difference between normal public frustration and blowing off steam,
        and actual terrorism. The problem here is they decided that public protest
        and public anger automatically equated to terrorism instead of an integral
        part of a functioning democracy. Only a complete incompetent would mix the
        two up or fail to see the difference.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


    Notofthisworld

    29 December 2012 4:43pmLink to this comment




    138

    Millions of cases of mortgage fraud were committed that led to the financial crisis of 2008 and
    not one prosecution. Trillions of dollars wiped out by mortgage fraud and the FBI was absent.
    Yet, FBI feels that OWS protesters are a legitimate threat.

    $50 billion a year spent on the department of homeland security that does everything to
    engender insecurity in the minds of people to justify the eternal war on terror .

    Everyone talks about an Orwellian world but we surpassed that years ago.

              o   Report
              o   Share this comment on Twitter
              o   Share this comment on Facebook


          o

                      MysticFish

                      29 December 2012 6:12pmLink to this comment




                      23

                      Law enforcement is rather weak, if it is distracted by the little guy. Why are
                      America's security services not tracking those gangsters who have taken
                      over the banks and threaten democracy, with derivatives and fracking scams
                      and who, as they operate without borders, and behind a corporate mask,
                      might not even be patriotic American citizens, but could instead be Chinese
                      mafia or very rich Arab terrorists?

                      Who says terrorists don't have money or know how to use it? Looking at
                      what the corporations are doing to America's people, land, water and air.
                      These billionaire guys cannot possibly be American patriots. They act more
                      like traitors: shady sidekicks, outsourcing jobs to China and Mexico, and
                      poisoning the water and air with toxic chemicals and methane. The American
                      people need to be protected not treated as criminals by their own security
                      services.

                     Report
                     Share this comment on Twitter
                     Share this comment on Facebook


    exreader

    29 December 2012 4:57pmLink to this comment




    59

    Wow. Great article. Please keep up the good work.

               o   Report
               o   Share this comment on Twitter
               o   Share this comment on Facebook






    CrypticMirror

    29 December 2012 4:58pmLink to this comment




    36

    (why are nonprofits now some of the only entities in America left breaking major civil
    liberties news?)

    Because viewing and circulation figures only go up (and therefore so does ad revenue) with
    mocking and demonising people. People like to be reassured they are still able to have
    someone lower than themselves on the social scale to hate and make fun of. The alternative,
    after all, is being made to admit they were in the wrong all along and were dumb enough to be
    duped.

               o   Report
               o   Share this comment on Twitter
               o   Share this comment on Facebook






    MonotonousLanguor

    29 December 2012 5:00pmLink to this comment
    114

    I attended an Occupy Demonstration in October 2011 and brought my 8 year old Grandson
    with me. I guess now the FBI has a file on him.

    Revealing the warts in of our system is not to be tolerated. The American Government has
    never taken kindly to demonstrations against the Plutocracy. Basically, the message is sit down
    and shut-up, and let the "system work." A system that is controlled top to bottom by the
    Plutocracy, with political puppets as their servants.

    The Bonus Army, the Labor Rights movement, Vietnam Anti-War Movement and Civil Rights
    movements, were attacked and infiltrated by the Government, whether it was the Chicago
    Police in 1968, or Bull Connor in the South.

    The bogyman back then was Monolithic Communism, now it Terrorism.

    I thought briefly that the Democrats could have seized on this spontaneous groundswell.
    Especially after the thundering defeat the Democrats absorbed in 2010. This was not to be, the
    Marriage to the Plutocracy by the Democratic Party had long ago been consummated by Bill
    Clinton and now Barack Obama.

    There was and still is the justifiable anger at Wall Street for their excesses that brought us, "Too
    Big to Fail, and Too Big Jail." I can think of only two elected officials Dennis Kucinich, and Ron
    Paul who spoke out in favor of Occupy. Both were considered "far-out fringe" by the Mega-
    Media.

    It interesting how the zeal of the FBI and other Organs of State Security readily collaborate with
    Wall Street to protect them from a non-existent threat, but turn a blind eye, to the corruption in
    Wall Street.

             o    Report
             o    Share this comment on Twitter
             o    Share this comment on Facebook






    Gladiatrix

    29 December 2012 5:10pmLink to this comment




    34

    Naomi

    Is anyone taking this up with the Congressional committees that oversee the FBI, or the
    Department of Homeland Security? Equally, shouldn't someone be asking the Department of
    Justice to seek an explanation from the police departments involved?

    There seems to me to be an arguable case for misconduct in public office and misfeasance in
    public office to be made against the FBI and DHS agents and the Police Commissioners who
    agreed to this.
             o   Report
             o   Share this comment on Twitter
             o   Share this comment on Facebook






    CautiousOptimist

    29 December 2012 5:15pmLink to this comment




    14

    The Occupy protests were no threat to anyone (except those idiots who wanted to blow up a
    bridge). At best, they interfered with foot traffic in Manhattan.

    Like most poorly-conceived protest movements, they had no goals, no true outreach, and no
    effect.

    And like most poorly-conceived protest movements, their secret desire to be taken seriously led
    to a martyr complex.

    What killed Occupy is that everyone (Ms. Wolff excepted) just stopped paying any attention to
    them. Because, in the end, they had nothing to offer.

             o   Report
             o   Share this comment on Twitter
             o   Share this comment on Facebook


         o

                      NellieIrrelevant

                      29 December 2012 5:38pmLink to this comment




                      64

                      Well done for so spectacularly missing the point.

                     Report
                     Share this comment on Twitter
                     Share this comment on Facebook


         o

                      DarthArturus

                      29 December 2012 6:11pmLink to this comment
        48

        And that somehow justifies using state power to crush all non-conformity?

        Again, the credibility of a movement's politics is one thing, the right for that
        movement to freely express non-violent views is another. Completely distinct
        issues.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        mikedow

        29 December 2012 6:26pmLink to this comment




        20

        If they'd been armed rather than of peaceful intent, every miltia dude would
        be behind the movement.
        The sneering is for trying to resolve something without a revolution.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        Pollik

        29 December 2012 6:33pmLink to this comment




        43

        "What killed Occupy is that everyone (Ms. Wolff excepted) just stopped
        paying any attention to them. Because, in the end, they had nothing to offer."

        In fact, it killed Occupy so convincingly that, as reported in this newspaper,
        Andrew Haldan, Executive Director for Financial Stability at the Bank of
        England, spoke at a debate organised by Occupy and said that Occupy had
        got a lot of things right.

        Apparently this didn't happen in your world?

        Google it for more information and perhaps we can have an informed debate.
                     Report
                     Share this comment on Twitter
                     Share this comment on Facebook


         o

                      sgtdoom

                      29 December 2012 7:28pmLink to this comment




                      6

                      @Pollik - Thank you, good citizen! (those who read and repeat the corporate
                      propaganda network's drivel, also referred to as "the media" -- can only be
                      their stooges.)

                     Report
                     Share this comment on Twitter
                     Share this comment on Facebook






    JagPop

    29 December 2012 5:18pmLink to this comment




    29

    And some believe we are free. Ha!

    Yet, knowing that to be false others lend credibility to such a system by voting.
    Amazing!

             o    Report
             o    Share this comment on Twitter
             o    Share this comment on Facebook


         o

                      sgtdoom

                      29 December 2012 7:26pmLink to this comment




                      10
                      Now hold on a moment, we had the choice in Amerika of Money Master
                      Romney or Drone Master Obama.

                      Plenty of choice.....(end of sarcastic rant)

                     Report
                     Share this comment on Twitter
                     Share this comment on Facebook


         o

                      Tingler

                      30 December 2012 4:49pmLink to this comment




                      1

                      Our masters believe we are free provided we don't complain and we work.

                      I think the German translation is "arbeit macht frei".

                      A la many a concentration camp.

                     Report
                     Share this comment on Twitter
                     Share this comment on Facebook






    sugarbushrecords

    29 December 2012 5:33pmLink to this comment




    25

    Looks like Himmler and Heydrich have won.

             o   Report
             o   Share this comment on Twitter
             o   Share this comment on Facebook


         o

                      mikedow

                      29 December 2012 7:13pmLink to this comment
                        3

                        They didn't, but Reinhard Gehlen did.

                       Report
                       Share this comment on Twitter
                       Share this comment on Facebook






    Pollik

    29 December 2012 5:34pmLink to this comment




    74

    We know the practice exists, but it is always hard to prove.

    ...some of the comments on here don't quite ring true, particularly the earlier ones. I would be
    unsurprised if they were posted as part of to influence an anti-occupy agenda. And I am not the
    only one on here to think so.

    @longshireman - Yes I have actually listened...to both sides actually. It doesn't explain FBI
    involvement. It didn't fail - it goes from strength to strength, to the extent that an offficial from
    the Bank of England admitted that Occupy had got it right.

    @NeverMindTheBollocks - If you believe that Occupy is all about hyperbole, then you really
    haven't made any attempt to find out for yourself. I would be happy to debate the issues with
    you, but you seem focussed on the disparaging the movement without once discussing the
    issues raised by Occupy and allied movements. I learned a long time ago that if you have
    indulge in character assassination, it is an admission of having lost the argument.

    In short...I think that we do indeed have stooges in here, today.

              o   Report
              o   Share this comment on Twitter
              o   Share this comment on Facebook






    Tingler

    29 December 2012 5:37pmLink to this comment
71

When the EDL demonstrate they don't get kettled like war protesters, and they don't have
undercover cops getting EDL members pregnant.

But suggest that the banks are run by a bunch of cunts, or that companies should pay their tax,
gets private dicks and cops crawling up your ass...

         o   Report
         o   Share this comment on Twitter
         o   Share this comment on Facebook


     o

                  exreader

                  29 December 2012 5:44pmLink to this comment




                  36

                       When the EDL demonstrate they don't get kettled like war
                       protesters,

                  This is true. In January of 2012 the EDL gathered outside a mosque waving
                  kitchen knives chanting 'Allah is a Paedo' (all documented quite cheerily in
                  the national press).

                  No kettle. No police charges.

                 Report
                 Share this comment on Twitter
                 Share this comment on Facebook


     o

                  finnkn

                  29 December 2012 9:33pmLink to this comment




                  1

                  I have no sympathy for the EDL, but they have been banned outright from
                  demonstrating several times.

                  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-20084304

                 Report
                 Share this comment on Twitter
                 Share this comment on Facebook
         o

                      Tingler

                      30 December 2012 4:32pmLink to this comment




                      2

                      @exreader - sick isnt it?

                      iPad reading about operation gladio and the strategy of tension recently -
                      (western security services sponsoring terrorism such as baader meinhof etc
                      to keep lefties down and out)

                      The Wikipedia entry for gladio lists major EU countries - except Britain is
                      conspicuously absent. I suspect we agreed to stuff security and police with
                      fascists or fascist sympathisers, and in the event of WW3 we would have
                      culled the enemy within.

                      Trouble is, it takes 40 years from recruitment to retirement. So all those who
                      were recruited in the run up to the Berlin Wall coming down have still got
                      another 10 years in them. So it kinda explains why EDL/BNP/NF/c18 etc all
                      get an easy ride - but attend a peace rally or peaceful protest against a
                      runway, and the full force of the state is brought to bear.

                      What's truly scary is that china may be about to surpass us for human rights -
                      when something goes wrong the locals riot and the authorities subsequently
                      address the issue. Here, the courts act on politically motivated advice to send
                      people to prison for stealing a £1 bottle of water. Here 1m people can protest
                      about an illegal war and nothing changes, and individual protesters get
                      photographed and risk being kettled etc. at least china is moving in the right
                      direction - whereas we're moving in the right wing police state fascism
                      direction.

                     Report
                     Share this comment on Twitter
                     Share this comment on Facebook






    JOHNNYHEMISPHERE

    29 December 2012 5:39pmLink to this comment




    19
    The Partnership for Civil Justice Fund, in a groundbreaking scoop that should once
    more shame major US media outlets (why are nonprofits now some of the only entities
    in America left breaking major civil liberties news?)

    Because the news agencies that are motivated by profit are always liable to support the status
    quo. This can be highlighted when you see the response by both the state and the mainstream
    media to organisations that threaten the status quo, i.e. Occupy, labour struggles etc in
    comparison towith how they deal far right groups, who have in the last resort been "useful
    idiots" to the ruling elite in times of crisis, the dogs to be let off the leash , as a last resort.
    The important lesson to be learnt from this organised response from the ruling class is to
    remember that the state is not neutral but to apply to it a modern handle,"the executive of the
    1%".
    Revolution now!

              o   Report
              o   Share this comment on Twitter
              o   Share this comment on Facebook






    TerribleLyricist

    29 December 2012 5:44pmLink to this comment




    67

    why are nonprofits now some of the only entities in America left breaking major civil
    liberties news?

    Hear that sound? The unmistakeable flapping of stable doors in the wind.

    The merger of corporate and political power, as Mussolini said, is the definition of fascism.

              o   Report
              o   Share this comment on Twitter
              o   Share this comment on Facebook


         o

                       Bauhaus

                       29 December 2012 7:33pmLink to this comment




                       17

                       Indeed.
                      I suspect its too late to reign in the complicity between corporate and state
                      security.

                      Be interesting to see how this pans out in public opinion as the reality of the
                      situation becomes clearer.

                     Report
                     Share this comment on Twitter
                     Share this comment on Facebook






    Evildoernot

    29 December 2012 5:46pmLink to this comment




    8

    Domestic Security Alliance Council.

    D sack...Couldn't have chosen a more appropriate monicker.

             o    Report
             o    Share this comment on Twitter
             o    Share this comment on Facebook






    BandB

    29 December 2012 6:05pmLink to this comment




    14

    Here's wishing all you CIFers a Happy 1984.

             o    Report
             o    Share this comment on Twitter
             o    Share this comment on Facebook


         o

                      mikea1

                      29 December 2012 6:18pmLink to this comment
                       3

                       We are all equal,but

                      Report
                      Share this comment on Twitter
                      Share this comment on Facebook






    mikea1

    29 December 2012 6:11pmLink to this comment




    7

    Divide and conquer,thats the UK.

             o    Report
             o    Share this comment on Twitter
             o    Share this comment on Facebook






    Ameliascottage

    29 December 2012 6:20pmLink to this comment




    79

    Occupy may have been unfocused but they proved that Americans are not actually allowed to
    protest. They also proved beyond a doubt that the banks and oil companies own the country
    and have paid off all our politicians.

    Support the Revolutiion so that civil activists will once again have the ability to make changes in
    our country.

             o    Report
             o    Share this comment on Twitter
             o    Share this comment on Facebook


         o
                      sgtdoom

                      29 December 2012 7:24pmLink to this comment




                      21

                      "..they proved that Americans are not actually allowed to protest."

                      Brilliantly stated, brilliantly stated.

                     Report
                     Share this comment on Twitter
                     Share this comment on Facebook






    pickupyoursticks

    29 December 2012 6:36pmLink to this comment




    51

    The very fact that the FBI, and authorities in general are getting this paranoid about a
    movement that supposedly has nothing to offer and nothing to say probably means that Occupy
    have struck a pretty big nerve. Ideas and revolutionary thinking can be dangerous. As someone
    said in a film recently:

    "What is the most resilient parasite? A bacteria? A virus? An intestinal worm?An idea. Resilient,
    highly contagious. Once an idea has taken hold of the brain it's almost impossible to eradicate.
    An idea that is fully formed, fully understood. That sticks, right in there somewhere."

    Most people seem to miss the point of the thing about what they have to say - it's the questions
    they are asking that are relevant. The main one being, why was capitalism sold to everyone as
    a fix to the world's problems and a way of sharing wealth around?

             o   Report
             o   Share this comment on Twitter
             o   Share this comment on Facebook






    digit

    29 December 2012 6:40pmLink to this comment
    14

    J. Edgar Hoover is alive and well.

             o   Report
             o   Share this comment on Twitter
             o   Share this comment on Facebook


         o

                      ColinMay

                      29 December 2012 8:59pmLink to this comment




                      7

                      with his close companion ?

                     Report
                     Share this comment on Twitter
                     Share this comment on Facebook






    EliteMinds

    29 December 2012 6:41pmLink to this comment




    7

    Ah, finally. Corporations have finally managed to corrupt government.

             o   Report
             o   Share this comment on Twitter
             o   Share this comment on Facebook


         o

                      sgtdoom

                      29 December 2012 7:21pmLink to this comment




                      20
                       Historically, when have they not owned the gov't?

                       Haven't you ever read the sterling piece by PJ Cain and AG Hopkins on the
                       history of the British "financial empire"?

                       When was the Bank of England established? 1694

                       When was the royal unofficially paid off? Early 1700s, when the City of
                       London Corporation gave them a sweetheart lease on the choicest properties
                       in London and outlying areas, at the cheapest possible early 1700s-rates, to
                       remain frozen at that lowest of rates for perpetuity.

                       Next look at the history of the US Federal Reserve, similar story.

                      Report
                      Share this comment on Twitter
                      Share this comment on Facebook






    ReluctantDissident

    29 December 2012 6:45pmLink to this comment




    15

    Terrorism is, so far as I know, the furthering of a political goal by means of intimidation, often
    violent.

    As the article makes clear, it's not clear-cut that the OWS participants are terrorists.

    I think it's only fair though to highlight how unclear it is that they're not, too.
    Consider the name ''Occupy Wall Street'': it has a military flavour and implies that if enough
    people take residence, something may be prevented, or caused. That sounds very intimidating.
    If vegetarian activists decided they wanted to 'occupy' your kitchen to encourage you to change
    your policy of serving bacon for breakfast, how would you feel?

    I'm not necessarily talking about legality, just feelings. I'm not saying they ARE terrorists: it's
    very clear that it's not very clear that they are. There's no specific expression of intent to cause
    violence or damage; there's no menace; there's no weaponry involved, or hostage-taking. It's
    not been suggested that people would be denied access, or that anyone would be harangued if
    they made ordinary use of the premises.

    It's just a fine line though: if they're picketing Starbucks and you were going to get a coffee,
    should you? Will every single person in the land feel able to? So it's not so simple as to say
    technically nobody's obstructing anybody else.

    What about this sinister collaboration between state agencies and corporations? Well what of it?
    If activities are about to happen that the police consider problematic in some way (eg. a football
    match) it's best practice to work closely with stakeholders. An example may be having an
    ongoing relationship with pub managers so that pubs in high risk areas can be closed leading
    up to football matches. This is quite ordinary and it's equally unproblematic for the police to
have a conversation with banks and other interests where something self-described as
'occupation' is threatened.

We need to be very clear about what's allowable and what's not, so that in an atmosphere of
basic agreement, we can ensure that no genuine impropriety is taking place. Perhaps a next
step would be to have an OWS representative work as an explicit liaison with the police and
attend these meetings. The meetings should be minuted: it's not normal for a private company
to publish minutes of meetings, for very understandable reasons, but in this instance an
exception could be made. All of this would assuage any fears about a police state in the making,
which as far as I can see from this, are not well founded.

         o   Report
         o   Share this comment on Twitter
         o   Share this comment on Facebook


    o

                  ReluctantDissident

                  29 December 2012 6:53pmLink to this comment




                  5

                  As an afterthought to my comment, it should be noted that some people feel
                  a need to take action. We live in a hybrid market/parliamentary democracy
                  and sometimes the states of affairs aren't to our liking. At such times people
                  often take direct action to increase the chances of change in a direction they
                  like. They may sign up to the Countryside Alliance, or Fathers For Justice, or
                  Greenpeace. They may be entirely justified in doing so, or they may not.

                  Ultimately if you as an individual feel that corporations need to be held to
                  account, pay their way and so on, there are ways and means of pursuing
                  your agenda. One of the simplest is boycotts. Entirely legal: if the company
                  wants your business, it must make itself attractive to you, and you can tell it
                  how it can do so.

                  As far as I can see, old-style Trade Union picketing tactics are probably less
                  effective than a well-explained boycott. If a company is doing something
                  unethical and they openly admit it, and if you point people to it, you can
                  persuade them to join the boycott without doing anything contrary to the spirit
                  of the law.

                  Pickets have their place for sure and one of the things we might want to
                  campaign for is greater industrial relations dialogue. The means right now for
                  a citizen versus a corporation are very simple: they want something from you
                  and you're under no obligation to give them it.


                  Naturally this is complicated when the company is being awarded a
                  guaranteed contract by the government (eg. in delivering public services).
                  Under those circumstances you have your vote and your representatives.
                  Not many of us include our MPs in our thoughts on such matters but we
                  should. If their answer is that we need to be quiet, and that these decisions
        are made by the big people, withdraw your vote and convince others to do
        the same.

        So in short I'm not saying don't protest: I'm saying rather than do something
        which may be interpreted as intimidation, do something simpler: vote with
        your wallet and vote with your vote.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        sgtdoom

        29 December 2012 7:16pmLink to this comment




        13

        @ReluctantDissident - Ms. Wolf's mention of that item concerning the
        Federal Reserve should tip you off that we don't live in any form of
        democracy, with the City of London Corporation calling the shots in the UK,
        and Wall Street dictating things in America.

        Protest accomplishes nothing today, and in years past, when anyone
        suggested other means, such as violent tactics, they were usually either FBI
        agents, or FBI snitches or stooges (i.e., agents provacteurs).

        Voting with your wallet is the typical US Chamber of Commerce talking point,
        as hopeless and useless as protesting until one is beaten by the coppers.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        finnkn

        29 December 2012 9:38pmLink to this comment




        5

        @ReluctantDissident - Or you could always, you know, form a coherent
        programme for change then stand for political office. Something Occupy
        seemed incapable of; whether that's down to a lack of common purpose or
        the realisation that they wouldn't get even a fraction of their much vaunted
        "99%" of the vote, I'm not sure.
               Report
               Share this comment on Twitter
               Share this comment on Facebook


   o

                MysticFish

                30 December 2012 9:36amLink to this comment




                7

                @finnkn -

                    Or you could always, you know, form a coherent programme for
                    change then stand for political office

                Not so easy when, even though you are a qualified presidential candidate,
                you are arrested for attempting to attend a presidential debate in the so-
                called 'Land of the Free.'

                http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=nKwwPVO8bN
                k&list=UUukxQJsxZWcyv_0IgqGR6-Q#!

               Report
               Share this comment on Twitter
               Share this comment on Facebook


   o

                BrotherPhil

                31 December 2012 10:03amLink to this comment




                1

                So it's ok for the police to to shoot football supporters, then?

               Report

Comments for this discussion are now closed.

                            50                                oldest first         p/3cnxt
698 comments. Showing                conversations, sorted
                                                ‹ Prev

                                                   1
                                                   2
                                                   3
                                                           4
                                                          …6

                                                          Next ›






    nerdophobe

    29 December 2012 6:47pmLink to this comment




    46

    If the Occupy protesters were just unwashed, undirected, lame hippies with no cohesion
    etc.....why did the FBI and the DHS go to the trouble of labeling them as terrorists?
    There seems to be a slight disconnect between the piece ATL and the OWS haters BTL. Any
    clear idea why they're so intent on pushing the discussion away from the somewhat sinister
    collusion between banks and security organisations? Surely the astroturfers aren't trying to
    obfuscate this thread into oblivion with straw men?

             o   Report
             o   Share this comment on Twitter
             o   Share this comment on Facebook






    structurequity

    29 December 2012 6:52pmLink to this comment




    17

    "it was always, that is to say, meant to be about you."
    In a most profound way it was always about us! Keeping 'us' from acting upon our true need to
    change the capitalistic system. During the Vietnam War the Us of A conducted this same type
    of counter movement with the assistance of Universities, media, and businesses. The State
    does whatever it needs to survive and that includes holding the minds and bodies of its
    denizens captive to an Orwellian rationale.

             o   Report
             o   Share this comment on Twitter
             o   Share this comment on Facebook


    ThomasGoodey

    29 December 2012 6:54pmLink to this comment




    3

    And a good thing too.

             o   Report
             o   Share this comment on Twitter
             o   Share this comment on Facebook






    OneWorldGovernment

    29 December 2012 6:56pmLink to this comment




    12

    The FBI did exactly the mission that it was created upon. Counterintelligence (and domestic law
    enforcement). You were not crying when they were carrying out the same tasks with the Tea
    Party. Both the extreme left and extreme right should be monitored with intelligence being
    gathered about the groups and individuals.

    The failure of the OWS movement is due to no one agreeing with the movement except for the
    extreme margins of society.

             o   Report
             o   Share this comment on Twitter
             o   Share this comment on Facebook


         o

                      TheIneffableSwede

                      29 December 2012 7:42pmLink to this comment




                      37
        I missed the part where the police lobbed tear gas canisters and beat
        demonstrators at Tea Party gatherings.

        Can you show ONE verifiable incident where this occurred at a Tea Party
        demonstration? Just one.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        OneWorldGovernment

        29 December 2012 8:02pmLink to this comment




        11

        @TheIneffableSwede -

        We were talking about surveillance of groups. Both were monitored because
        they were newly formed movements and the task of the FBI is to gather
        intelligence about these domestic movements.

        To address your point, can you find me one Tea Party gathering where they
        were breaking the law with their assembly? The OWS protests that were
        broken up because their protests spilled into illegal activities (camping out on
        private property, sitting down in public streets for indeterminable amount of
        time, etc.). There is a difference between private property and public property.
        If you noticed, none of the protests or speeches made on public property by
        the OWS protestors were broken up or interrupted. Despite the fact that the
        Tea Party rhetoric is as ignorant as the OWS rhetoric, one group actually
        respected the law while certain elements of the OWS (many OWS protests
        did comply and were not broken up) did not. Hence, the difference in reaction
        by the local police.

        The OWS failed because 99% of this country did not sympathize or agree
        with their movement. The Tea Party quickly peaked and is losing momentum
        fast because the majority of this country does not agree with their politics or
        rhetoric. Of course, typical of the OWS mentality, blame must be placed
        elsewhere instead of introspection into the failure of a movement that
        appealed to very few people.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        SophiaVictoria

        29 December 2012 8:11pmLink to this comment
        34

        As I recall, the Tea Party brought GUNS to their protests and NOBODY got
        hauled off to jail.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        OneWorldGovernment

        29 December 2012 8:28pmLink to this comment




        3

        @SophiaVictoria -

        It is not illegal to carry guns in public in certain jurisdictions. The Tea Party
        rallies where guns were carried did not break the law (Arizona, New Mexico,
        etc.). Did you notice that not one gun was publically displayed in the Tea
        Party rallies in Washington D.C., due to that locale's strict gun policy? You
        wouldn't find any guns being displayed in the Tea Party gatherings in NYC,
        LA, Chicago, and etc.

        It might offend your sensibilities that guns were being displayed at certain
        protests, but no law was being broken.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        chrigid

        29 December 2012 9:20pmLink to this comment




        18

        OneWorld--what kind of counter-intelligence did the FBI do to the Tea Party?

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook
o

        RideAPaleHorse

        29 December 2012 9:46pmLink to this comment




        34

        "The OWS failed because 99% of this country did not sympathize or
        agree with their movement."

        Yep, 33% apathy, 33% idiocy and 33% ignorance means that we all remain
        enslaved to a monetarist tyranny governed by a shallow and corrupt political
        class.

        Just the way I want a democracy to function!!

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        chrigid

        29 December 2012 9:51pmLink to this comment




        16

        @OneWorldGovernment - counterintelligence and surveillance are not the
        same. Counterintelligence is about making sure your adversary doesn't get
        access to your secrets. Surveillance is observing. We are not talking about
        either of them here. We are talking about the union of corporations, law
        enforcement and intelligence agencies to protect corporations against protest.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        TheIneffableSwede

        30 December 2012 4:24amLink to this comment
        6

        @OneWorldGovernment -

             I missed the part where the police lobbed tear gas canisters and
             beat demonstrators at Tea Party gatherings.
             Can you show ONE verifiable incident where this occurred at a
             Tea Party demonstration? Just one.

        In other words, you can't provide even one example.

        That's what I thought.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        wildworms

        30 December 2012 4:59amLink to this comment




        11

        @OneWorldGovernment -

             The OWS failed because 99% of this country did not sympathize
             or agree with their movement.


        Public opinion polls in the US showed widespread support for OWS at the time (at least
        40%, or a bit more depending on how the question was worded). More importantly,
        OWS created a massive shift of public political debate towards economic issues such
        as high unemployment and the looting of the economy by the financial sector. That
        doesn't look like failure to me. It also put efforts by the two parties to play chicken with
        the debt limit on hold for 1 1/2 years (unfortunately those games are back with the
        "fiscal cliff" this weekend).

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        OneWorldGovernment

        30 December 2012 7:06amLink to this comment
        @TheIneffableSwede -

        I pointed out why there was no tear gas at Tea Party rallies. In your simplistic
        world, you probably don't understand nuances and complexities. People like
        you are the reason why the professionally educated dismiss movements like
        the OWS as simpletons and fools that lack substance.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        rivelle

        30 December 2012 12:25pmLink to this comment




        8

        @OneWorldGovernment -
        The Tea Party were a bunch of far-right astro-turfed fundamentalist Christian
        and gun-totting shills of the Establishment with a certain amount of Fox News
        "dissident" chic thrown in.

        That's why they were embraced by the GOP, the corporate media and left
        well alone by the state security forces. American State policing was set up to
        protect the "republic of property" - read the writings of James Madison et al.
        That is, the police and army were set up to serve, protect and further the
        interest of the White Christian property owners, (slave-owners very much
        included) i.e. the modern day Tea partiers.

        This is why the Tea Parties were all gun nuts and Flag, Bible and Military
        wankers. "War is a Racket" as Smedley Butler pointed out.

        Tea Party religious mental Illness was also clearly on display when one saw
        at their rallies and marches groups of adults all dressed up in utterly bizarre
        frock-coats and cravats.

        If you are pro-violence, pro-gun, pro war and destruction, suffering from
        severe religious mental illness and anti-health care, anti education, anti-
        environment, anti-science and reason - in short anti-life -, then that's about
        as close as it's possible to get to the very definition of Evil.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        RicardoFloresMagon

        30 December 2012 6:29pmLink to this comment
                      2

                      @OneWorldGovernment -

                           It might offend your sensibilities that guns were being displayed
                           at certain protests, but no law was being broken.

                      You're missing the point. Just imagine what would have happened if in
                      Oakland, say, they would have had some Occupiers shown up in camo and
                      AR-15s (as seen in AZ TP rallies), instead of improvised shields (necessary
                      to protect themselves from trigger-happy OPD).

                     Report
                     Share this comment on Twitter
                     Share this comment on Facebook






    SantaMuerte

    29 December 2012 6:56pmLink to this comment




    34

    Governments throughout the world protect the wealthy and privileged above the rest of their
    citizens, you would have to be deluded to think otherwise. It has always been this way, a
    sneering caste system where the wealthy exploit those they believe to be their social inferiors.

             o    Report
             o    Share this comment on Twitter
             o    Share this comment on Facebook


         o

                      PubliusPublicola

                      29 December 2012 7:12pmLink to this comment




                      16

                      "It has always been this way..."

                      Maybe in a very general sense, but don't you think there are gradations of
                      liberty when comparing countries and if not what hope is there?
                     Report
                     Share this comment on Twitter
                     Share this comment on Facebook






    DexterDoolittle

    29 December 2012 7:01pmLink to this comment




    14

    Spying on the public:

    Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Dianne Feinstein has been presided over four days of
    committee debate over reauthorization of the FISA Amendments Act with an iron fist and
    incredible subordination to the Obama Administration. The FISA Amendments Act of 2008 was
    set to expire, but President Obama has been pushing for its un-amended reauthorization.

    http://townhall.com/tipsheet/kevinglass/2012/12/28/obama-boxer-shutting-down-fourth-
    amendment-debate-n1475411

             o   Report
             o   Share this comment on Twitter
             o   Share this comment on Facebook


         o

                      wildworms

                      30 December 2012 5:02amLink to this comment




                      4

                      This is far more disturbing than anything in the released FBI files.

                     Report
                     Share this comment on Twitter
                     Share this comment on Facebook


         o

                      RicardoFloresMagon

                      30 December 2012 6:32pmLink to this comment
                      @wildworms - the two, of course, are intimately related.

                     Report
                     Share this comment on Twitter
                     Share this comment on Facebook


        o

                      wildworms

                      30 December 2012 7:20pmLink to this comment




                      2

                      @RicardoFloresMagon -
                      I see your point.
                      When the authorities feel the need to fill a bureaucratic quota of "terrorists
                      caught", no one is safe even though usually muslim-americans bear the
                      brunt of it these days. I don't envy what some muslim-americans and some
                      left-wing activists have to put up with. There have been a lot of cases of just
                      plain harrassment, and more seriously, several cases of dodgy prosecutions
                      and of entrapment.

                      A big issue in the FISA debate is whether the info collected can be used in
                      extrajudicial punishment and blackmail. I know that sounds paranoid, but if
                      you look at the history of blacklisting and COINTELPRO throughout the Cold
                      War, it's a reasonable fear. I don't think we're there yet (as another
                      commenter pointed out, this isn't even remotely J Edgar Hoover's FBI), but
                      few people in mainstream politics and media are taking the problem seriously
                      enough. In this era when we are so dependent on electronic communications,
                      indiscriminate, massive, unsupervised wiretapping represents a huge and
                      dangerous centralisation of power.

                      But I don't think Wolf is helping by overstating the contents of the FBI files.

                     Report
                     Share this comment on Twitter
                     Share this comment on Facebook






    Zarathustra2012

    29 December 2012 7:04pmLink to this comment
24

Ironic how Guardian readers are now lamenting the reality of an expansionist, intrusive State.
With each electoral cycle the ambitions of government have not only grown, but have been
encouraged to do so. When leftists cry for more funding to finance any project they deem
worthy, it is the same dystopian vision; more taxation leaves the individual with less personal
wealth to spend as he see's fit, and an erosion of the ability to conduct independent activities
free from some subsidy which is usually conditional.
Aristotle described the State as an educative agency, though today the State has far greater
resources and ambitions as it molds a populace into a community of serfs to serve the
corporate-military-political complex. It has no need, or use for independently minded individuals,
or as the brave OWS protesters have discovered, no tolerance of dissent. Our duties are to
consume and pay taxes and once in a while go through the charade of an election to
perpetuate the myth that we are any longer in control of our lives. Even the unemployed and
criminally minded are tolerated as the justice system and Welfare dependency are now huge
industries, or ministries. Bravo, three cheers all round to the electorate of Western democracies
who voted for these fascists.

         o   Report
         o   Share this comment on Twitter
         o   Share this comment on Facebook


     o

                  branche

                  29 December 2012 7:19pmLink to this comment




                  8

                  @Zarathustra2012 -

                  Better than going through life wearing a tinfoil hat.

                 Report
                 Share this comment on Twitter
                 Share this comment on Facebook


     o

                  Zarathustra2012

                  29 December 2012 8:02pmLink to this comment




                  4

                  @branche - ?????????
                     Report
                     Share this comment on Twitter
                     Share this comment on Facebook


        o

                      rivelle

                      30 December 2012 11:41amLink to this comment




                      9

                      It has nothing to do with the expansion of the State per se, you infantile
                      regressive "libertarian" half-wit.

                      It's all to do with the *marriage* and collaboration of the twin oligarchical
                      powers of big corporate Capitalism and State power. The United States has
                      *always* been as much a "state capitalist" system as the old Soviet Union
                      was. The USA has *never* had any resemblance to the "free-market" of it's
                      propagandist theory.

                      All you child-like "libertarian" will-to-power Randite simpletons want is a direct
                      expansion of State power and repression under the thin disguise of nihilistic
                      Corporate "freedom".

                      ("Nothing is true. Everything is permitted")

                      Freedom to exploit, enslave, pillage, wage war, buy and corrupt power and
                      conquer foreign lands and turn them into client states. All the while teaching
                      the bullet-headed many of the citizen body to pray to God as a panacea for
                      their "problems" which an uncaring kleptocratic elite regard with an almighty
                      indifference.

                      Yep, sure sounds like "liberty" to me.

                     Report
                     Share this comment on Twitter
                     Share this comment on Facebook






    branche

    29 December 2012 7:17pmLink to this comment




    This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community
    standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.


    TheIneffableSwede

    29 December 2012 7:41pmLink to this comment




    46

    Why shouldn't the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, and local government act under
    the command of the banks? The bankers own the government. Those are their servants, and
    servants take orders.

    The message has been sent out to the American people: if your protest actually
    inconveniences or troubles the bankers, they will send their goons to break your skull. You'll
    end up dead or crippled for life.

    Now shut up and get back to buying iPhones and wondering how you're going to pay your rent
    since your boss just cut your salary 10% and gave himself a bonus for reducing payroll costs.

             o   Report
             o   Share this comment on Twitter
             o   Share this comment on Facebook






    TheIneffableSwede

    29 December 2012 7:45pmLink to this comment




    26

    What year is it?

    It's 1984. All years are 1984 now.

             o   Report
             o   Share this comment on Twitter
             o   Share this comment on Facebook






    DreShelby
29 December 2012 7:49pmLink to this comment




35

It seems clear the scope and complexity of agency cooperation would have been impossible
had it gotten underway in response to the financial crisis. Such cooperation requires contact
people to be designated, resources identified that are to be shared, and protocols established.
All of that takes a lot of time and meetings that involve administrative level personnel. If all of
that preparation was in place, then OWS was only a early forerunner of an expected rebellion.
The response to OWS was disproportional because a much broader and aggressive rebellion
was expected. That may seem distasteful to many, but there may be supporting evidence.
Joseph Stiglitz (a Nobel Prize winning economist) had said the intention of the cultural elite in
pressing for dramatic reduction in government social services and a reduction in the taxation of
the wealthy was a preemptive move against a possible 'New Deal' from a new FDR type leader.
A possibly related development was the construction of series of new (and nice) federal prisons
just north of the Mexican border. Officially it was said the prisons were intended for drug
traffickers. If so they remain well below capacity population. Others have said the new prisons
were really intended for those instigating or contributing to social unrest.
The austerity measures promoted by the cultural elite of Europe, the United States, and other
Western powers, will, if implemented, enrich the cultural elite and destroy the middle class in
the countries that adopt that economic strategy. That the strategy has been promoted
aggressively in Europe and the United States would indicate a consensus probably developed
at Davos.
Will the cultural elite have their way? If we look at the ruins of countries and cultures that were
once powerful and dominant we find a common thread. Each believed itself to be the carrier of
absolute truth. Each became more inhumane and more tyrannical as its social and political
dominance declined.

         o    Report
         o    Share this comment on Twitter
         o    Share this comment on Facebook


     o

                   rivelle

                   30 December 2012 11:53amLink to this comment




                   4

                   Good comment.

                   Especially the point about Davos. Immanuel Wallerstein is worth reading if
                   you haven't read him already.

                   http://www.iwallerstein.com/intellectual-itinerary/

                   In his writings, he posits an opposition between the "spirit of Davos" and the
                   "spirit of Porte Allegre" (where the first meetings of the World Social Forum
                      were held) as the dialectical conflict of forces which will determine the
                      essential political battle lines of the 21st century.

                      See Wallerstein's "Utopistics: Historical Choices for the 21st Century"

                      Only problem that I have with it is why do you speak about about a "cultural"
                      elite, as opposed to a more general - and more potent - *power* elite as one
                      finds in, for example, C. Wright Mills?

                     Report
                     Share this comment on Twitter
                     Share this comment on Facebook






    mikedow

    29 December 2012 8:01pmLink to this comment




    19

    nypd have quietly thanked Occupy for their assisstence, post Hurricane Sandy. keep it to
    yourself.

             o   Report
             o   Share this comment on Twitter
             o   Share this comment on Facebook






    RodriguanFruitBat

    29 December 2012 8:01pmLink to this comment




    12

    I had a quick flick through the documents you link to. Much of the discussion relates to the
    Occupy plan to "shut down the West Coast ports" in the USA (a threat genuinely made by
    Occupy).

    Were the FBI and other counter-terrorism agencies not to try to resist this, then I'd wonder what
    they were being paid for.

    Or is your argument just that Occupy was so obviously hopeless and ineffectual that such
    threats should simply have been ignored, along with the rest of the gibberish the movement
    produced?
             o    Report
             o    Share this comment on Twitter
             o    Share this comment on Facebook


         o

                       RicardoFloresMagon

                       30 December 2012 6:42pmLink to this comment




                       9

                       This was in strong collaboration and in solidarity with the longshore unions,
                       so are you suggesting that labor action and labor solidarity action is terrorism,
                       and that it is the FBI's and other LE and c-t agencies' responsibility to resist
                       and suppress that?

                       While, of course, the FBI and LE have a long history in the US of
                       suppressing the labor movement (brutally, I may add, when it was still
                       effective and revolutionary, but that's a long time ago), but didnt expect
                       anyone to talk about that with a tone of approval.

                      Report
                      Share this comment on Twitter
                      Share this comment on Facebook






    RideAPaleHorse

    29 December 2012 8:02pmLink to this comment




    74

    The only word missing from you brilliant article, Naomi, is fascism.

    This is a pre-cursor for things to come in Western society; OWS was used as a test-run,
    basically. Labelling them as terrorists is a sure sign of the degeneration of the US elites grip on
    reality and descent into a pathological paranoia. It's desperately sad to watch the West, esp.
    USA, ramp up the sophistication of their control-grid Stasi system.

    Three comments in and two of them (longshireman and Nevermindthebollocks) are so utterly
    misguided and ill-informed, it's beyond belief.

             o    Report
             o    Share this comment on Twitter
             o    Share this comment on Facebook
         o

                      ReluctantDissident

                      30 December 2012 2:18amLink to this comment




                      It's worth bearing in mind that the article even states the designation of OWS
                      as terrorists was deeply equivocal. They acknowledged that these were
                      peaceful citizens. They also noted that the anti-terror laws could apply. It's
                      absolutely not right to conclude that OWS have been designated a terrorist
                      organisation. That is a very different thing to what's being discussed in the
                      article and has not happened.

                      Now I'm not in any way justifying the alleged plans for assassinations. That's
                      something deeply worrying about America and thankfully most of the time
                      here in the UK we don't usually have to worry about literally getting bumped
                      off. That's not something to be complacent about and we need to fight
                      against people like Theresa May (and Jack Straw in his day) who want to go
                      down that road.

                     Report
                     Share this comment on Twitter
                     Share this comment on Facebook






    charles47

    29 December 2012 8:08pmLink to this comment




    22

    For all those who consider the "Occupy" group a fair target for what ensued, and yet also
    consider the group to have no clear agenda, no clear protest, why oh why do you think they
    were treated in a manner that the FBI clearly failed to do in September 2001, and that the Met
    failed to do in July 2005 against people with a very clear agenda and the means to carry it out
    (and they were apparently watching)?

             o   Report
             o   Share this comment on Twitter
             o   Share this comment on Facebook





    ernstgangst

    29 December 2012 8:09pmLink to this comment




    12

    Police State

             o     Report
             o     Share this comment on Twitter
             o     Share this comment on Facebook


         o

                       branche

                       29 December 2012 8:16pmLink to this comment




                       8

                       CIF is bad, but I wouldn't go that far.

                      Report
                      Share this comment on Twitter
                      Share this comment on Facebook






    RodriguanFruitBat

    29 December 2012 8:10pmLink to this comment




    13

    It's actually rather interesting reading the documents. A lot of it is indeed about the threat to
    shut down the West Coast ports. Others are about threats of violence and terrorist attack.
    Almost all of it is responsive to threats of violence. Mostly, the documents show the agencies
    responding rather sensible to these threats, taking no specific action but logging it and alerting
    each other.

    Example (page 89):

    The letter threatens that "Occupy Des Moines" will be conducting a gas attack
    (mustard-sulfur) on he Des Moines airport and other
    "religious centers of corporate greed" during the "Nationalist"
    holiday season. The letter is signed "An,Rrch'ee"

    OK, almost certainly a nutter and possibly even an anti-Occupy provocateur. But are you really
    saying the FBI shouldn't even be informed, shouldn't even communicate with airport officials
    about it?

    If Occupy wanted to be free of Government surveillance, a good start might have been to
    distance themselves a bit more from the small minority of their supporters who were clearly
    insane and violent.

              o   Report
              o   Share this comment on Twitter
              o   Share this comment on Facebook






    branche

    29 December 2012 8:15pmLink to this comment




    15

    Occupy exemplified what ou might become if you squandered all your chances in life. Stoners,
    petty criminals and tramps.

              o   Report
              o   Share this comment on Twitter
              o   Share this comment on Facebook


         o

                       RideAPaleHorse

                       29 December 2012 8:44pmLink to this comment




                       44

                       Looks like a Tory has found CIF

                      Report
                      Share this comment on Twitter
                      Share this comment on Facebook


         o

                       roachclip
        29 December 2012 9:27pmLink to this comment




        30

        branche -

             Occupy exemplified what ou might become if you squandered all
             your chances in life. Stoners, petty criminals and tramps.

        You mean as opposed to the piss-heads, big-time criminals, and 'born-to-
        rule' pampered Tories who try to denigrate them.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        Station2station

        29 December 2012 9:45pmLink to this comment




        5

        @roachclip -

        Isn't it past your bed time?

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        roachclip

        29 December 2012 10:05pmLink to this comment




        20

        @Station2station -

        Ah, I should have known, you can always rely on an incisive comment from a
        Tory central clone.

       Report
                       Share this comment on Twitter
                       Share this comment on Facebook






    bertellie

    29 December 2012 8:16pmLink to this comment




    7

    What? Big business, government, the banks, the security services and the police all working
    together to stifle protest. Well I never! It has always been thus and always will be.

                o   Report
                o   Share this comment on Twitter
                o   Share this comment on Facebook






    HudsonBarBarfly

    29 December 2012 8:21pmLink to this comment




    12

    then print where these banks get their money from. And then re-print it with a request that we
    look at ouselves and ask what we can do. Then re-print it again with stories of what people are
    doing about withdrawing thier custom. Then ask again for us to consider. Then write with more
    stories and more stories. Let's start a snowball effect.

                o   Report
                o   Share this comment on Twitter
                o   Share this comment on Facebook






    taxpayer1

    29 December 2012 8:24pmLink to this comment
    5

    And their hero's administration did it.

              o   Report
              o   Share this comment on Twitter
              o   Share this comment on Facebook






    natron10

    29 December 2012 8:26pmLink to this comment




    62

    Whether you like Occupiers or think they are stinky and useless, I don’t see how details of
    collusion between state and corporate power aren’t chilling. In the US, right-wingers blame
    everything on the government and many (although fewer) lefties blame corporate interests. But
    what if they are the Same Thing, colluding in secret while assholes like us fight each other in a
    war that distracts us from this bigger truth?

    Secondly, this whole “the Occupy accomplished nothing” claim is ridiculous. Find me any major,
    lasting change in the course of human politics that didn’t -- like rights for African-Americans,
    women, workers, gays – take a few decades of struggle to make a difference. That why they
    are “revolutionary” changes – because some sort of establishment opposes them.

    Finally, anti-Occupy commentators make the point that the movement actually did accomplish
    something when they belittle the “99%” label. The movement’s ability to embed that phrase in
    everyday speech is a huge accomplishment, because it frames things as “almost everybody
    whose wages have remained stagnant over the past 3 decades despite rising productivity”
    against “the people making countless millions by gaming the system without actually producing
    anything.” Check out the movie “Inside Job” to see how top university economists were bought
    off by corporations to serve as the “experts” that made everyone feel good as the economy was
    deregulated and hurtling towards a massive crash. CEOs know that controlling the dialogue is
    the most powerful element in a revolution.

              o   Report
              o   Share this comment on Twitter
              o   Share this comment on Facebook


         o

                       RideAPaleHorse

                       29 December 2012 8:52pmLink to this comment




                       23
                      Brilliant comment.

                     Report
                     Share this comment on Twitter
                     Share this comment on Facebook


         o

                      angelamarica

                      30 December 2012 12:32amLink to this comment




                      10

                      @RideAPaleHorse -

                      Here in Europe we are played off between our governments and the EU, and
                      although there are still some varying degrees of freedom and better systems,
                      I think that the corporates are running both. They seem to be able to print
                      endless money for the banks, while starving and harrassing the citizens.

                      Al Jazeera today also featured a journalist who said he thinks the USA
                      financial system will just implode very soon, and all hell will break list.

                      I hate to say it but I am beginning to understand why some US citizens are
                      so desperate to hold on to guns. I'm not saying it's right, again it depends
                      which point of view you are coming from, but it is understandable when stuff
                      like this comes out and is seen as OK by so many people.

                     Report
                     Share this comment on Twitter
                     Share this comment on Facebook






    Gigi Bowman

    29 December 2012 8:28pmLink to this comment




    23

    Thank you for getting the word out about this Naomi.

             o   Report
             o   Share this comment on Twitter
             o   Share this comment on Facebook


    cmcdanie

    29 December 2012 8:36pmLink to this comment




    24

    This is the confirmation of what we have been afraid of, the merger of the government with the
    military and corporations, we are now a fully fascist state. Just study what happened in Chile in
    the 1970's to see where we are headed.

             o    Report
             o    Share this comment on Twitter
             o    Share this comment on Facebook






    Hubert O'Hearn

    29 December 2012 8:48pmLink to this comment




    27

    As vital and important a piece of journalism as will be written this year (or next). Chris Hedges
    was right. America IS becoming a police state under the control of corporatist interests.

             o    Report
             o    Share this comment on Twitter
             o    Share this comment on Facebook






    jaapdenhaan

    29 December 2012 8:49pmLink to this comment




    31
    The tracking of people's income streams and financial records is about the natural outcome of
    privatisation, here as well. The same laws already apply differently to private business and
    banks that (don’t) need our (small) money. It’s a gradual loss of civil rights, with the intention to
    at least to keep up the pressure and further weaken those who cannot take a lawyer easily
    anyway.

              o   Report
              o   Share this comment on Twitter
              o   Share this comment on Facebook


        o

                       RideAPaleHorse

                       29 December 2012 8:53pmLink to this comment




                       36

                       people need to start using cash as much as possible.

                      Report
                      Share this comment on Twitter
                      Share this comment on Facebook


        o

                       angelamarica

                       30 December 2012 12:38amLink to this comment




                       23

                       Does anyone know what is happening in Michigan, the first state to have no
                       welfare payments?

                       Obama is planning to roll this right out across America. No job, no money,
                       and the usual suspects from Britain have been hopping over the Atlantic
                       Bridge to find out how it's done.

                       Good luck everyone in 2013 and keep on fighting the system.

                      Report
                      Share this comment on Twitter
                      Share this comment on Facebook





    mikedow

    29 December 2012 8:49pmLink to this comment




    14

    A distant relative of mine was the victim of 12-15 years of secret investigation and dirty tricks by
    the RCMP, in the 60's and early 70's, due to his political affiliations. It went to court and
    governmental commission, leading eventually to the RCMP being relieved of counter
    espionage work.
    The RCMP seem to be in constant review now. Once honoured, now decried. They blew it.

              o   Report
              o   Share this comment on Twitter
              o   Share this comment on Facebook






    RideAPaleHorse

    29 December 2012 8:51pmLink to this comment




    32

    If people really wanted to hit the banks hard then one simple thing they could do every payday
    is withdraw all their income and spend it as cash.

    1-200,000 doing this every month would definitely affect the banks but imagine if 1-2000,000
    were doing this every single month. It would be interesting to see the consequences.

    Think of it like this, for every £1 of real money the bank is able to create £10's of debt out of thin
    air. Remove the real money from their accounts and their mechanism for sustaining perpetual
    debt becomes flawed.

    If OWS or a group like them wanted to do something 'radical' then they could simply organise
    themselves in queues outside bank machines across different cities and inform all those that
    ask that there is a run on the banks!!

    oh oh, that's me on a database!!!

              o   Report
              o   Share this comment on Twitter
              o   Share this comment on Facebook


         o

                       bullwinkle
        29 December 2012 9:05pmLink to this comment




        8

        @RideAPaleHorse

             Think of it like this, for every £1 of real money the bank is able to
             create £10's of debt out of thin air.

        That's not true - for every £1 of money the bank has, it can lend 90 pence.
        Banks cannot create money out of thin air.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        dsmith9

        29 December 2012 9:42pmLink to this comment




        12

        @bullwinkle - But that 90 pence will be banked and so a further 81 pence is
        lent. The real flaw in RideAPaleHorse's argument is that the money spent will
        almost certainly be banked. Better to stick it under the mattress.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        finnkn

        29 December 2012 9:47pmLink to this comment




        4

             oh oh, that's me on a database!!!

        No, just looking economically illiterate on a website.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        bullwinkle

        29 December 2012 9:48pmLink to this comment




        3

        @dsmith9 - it doesn't matter - it's just circulation of the same money - no new
        money is printed. People act like they have uncovered some conspiracy,
        when it's nothing of the sort.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        RideAPaleHorse

        29 December 2012 9:54pmLink to this comment




        30

        @dsmith9 - yep, that certainly is a flaw.

        Banks do create money out of thin air - fractional reserve banking coupled
        with a fiat currency system means that money is magicked into existence.

        OK, so £1 can not back £10's worth of new lending or debt, but £9 can. But
        say, for example, that £9 is loaned out and the interest on it is £1, the bank
        gets £10's back and they still have the £1 deposited earlier.

        From the £1 that was deposited the bank now has £11 on the books. £10
        created from nowhere.

        If you think money isn't created out of thin air look into the bonds and
        treasuries markets and see how national debts are made and paid for.

        See MONETARISM for further details.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o
        bullwinkle

        29 December 2012 9:58pmLink to this comment




        4

        @RideAPaleHorse -

             OK, so £1 can not back £10's worth of new lending or debt, but
             £9 can. But say, for example, that £9 is loaned out and the
             interest on it is £1, the bank gets £10's back and they still have
             the £1 deposited earlier.
             From the £1 that was deposited the bank now has £11 on the
             books. £10 created from nowhere.

        No, it doesn't work like that.

        A bank can't lend £9 if it only has £1 of capital.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        RideAPaleHorse

        29 December 2012 10:05pmLink to this comment




        28

        "No, just looking economically illiterate on a website."

        Hardly a riposte or way or making an argument. If there is something wrong
        with what I have said - and likely there is - then spell it out so any
        misconception can be fairly and adequately dealt with.

        Are you going to make a defence of fiat currency, debt finance, and fractional
        reserve banking? Maybe I misunderstand the arguments against them or am
        just not very good at explaining them. There certainly are others out there
        that are far better at making the case than I am.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        RideAPaleHorse
        29 December 2012 10:10pmLink to this comment




        34

        @bullwinkle - Look up fractional reserve banking for a better explanation.

        The best way that banks helped to fu@k up the world was when they had
        amassed so much debt that they packaged it up in bundles and began using
        them as leverage!! It takes a sick bunch of people to think of an idea like that.
        To the point, and this is from the Bank for International Settlements, that the
        debt bundles and accompanying 'betting slips' on their value going up and/or
        down were worth more than a quadrillion dollars - hahahaha!!!

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        bullwinkle

        29 December 2012 10:22pmLink to this comment




        3

        @RideAPaleHorse -

        I understand fractional reserve banking. No offence, but you have
        misunderstood it - there is a lot of misleading info on line about how banks
        work, often saying they print money out of thin air - mainly due to the money
        multiplier effect, which is really just different people using the same money at
        different times. If banks could really create money out of thin air, think about
        the following points:

        -When you borrow money from a bank, they do credit checks on you, and
        want to see your business plan, etc. Why? Cause they want you to pay the
        money back. If the money were created out of thin air, where would the risk
        be in lending it? There would be none. Someone could default on a loan ,
        and it wouldn't matter one bit, you could even lend them the money again.

        -Banks want our money so they can lend it out - they pay us for it. Why?
        Cause they need it. Banks buy and sell money like any other business - they
        buy it for less than they sell it for.

        -Banks get money from depositors (you and I) and they also borrow it from
        money markets and other banks. If they can create it out of thin air, why
        would they do this? (you might have heard that banks aren't lending much at
        the moment? One reason for this is that the markets and other banks don't
        want to lend to them, so are charging much more. If the money were printed
        from thin air, why have they stopped lending?
        -We know banks lend our money, and that if we all asked for it back at the
        same time, they wouldn't have it (a run on the bank). But if the money had
        been created out of nothing, then all the original deposits would still be in the
        bank, and there could be no run.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        Cowflop

        30 December 2012 12:25amLink to this comment




        15

        @bullwinkle -

             Banks buy and sell money like any other business - they buy it for
             less than they sell it for.

        You have no problem with a business that buys a dollar from you and sells it
        back to you for a dollar and a quarter ?

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        bullwinkle

        30 December 2012 1:03amLink to this comment




        3

        @Cowflop -

             You have no problem with a business that buys a dollar from you
             and sells it back to you for a dollar and a quarter ?

        It's no different from a shop that buys tvs from a manufacturer, and then sells
        them on for a profit. They buy in bulk, and have access to cheaper tvs than
        you or I. The cost of paying the staff who sell the tvs, and the shop, etc, is
        part of the mark up they put on it. The buying and selling of money is no
        different.
        You don't have to like it, but banks have access to large amounts of money -
        people are happy to lend it to them. That means they can get it cheaper than
        you - and when you want a car or house, you have to pay what they charge.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        RideAPaleHorse

        30 December 2012 1:13amLink to this comment




        31

        @bullwinkle - Sorry, but to merely put this down to misleading information on
        the internet is garbage.

        Giving us interest on money is no return at all when inflation is factored in to
        it. Why is so much energy put into keeping the real inflation rate from the
        public? Because it shows us how much the money is being destroyed - how
        little wages go up compared to cost of living.

        I haven't the time nor energy tonight to go into this but seriously, anyone who
        is reading bullwinkles rebuttal and thinking, "yeah, maybe this guys got it
        figured out. The banks aren't out to screw us over!!" He hasn't at all. Check it
        out for yourself. There are stacks of viable and credible sources of
        information online.

        The money scam is the most pertinent issues facing us today.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        bullwinkle

        30 December 2012 1:18amLink to this comment




        2

        @RideAPaleHorse -

        It's not about figuring it out, it's about how it actually works in the real world,
        rather than dodgy youtube cartoons like Money As Debt.
        I never said the banks weren't out to screw us, or that they don't have major
        flaws and issues, but we need to know how things work, rather than listen to
        what are essentially conspiracy theories about basic banking - it's no wonder
        that groups like occupy are not taken seriously when fundamentals are
        misunderstood.

        You haven't addressed any of the points in my lengthier post above - i
        assume because you cannot answer them.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        ReluctantDissident

        30 December 2012 2:21amLink to this comment




        3

        That could probably be deemed illegal but it's precisely the kind of action that
        would be happening regularly if we really did have insidious terrorist groups
        operating in our midst such as Al Qaeda or their communist equivalent.

        It's quite comforting to know that for the most part we're all too lazy to commit
        acts of wanton terror.

        Nevertheless, I certainly urge anyone inspired by the above ATM suggestion
        to refrain. I'm no lawyer but it seems fairly likely such action could be
        deemed a breach of the peace or something along those lines with at least
        some claim to justification.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        someoneionceknew

        31 December 2012 12:03amLink to this comment




        2

        @bullwinkle - You're both wrong but you are more wrong than RAPH. Loans
        create the deposits. So all new loans are new "money", but no nett financial
        assets.
                      Fractional Reserve Banking and the "money Multiplier" are both
                      misconceptions.

                     Report
                     Share this comment on Twitter
                     Share this comment on Facebook


         o

                      BrotherPhil

                      31 December 2012 10:23amLink to this comment




                      1

                      If enough people did this to make a difference, then they'd outlaw cash -
                      they're already working on it.

                     Report
                     Share this comment on Twitter
                     Share this comment on Facebook


         o

                      bullwinkle

                      31 December 2012 6:31pmLink to this comment




                      @someoneionceknew - then can you please answer the questions I asked a
                      few posts before , the ones at 10.22pm

                     Report
                     Share this comment on Twitter
                     Share this comment on Facebook






    Yak3

    29 December 2012 9:00pmLink to this comment




    22
    Why is it that in a country awash with guns those groups that eschew armed violence are seen
    as the greatest internal threat?

             o   Report
             o   Share this comment on Twitter
             o   Share this comment on Facebook






    AlbertaRabbit

    29 December 2012 9:05pmLink to this comment




    7

    Klein alleges that the FBI did not just monitor the OWS movement (definitely part of their job)
    but coordinated a violent crackdown of it.

    However, she presents no evidence for this second part. Perhaps she thought no one would
    notice.

             o   Report
             o   Share this comment on Twitter
             o   Share this comment on Facebook


        o

                      AlbertaRabbit

                      29 December 2012 9:19pmLink to this comment




                      2

                      Excuse me, Wolf alleges...

                     Report
                     Share this comment on Twitter
                     Share this comment on Facebook






    kristinekochanski

    29 December 2012 9:05pmLink to this comment
27

Scary article. I've got to admit that I have never found the Occupy movement very impressive, it
seemed unfocused & did not connect with the working class as a whole. So as it really did not
present much risk then the conclusion must be that any dissent will be viewed as potential
''terrorism'', which is utterly ridiculous.

But what is more scary are the lines being blurred between security services & the private
sector, which is the monkey & which is the organ grinder.

Add in to the mix an apparently legal ability to surveil perfectly innocent people who have
committed no crime & it is positively Orwellian.

Good article & the contents should be spread far & wide.

         o   Report
         o   Share this comment on Twitter
         o   Share this comment on Facebook


     o

                  mikedow

                  29 December 2012 9:13pmLink to this comment




                  16

                  Sometimes it takes awhile for leadership to develop. That's why they go to
                  great lengths to snuff you in the bud.

                 Report
                 Share this comment on Twitter
                 Share this comment on Facebook


     o

                  kristinekochanski

                  29 December 2012 9:46pmLink to this comment




                  4

                  @mikedow -

                  I appreciate that & I hope that it develops into something a bit more
                  organised.
                       But it's the fact that they were a bit woolly but still received this level of
                       attention that sets off all the alarm bells for me.

                      Report
                      Share this comment on Twitter
                      Share this comment on Facebook


         o

                       RodriguanFruitBat

                       30 December 2012 12:51pmLink to this comment




                       It is a pretty scary article.

                       Fortunately, the documents she links to are much less scary. Law
                       enforcement agencies talk to one another. Especially about threats of
                       violence.

                       Really, have a read of them. They're about individuals, 'in' Occupy or in some
                       way associated with it, making threats of violence, and about responding to
                       that. They simply are not about suppressing the right to protest. Some
                       documents explicitly draw a distinction between violent threats and the main,
                       peaceful protests.

                       I think the article is seriously misleading - although to be fair, she does
                       provide a link to the documents that disprove her point.

                      Report
                      Share this comment on Twitter
                      Share this comment on Facebook






    Shannon Rhea Styron

    29 December 2012 9:06pmLink to this comment




    34

    Longshireman is apparently misinformed. Occupy is alive and well. They are just busy with
    mutual aid in the form of Occupy Sandy. And people were feeling it all over the world. Please,
    please don't listen to main stream media for your facts.

    As citizens we have the right to organize and rise up for a better country. It just scares the
    bankers, politicians, government, etc. because they are afraid their gig is up. It is. Your time is
    over. Our time is now.
Naomi, thank you for covering OWS. Keep up the good work. I would love to see more stuff like
this from the guardian.

         o   Report
         o   Share this comment on Twitter
         o   Share this comment on Facebook


   o

                 Station2station

                 29 December 2012 9:13pmLink to this comment




                 18


                      It just scares the bankers, politicians, government, etc. because
                      they are afraid their gig is up. It is. Your time is over. Our time is
                      now.

                 Yeah, I'm sure the bankers, politicians and government are quaking in their
                 boots. oh, and whoever "etc" is too. People talk the most amazing drivel on
                 these forums.

                Report
                Share this comment on Twitter
                Share this comment on Facebook


   o

                 Ameliascottage

                 29 December 2012 9:39pmLink to this comment




                 6

                 Yes, Shannon. We are the new majority. We will prevail. Peace.

                Report
                Share this comment on Twitter
                Share this comment on Facebook


   o

                 Station2station

                 29 December 2012 9:44pmLink to this comment
        11

        God help us.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        roachclip

        29 December 2012 10:10pmLink to this comment




        16

        @Station2station -

        Your comments, all three (total), make you sound like a banker (excuse the
        typo).

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        RideAPaleHorse

        29 December 2012 10:26pmLink to this comment




        30

        The Guardian used to - many years ago - be full of decent articles. Maybe
        OWS are not the best equipped to deliver the message of political and
        banking corruption, maybe the media are, but hey the media are mainly a
        curtain used to hide the real criminal activities of the elite and the systems
        they use to control populations.

        Naomi Wolfe is a true heroine!!

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook
o

        dippychick

        29 December 2012 10:28pmLink to this comment




        2

        @Ameliascottage -

        Iwanted to be in occupie, they had some awsome jugglers !
        I got groped am my mom banned me from going.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        gracepanda

        29 December 2012 11:23pmLink to this comment




        5

        @Station2station -
        SILENCE NON BELIEVER or feel the wrath of my mighty drum circle and or
        juggling workshop >:-(

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        Ameliascottage

        30 December 2012 1:24amLink to this comment




        @roachclip - Huh. I would have said snotty Apple "genius". ;)

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


    WhichTruth

    29 December 2012 9:44pmLink to this comment




    2

    Seems they are playing with points 6, 7 and 9. http://ellensplace.net/fascism.html

             o   Report
             o   Share this comment on Twitter
             o   Share this comment on Facebook


        o

                      WhichTruth

                      29 December 2012 10:40pmLink to this comment




                      5

                      http://ellensplace.net/fascism.html

                     Report
                     Share this comment on Twitter
                     Share this comment on Facebook


        o

                      MysticFish

                      29 December 2012 10:45pmLink to this comment




                      They all seem relevant but point 1 grabbed my attention with its 'ubiquitous
                      lapel pins.' That seems to have caught on this (UK) side of the Atlantic too:

                      http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/pin-doctors-the-art-of-lapel-
                      politics-7953510.html

                      As worn by American politicians:
                      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2212660/Presidential-debate-2012-
                      Special-star-worn-Mitt-Romney-Secret-Service-
                        pin.html?openGraphAuthor=%2Fhome%2Fsearch.html%3Fs%3D%26author
                        namef%3DLeon%2BWatson

                        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/04/romney-flag-pin-
                        debates_n_1938840.html

                       Report
                       Share this comment on Twitter
                       Share this comment on Facebook






    zeenazee23

    29 December 2012 9:54pmLink to this comment




    34

    Sorry for being slow on the uptake....

    But as part of my studies, I've been reading Cain and Hopkins' work on the history of
    Gentlemanly Capitalism from 1688 to the C20th.

    But it would appear you moaning lefties are right.

    We are fucking living in a transnational dictatorship of global finance, aren't we?

    How the fuck?

    I mean, given that we supposedly have free and fair elections with universal suffrage, how the
    fuck have we let this happen?

    In the last 20-odd years, I've studied our history from the reformation to 1945 at various levels,
    and have studied the politics of 1945 to present. So I should know.

    But how the fuck that they got away with it?

    Divide and rule? Media manipulation? ffs we're got half the country hunting "disabled
    scroungers" like they're paedos while the richest 1,000 have see their wealth grow more than
    the entire current deficit since 2008.

    US companies say they'll build prisons as long as they're guaranteed 90% occupancy.

    How the fuck can these tiny number of leeches get away with sucking up all the cash for
    themselves?

    Again, how the fuck?

    I feel physically sick.

              o    Report
              o    Share this comment on Twitter
              o    Share this comment on Facebook
o

        DavidinSantaFe

        29 December 2012 9:58pmLink to this comment




        17

        It seems to me that a good place to start looking for answers are the regimes
        of Reagan and Thatcher: how they came to power and who was backing
        them.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        zeenazee23

        29 December 2012 10:27pmLink to this comment




        18

        @DavidinSantaFe - re: Thatcher and Reagan regimes.

        I'm sorry. I didn't explain my point well enough.

        Cain and Hopkins show how the city in league with the landed interest 1688-
        1850 and with industrialists 1850-1945 and beyond have run the whole
        shebang for their benefit.

        It's been going on a lot longer that 1979.

        My point is that they should have been brought down by democracy, but they
        are getting away with it more and more.

        I accept that monetarism and city deregulation, big bang, exchange controls
        etc have led to the latest splurge, but it's just one of many since 1688. Just
        like the Corn Laws of 1846 and the move to informal empire meant they just
        switched working with the landed artistos to working with the industrialists.

        So how the fuck have they done it?

        How have we been so fucking thick to vote for them to do this to us?

        Still confused.
       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        RideAPaleHorse

        29 December 2012 10:28pmLink to this comment




        22

        Excellent post, mate. Quality.

        I agree, how the fu@k did we let this happen!?!?!

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        mikedow

        29 December 2012 10:29pmLink to this comment




        3

        I blame Stalin.

        He raised the hackles of reactionaries, who went over board in their commie
        hunting, causing a liberal backlash, that morphed into a half century of
        extreme consumer selfishness.

        That, and the Industrial Revolution cranking out ever better guns and drugs.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        DavidinSantaFe

        29 December 2012 10:59pmLink to this comment
                      8

                      @zeenazee23 -

                      I was unaware of the book by Cain and Hopkins and it looks really good --
                      thanks for mentioning it.

                      I can't really answer your question as it seems you're looking at the long term
                      and I'm looking at the short term. Maybe it would clarify things to not use the
                      term "democracy" but rather "republic" since that is at least the outer form of
                      governance in the West.

                      I'm curious how you see the New Deal. It feels to me that significant reforms
                      took place which, while leaving much of the power structure intact, did curtail
                      financial speculation and raise taxes on the rich to about 90%.

                      Regarding voting: the vote doesn't really matter if the bankers select the
                      candidates. Most people in the USA don't vote because they know this (don't
                      know about England.)

                     Report
                     Share this comment on Twitter
                     Share this comment on Facebook






    greven

    29 December 2012 9:55pmLink to this comment




    15

    Isn't the point that anyone can at any time and for
    any reason be labeled a "terrorist suspect" and thus
    loose all human rights.
    As far as rich/poor right/left are concerned check the
    most recent census in your country particularly income
    distribution you may well find it's the 0.01% against
    the 30%.

             o   Report
             o   Share this comment on Twitter
             o   Share this comment on Facebook






    RacingCertainty

    29 December 2012 9:59pmLink to this comment
4

Theresa May is watching you...

         o   Report
         o   Share this comment on Twitter
         o   Share this comment on Facebook


    o

                 finnkn

                 29 December 2012 11:11pmLink to this comment




                 6

                 Am I alone in finding that deeply arousing?


                 Probably.

                Report
                Share this comment on Twitter
                Share this comment on Facebook


    o

                 ReluctantDissident

                 30 December 2012 2:24amLink to this comment




                 @finnkn - you're right she is a lovely lady and there's something sensual
                 about her. Such a shame that whenever she opens her mouth you can't help
                 yourself but lose all respect and admiration for her and instead end up with
                 the feeling that she's probably one of the stupidest, most harmful people in
                 public life at the present time, which is a remarkable achievement in itself.

                Report
                Share this comment on Twitter
                Share this comment on Facebook


    o

                 BrotherPhil
                       31 December 2012 10:31amLink to this comment




                       @ReluctantDissident - The British do love a Domme. Look how they were
                       over Thatcher - she had a bigger pair than her entire cabinet put together.

                      Report
                      Share this comment on Twitter
                      Share this comment on Facebook






    VonSalza

    29 December 2012 10:03pmLink to this comment




    14

    Dear Bankster overlords,

    There's a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at
    heart, that you can't take part! You can't even passively take part! And you've got to put your
    bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels…upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and
    you've got to make it stop! And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people
    who own it, that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all!

              o   Report
              o   Share this comment on Twitter
              o   Share this comment on Facebook






    finnkn

    29 December 2012 10:04pmLink to this comment




    4

    The document – reproduced here in an easily searchable format – shows a terrifying
    network of coordinated DHS, FBI, police, regional fusion center, and private-sector
    activity so completely merged into one another that the monstrous whole is, in fact, one
    entity

    That's certainly one reading of it. From where I'm sitting, it looks like a pretty understated and
    reasonable response to demonstrators closing down a major port and planning large scale
disruption (both physically and online).
If a bank gets wind that Anonymous are planning to attempt to interfere with their online
systems (as detailed in the document), what do you expect them to do, whistle? Similarly, if an
Occupy group announces it will be staging a sit-in on a company's premises (again, read the
document), aren't they allowed to inform the police? That's all that's happening here, not some
terrifying corporate fascism.
Anyway, carry on indulging your paranoid jackboot fantasies, I'm sure it all makes you feel a lot
more relevant than you are.

         o   Report
         o   Share this comment on Twitter
         o   Share this comment on Facebook


    o

                  DavidinSantaFe

                  29 December 2012 10:09pmLink to this comment




                  11

                  @finnkn

                  So you think that labeling Occupy protesters as terrorists is understated and
                  reasonable?

                 Report
                 Share this comment on Twitter
                 Share this comment on Facebook


    o

                  finnkn

                  29 December 2012 10:27pmLink to this comment




                  5

                  @DavidinSantaFe - From my reading (and I'm happy to be proved wrong),
                  nowhere in the document are Occupy referred to as "terrorists". Wolf has
                  quoted Mara Verheyden-Hilliard as stating "the FBI treated the Occupy
                  movement as a potential criminal and terrorist threat", which although you
                  might think is just a matter of semantics suggests a very different thing
                  indeed.
                  Anyway, threatening to close down vital infrastructure and carry out acts of
                  violence to further a political cause is a pretty good definition of terrorism. It
                  doesn't really matter if those responsible for making the threats were actually
                  affiliated with Occupy, it would be utterly remiss of the police and security
                  services not to investigate them. Seriously, if such activity was being planned
        by far right extremists, you'd want the FBI so far up their arseholes they'd be
        brushing their teeth.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        DavidinSantaFe

        29 December 2012 10:45pmLink to this comment




        26

        @finnkn -

        From the NYTimes: "The Federal Bureau of Investigation used
        counterterrorism agents to investigate the Occupy Wall Street movement,
        including its communications and planning, according to newly disclosed
        agency records."

        I think you need to think things through a little. Why should the FBI be
        collaborating with the banks against Occupy Wall Street? Wouldn't the
        resources of the FBI be better served investigating the numerous criminal
        acts undertaken by the banks, acts which plunged the world economy into a
        deep recession, and have caused global instability? Who are the "terrorists"
        here?

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        finnkn

        29 December 2012 10:53pmLink to this comment




        3

        @DavidinSantaFe - See above - if threats of violence and/or disruption are
        made by those claiming to represent Occupy, the FBI will get involved.
        Similarly, if Anonymous threaten online banking systems, banks will talk to
        the FBI.
        I totally agree that it would be a better use of time investigating fraudulent
        and corrupt bankers. You don't know how lucky you are in that respect...in
        the US at least some of them get put in jail...ours get knighthoods.
       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        DavidinSantaFe

        29 December 2012 11:10pmLink to this comment




        11

        @finnkn - Your bankers get knighted and ours get to go golfing with the
        president. Oh well, it's a corrupt world we live in.

        I guess my point is that there is a huge amount of money invested in the
        "War" on "Terror" and a whole security apparatus built up around it and even
        special laws and exemptions from laws set up to deal with terrorists.

        The argument has always been that the whole machinery of the "War" on
        "Terror" would eventually be aimed at citizens, while those who promoted
        things like the Patriot Act said nonsense, this is only for the bad Muslim
        terrorists. This FBI release shows that the former were correct.

        The genie is out of the bottle.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        finnkn

        29 December 2012 11:24pmLink to this comment




        4

        @DavidinSantaFe - Worth a read (if you haven't already) -

        The Paranoid Style In American Politics

        Funny how aspects of this essay apply equally to the US Government and
        many who support the Occupy movement...

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook
o

        DavidinSantaFe

        29 December 2012 11:42pmLink to this comment




        5

        @finnkn - Thanks for the recommendation, I've never read it although I know
        the premise.

        I do think that protesters should be paranoid in this respect: anyone who
        advocates violence or property damage must be considered an agent
        provocateur. It's the only way to operate going forward.

        Also, regarding the article: it's interesting that Harper's published the essay
        on the first anniversary of the Kennedy assassination. Was this an indirect
        polemic against those who were questioning the official version of events that
        was beginning to emerge?

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        finnkn

        29 December 2012 11:50pmLink to this comment




        3

        @DavidinSantaFe - I hadn't noticed the date, well spotted. There doesn't
        seem to be any underlying connection to JFK's assassination, although the
        section on the meticulousness of the paranoiac fits in quite well with most
        conspiracy websites...
        As for suspected agents provocateurs, don't you think it's worth reporting
        them to the authorities? At least they'll miss their Christmas bonus :)

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        DavidinSantaFe
                     30 December 2012 12:20amLink to this comment




                     5

                     @finnkn - but if we deprive agents provocateurs of their bonus the economy
                     may be dragged down!

                    Report
                    Share this comment on Twitter
                    Share this comment on Facebook


       o

                     RideAPaleHorse

                     30 December 2012 1:27pmLink to this comment




                     13

                     I'm sure you are a smart guy but your comment seems to be written by
                     someone that willingly overlooks the West's involvement in war, terrorism,
                     supporting dictatorships. surveillance, extra-judicial killing and on and on. By
                     doing so you come across as an apologist for the global elite. The Banking
                     Cartel has been engineering global debt levels for the past 40 years - the
                     IMF and World Bank (the UN) exercised this power across the developing
                     world in the form of structural adjustment. Now it is the West's turn.

                     First they came for OWS, but I wasn't OWS, so I did nothing...

                     ...then they came for Anonymous, but I wasn't with Anonymous, so I did
                     nothing...

                     ...then they came for Wikileaks, but I wasn't with them, so I did nothing...

                     ...then they came for the anti-austerity protesters, but I was too busy being
                     self-indulgent and playing with my Ipad, so I did nothing...

                     ...then they came for me, I was alone, I did nothing and they took me for tea
                     and scones, and we played hop-scotch.

                    Report
                    Share this comment on Twitter
                    Share this comment on Facebook






    DavidinSantaFe
    29 December 2012 10:05pmLink to this comment




    7

    Since it's pretty clear that the NSA is collecting and storing all of our emails, and probably every
    single email in the world, wouldn't it be cool if they released them all in one hundred years?

             o    Report
             o    Share this comment on Twitter
             o    Share this comment on Facebook






    armsofgandhi

    29 December 2012 10:11pmLink to this comment




    11

    Security of the Homeland = security of the banks.

             o    Report
             o    Share this comment on Twitter
             o    Share this comment on Facebook


         o

                       ReluctantDissident

                       30 December 2012 2:28amLink to this comment




                       2

                       You say that as if it's shocking. Let's say that a well-meaning group of
                       individuals who wanted to decrease the suffering in the world ended up
                       pushing a bank to the point of bankruptcy. What do you think would happen?
                       Another bail-out? How much austerity to pay for that?
                       Maybe allow it to fail and have thousands left homeless and penniless?

                       There's a very real risk that doing financial harm to a nation can be
                       dangerously destructive. (It was one of the ways the United States waged
                       terrorist campaigns against communist states, after all, so they know this.)

                       We do need change and it needs to be radical, but it needs to come about by
                       stable means. Revolution is the very last thing you want.
                     Report
                     Share this comment on Twitter
                     Share this comment on Facebook






    Poit

    29 December 2012 10:17pmLink to this comment




    21

    Funny how some of the same people who came here to defend their "right to bear arms" are
    back condemning others exercising their right to dissent.

             o   Report
             o   Share this comment on Twitter
             o   Share this comment on Facebook


         o

                      dippychick

                      29 December 2012 10:33pmLink to this comment




                      4

                      it was two cold at nite to have bear arms.

                     Report
                     Share this comment on Twitter
                     Share this comment on Facebook


         o

                      DavidinSantaFe

                      29 December 2012 11:15pmLink to this comment




                      8

                      @dippychick - My neighbor has bear arms, but he's a big fella.
                      Report
                      Share this comment on Twitter
                      Share this comment on Facebook


         o

                       ReluctantDissident

                       30 December 2012 2:31amLink to this comment




                       Yes, life can be ironic from a certain vantage point.

                       It is possible however for the two views to co-exist coherently.

                       The right to bear arms is a matter of protection of the most direct kind from
                       the threat of violence. It's all very well relying on calling 999/911 but when
                       there's a man in your house pointing a weapon at you, having a gun can be
                       helpful. Yes of course there's the counter-argument that it can also be deeply
                       unhelpful. So can calling the cops. Working class people know this.

                       The right to dissent is incredibly important, but does that necessarily amount
                       to the right to 'occupy' a legitimate business? It's a grey area, like owning
                       automatic machine guns. Some restraint in both areas is recommended.

                      Report
                      Share this comment on Twitter
                      Share this comment on Facebook






    heatherselkie

    29 December 2012 10:23pmLink to this comment




    14

    I was skeptical of 'occupy' from the get go. Preaching to the converted and all, I saw no point in
    standing around in a mucky damp park. I knew that protesting like that was a bad idea, it would
    get quashed, and everybody would end up on lists. The establishment have pretty much made
    protesting impossible because the consequences down the road will mean you may not be able
    to get jobs in your chosen field, denied things and the like. Canada has a mask ban going
    through that will make it illegal to wear masks at protests so your face can be seen! This came
    out of the red protests in Quebec which got everybody involved and in the following provincial
    elections, the separatist party won after years out of power, they halted the tuition fee hikes that
    started it all. So, in different circumstances, change can still happen, but the Red protests had a
    strong mandate. Occupy did not. What I saw was disregard for public space and parks, they
    made a bloody mess which cost taxpayers money to clean up, workers who did not have the
    choice to leave work and protest had to clean up-the lowest paid and marginalized city cleaners.
    The mess angered alot of people who should have been on Occupy's side. I also had to work,
    like most people, could not afford to prance off to protest. Coworkers watched Democracy Now
    every day and swooned over their 'activist superstars', people who are financially well off, come
    from 'good families'/prestige and do not know what it is like to be poor, marginalized, homeless
    or nearly homeless. One particular superstar whom I personally know to be well off appeared at
    the Vancouver occupy protests....and yet we who work HARD to serve said person had to work
    and never take part in the protests even if we wanted to. This changed my perspective on
    whom has the right to speak for the 99%, and it certainly isn't most of the 'activist superstars'.
    Nobody should be surprised that Occupy was shut down so quickly, and forgotten. I recently
    read "Days of Destruction, Days of Despair" which came out earlier this year, but the final
    chapter on occupy seemed so out of date it was laughable. Great book though!
    Another must read is a book by Chrystia Freeland "Plutocrats the rise of the super rich and the
    fall of the rest of us". The USA is run by plutocrats and they do not want union, labour to regain
    a strong hold in the US or anywhere.
    They want us to be reduced to low wage conditions. Of course they would call for a clamp
    down on this messy Occupy movement. Occupy had the potential to be far reaching and effect
    change, especially in the US where people have really felt the effects of the financial disaster
    and continue to do so. The plutocrats of the US banking system encouraged the financial
    meltdown once they knew there would be a bail out for THEM. The auto companies were filled
    with glee when they got their bail out...but the rest of us?
    A new movement is underway in Canada which the Guardian should pay attention to. Idle no
    more was started very recently by the Indigenous people of Canada who realized changes in
    the Indian Act and environmental protection under a huge unfathomable omnibus bill will have
    devastating effects and are angry. I'm not sure how long it will last, but they mean business.
    The most marginalized in Canada have woken up.

             o   Report
             o   Share this comment on Twitter
             o   Share this comment on Facebook


        o

                      Jan-Kamil Rembisch

                      30 December 2012 11:48pmLink to this comment




                      This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our
                      community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our
                      FAQs.






    hyperlink

    29 December 2012 10:37pmLink to this comment
    5

    In uncertain times a truncheon on the head of a vaguely discontent citizen is a very comforting
    thing for those in uniform. They actually thrive on the discordance doing their 'duty' causes in
    society. It gives them and their fellow workers in the security industries at the very least a
    feeling of job security, feelings of worth and dare I say it 'job satisfaction'

    Adam Curtis' documentary series 'The Power Of Nightmares' made for the BBC in 2004 tried to
    forewarn us this rising tendency. Might be worth another look.

              o   Report
              o   Share this comment on Twitter
              o   Share this comment on Facebook






    roachclip

    29 December 2012 10:49pmLink to this comment




    31

    Threads like this serve a valuable purpose, they make it clear just how many fools there are
    who are prepared to justify indefensable abuses of peoples rights by the 'elite' and the self
    defined authorities on the mistaken assumption that the fascists are on their side.

    It should be noted that it was delusional thinking like this, also at a time of financial chaos, that
    allowed the abomination of the Nazi party to gain control in Germany.

              o   Report
              o   Share this comment on Twitter
              o   Share this comment on Facebook


         o

                       finnkn

                       29 December 2012 11:00pmLink to this comment




                       7

                       Hold on, weren't they the same lot who used to bang on about a shadowy
                       elite of global financiers pulling all the strings and leaving the working man in
                       penury? Delusional thinking cuts both ways.
                       Sorry, just thought if we were going to give it some Godwin action I needed
                       to get involved.
       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        dippychick

        29 December 2012 11:03pmLink to this comment




        whats a roachclip?

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        roachclip

        29 December 2012 11:56pmLink to this comment




        6

        @finnkn -

        What politicians say to get people to support them cannot be relied on.

        You need to look at what they do, and what motivates them.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        finnkn

        30 December 2012 12:03amLink to this comment




        1

        @roachclip - Agreed, they're a slippery bunch and best judged on actions
        rather than words. I'm not sure we'd ever agree on "what motivates them",
        though. I'd assume there's as many motivations as there are politicians.
       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        roachclip

        30 December 2012 12:18amLink to this comment




        10

        @dippychick -

             whats a roachclip?

        dippychick I am hurt, cut to the quick. It is not "whats a", it's who is.

        I am a person, not a thing.

        is one answer, the other is:

        Google dippychick, Google.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        roachclip

        30 December 2012 12:35amLink to this comment




        6

        @finnkn -

             I'm not sure we'd ever agree on "what motivates them", though.
             I'd assume there's as many motivations as there are politicians.

        In normal circumstances you would be right, but when governments are not
        free to act independently, when their actions are dictated by international
        capital (like now), the individuals in those governments tend to abandon their
        individual motivation in
        deference to group think. They all say and do the same thing (like now).

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook
o

        finnkn

        30 December 2012 12:47amLink to this comment




        1

        @roachclip - Could you define "international capital"? I'm not being pedantic,
        I'm genuinely interested. As I see it, we've definitely reached a stage where
        big business has become too monopolistic and there's certainly a case to be
        made for better banking regulation, but I'm not sure I agree that "international
        capital" is pulling all the strings...I'd also argue that the lack of difference in
        political parties is due to them chasing the stable centre ground of opinion,
        which tends to get them elected (even without gaining a majority...).

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        ReluctantDissident

        30 December 2012 2:36amLink to this comment




        5

        @roachclip: you under-estimate the threat of totalitarianism. Imagine a world
        in which influential men of the people decide which businesses may or may
        not operate in 'their' towns, where a 'bad' business can be occupied by
        passive resistance, encouraging the good citizens to make the right choices
        for the sake of their social standing. ''We are the 99%'' they cry. Who can
        argue with that?

        How healthy an environment might that be for a young idealistic anti-semite
        with a gift for public speaking, a boundless passion and commitment and a
        knack of getting people to do the things he wants?

        I put it to you that evil would adore such a world. If we want Hitler kept on his
        chain, we'd better not pretend he only flourishes when our enemies have the
        upper hand. It's surprising how quickly he becomes the friend of our friend
        when he wants to crush us and throw us out once and for all.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


    annatto

    29 December 2012 10:59pmLink to this comment




    7

    Kudos to Ms. Wolf for investigating and reporting this piece, and to The Guardian for publishing
    it. And to the commenters whose dialogue combines with the author's work and the publisher's
    forum to keep the flame of democracy alive.

              o   Report
              o   Share this comment on Twitter
              o   Share this comment on Facebook






    EugeneKaufmann

    29 December 2012 11:10pmLink to this comment




    10

    Coming to Britain sooner than you think.......!

              o   Report
              o   Share this comment on Twitter
              o   Share this comment on Facebook






    thea1mighty

    29 December 2012 11:21pmLink to this comment




    29

    A big fuck you to all the paid shills in this thread. You stand out a mile, really.
    You numbskull donut munchers had better up your game, your tactics are understood and
    stronger countermeasures will be deployed by future peaceful protestors.

    http://pastebin.com/irj4Fyd5

              o   Report
              o   Share this comment on Twitter
              o   Share this comment on Facebook


        o

                      finnkn

                      29 December 2012 11:28pmLink to this comment




                      8

                      Right...so anyone who might disagree with this article in tone or content is a
                      "paid shill"? I'd disagree, but I'm too busy picking up my cheque from
                      whoever you've decided is stupid enough to pay me.

                     Report
                     Share this comment on Twitter
                     Share this comment on Facebook


        o

                      dippychick

                      29 December 2012 11:40pmLink to this comment




                      This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our
                      community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our
                      FAQs.






    inmufti

    29 December 2012 11:30pmLink to this comment




    5
    The FBI are collecting every scrap of imformation to try and keep a lid on a boiling pot...... Good
    luck with that!.......Then there is the other dept who are experts on how to stop runaway
    trains....good luck with that also!

              o   Report
              o   Share this comment on Twitter
              o   Share this comment on Facebook


         o

                       ReluctantDissident

                       30 December 2012 2:38amLink to this comment




                       We'd better hope the lid stays on that pot.

                       When the bricks are thrown the choice of window will make you smile in
                       despair, believe me. Peace and stability is a goal worth cherishing.

                      Report
                      Share this comment on Twitter
                      Share this comment on Facebook






    elmondo2012

    29 December 2012 11:33pmLink to this comment




    18

    The FBI motto is Fidelity, Bravery, Integrity...Integrity???...what a joke.

    The FBI needs to replace all its agents with Special Agents like Dale Cooper from Twin Peaks
    (one of my heroes).

              o   Report
              o   Share this comment on Twitter
              o   Share this comment on Facebook






    Taku2

    29 December 2012 11:35pmLink to this comment
    8

    Probably the only surprise here is that the actions of the 'System' in protecting itself from the
    citizens is that the "revelation" has come sooner rather than later.

    We should have no illusion about the extent to which the Government will go to 'protect' its
    perception of what the 'State' is and what is or is not a real and/or imagined threat to it.

    Taku2
    Comments for this discussion are now closed.

                                 50                                  oldest first         p/3cnxt
    698 comments. Showing                   conversations, sorted
                                                       ‹ Prev

                                                           1
                                                           2
                                                           3
                                                           4
                                                           5
                                                           6

                                                          Next ›






    Dan B. Underhill

    29 December 2012 11:36pmLink to this comment




    23

    @longshireman: I'm guessing that the #occupy people who were most out of line were our tax
    money at work just the same way they dealt with anti-Viet Nam war protesters back when.
    There have been pictures of "black Block" rowdies who didn't take the time to change out of
    their police shoes before they started breaking things.

              o   Report
              o   Share this comment on Twitter
              o   Share this comment on Facebook


         o

                       DavidinSantaFe

                       29 December 2012 11:46pmLink to this comment
        20

        In San Francisco during an Occupy march, Black Bloc were smashing
        windows of locally owned businesses in the Mission district while the police
        stood by and watched. The next day this was all the news talked about, and
        pretty much set the tone of the coverage from then on out.

        Any protester who advocates violence or property damage must be
        considered an agent provocateur.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        RobRay

        30 December 2012 12:32pmLink to this comment




        5

        @DavidinSantaFe - Better arrest Nelson Mandela then.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        DavidinSantaFe

        31 December 2012 2:42amLink to this comment




        @RobRay -

        I do not advocate turning anyone over to the police. The point is that it is
        impossible to know who is a provocateur and who isn't, therefore it is a waste
        of time to try and figure it out in the moment. Rather, a clear line has to be
        drawn which can't be crossed.

        Have you ever heard of a provocateur trying to incite protesters to be more
        peaceful? No, they always try to push things to the extreme.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
                     Share this comment on Facebook


         o

                      RobRay

                      31 December 2012 8:05pmLink to this comment




                      @DavidinSantaFe - And my point wasn't anything to do with actual arrests, it
                      was that whining about people who use direct action as though they're
                      somehow hijacking events and must be agent provocateurs is completely a-
                      historical and frankly rather lily-livered.

                     Report
                     Share this comment on Twitter
                     Share this comment on Facebook






    Clarese Portofino

    29 December 2012 11:36pmLink to this comment




    23

    I would like to thank the FBI and the other "law enforcement" agencies for showing their true
    colors for who they really protect. I was a one time flag waving patriot, and now I will never fly
    the stars and stripes. My flag is black and or black and red. I don't see law enforcement as part
    of the solution, i see them as the strong arm to the problem. Economic justice will be dealt, the
    movement isn't dead. You can't kill an idea. With any luck we have what happened in Iceland
    happen here. Google it, it is truly inspiring.

             o    Report
             o    Share this comment on Twitter
             o    Share this comment on Facebook


         o

                      dippychick

                      29 December 2012 11:43pmLink to this comment
                       This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our
                       community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our
                       FAQs.






    Taku2

    29 December 2012 11:37pmLink to this comment




    8

    Probably the only surprise here is that the actions of the 'System' in protecting itself from the
    citizens is that the "revelation" has come sooner rather than later.

    We should have no illusion about the extent to which the Government will go to 'protect' its
    perception of what the 'State' is and what is or is not a real and/or imagined threat to it.

    Taku2

              o   Report
              o   Share this comment on Twitter
              o   Share this comment on Facebook






    Kristie Turner

    29 December 2012 11:47pmLink to this comment




    16

    It's worse than I thought.

              o   Report
              o   Share this comment on Twitter
              o   Share this comment on Facebook






    Danny Draper
    30 December 2012 12:06amLink to this comment




    15

    Remember the internet is completely intercepted so remember that to makes comments here is
    to choose your side. Good short book by Julian Assange Cypherpunks outlining this. In this
    there is a brilliant desciption of what the govenment will use to censor the internet, namely, the
    Four Horseman of the 'Info-apocolypse' which are: Terrorism, Child Pornography, Money
    Laundering and the War on Some Drugs. In this case OWS has been lablled a Terrorist.

    "There is only one choice, that between power, priviledge and truth, justice" - Rise like lions,
    Documentary on OWS. available on filmsforaction.org. Watch as part of the list 10 documtaries
    that outline why the Occupy Movement exists.

    YouTube Stormcloudsgathering

    This man has it mostly right and makes you think too!

             o    Report
             o    Share this comment on Twitter
             o    Share this comment on Facebook






    damspahn

    30 December 2012 12:07amLink to this comment




    12

    Thanks for the article that will never be seen in an American newspaper. Red pill or blue pill?

             o    Report
             o    Share this comment on Twitter
             o    Share this comment on Facebook






    kingharvest

    30 December 2012 12:26amLink to this comment




    22
    When the Wikileaks cables were first released the mighty powers that be immediately deferred
    discussion away from the contents of the cables to the man who had released them.

    It is a simple but effective course of action, especially when you have a citizenry who are
    largely too stupid or too afraid to ask real questions.

    The same thing has happened with OWS. You can see the same ploy here with nitwits blaming
    the movement for being monitored by civilian and governmental agencies.

    Again, it is so simple. And simple-minded. No one who can count above ten and/or is not
    employed by the same powers could even begin to state that this sort of monitoring is anything
    short of astounding.

    Sadly, by the time they realize that the machine has turned midstream and bitten their asses
    and those of their children it will be too late. Or perhaps it already is too late.

             o   Report
             o   Share this comment on Twitter
             o   Share this comment on Facebook






    Antonia McGuire

    30 December 2012 12:43amLink to this comment




    7

    The best action we should take is to turn off our TVs and listen/join in the discussions on Social
    Media from and with perfectly balanced people who are aware of what the elite have in
    common with banking systems and political parties. I don't know about you, but i know main
    stream news doesn't give us the truth and the corruption at the top is deadly when compared to
    small time offenders who brim from our prisons.

             o   Report
             o   Share this comment on Twitter
             o   Share this comment on Facebook


        o

                      BlindSIght

                      30 December 2012 1:32amLink to this comment




                      7
                       You might be interested in the key stories not covered by the mainstream
                       media from the Project Censored website. What the media is silent about has
                       become more telling than what they do cover.

                       http://www.projectcensored.org/

                      Report
                      Share this comment on Twitter
                      Share this comment on Facebook






    kalzumeus

    30 December 2012 12:51amLink to this comment




    5

    @finnk

    Occupy was/is incapable of standing a representative for office and agreeing on and
    formulating a platform. It's a 'participatory democracy' conferring a high degree of autonomy on
    participants; no leaders, no representatives -- laws are passed by overwhelming agreement. It's
    done this way because it's thought to be the least oppressive possible style of democratic
    governance.

    This did make it difficult to narrow the strategic focus in terms of policy issues, but still the
    movement was a successful awareness campaign for economic unfairness.

              o   Report
              o   Share this comment on Twitter
              o   Share this comment on Facebook


        o

                       finnkn

                       30 December 2012 1:01amLink to this comment




                       4

                       Fair enough, it all sounds perfectly reasonable but I'm afraid it also sounds
                       perfectly ineffective at providing solutions. I'm pretty angry that no-one in the
                       UK (as far as I'm aware) has been taken to court for negligence or
                       malpractice as regards the banking scandals that have come to light in the
                       past three years; surely aiming for at least one prosecution (pour encourager
                       les autres...) would have been a more effective use of time than raising
                      awareness in a bloody churchyard? Concrete problems need concrete
                      solutions.

                     Report
                     Share this comment on Twitter
                     Share this comment on Facebook






    Dontfeedthetrolls

    30 December 2012 12:51amLink to this comment




    10

    What a sure way to spot a 'paid' troll? Paid trolls want to have discussions about words. Unpaid
    trolls just want to have emotional arguments, as they are blissfully ignorant. Either way, DON'T
    FEED A TROLL :)

             o   Report
             o   Share this comment on Twitter
             o   Share this comment on Facebook






    Malasangra

    30 December 2012 1:23amLink to this comment




    This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community
    standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.



         o

                      finnkn

                      30 December 2012 2:07amLink to this comment




                      To be honest, I am tempted to say if you can't stand the heat...stay out of the
                      kitchen. Occupy's tactics were confrontational, what did they expect? A nice
                      sit down and a cup of tea with the CEO of Goldmans?
                      Report
                      Share this comment on Twitter
                      Share this comment on Facebook


         o

                       JohnSawyer

                       30 December 2012 10:09amLink to this comment




                       3

                       @finnkn - so you're saying a reasonable response to confrontational protest
                       tactics, is to beat the protesters, fire rubber bullets at them merely for walking
                       down the street, pepper spray them using methods not allowed in the police
                       forces' own manuals, etc.?

                      Report
                      Share this comment on Twitter
                      Share this comment on Facebook






    Romberry

    30 December 2012 1:24amLink to this comment




    11

    The banks say jump and the Obama admin's FBI asks "How high?" The banksters and other
    large corporate/monied interests are in control. They effectively own the government. We had a
    president at one time who knew what to call this condition:

    "The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the
    growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic
    state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism - ownership of government by an individual,
    by a group, or by any other controlling private power. " -Franklin D. Roosevelt,
    "Message from the President of the United States Transmitting Recommendations
    Relative to the Strengthening and Enforcement of Anti-trust Laws"

    Yup. The F-word. I went there.

             o    Report
             o    Share this comment on Twitter
             o    Share this comment on Facebook


    BlindSIght

    30 December 2012 1:24amLink to this comment




    9

    Al Jazeera ran an interesting report on the stories that the mainstream media self-censored in
    2012. Among them was one in which the FBI manufacturers a majority of domestic terrorist
    plots to entrap people in, often paying informants as much as $100,000.

    http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidestoryamericas/2012/12/20121227103536748871.
    html

             o   Report
             o   Share this comment on Twitter
             o   Share this comment on Facebook


        o

                      elmondo2012

                      30 December 2012 2:02amLink to this comment




                      6

                      Thanks for putting this up.

                      This is report is quite, quite troubling but not unsurprising.

                      The US is going down a very dangerous road. The founding fathers would be
                      wriggling around in their coffins if they knew what was happening in the US.

                      Al Jazeera is really, really good.

                     Report
                     Share this comment on Twitter
                     Share this comment on Facebook


        o

                      NewDayDawning

                      30 December 2012 4:25amLink to this comment
        1

        @elmondo2012 - Thanks for putting this up. This is report is quite, quite
        troubling but not unsurprising. The US is going down a very dangerous road.
        The founding fathers would be wriggling around in their coffins if they knew
        what was happening in the US. Al Jazeera is really, really good.

        Indeed. Time to leave the US and go to a place where 'freedom' can be truly
        enacted.

        Australia perhaps. There you can build a brand new township in the
        Australian wilderness, (outback). A brand new society based on radical
        delusional extreme left principles of self flagellation, moaning. and blaming
        the USA, Israel, The EU etc etc for all the worlds fault.

        Give up your US citizenship.

        Oh! One thing. Make sure that your new socialist experimental town is not
        build on Aborigine sacred land.

        Otherwise, you are home and dry.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        elmondo2012

        30 December 2012 5:22amLink to this comment




        7

        @NewDayDawning - I actually live in Sydney, Australia (I have also lived in
        the US and grew up in Glasgow, UK)

        Australia is actually doing very well despite it being "based on radical
        delusional extreme left principles of self flagellation, moaning."

        Australia also has very good universal health care that in many ways 'beats
        the pants off' the US model in terms of outcomes (especially in solid organ
        transplantation).

        As a respiratory and lung transplant physician who has worked in the US, UK,
        Australia and New Zealand I have first hand experience of this.

        As for your comments about Aboriginals...I am well aware of the atrocities of
        colonialism and do recognise the past and ongoing injustices and racism
        against indigenous populations...but that has really nothing to do with
        socialism or the left.
        In fact when it comes to providing adequate health care to the socio-
        ecomomically disadvantaged (which includes the Aboriginal population) the
        Australian model is far superior than the system in the US.

        It could be much better of course but that is another issue.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        NewDayDawning

        30 December 2012 5:47amLink to this comment




        1

        @elmondo2012 - In fact when it comes to providing adequate health care to
        the socio-ecomomically disadvantaged (which includes the Aboriginal
        population) the Australian model is far superior than the system in the US.

        Glad to hear it.

        Australia is one of the countries that will dominate the world in the future. Not
        China and not India or Brazil. Not military domination but innovation with a
        happy productive society Domination in the way that Germany now
        dominates Europe.

        Have you ever wondered why the (horrible) colonisation of the world by the
        (horrible) British has produced such outstanding countries like Australia, The
        US of A, Canada and New Zealand? What is it about the British policies that,
        when continued, even by generations from criminal stock, has such stable
        and productive societies while countries such as South Africa, are regressing
        to the horrors of barbarous tribalism?

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        BlindSIght

        31 December 2012 3:07amLink to this comment




        @NewDayDawning - Interesting how Americans used to say their country
        was the best in the world. Now the refrains seems to be that there are worse
        places.
                      That in itself is a sad reflection of the state of decline.

                     Report
                     Share this comment on Twitter
                     Share this comment on Facebook


        o

                      BlindSIght

                      31 December 2012 3:09amLink to this comment




                      1

                      @NewDayDawning -

                      "Australia is one of the countries that will dominate the world in the future.
                      Not China and not India or Brazil."

                      The view from Disneyland.

                     Report
                     Share this comment on Twitter
                     Share this comment on Facebook






    Chris Nielsen

    30 December 2012 1:39amLink to this comment




    2

    Given that this kind of intervention has been written about since the French revolution, this was
    expected by many of the elder Occupiers. It only serves to increase the suicide rate of loyal
    slaves to the imperial banking emperors. Banking tyranny will rule the species to our extinction.
    Embrace the disease of the money infection. Let this species die an agonizing death.

             o   Report
             o   Share this comment on Twitter
             o   Share this comment on Facebook






    CaptainJackHackett
30 December 2012 2:03amLink to this comment




21

It makes me laugh - those posters who are defending the toxic status quo and denigrating the
Occupy movement!

I've experienced such traitors so many times before, in my life, in other, previous,
equality/democracy campaigns. There are people who are happy to accept their own
degradation - so long as they can inflict and indulge in their own pathetic spite.

         o   Report
         o   Share this comment on Twitter
         o   Share this comment on Facebook


     o

                  ReluctantDissident

                  30 December 2012 2:45amLink to this comment




                  5

                  We're simply supporting other means. There's a lot of work that needs to be
                  done in terms of equality, stopping tax avoidance, improving industrial
                  relations and so on, but not all of us are yet convinced by Occupy's focus on
                  passive intimidation. Not all of us are comfortable with groups who
                  emphasise their majority standing, or with movements centred around what's
                  obvious and right, arm in arm, a brotherhood of man.

                  Some of us have reason to suspect the brotherhood of man and fear it.

                  The mere fact that you consider a social democrat who wants what you want
                  but disagrees on the methods a traitor shows what the Occupy movement
                  would be about if it had power: it would be unjust, arbitrary, populist and
                  aggressive. Therefore some of us are glad that the authorities are keeping an
                  eye on you. We're also glad that journalists are keeping an eye on the
                  authorities. If there's any truth to the assassination plans claim, it needs to be
                  stopped. America does have a problem with illegitimate and extreme force
                  among its public services. Necessity is no excuse when it comes to murder.

                  We can agree on a lot without everyone having to wish you had a blanket
                  free-for-all right to close down whatever business your leaders decide they
                  don't like this week.

                 Report
                 Share this comment on Twitter
                 Share this comment on Facebook


     o
                          finnkn

                          30 December 2012 12:48pmLink to this comment




                          Degraded, spiteful, pathetic traitors, eh? I'm bloody glad you're not the 99%.

                         Report
                         Share this comment on Twitter
                         Share this comment on Facebook






    mick57

    30 December 2012 2:12amLink to this comment




    12

    "totally integrated corporate-state repression of dissent"
    That is the dictionary definition of "Fascism" .

              o   Report
              o   Share this comment on Twitter
              o   Share this comment on Facebook






    PrimateSupremo

    30 December 2012 2:16amLink to this comment




    9

    " ... should once more shame major US media outlets ... ".

    Really! Not really.

    Actually, they don't care. They really don't and never will.

    Unless maybe you started jailing banksters.

    Help them get in touch with their inner ethical self.

              o   Report
             o   Share this comment on Twitter
             o   Share this comment on Facebook






    koikoi

    30 December 2012 2:28amLink to this comment




    6

    "The documents, in short, show the cops and DHS working for and with banks to target, arrest,
    and politically disable peaceful American citizens."

    Welcome to 1984.

    FBI bureaucrats who coordinated with the banks against law-abiding citizens should be fired.
    Let's see if Obama Administration can muster even a shred of accountability here.

             o   Report
             o   Share this comment on Twitter
             o   Share this comment on Facebook






    mick57

    30 December 2012 2:28amLink to this comment




    8

    It's funny how the "war on terror" begun with the events in New York on September the 11th.
    2001 .Consider the above story as an FBI accomplishment but the terrorist on 911 arrested for
    having a moving van full of explosives on the George Washington Bridge got away scott free !
    What's with that ? (see video below)
    The "war on the innocent" is a better name ,or the "war on the truth" .

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZyujXfrvGA

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRaVQpSrqrU

             o   Report
             o   Share this comment on Twitter
             o   Share this comment on Facebook


    elmondo2012

    30 December 2012 2:32amLink to this comment




    8

    Just found this site:

    http://www.projectcensored.org

    I am becoming increasingly worried about the US government. Having said that it is not
    surprising, just look at what the US Government, FBI, Justice Department (what a joke) did
    during the 1950's and 1960's.

    I am actually pro-gun control but sometimes when I read about the insidious increase of
    government influence/control, I can sometimes see where the hard-core 2nd ammendmenters
    are coming from.

              o   Report
              o   Share this comment on Twitter
              o   Share this comment on Facebook






    Manamet2000

    30 December 2012 2:40amLink to this comment




    10

    I seriously doubt Naomi Wolf read the FBI documents before she wrote this article. If she did,
    then this is really borderline irresponsible reporting on the part of Ms. Wolf and the Guardian.
    Few of the documents describe anything approaching an Orwellian police state, or the FBI
    being "in high gear."

    A quick example:

    "six American universities are sites where campus police funneled information about
    students involved with OWS to the FBI, with the administrations' knowledge (p51)"

    Page 51 is simply a memo describing one agent's correspondence with a college official. The
    agent had sent information out about a group not connected to OWS that intended to target
    undergraduates and graduates working in life sciences. One official wrote back to say he had
    an OWS protest on his campus and he was wondering if the FBI knew when the protests were
    scheduled to end. The agent said no, the FBI did not know. The rest of the memo describes an
    anti-abortion group that was also on campus.

    There was no mention of information gathering or funneling said information to the FBI. The
    rest of the documents are similarly disappointing. The FBI seemed to know only as much as
    they could pull off the web.

    This seems like a Julian Assange-style operation where hype + large-amount-of-documents-no-
    one-will-ever-read = donations (in this case for the PCJF)

              o   Report
              o   Share this comment on Twitter
              o   Share this comment on Facebook


        o

                      NewDayDawning

                      30 December 2012 4:17amLink to this comment




                      1

                      Tch! Tch!

                      You will not be invited to write a post for CiF.

                     Report
                     Share this comment on Twitter
                     Share this comment on Facebook






    lalawawa

    30 December 2012 2:44amLink to this comment




    This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community
    standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.






    Rabbit8

    30 December 2012 2:47amLink to this comment
    11

    Please go back into your home there is nothing to see here .... The government has your best
    interests at heart ... We will tell you what to think

              o   Report
              o   Share this comment on Twitter
              o   Share this comment on Facebook






    CaptainJackHackett

    30 December 2012 2:52amLink to this comment




    8

    ReluctantDissident:

    I am not here to bandy words with a witless worm.

              o   Report
              o   Share this comment on Twitter
              o   Share this comment on Facebook






    Dan B. Underhill

    30 December 2012 3:14amLink to this comment




    6

    This was actually the second response to this article. The guardian decided that it was unfit to
    publish based on the fact that it was in response to the first responder to this article. If that is
    the real reason for my exclusion, here it is with no reference at all to the first responder. The
    only difference here is that it doesn't have the "at" sign and the first responder's handle. I didn't
    say or think anything derogatory about him. see for yourself : I'm guessing that the #occupy
    people who were most out of line were our tax money at work just the same way they dealt with
    anti-Viet Nam war protesters back when. There have been pictures of "black Block" rowdies
    who didn't take the time to change out of their police shoes before they started breaking things.

              o   Report
              o   Share this comment on Twitter
             o   Share this comment on Facebook






    Kansan

    30 December 2012 3:26amLink to this comment




    5

    This is a much bigger story. The Partnership got lucky by being sent another writer's FOIA and
    rushed to print with limited analysis or understanding. of the situation.

    I read all the documents and was surprised at how little the FBI was involving itself in Occupy,
    and how it was concerned about the sniper threats, the Pagans M/C in Florida buying guns
    (must have been given to the FBI by a local agency informant) and how they regularly said that
    Occupy was a non-violent movement, and that anarchists and Christian Evangelical Anti-
    abortionist radicals tried to tag on to them for cover.

    Apparently, we've come a long way from the Jedgar FBI days when all we dissidents had an
    undercover plant/agent provocateur stationed about 18" up our asses.

             o   Report
             o   Share this comment on Twitter
             o   Share this comment on Facebook


        o

                      wildworms

                      30 December 2012 6:34amLink to this comment




                      4

                      I agree with you -- I read the released documents and most of it sounded
                      routine and relatively benign -- and I hope you're right, but don't you wonder
                      whether the FBI has held back the juicier bits?

                      I didn't see any of the evidence of the conspiracy against occupy that Naomi
                      Wolf claims. Easy to dismiss as a paranoid fantasy. But sometimes paranoid
                      fantasies turn out to be true -- If Wolf's hypothesis of a coordinated
                      crackdown is correct, I hope some brave whistkeblowers will come forward.
                      Heavy-handed tactics were indeed used to shut down the protests -- that's
                      bad enough in itself.

                     Report
                     Share this comment on Twitter
                     Share this comment on Facebook
        o

                      wildworms

                      30 December 2012 6:51amLink to this comment




                      3

                      My own take is the FBI had other priorities and just wasn't all that interested
                      in occupy, which they probably viewed as a harmless nuisance.

                      I'm impressed with what the occupiers accomplished and how articulate and
                      thoughtful many of them were and are, so I'm glad Wolf is still writing about
                      them. But I think she's off the mark with this article.

                     Report
                     Share this comment on Twitter
                     Share this comment on Facebook






    TheWiredWorld

    30 December 2012 3:50amLink to this comment




    2

    Yet another example that our country is a "Guilty until proven innocent" routine - yet another
    example of the bank's power and sway for everything. And yet another example that,
    statistically, the police are here to harm us and not work FOR us. Not one person in that entire
    time, with moral and constitutional knowledge, stood up and saw the beast that had formed?

    Just another example that police just love to lick the hand that feeds them.

             o   Report
             o   Share this comment on Twitter
             o   Share this comment on Facebook






    Juso64

    30 December 2012 4:12amLink to this comment
    7

    Nothing in this article shows anything besides intense paranoia and a lack of understanding
    about the roles of law enforcement. The Occupy Wall Street protestors intentionally violated the
    law and get this "Occupied" property privately owned "protesting" what they believed to be a
    corrupt organization. SO at the beginning of the protests their intention was to brake the law.
    Had these protestors been on your private property the FBI or local police would collaborate
    with you.
    Many of us in the United States empathised with their displeasure but got a little curious when
    no real unified message arose. In that gap, everyone asks questions. As the protests drug on
    and no ideas poured out it remained to be seen what they we actually doing or planning. When
    an assessment is conducted information is gathered to determine whether or not A or B will
    occur. The fact that this "unified movement" crossed state lines led to federal involvement in
    trying to answer that question. The proof you cite in the article is actually very disjointed and
    lacks any real substance to make any real determination on anything.
    The public asks certain "policing" agencies or intelligence agencies to answer that question
    when, like in the case of Occupy Wall Street, no real motive is given for their activity. The
    American Intelligence "terrifying" network isn't that efficient and looks worse because there are
    simply a large amount of intelligence agencies in America. Had an individual citizen enlightened
    these agencies to illegal activity occurring on their property that "terrifying" organization would
    work on their behalf to assess the threat.
    These paranoid rambling about big brother don't exist. The Occupy Wall Street dissolved from
    something that possessed a great deal of sympathy to irrelevance through a lack of a unified
    message or plan to resolve grievances.

             o    Report
             o    Share this comment on Twitter
             o    Share this comment on Facebook






    Gordon Hilgers

    30 December 2012 4:14amLink to this comment




    15

    What's plain is that Occupy Wall Street is the only group to go straight to the real power center
    in America, and that's why there was such a cluster of activity within law enforcement
    surrounding its appearance. It's obvious: Those with the money hold the keys, and surprise,
    they're not letting go of the keys for any reason under the sun, not freedom, not justice, not
    fairness--nothing but money and power make any sense at all to this "new boss in town". It's
    not as if we haven't been warned. It was plainly evident that, by 1980, the corporations the
    Federal government grew in order to combat the spread of Communism had grown too big for
    their britches. The change occurred around then, and now that the private sector is in charge,
    well, no wonder we've got NDAA, Wall Street fraudsters running free, a state apparatus that
    has been so defunded it's ridiculous. When you consider, for example, that a Federal agency
    wanting to take-on the real power structure is going to be outgunned, both in terms of money
    and in terms of the power it implies, at a ratio of 20 to 1, you can easily see why the police
    fought relatively peaceful protesters to protect what we might as well go out and call by name: a
    shadow government, a corporatism, a quasi-fascist entity that doesn't give a crap about our
    rights.

               o   Report
               o   Share this comment on Twitter
               o   Share this comment on Facebook






    planet51

    30 December 2012 4:27amLink to this comment




    4

    @Nevermindthebollocks:
    The hatred you vomit on this site is distessing to those of us who had decent parents. I don't
    know who taught you to hate but you are an honours graduate at it.
    Do you work at a vomitorium by any chance?

               o   Report
               o   Share this comment on Twitter
               o   Share this comment on Facebook


        o

                       Malasangra

                       30 December 2012 4:44amLink to this comment




                       3

                       unlike all the love in your post?

                      Report
                      Share this comment on Twitter
                      Share this comment on Facebook






    AvidMerion

    30 December 2012 4:50amLink to this comment
    9

    And the main tool used to control people - the mainstream media. Stop watching tv and reading
    newspapers and start living your life as a human being and their power goes as you can no
    longer be manipulated.

    Everyday on the news share prices and stock markets are promoted as if without this society
    wouldn't function (a great marketing coup when the deal was struck to show market trends at
    the end of every news broadcast. Why, how many people are affected and active involved in
    the stock exchanges that it needs to be reported on daily to the whole nation?).

    Without the fear of terrorism, murder, rape, recession, pedophilia etc mercilessly force fed to us
    by the news most people would start to behave in a co-operative and civilised way and would
    probably start thinking for themselves. Once this happens we become much harder to control
    and start to use our own instincts and behave as communities, not just resources for large
    corporations to harvest revenue from.

    A simple solution that is virtually impossible to implement. A catch 22. The thing we think gives
    us our democracy and freedom is actually the thing that controls us and is stopping us from
    being civilised human beings. Some people have realised this and fight back by protesting.
    Unfortunately it is the people who don't even know they are being manipulated and therefore do
    nothing that make it easy for the FBI to stifle the few that do.

              o   Report
              o   Share this comment on Twitter
              o   Share this comment on Facebook






    palsimon

    30 December 2012 5:08amLink to this comment




    7

    Put that together with fact that the National Defense Act now allows military to arrest any
    American suspected of terrorist activity, detain them indefinitely, without trial, etc. The people of
    this country are more and more powerless every single day. We have been rounded up like
    cattle.

              o   Report
              o   Share this comment on Twitter
              o   Share this comment on Facebook


        o

                       NewDayDawning
        30 December 2012 5:51amLink to this comment




        1

            Put that together with fact that the National Defense Act now
            allows military to arrest any American suspected of terrorist
            activity, detain them indefinitely, without trial, etc. The people of
            this country are more and more powerless every single day. We
            have been rounded up like cattle.

        Indeed. You should form a new US political party to free the US population
        from the clutches of evil politicians who only want more and more power.
        Perhaps Naomi Wolf would agree to be at its head.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        wildworms

        30 December 2012 6:01amLink to this comment




        8

        Not suspected of terrorist activity (that implies probable cause and an actual,
        serious crime) but secretly accused of being within six degrees of separation
        of unilaterally designated enemies, without evidence and without judicial
        review-- for up to one year, and then only reviewed by what may end up
        being a rubber-stamp tribunal.

        It overturns the centuries-old principle of habeus corpus, which is an
        important foundation of rule by law. Democracies don't do arbitrary detention.
        It's a big disappointment to the many people who expect the US to set the
        standard for constitutional democracy. If the US doesn't stick to principles,
        who in the world will?

        I haven't heard of anyone being detained under the NDAA ... yet ... but it sets
        an awful precedent that is almost certain to be abused some time in the
        future.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        traynorjf
                      30 December 2012 2:44pmLink to this comment




                      5

                      @wildworms -

                      Attorney General Gonzales (GW Bush admin.) admitted in an interview that,
                      under the then current series of laws at the time, it was possible for an
                      American citizen to be: singled out as a terrorist by the president; arrested
                      and held incommunicado; tried and convicted of treason by a military tribunal
                      and stripped of his or her citizenship. But he said, "...we would not do that."

                      Since then new laws, like the NDAA, actually strengthen this power. Habeas
                      corpus has all but been eliminated at the federal level. It enables fascism. To
                      think otherwise is sheer idiocy.

                     Report
                     Share this comment on Twitter
                     Share this comment on Facebook


        o

                      Zhubajie

                      31 December 2012 9:02amLink to this comment




                      @traynorjf - "...we would not do that." They won't have to if enough people
                      are intimidated. Most have enough trouble earning a living, after all.

                     Report
                     Share this comment on Twitter
                     Share this comment on Facebook






    mettamega

    30 December 2012 5:16amLink to this comment




    4

    Dear Naomi, thank you for the important research and clarity of your work- it is so important -
    you greatly help keep me well informed, AWAKE and thoughtful
    warm blessings, in the new year -
             o    Report
             o    Share this comment on Twitter
             o    Share this comment on Facebook


        o

                       NewDayDawning

                       30 December 2012 5:48amLink to this comment




                       2

                       Careful you don't step in some dog's poo while dreaming.

                      Report
                      Share this comment on Twitter
                      Share this comment on Facebook






    CapnKent

    30 December 2012 5:28amLink to this comment




    2

    Lots of fingerpointing - too bad the "documents" mentioned don't have any links or other ways
    to show what you are talking about...
    This wouldn't surprise me to be true but it's unfortunate that at this stage it's just a bunch of
    pointless accusations.

             o    Report
             o    Share this comment on Twitter
             o    Share this comment on Facebook






    RealNewsPlease

    30 December 2012 6:10amLink to this comment




    6
    Peaceful protest is part of any healthy democracy. When people were protesting in the Middle
    East, our government said that they had the right. When we did it over here, we got tear gassed,
    assaulted, and wrongfully arrested. Cracking down on peaceful protesters by coordinating with
    BANKS is disturbing to say the least...

    "Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism, as it is the merger of corporate and government
    power."
    -Benito Mussolini

              o   Report
              o   Share this comment on Twitter
              o   Share this comment on Facebook






    sjcsf00

    30 December 2012 6:13amLink to this comment




    10

    The trolls are working over-time on this article.

    What has Occupy accomplished? More than these paid-off ignoramuses posting slander and
    lies. http://whattheheckhasoccupydonesofar.com/

    Regardless of what Occupiers have accomplished the fact is it is Americans' Constitutional right
    to speak up and gather in public. Period.

              o   Report
              o   Share this comment on Twitter
              o   Share this comment on Facebook






    WarriorRedArmy2

    30 December 2012 6:24amLink to this comment




    1

    The documents, in short, show the cops and DHS working for and with banks to target,
    arrest, and politically disable peaceful American citizens


    Wa.... I heard many times that Russia is not democratic country.. and Putin is a dictator .... I've read this
    article and understood the USA is the same "democratic" contry... And "socialist" Obams is not better...
    But the USA also likes to teach others how to be democratic... and also give money for this aim some
    persons in some countries... Wa... It is good to create such democracy in its image and similarity.. :-)
    Karl Marx wrote that the term "democracy" is class term.... Democracy always serves the ruling class.. he
    distinguished for example terms "capitalist"and "socialist" democracy...This article shows Marx was right....
    WRA

             o     Report
             o     Share this comment on Twitter
             o     Share this comment on Facebook






    Gadfly01

    30 December 2012 6:57amLink to this comment




    12

    Unbelievable. As Hunter Thompson wrote back in the 1970s I don't ever want to hear the word
    "paranoid" again. This is as big, evil and corrupt a corporate / government conspiracy as you
    could imagine.

    Also it is appalling to see some of the idiotic comments by people in this discussion. Do people
    have no clue about Occupy?! Have they been living in a cave? These people would sell their
    mother down the river if it made them feel good and it probably would.

    Some people are just clueless, helpless, etc. and the least they could do, if they are not going
    to get a clue, is keep their stinkin' opinions to themselves.

    The mainstream media in the U.S. ought to cover this story on the front page and as the lead
    story.

    Naomi how do we get them to do that?!

    Many thanks,

    Mark in Northern California

             o     Report
             o     Share this comment on Twitter
             o     Share this comment on Facebook


         o

                       finnkn

                       30 December 2012 12:53pmLink to this comment
                      1

                          Some people are just clueless, helpless, etc. and the least they
                          could do, if they are not going to get a clue, is keep their stinkin'
                          opinions to themselves.

                      Some of you people are beyond parody. If there's such a thing as a "stinkin'
                      opinion", it's believing other people's opinions shouldn't be heard.

                     Report
                     Share this comment on Twitter
                     Share this comment on Facebook


        o

                      BrotherPhil

                      31 December 2012 11:00amLink to this comment




                      You have to get enough money to buy your own major propaganda - oops,
                      sorry, I mean "news" corporation.

                     Report
                     Share this comment on Twitter
                     Share this comment on Facebook






    Stieve

    30 December 2012 7:00amLink to this comment




    6

    There is no doubt that Western societies have become increasingly unfair in the last 30 years
    or so. The gains of the '60s & '70s are being systematically reversed. People are being fed the
    view that those who are succesful are the only ones who matter, that it is in some way
    reasonable for those who have put people out of a job to slander those very people as lazy for
    being unemployed. It is a systematic re-positioning of blame by those who have sold our rights
    and economies down the river for their own profit, to those who have borne the brunt of it.
    The defining aspect of these last few years seems to be the use of tactics and a polemic which
    a generation ago would have been considered beyond the pale. Now those with vested
    interests act without conscience

             o   Report
             o   Share this comment on Twitter
             o   Share this comment on Facebook


    Michael Banks

    30 December 2012 7:44amLink to this comment




    8

    Some of the comments I have read are simply unbelievable. Misinformation. The simple truth is
    that Naomi was describing facts that lead any human being, and I emphasize the word human,
    to the correct conclusion that the USA is fast becoming, or already is, a fascist state. It's just
    that the masses are deluded and ignorant and kept that way by the elites control of the
    mainstream media. Thank you for exposing the truth Naomi.

              o   Report
              o   Share this comment on Twitter
              o   Share this comment on Facebook


        o

                      monstrous

                      30 December 2012 8:42amLink to this comment




                      5

                          the USA is fast becoming, or already is, a fascist state

                      if your definition of fascism is an economic one, ie corporate state, then the
                      the seamless intermeshing of big business and government began many
                      decades ago. Ditto many of the other attributes of the classic definitions of
                      fascism.

                     Report
                     Share this comment on Twitter
                     Share this comment on Facebook






    rivelle

    30 December 2012 8:05amLink to this comment
    9

    "COINTELPRO (an acronym for Counterintelligence 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.

    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.[2] COINTELPRO tactics 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."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cointelpro

              o   Report
              o   Share this comment on Twitter
              o   Share this comment on Facebook






    Pindi

    30 December 2012 8:14amLink to this comment




    6

    Great article Naomi, thanks.

    Its amazing that people don´t only not see the fascism that is creeping up on them, but argue
    for more of it.

    A lot of it is the fault of the msm, including the Graun, for not informing the public, who now rely
    more and more on Wikileaks, RT, and Press tV.

              o   Report
              o   Share this comment on Twitter
              o   Share this comment on Facebook






    SkepticLiberal

    30 December 2012 8:23amLink to this comment




    2
shows a terrifying network of coordinated DHS, FBI, police, regional fusion center, and
private-sector activity so completely merged into one another that the monstrous whole
is, in fact, one entity: in some cases, bearing a single name, the Domestic Security
Alliance

Your complaint seems to be that the law enforcement was well organised and coordinated,
there is nothing wrong with that.

You can complain that the policies were wrong or mean but I would expect large scale
coordination if those charged with responding to occupy were policemen doing their job or
fascist monsters abusing people's liberty. TO find that they are organised does not demonstrate
that they were evil, only powerful.

I don't buy that the movement was peaceful and while I do not accept any level of police abuse
there had to be a strong police presence to maintain order. I'd have been disappointed if they
were not organised.

         o   Report
         o   Share this comment on Twitter
         o   Share this comment on Facebook


    o

                  JohnSawyer

                  30 December 2012 9:53amLink to this comment




                  9

                  SkepticLiberal: you say "while I do not accept any level of police abuse there
                  had to be a strong police presence to maintain order." The police engaged in
                  countless incidents of abuse during their anti-Occupy efforts. It's not simply
                  "a strong police presence" when the police are using pepper spray in ways
                  that aren't allowed in the written procedures they're supposed to follow; nor is
                  is just a "presence" when the police are firing rubber bullets and tear gas
                  canisters at people who are simply walking through a neighborhood, which
                  happened both to peaceful protesters and to people who simply lived in
                  those neighborhoods trying to get back home. Nor is is merely a show of
                  strength when the police beat on people with their batons simply as a method
                  to get crowds to move in directions the police preferred.

                  Are you sure you don't accept any level of police abuse?

                 Report
                 Share this comment on Twitter
                 Share this comment on Facebook


    o

                  SkepticLiberal

                  30 December 2012 11:20amLink to this comment
                      4

                      @JohnSawyer - Let me clarify, I believe that there were abuses and I believe
                      that is completely unacceptable.

                      With me so far, police reaction to occupy was bad.

                      But that does not mean that there was no need for an organised police
                      presence.

                     Report
                     Share this comment on Twitter
                     Share this comment on Facebook






    SkepticLiberal

    30 December 2012 8:28amLink to this comment




    2

    reveal that from its inception, the FBI treated the Occupy movement as a potential
    criminal and terrorist threat … The PCJF has obtained heavily redacted documents
    showing that FBI offices and agents around the country were in high gear conducting
    surveillance against the movement even as early as August 2011,

    Good, that is exactly what they should be doing. Any potential threat ought to be investigated and
    prepared for. Where is the problem?

    These documents also show these federal agencies functioning as a de facto
    intelligence arm of Wall Street and Corporate America."

    I checked your link, there are no documents and they do not show that. Call me sceptical but I'm not
    going to be too eager to blindly trust an organisation called 'democracy NOW' either as they are hardly
    neutral.

             o   Report
             o   Share this comment on Twitter
             o   Share this comment on Facebook






    SkepticLiberal

    30 December 2012 8:29amLink to this comment
    Remember that only 10% of the money donated to WikiLeaks can be processed –
    because of financial sector and DHS-sponsored targeting of PayPal data

    I like openness but since the founder has been deemed criminal such measures are hardly surprising. If
    memory serves it was the government that forced the banks to shut down their service, not the other way
    round.

             o   Report
             o   Share this comment on Twitter
             o   Share this comment on Facebook






    JP1110105

    30 December 2012 8:45amLink to this comment




    2

    More evidence of America’s dissent into an Orwellian Bankster-Corporate-Mainstream Media-
    Government controlled totalitarian police state.

    If you watched the 9/11 cover up documentary, AE911Truth Experts Speak Out
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YW6mJOqRDI4 , you know there is nothing these sociopaths
    won’t do to retain power and control.

    George Carlin was right: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSOv3ADWXXw

             o   Report
             o   Share this comment on Twitter
             o   Share this comment on Facebook






    dalaine00

    30 December 2012 9:08amLink to this comment




    18

    This is a truly terrifying article. I was at a few Occupy marches because I want to see
    prosecutions of people at Wall Street banks who caused the financial meltdown. As an
    American citizen, I have the Constitutional right to protest and demand justice from the
    government. I pay for our government with my taxpayer dollars. I gave 13 years of military
    service during the Cold War and Desert Storm. This is just outrageous! Law breakers at banks
    are getting away with crimes and when citizens demand justice, we are targeted as terrorists?
    It's surreal.

             o    Report
             o    Share this comment on Twitter
             o    Share this comment on Facebook


         o

                       BrotherPhil

                       31 December 2012 11:03amLink to this comment




                       1

                       It's business as usual. The only difference is that it's now happening to the
                       middle class, rather than just to students and the poor.

                      Report
                      Share this comment on Twitter
                      Share this comment on Facebook






    Starukkiwi

    30 December 2012 9:15amLink to this comment




    13

    When will people realise that facism is the state (police/FBI/CIA/MI5/MI6) and multinational
    corporations collude, it is called facism - the right wing organisations are a diversion - the
    facism goes to the heart of every government, (insert your country here)

             o    Report
             o    Share this comment on Twitter
             o    Share this comment on Facebook






    JohnSawyer

    30 December 2012 9:46amLink to this comment
    12

    Cointelpro, all grown up. And it's amazing the number of people who say that a group that they
    think is just a bunch of loud ineffective broke people, should nevertheless be the target of
    physical assaults coordinated on a scale rarely seen before, is amazing.

             o    Report
             o    Share this comment on Twitter
             o    Share this comment on Facebook






    PatriotActVctms

    30 December 2012 9:52amLink to this comment




    10

    You don't even have to protest, the Department of Homeland Security pursued former
    employee Julia Davis as a "domestic terrorist" in retaliation for embarrassing her bosses by
    reporting negligence to the FBI as per procedure. Federal agencies arbitrarily declare any
    target to be a domestic terrorist in order to invoke powers under the Patriot Act (its very name is
    blatant propaganda) to write their own search warrants and otherwise bypass constitutional
    protections. Obviously it is highly likely that NDAA indefinite detention provisions will be used
    against any target, if they haven't already.

             o    Report

    Comments for this discussion are now closed.

                                 50                                 oldest first         p/3cnxt
    698 comments. Showing                  conversations, sorted
                                                      ‹ Prev

                                                           1
                                                           2
                                                           3
                                                           4
                                                           5
                                                           6

                                                          Next ›





    Getglobalized

    30 December 2012 10:30amLink to this comment




    12

    Oh no. Not nevermindthebollocks He has something to say about everything. He would argue
    with himself. Does he even have a life outside the guardian comments section?

             o   Report
             o   Share this comment on Twitter
             o   Share this comment on Facebook






    Mark Mclauchlan

    30 December 2012 10:35amLink to this comment




    11

    How long before we see Argentine style "disappeared"?

             o   Report
             o   Share this comment on Twitter
             o   Share this comment on Facebook


         o

                      Zhubajie

                      31 December 2012 6:21amLink to this comment




                      If they've truly disappeared, you won't see them.

                     Report
                     Share this comment on Twitter
                     Share this comment on Facebook






    anothersurfoid
    30 December 2012 10:49amLink to this comment




    8

    Why worry about surveillance, your (you being US citizens) president has given himself the
    power to rub you out on a whim.

               o   Report
               o   Share this comment on Twitter
               o   Share this comment on Facebook


        o

                       zendancer

                       30 December 2012 11:06amLink to this comment




                       1

                       Sounds like a Monarchy of old !

                      Report
                      Share this comment on Twitter
                      Share this comment on Facebook


        o

                       Marysue5252

                       30 December 2012 2:08pmLink to this comment




                       4

                       @zendancer - exactly where we're headed---the New Feudalism. Read
                       articles by Jerry West on this in various progressive publications:)

                      Report
                      Share this comment on Twitter
                      Share this comment on Facebook






    larrysus
    30 December 2012 10:54amLink to this comment




    10

    I always suspected that alex jones prison planet rant was just that.
    A window to the world of 1984 style paranoid excess.
    Now it would appear that although he is surely barking he has the right tree.
    Dark days ahead then for america.

             o   Report
             o   Share this comment on Twitter
             o   Share this comment on Facebook






    zendancer

    30 December 2012 11:04amLink to this comment




    5

    White elite in USA see their "empire crumbling ,not even having 1/5 of economy designed to
    keep military capacity of US ahead of Rest of the World is enough and worst of all the
    Hispanics are on the rise,the Bush Dynasty next prospective candidate ,is Jeb Bush's son who
    has a Hispanic wife.

    When an "empire " starts to implode there is always a resort to violent oppression by forces of
    Law and Order.Might is Right should be on the President's calling card when he visits other
    countries although the BRIC's are challenging America's authority in the Global Economy and
    in Nuclear/Military power so ,yes , expect another President to be assassinated in the future for
    failing to prevent the "fall of the elite" as America's debt becomes the "albatross hanging round
    it's neck ".

             o   Report
             o   Share this comment on Twitter
             o   Share this comment on Facebook






    Mike5000

    30 December 2012 11:13amLink to this comment




    14
    Hoover's FBI used to protect racketeers and bookies.

    Today's FBI protects money launderers and foreclosure fraudsters.

    The only difference is that today's FBI director doesn't wear dresses.

              o     Report
              o     Share this comment on Twitter
              o     Share this comment on Facebook






    bubblybouncebounce

    30 December 2012 11:28amLink to this comment




    5

    Potentially effective protest is monitored and subverted by the forces of the state. As has been
    the case for centuries. The interesting question is how actions can be modified to reduce the
    potential effect of state intrusion. Occupy's mass open meetings allied with non-violent tactics
    had a tactical weakness in that the occupations were static and without time limits. Waves of
    temporary occupations may be an interesting approach.

              o     Report
              o     Share this comment on Twitter
              o     Share this comment on Facebook






    Lu J. Rollins

    30 December 2012 11:51amLink to this comment




    5

    Has anybody here heard of Strike Dept or the Rolling Jubilee?

    http://rollingjubilee.org/

    Check it out. Maybe donate.

              o     Report
              o     Share this comment on Twitter
              o     Share this comment on Facebook
        o

                       Lu J. Rollins

                       30 December 2012 11:52amLink to this comment




                       4

                       Strike Debt.

                       http://strikedebt.org/

                      Report
                      Share this comment on Twitter
                      Share this comment on Facebook


        o

                       Marysue5252

                       30 December 2012 2:06pmLink to this comment




                       @Lu J. Rollins - thanks for the link:)

                      Report
                      Share this comment on Twitter
                      Share this comment on Facebook






    renogamble

    30 December 2012 12:13pmLink to this comment




    8

    Since the FBI planned to assassinate OWS leaders, could it be safe to assume that the FBI
    had plans to assassinate MLK, Ceasar Chavez, Malcolm X and other citizens who challenged
    the corporate-govt status quo? Look at what the FBI did to Fred Hampton and the Black
    Panthers.

    Another thing, I think that FBI report is the smoking gun proof that the US govt is a fascist govt.
             o    Report
             o    Share this comment on Twitter
             o    Share this comment on Facebook






    hominoid

    30 December 2012 12:35pmLink to this comment




    6

    "It was never really about "the terrorists". It was not even about civil unrest. It was always about
    this moment, when vast crimes might be uncovered by citizens – it was always, that is to say,
    meant to be about you".

    I have to agree 100% as an ex soldier of many years ago and a retired Police officer, read
    these words and inwardly digest. When what we have now is lost it isn't coming back soon, and
    its almost gone.I genuinely believe its to late for America, they have turned a corner and cant
    stop.We don't have to follow them but I think we will.Their despotism is unmistakable,their
    objective a mystery.

             o    Report
             o    Share this comment on Twitter
             o    Share this comment on Facebook


        o

                       Owenbevt

                       30 December 2012 1:52pmLink to this comment




                       3

                       I share your sentiment but for "their objective a mystery" I think not: $

                      Report
                      Share this comment on Twitter
                      Share this comment on Facebook


        o

                       Marysue5252

                       30 December 2012 2:03pmLink to this comment
                       2

                       @Owenbevt - And power. Read Jerry West articles on the New Feudalism.
                       That's where we're headed. The dummying down of the population is on
                       purpose. We're to be serfs in the New World.

                      Report
                      Share this comment on Twitter
                      Share this comment on Facebook






    dytigaff

    30 December 2012 1:12pmLink to this comment




    4

    Time to go back and read this.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/apr/24/usa.comment

               o   Report
               o   Share this comment on Twitter
               o   Share this comment on Facebook






    Stormthetower

    30 December 2012 1:14pmLink to this comment




    14

    When we compare the effort of the state to prosecute the fraud of banksters in the home
    mortgage collapse - to the police assaults on Occupy protests, we are left to conclude that Wall
    Street and it's financial institutions have become our masters in more ways than one.

               o   Report
               o   Share this comment on Twitter
               o   Share this comment on Facebook


    MacRandall

    30 December 2012 1:24pmLink to this comment




    2

    Once again, a CIF which relies on the gullible stupidity of the average Guardianista.

    The documents show "coordination" and "discussion" amongst various agencies, all perfectly
    legal under any pre-Patriot Act laws considering as Occupy constantly told us they were a
    "borderless movement".

    But that would take a few minutes of valuable time away from paranoid navel gazing.

             o   Report
             o   Share this comment on Twitter
             o   Share this comment on Facebook


         o

                      RideAPaleHorse

                      30 December 2012 3:59pmLink to this comment




                      8

                      Yeah, you're so much better than every one else and impervious to all the
                      chaos that the global financial syndicate have caused. Lucky to be you.

                     Report
                     Share this comment on Twitter
                     Share this comment on Facebook






    englishrose45

    30 December 2012 1:27pmLink to this comment




    12
Occupy is still ongoing, so the jury is very much out on that one. If you think Occupy's primary
objective was global revolution overnight, then it did fail in those terms. However, it certainly
succeeded in getting people to talk about the injustices brought about by the banking bailout
and forcing the mainstream media to cover those discussions. It has also enabled a new
generation of activists to forge relationships and find new ways of organising themselves
against injustice. Occupy has been around for just over a year, while the enemy they're fighting
has been around for hundreds of years. It's a bit early to start writing it off in my view

         o   Report
         o   Share this comment on Twitter
         o   Share this comment on Facebook


    o

                  globeprober

                  30 December 2012 3:29pmLink to this comment




                  7

                  I look at the 'writeoff' of Occupy the same way I look at the 'writeoff' of the
                  left-revolutionary hacktivist areas of Anonymous — as a bunch of talking
                  heads crossing off things they never comprehended to begin with. Those
                  looking from the outside in are never really able to be authoritative on what
                  will survive and what won't. Again I raise the examples of the generals who
                  told the world the Viet Cong was being beaten, or the French military who
                  thought they had so deftly defeated the Algerian rebels. Hell, look at the
                  apartheid governments who thought they had defeated the ANC and the
                  other anti-racist forces. You can't defeat an idea unless the idea itself is
                  rotten. Occupy's thought and action is wonderful, so it can't be defeated or
                  permanently suppressed. And Anonymous is just generally badass and I
                  cheer every time a big corporate player or government gets its e-butt handed
                  to it and is forced to 'write off' its own smug grin for a bit here and there. For
                  that matter, enough name-dropping, left-activism as a whole is wonderful and
                  I love that they are my friends and allies. The right really misses out,
                  focussing all the time on money, power, and accumulation. No wonder such
                  people all seem to die of heart attacks at 50 or look like ghosts at 80.

                 Report
                 Share this comment on Twitter
                 Share this comment on Facebook


    o

                  RideAPaleHorse

                  30 December 2012 4:04pmLink to this comment




                  3
                       @globeprober - Interesting post.

                       I think the most appropriate shift in our attitudes is to truly accept that the left-
                       right paradigm is a fiction, merely a divisive tool.

                       The 'left' (whatever that is) also focuses it's attention on money, power and
                       it's accumulation, as much as the 'right' (whatever that is) does.

                       The 'Left' has given us both Communism and National Socialism, so to big
                       up the 'left' like its the voice of reason and liberality is purely flawed.

                      Report
                      Share this comment on Twitter
                      Share this comment on Facebook






    thesistersofmercy

    30 December 2012 1:28pmLink to this comment




    21

    A very frightening article.

    As one of the few posters who doesn't hide behind anonymity, my often popular and consistent
    attacks on banks and the existing monetary system are doubtless on file somewhere.

    But that's fine. Nobody with a shred of conscience should allow themselves to be intimidated by
    the banks, the police or their annonymous stooges on this site.

              o   Report
              o   Share this comment on Twitter
              o   Share this comment on Facebook






    Owenbevt

    30 December 2012 1:43pmLink to this comment




    2

    Despite now having a black president it seems America is trying to repeat the same tactics that
    failed to keep down the Civil Rights movement.
        o   Report
        o   Share this comment on Twitter
        o   Share this comment on Facebook


    o

                globeprober

                30 December 2012 2:05pmLink to this comment




                12

                That's the whole thing about it — the 'black president' is a system politician
                who just happens to have brown skin and been good at rising in the
                prevailing power structure; he isn't a Fred Hampton or a Huey Newton, and
                that's why he was, and is, 'safe' — he's bought, and buy-able, just like the
                rest of them. He's a figurehead. His only response to Bradley Manning being
                imprisoned? "He broke the law." His promise to the Wisconsin workers that
                he'd be out there with them with his walking shoes? Silence when the
                moment actually came. And when Occupy experienced the widespread
                crackdown this article mentions? Well, apparently that's just the way things
                go, isn't it. FDR sent out federal troops to protect workers against their
                bosses' goons, but The Big O just can't seem to muster the courage can he.
                How very interesting. People's president, indeed.

               Report
               Share this comment on Twitter
               Share this comment on Facebook


    o

                RideAPaleHorse

                30 December 2012 4:05pmLink to this comment




                2

                @globeprober - When he was first elected he was the most Wall Street
                President ever elected.

               Report
               Share this comment on Twitter
               Share this comment on Facebook





    AgileCyborg

    30 December 2012 1:49pmLink to this comment




    15

    The heavy-handed and partially-blind authoritarian obedience rat will chuckle heartily and
    explain that the process is unfolding as expected, "Law enforcement's jez doin' itz job" as this
    empty-headed klutz pats its massive ego and miniature brain.

    Problem is, Mr. Moron, the planet has a sordid and disturbing history you likely are aware of but
    choose to keep buried under a clever muck of an indignant indifference.

    We've had centuries of horror and atrocity committed on humanity through governmental
    dictatorship and tyranny and this same repetitive evil keeps clawing its way back through
    various forms- ONE of which is the seed of a powerful homeland security apparatus with
    practically zero accountability to the citizenry and an entity that operates in shadowy disregard
    of ethics and the tenants of human liberty.

    The draconian ilk that clings to the righteous leg of the fist-heavy state tend to be the very
    kneeling and submissive subjects that laud the impressive federal and state muscularity. These
    spineless twits only embolden bureaucratic lust for untapped political and social dominance.

    Fact is, human liberty is under heavy assault and only a few seem to be aware that freedom is
    best enjoyed with the least amount of oppression while millions upon millions of other mislead
    and apathetic embarassments-to-freedom's-cause will only understand what freedom is when
    they've LOST IT!

             o    Report
             o    Share this comment on Twitter
             o    Share this comment on Facebook


         o

                      RideAPaleHorse

                      30 December 2012 4:06pmLink to this comment




                      2

                      Absolutely brilliant post, AgileCyborg!!

                     Report
                     Share this comment on Twitter
                     Share this comment on Facebook





    globeprober

    30 December 2012 1:56pmLink to this comment




    6

    Intel is old hat at this stuff by now, and we do have to remember just who we're dealing with —
    state power is not a paper tiger. It isn't impenetrable either, but it isn't a paper tiger. It was back
    when these 'nations' were new, but not now. Now, our victories will come with successful
    trickery, unexpected moves, things they don't see coming, counter-intel, shocking them,
    throwing them in to disarray.... We must use their own instruments and tactics against them.
    We must be smarter than their best.

              o   Report
              o   Share this comment on Twitter
              o   Share this comment on Facebook


        o

                       RideAPaleHorse

                       30 December 2012 4:08pmLink to this comment




                       8

                       How about several thousand people walking around London or New York
                       with rucksacks full of magnets wiping hard drives?!?

                       Just an idea.

                      Report
                      Share this comment on Twitter
                      Share this comment on Facebook






    Marysue5252

    30 December 2012 1:59pmLink to this comment




    9

    "It was more sophisticated than we had imagined" she wrote. We are just too damn gullible. We
    had mega-clues: the proliferation of rightwing propaganda outfits like the Fraser Institute which
    undermine real science regarding our environmental collapse. ‘McEconomics’ professors like
    Friedman perverted economic policies which made the rich richer at the expense of the rest of
    us and the environment we all live in. Millions of people are slaves. Our newspapers, radio and
    TV news were corrupted by Conrad Black, then Asper and Black in Canada. Even teachers are
    brainwashed. People need to THINK for themselves, to ask themselves, "Who benefits from
    NAU? Who benefitted from the 9/11 events in NYC? Munitions companies? Big Oil? How did
    democracy deteriorate? What part did the corporate media play? We assume that things we
    see on the news is real. Maybe it isn't. Special effects can make us believe things that aren't
    true. We should question everything.
    By the way, there sure are a lot of trolls commenting here--paid corporate stooges and/or
    insentient?

              o   Report
              o   Share this comment on Twitter
              o   Share this comment on Facebook


        o

                      RideAPaleHorse

                      30 December 2012 4:09pmLink to this comment




                      1

                      Excellent.

                     Report
                     Share this comment on Twitter
                     Share this comment on Facebook






    urakook

    30 December 2012 2:28pmLink to this comment




    This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community
    standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.






    urakook

    30 December 2012 2:32pmLink to this comment
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community
standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.



   o

                 Owenbevt

                 30 December 2012 2:52pmLink to this comment




                 3

                 Take a look at who’s doing the looking, mercenaries who if they ever find you
                 not backing them or their clients will first try to science or discredit your voice,
                 then try to beat you into submition while planning your assassination as a
                 backup. You cannot say you have nothing to hide because these people
                 clearly do not operate by the law so can change what they are looking for on
                 a wim.

                Report
                Share this comment on Twitter
                Share this comment on Facebook


   o

                 RideAPaleHorse

                 30 December 2012 4:15pmLink to this comment




                 6

                 @Owenbevt - That mercenary bit is right on. I know an ex-Royal Marine.
                 He's now a private mercenary. He'd kill anyone he was told to. Hell, the guy
                 has murdered and killed and he laughs about it. He didn't even know who
                 half the people were that he turned to 'pink mist' (his words) in Afghanistan
                 nor did he care. In fact, his opinion of the Afghanis was the most vile and
                 repugnant that I have ever heard. He's shot fishermen in the Indian ocean
                 believing they were pirates and nothing happened to him!!

                 Men like him are out there in there hundreds of thousands. They would kill
                 will no qualms at all. As long as the money and rewards were right. The
                 system relies on men like him.

                 Look at the School of Americas. Been training militia and paramilitary for
                 decades in the art of killing, intimidation, torture, insurgency etc.
                     Report
                     Share this comment on Twitter
                     Share this comment on Facebook


         o

                      BrotherPhil

                      31 December 2012 11:10amLink to this comment




                      1

                      Ok then. can I have your bank details and your email login details, and of
                      course your logins for any social networking sites. Also, we'd like you to put
                      webcams in every room of your house, at your own expense, of course.

                      Still happy to share?

                     Report
                     Share this comment on Twitter
                     Share this comment on Facebook






    Paul Gortemulder

    30 December 2012 2:35pmLink to this comment




    People, I'm not gonna read the whole article, But I know for sure: Stop striking, en start a
    heathyer and more sustainable life stop consuming. Check my yt-favorites and learn more.

             o   Report
             o   Share this comment on Twitter
             o   Share this comment on Facebook






    kc1964kc

    30 December 2012 2:43pmLink to this comment




    32
It appears not all conspiracies are THEORIES.

No matter what is written here about the Occupy movement the FACT is the movement
proposed stopping multi-national Corporate banks (which appears to mean the Colonial era
aristocracy's decedents) from acting outside the law and be required to be accountable for the
lawless murderous financial enterprise-money laundering and RACKETEERING being among
the most obvious. Also, to SIMPLY point out this through PEACEFUL PROTEST, mostly on
PUBLIC PROPERTY-remember the US CONSTITUTION NUMBER 1 amendment is
FREEDOM to SPEECH and ASSEMBLE...private property would be not be paramount in this
view. The other thing the Occupy movement did was assemble a solution to this Fascist form of
economic dictatorship, and that was simply remove the FEDERAL RESERVE from the hands of
the Rothchilds (and the rest control from the FORMER aristocracy) by making the fiat
currency's interest paid BACK to the public whose hardwork and commonwealth (property such
as land oil and gas etc) gives money VALUE.

The problem, as seen here in the some of the comments, is ADDICTION to one's ideology and
overwhelming need to be "right" without changing the status quo, either by scrapping the whole
non"system" or reforming it. Which is understandably fear ridden given the circumstance.

There is plenty of guilt to go around, was the underlying theme to OWS as well-but their
proposals to restore the rule of law to a rebuilt current economic catastrophe (which is the point
BTW) is clearly stated on the OWS website if any one care's enough to open their mind and
read...like interest paid back to the public, stop subsidizing corporations with public funds-cut
out the middle man - and give people free education. Education might be the most important
part of the OWS, not one mention of it here, because given the current ecological and financial
environments this might be the ONLY solution our next generation has to thwart our
generations mistakes.


It's a damn shame this only appears in the Guardian UK, and also very ironic this is the country
we rebelled against for freedom of speech et cetera etcetera etc...man the founder's spirit
surely must be frothing at their ghostly mouth.

In the America we were taught about these people, bankers, lawmakers and FBI/DHS/Local
LEO's should all be held criminally accountable and then made to be paid damages to
countless infringements on Constitutional Civil Rights Violations and in fact this should
regarded as TREASON because these banks are multi-national "persons" who hold no
allegiance to the any country or geographic nation.

Maybe the old world aristocracy never quit fighting the Revolution?

It is up to you and me to make a peaceful/resistance/non-cooperation based New American
Global Revolution.

And finally, if the POLICE (FBI/DHS/NYPD) was so concerned about freedom of
travel/commerce and public safety shouldn't they have acted against the banks before, during
and after the financial collapse. Or is Criminal Law only applicable to real humans, and NOT
against those who dictators consider to LARGE TO JAIL?

And in fact if, finally really :-), our leaders are not in consiracy with these finacial elites how can
they NOT CRIMINALLY prosecute money laundering and racketeering to renew the publics
trust in these banks and therefore the leaders themselves??

Now their is the DEAD CAT BOUNCE, in neo-con speak.

          o   Report
          o   Share this comment on Twitter
              o   Share this comment on Facebook






    agcaint

    30 December 2012 2:47pmLink to this comment




    20

    Whats important to highlight is the lie. At the time there was flat out denial of any coordinated
    combating of the occupy movement.This was shown to be once again a lie.It's that simple,
    these people can not be trusted, they lie.
    It's like a vicious dog that keeps getting out of the garden to attack people, only to be reined in
    again and again and for the owner to deny that he even has a dog.

              o   Report
              o   Share this comment on Twitter
              o   Share this comment on Facebook






    alwayscorrect

    30 December 2012 2:54pmLink to this comment




    3

    Repeal the Patriot Act. Before it's too late.

    Crimes were commited by more than a few bankers. This is terrorism. I would ask the FBI to
    expend the same amount of energy on infiltrating and in an ideal world torturing them. Maybe
    just shaking them upside down for a spell and collecting the loot that falls out.

    I've been informed this won't happen.

    Not prosecuting is tacit approval.

    The last poster

              o   Report
              o   Share this comment on Twitter
              o   Share this comment on Facebook





    Greenst

    30 December 2012 3:03pmLink to this comment




    3

    Visualize these, large group of protestors openly carrying semi automatic weapons during the
    speech by the president and students sitting on the ground blocking the path in a SCU. Who is
    the terrorist?

    Ask why the group that lied, cheated and destroyed 35 per cent of the middle class wealth has
    been given a permanent get out jail card, allowed all the free money they want and now call for
    the destruction of the Social Safety Net in Europe and the United States. They are the
    controllers of the masses, the pretend governments are the subterfuge.

              o   Report
              o   Share this comment on Twitter
              o   Share this comment on Facebook






    Don Beavissimo

    30 December 2012 3:13pmLink to this comment




    2

    the grievances and uprisings were in place before "occupy" and exist since then, many of us
    realise the outdated paradigm of the "pyramid of understanding" needs to be replaced , we are
    all bricks within this pyramid and as such give it its structural strength so the only obvious thing
    to do is be a brick that builds bridges...lateral structures, once systems exist that work
    effectively then more bricks leave the pyramid, that is what worried the "powers that be"
    because they want to continue to "be in power" it defines them...yes occupy was infiltrated by
    shills and disinfo agents this managed to create enough doubt and the police responded with
    the fear factor , in my opinion as soon as something is branded it loses itself to infiltrators
    wishing to control and steer it, hegelian dialectic in action yet again...anyone doubting the plans
    of the 1% should google "CODEX ALIMENTARIUS"

              o   Report
              o   Share this comment on Twitter
              o   Share this comment on Facebook






    Don Beavissimo
    30 December 2012 3:36pmLink to this comment




    3

    the same things happened to "the diggers" 400 years ago, the brutality of the those that fight on
    behalf of the ruling elites knows no bounds...history repeating itself..for a non affiliated source
    of info check out "COMMONERS" .https://www.facebook.com/groups/217939994885460/

             o    Report
             o    Share this comment on Twitter
             o    Share this comment on Facebook






    Don Beavissimo

    30 December 2012 3:39pmLink to this comment




    and for those of you who havent seen this clip that explains our current situation very
    simply...this should be shown to all! http://youtu.be/4YVt56bFOs8

             o    Report
             o    Share this comment on Twitter
             o    Share this comment on Facebook






    Mark Heidenreich

    30 December 2012 3:43pmLink to this comment




    3

    I think that the current US capability to crush protests of citizens is indeed an abomination of
    liberty. When the PATRIOT act was signed into law under Bush, I stated that DHS and the
    consolidation of power will be the tools used by a dictator to take over America. I never saw
    Bush as the dictator, just as a bad president. Remember, no dictator allows for a mass arming
    of their fellow countrymen and Bush was the first president since Kennedy to recognize the 2nd
    Amendment as an individual right. I did not like Bush, but he was not a dictaror.

    OWS was on the receiving end of a crackdown indeed. However I think they deserved it. OWS
    is a nihilistic leftist operation. Their proposals to destroy bankers were backed by plans to
    create a communist style system. Communism was a disaster and oppressed far more people
    than our current central bank system. Central banks are controlled by the government. They
    are facist entities. Communism is no solution. I hope OWS goes away and never comes back. If
    you don't want to be oppressed, switch to Capitalism. Free markets and a free banking system
    would prevent messes like the current recession/depression. Under Capitalism, there would be
    no bailouts but remember if you have your money in a bank and it fails you lose your money.
    This was the reason to create the fed to begin with so with freedom comes the responsibility to
    own the risk.

    Remember that before the US Fed came into existence, there were localized booms and busts,
    but the banking system at the time (~1865-1907) allowed for rapid corrections to these
    problems. Only after the fed was introduced did we get such economic disasters as the great
    depression and now the greater depression (it isn't over yet). This is all a biproduct of central
    planning (like OWS calls for) vs independent market participants working in their own interest.

    Destroy the fed but replace it with a private banking system. OWS was wrong.

             o   Report
             o   Share this comment on Twitter
             o   Share this comment on Facebook






    damientrollope

    30 December 2012 3:51pmLink to this comment




    1

    We all know the Farcical Bureau of Ineptitude is so paranoid its scared of its own shadow.

             o   Report
             o   Share this comment on Twitter
             o   Share this comment on Facebook






    Don Beavissimo

    30 December 2012 3:54pmLink to this comment




    3

    capitalism only works for those on the top and middle it requires losers...centralised
    government was not an occupy solution...consensus was that we need much smaller local self
    governance, bush was a murdering profiteer, capitalism is built on war and the profits
    generated from it..so get your facys straight communism was not what occupy advocated, if you
    want a label then anarcho syndicalism would be closer. capitalism is corporate anarchy..
               o   Report
               o   Share this comment on Twitter
               o   Share this comment on Facebook






    Don Beavissimo

    30 December 2012 4:04pmLink to this comment




    5

    Iceland managed to respond in the right way sacking politicians and arresting corrupt
    bankers...not much in the media about it....http://youtu.be/8-SiYQ8s_6I

               o   Report
               o   Share this comment on Twitter
               o   Share this comment on Facebook


        o

                       Zhubajie

                       31 December 2012 6:11amLink to this comment




                       Iceland is 1/2 million people.

                      Report
                      Share this comment on Twitter
                      Share this comment on Facebook






    catsrose

    30 December 2012 4:04pmLink to this comment




    6

    "The price of freedom is constant vigilance." The USA had the opportunity to become the best
    educated, most politically astute, well-finaced and socially sophisticated country in the world.
    Instead, we sat in front of the TV with beer and chips, became fat and semi-literate, bought
    guns,videos,MacMansions and gift shop clutter. To the extent we now live in an Orwellian
    tyranny financed by corporate greed, we have no one but ourselves to blame. Those who are in
    power, political, military, financial, are those who had ambition, who worked to achieve that
    status. Of course they want to hold on to it. And while the rest of the country zoned out and
    spent, they entrenched themselves. Now, neither the paranoid wishy-washy left nor the
    paranoid gun-toting poor white trash have power. When you hand over the keys to the kingdom,
    don't be surprised when you are locked out.

              o   Report
              o   Share this comment on Twitter
              o   Share this comment on Facebook






    jenecca1234

    30 December 2012 4:29pmLink to this comment




    7

    No doubt this is the tip of the iceberg.

              o   Report
              o   Share this comment on Twitter
              o   Share this comment on Facebook






    BrooklynGrange

    30 December 2012 4:35pmLink to this comment




    3

    Ready...Set...Civil Lawsuit!

    Violent and other methods for crushing dissent have long been the rubric of corpo-statists
    inside and outside the U.S. Government. "Enemies: A History of the FBI" by Tim Weiner, is an
    accessible source of information.

    http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/aug/16/master-hate/?pagination=false

    Although the actions of the FBI with OWS are clearly standard operating procedure, there is
    also a long history of those procedures being rejected as unconstitutional by federal courts; it
    will take a decade or more to find out, however.

    The good news is that it might be harder for Obama's justice department (of which the FBI is an
    agent) to hide behind the "state secrets" and "national security" excuses deployed in courts by
    the CIA questioned about torturing and assassinating U.S. citizens and others they secretly
    declare to be terrorists.

    When the book is finally written on Hopey Changey's government it will be clear to all that the
    only thing he accomplished was being the nation's first African-American president. Woopee!
    And it wasn't even Obama who accomplished that, it was the U.S. electorate.

    Soon, we'll find the "courage" to let a woman violently crush the populace...then someone of
    asian descent...then a homosexual can order his or her fellow citizens jailed, surveilled, beaten
    or killed. Oh, how terribly progressive we are!

              o   Report
              o   Share this comment on Twitter
              o   Share this comment on Facebook


        o

                      RideAPaleHorse

                      30 December 2012 4:46pmLink to this comment




                      A mixed-race, trans-gender bisexual is going to be the best President ever!!

                     Report
                     Share this comment on Twitter
                     Share this comment on Facebook






    Barry64

    30 December 2012 4:49pmLink to this comment




    1

    As Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, executive director of the PCJF, put it, the documents show that
    from the start, the FBI – though it acknowledges Occupy movement as being, in fact, a
    peaceful organization – nonetheless designated OWS repeatedly as a "terrorist threat":

    The Partnership for Civil Justice Fund (PCJF) will say whatever it takes to raise money. It's a
    fund. Who cares what they say?

              o   Report
              o   Share this comment on Twitter
              o   Share this comment on Facebook


    Gegenbeispiel

    30 December 2012 5:12pmLink to this comment




    3

    Great piece, great expose, Naomi, many thanks.

    What next for OWS? Occupy the FBI, as the Ossies did to the Stasi?

              o   Report
              o   Share this comment on Twitter
              o   Share this comment on Facebook






    rotifer

    30 December 2012 5:23pmLink to this comment




    3

    ...and what can we, the citizens, do about this? We are in that place were laws are reducing
    freedoms daily. Must we live through this developing Facist regime and hope that, as has
    happened in the past, the pendulum will swing the other way, eventually?

    I truly am glad that I am getting older. I cannot imagine the country/world I am leaving to my
    children and grandchildren.

    Is there no hope for this system to be adjusted, remade?

              o   Report
              o   Share this comment on Twitter
              o   Share this comment on Facebook


        o

                      AntiFascisti

                      30 December 2012 5:44pmLink to this comment
            3

            The 'pendulum' doesn't swing unless the PEOPLE force it to! Your use of the
            term 'Fascism' is the correct one - the only one that really fits. I too often
            despair at the World being left to those younger than I...having spent my life
            fighting 'all this' and having lost all I once owned and had in terms of status,
            money, property, et al. [simply for speaking Truth to Power in the U SS of A].
            i have, however, not given up hope [totally]. Revolutions have happened
            before and NEVER on Planet Earth [Gaia] has one been so needed on all
            fronts...a TOTAL REVOLUTION - destroying all of the old and corrupt
            paradigms and replacing them with new ones that will enable survivability,
            justice, peace, equality, truth, health, happiness and HOPE.....more than we
            have lost all the others...they have murdered all of our leaders and laws
            which gave us HOPE. Fight back!.... One is either part of the solution, or part
            of the problem.......

           Report
           Share this comment on Twitter
           Share this comment on Facebook


    o

            StabbyMcMurderson

            31 December 2012 9:02amLink to this comment




            3

            Capitalism can't be reformed. It's natural trajectory is simply a race to the
            bottom. The only hope is a revolution, destroy it, along with it's despots, burn
            it and throw it in the dustbin of history. Even serfs had their own plot of land
            to till. In capitalism, unless you're born with the proverbial silver spoon, you
            must compete with other humans for your mere survival, compete for jobs to
            feed and home yourself, and even these days with a job it is becoming
            exceedingly difficult to keep one's head above water. This unnatural
            competitiveness fosters fear and lack of empathy. Humans are naturally co-
            operative. However, I think that if you factor in what is actually required for a
            successful global revolution, we're doomed. The policies of capitalism and
            the societal fall-out will ensure a scorched earth. People, in general, just do
            not give a shit. Look at America. Banks that caused the homelessness of
            millions of people get rewarded by the government for doing so, and the
            Americans really only get shouty when someone wants to take away their
            machine guns. The tories are getting away with blue murder. They must be
            sitting around sneering about how easy it's been to get away with it.

           Report
           Share this comment on Twitter
           Share this comment on Facebook





    AntiFascisti

    30 December 2012 5:24pmLink to this comment




    7

    Naomi Klein has it correctly. Commenter Jan-Kamil Rembisch is also very much on the
    mark....as are a few others. Sad to see the fascist or dumbed down know-nothings keeping
    their thumbs on the script given to them by their oppressors. Take a look at the FBI
    documents....lets say, for example, page 26 which reads [you can go look at the original, if you
    doubt me!]:
    OFFICIAL USE ONLY

    To: Jacksonville From: Jacksonville b7A
    Re: 10/19/2011 b7E
    b6

    [REDACTED]

    of the Occupy Movement by [REDACTED]
    interested in developing a long--term plan to kill local Occupy leaders
    via sniper fire.

    292l1kahO5ec.wpd
    O0

    OFFICIAL USE ONLY

    2

             o     Report
             o     Share this comment on Twitter
             o     Share this comment on Facebook






    RicardoFloresMagon

    30 December 2012 5:27pmLink to this comment




    1

    It was quite obvious at the time this was going on. My only real surprise about all this is that
    they started in August, before even most who would become Occupiers knew about what would
    become OWS and Occupy in general.

             o     Report
             o     Share this comment on Twitter
             o     Share this comment on Facebook


    ghandigee

    30 December 2012 5:49pmLink to this comment




    1

    I read the documents submitted under the FOIA and find nothing sinister in the documents. The
    documents can be read as attempts to allow protests and avoid unnecessary confrontation. At
    my locale I was surprised at the cooperation between the protesters and local law enforcement
    and more often than not local law enforcement was out protecting the Occupiers.Those of us
    working in the area of protests were often advised to avoid confrontation and given the time
    and whereabouts of the protests with advice to find alternate routes home so as not to disrupt
    the protesters.The mayor and city council often negotiated with the movement regarding their
    encampments having the occupiers move to other parks while they and Occupy leaders
    cleaned the encampment. Once cleaned they were allowed to return. This went on for
    months.As with any large movements, they can be infiltrated with fringe groups looking for ways
    to accelerate towards violence and civil disruption. It is the role of law enforcement to identify
    these factions and prevent acceleration of the protest in the direction counter to the original
    intent.Having myself participated in a variety of marches and protests beginning with the civil
    rights movement, I was impressed with the respect and orderliness between the occupiers and
    law enforcement. This is not to deny that other cities may have had different experiences (i.e
    Oakland) but not knowing the total circumstances I cannot comment on law enforcement and
    the occupiers for that area. As far as an Orwellian state dominated by corporations, the election
    of of President Obama and the grassroots movement that supported him proves that public will
    trumps corporate will when people put their principles to practice. What killed the occupy
    movement was a lack of a cohesive platform and effective leadership.

             o   Report
             o   Share this comment on Twitter
             o   Share this comment on Facebook


        o

                      AntiFascisti

                      30 December 2012 5:55pmLink to this comment




                      8

                      Would be my educated guess that you are a 'Sunnsteinian' agent of the State
                      [whichever], yourself. What killed democracy is/are people like you.

                     Report
                     Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        RideAPaleHorse

        30 December 2012 6:06pmLink to this comment




        8

        Your interpretation of what Obama's election symbolises is misguided,
        perhaps 'utopian'. Grassroots that supported him and were let down by him.
        I'm sure if you relocated to a tent city and your are black during Obama's first
        term you are mighty grateful for the austerity and the bank bailouts.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        ghandigee

        30 December 2012 6:38pmLink to this comment




        2

        @RideAPaleHorse - I wouldn't cast judgement on Obama until he completes
        his term. The fact is that corporations poured tons of money on the
        Republican campaign to defeat Obama and without success. That in itself is
        a message to the corporate power mongers.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        RideAPaleHorse

        30 December 2012 6:49pmLink to this comment




        6
                      @ghandigee - First term was bad enough. His second term will see him drag
                      the world into a war with Iran.

                      Corporations still spent billions on the Obama campaign, probably in equal
                      measure to what Romney got.

                     Report
                     Share this comment on Twitter
                     Share this comment on Facebook


        o

                      Jan-Kamil Rembisch

                      31 December 2012 12:40amLink to this comment




                      7

                      @RideAPaleHorse -
                      YOu nowI like and respect you for your ideas and support of the cause of
                      humanity. But even though notihng changed Obama's election WAs very
                      important. THe best election of my life (51). It wsas the deaeth of the KKK
                      Party: Outbred, quite simply.
                      And the people of the shave far more power than the passive beaten
                      submissive UK serfs. And they have guns and yes it matters. ALso having
                      AIPAC and many defeated Billionaires gt for once told NO alos matters.
                      I very much agree with your overall point and attitude and yes Obama ais the
                      enemy but even we 'Republicans' (in US terms radical liberal/lefties) are
                      better off with a temporary Emporer like Claudius over Nero (Romney) even
                      while working ot overthrow the Empire.
                      Romney mean't more fascist in the Supreme Court to vote for 'states of
                      Emergencies'; corporate vs People speach and instant wars for Israel (Iran
                      Syria). In these areas and in the area of Austerity politics O is to the left of
                      the Clintosn and of Course the UK whose economic policies he has opnely
                      and correctly labelled misguided and destructive.
                      But O is an imperial servant, All true

                     Report
                     Share this comment on Twitter
                     Share this comment on Facebook






    peterjosvai

    30 December 2012 6:02pmLink to this comment
    12

    the same thing happened in Budapest in October 23 2006,
    people were tortured like this by police, they were forced to throw their shoes into the Danube,
    they were tied and kept like that for long hours, they were shot at on the head by teargas
    weapons and rubber bullets ...

    policemen had NO ID-s! some policemen (riot police forces) spoke foreign languages ...

    no investigation - the chief of police was honoured ...
    the US has way more of democracy than Hungary :(

              o   Report
              o   Share this comment on Twitter
              o   Share this comment on Facebook






    organicAnt

    30 December 2012 6:03pmLink to this comment




    10

    Hats off to Naomi for shinning the spotlight on the covert totalitarian fascist power. Those that
    support this kind of unaccountable power are either in on it, uninformed or naive and are in a
    way aiding it.

    The Occupy movement isn't over by the way - "you can't stop an idea whose time has come."

    http://LucidTree.com - inform yourself.

              o   Report
              o   Share this comment on Twitter
              o   Share this comment on Facebook






    raffine

    30 December 2012 6:06pmLink to this comment




    The decision to have a headless movement facilitated the surveillance and infiltration of
    Occupy. There was no learning from the 1960s, just a dash of Hardt and Negri, and a splash of
    Graeber.
             o     Report
             o     Share this comment on Twitter
             o     Share this comment on Facebook






    Walacz

    30 December 2012 6:10pmLink to this comment




    1

    1984 and beyond!

    http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four

             o     Report
             o     Share this comment on Twitter
             o     Share this comment on Facebook


        o

                       GraemeHarrison

                       31 December 2012 2:58amLink to this comment




                       2

                       "If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face
                       - forever."
                       - Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell (1948)

                      Report
                      Share this comment on Twitter
                      Share this comment on Facebook






    Allan Holley

    30 December 2012 6:14pmLink to this comment
    I have read this report, but I have also listened to the Occupy people. I cannot agree with their
    committment about occupying the Banks and Churches. The Occupy people made many
    enemies with their accuations. They came on and were intent in damaging anyone or anything
    to make a point. The fact they got the Unions involved was the last straw. The Unions are
    known for their lack of respect for anyone, so long as they get their way. A Peaceful Protest
    was not what this was to the average person. You don't use Firecracker Speeches and then
    call it, "Peaceful".

             o   Report
             o   Share this comment on Twitter
             o   Share this comment on Facebook


         o

                      RideAPaleHorse

                      30 December 2012 6:24pmLink to this comment




                      9

                      I understand what you mean and when you put it like that, there efforts -
                      occupying banks and churches - do seem rather futile, but you must
                      appreciate that a lot of the people who were involved didn't want to get into
                      too much trouble. They saw a great, grave even, problem in our society and
                      were trying in vain to do something to challenge it. The alternative would
                      have been to see them dress up as riot cops and attack bankers and
                      politicians with clubs and tear-gas barrages. In other words, apparently, the
                      police's job.

                     Report
                     Share this comment on Twitter
                     Share this comment on Facebook






    ramsalita

    30 December 2012 6:19pmLink to this comment




    15

    I find it utterly bizarre that anyone could read this article and make their response about the
    rights, wrongs, hygeinic standards and so on of the Occupy Movement. This article and the FOI
    request which provoked it demostrate collusion between Corporations and State institutions to
    surveil and suppress non violent dissent. This is corporate-statism and political policing. It's
    demostrated the truth to what Occupiers were saying throughout the period and were laighed at
    as loonies for saying so....that democracy is threatened by the coopting of state institutions by
    private interests. If you support this because you think Occupy are a bunch of hippies, then you
    should take pause. Democracy is not about defending the freedom of assembly, speech and so
    on ONLY for people who agree with you and vice versa. It is about us all having freedom to
    dissent non violently from government policy, corporate behaviour and anything else that we so
    choose, as free citizens. If this story doesn't stir you to question the direction of policy, of
    policing, of definition then you need to read a few history books...or perhaps one on critical
    thinking.
    One other paradox I've noticed in the trolling comments is this 'well done FBI for sorting out
    those pointless unwashed hippies'. This view that people are simultaneously ineffectual, and
    worthy of the full force of the legal apparatus in response....seems a tad inconsistent. Either
    Occupy is a pointless bunch of no hopers whinging.....or they are a serious, credible threat
    to...something. Which are they? And how far will you go with this line of thinking....? Shall we
    send the FBI into debating club now? Those people and their IDEAS!
    No....if you are genuinely committed to democracy, then dissent is central. If you don't like that,
    then quit classing yourself as pro-democracy. You aren't.

              o   Report
              o   Share this comment on Twitter
              o   Share this comment on Facebook


        o

                       RideAPaleHorse

                       30 December 2012 6:25pmLink to this comment




                       2

                       Brilliant comment and great ideas.

                      Report
                      Share this comment on Twitter
                      Share this comment on Facebook






    HerbmanHusstlin

    30 December 2012 6:31pmLink to this comment




    2

    Great article..... Close your bank accounts, cut up your credit cards, throw away your driving
    license and start walking.
    They can't follow you if you don't leave a trail...... I have no bank account, no credit cards and I
    don't drive. People like myself can and do slip under the radar.
    It works, give it a shot..... the bad guys only win if we let them...!!!
             o    Report
             o    Share this comment on Twitter
             o    Share this comment on Facebook






    reverb256

    30 December 2012 6:55pmLink to this comment




    Freedom is the degree of control/choice one has over how their time is spent.
    How does definition make you feel?

             o    Report

    Comments for this discussion are now closed.

                                50                                  oldest first     p/3cnxt
    698 comments. Showing                 conversations, sorted
                                                     ‹ Prev

                                                           1…
                                                            3
                                                            4
                                                            5
                                                            6

                                                           Next ›






    LostAngeles

    30 December 2012 7:15pmLink to this comment




    5

    To those who make claims viz. Occupy itself -you totally miss the point. It's not the specific
    message of the protest per se, it's that organized protest of any fashion will be smashed under
    the auspices of the "anti-terror" police state apparatus built by 12 years of proto-fascism. As
    bad as Bush was, Obama has been as bad or worse (signing the NADA New Year's Eve last
    year, the final nail in the civ liberties coffin). Talk about freaky...last summer they had US
    Military training operations with swooping pitch-black helicopters zooming around Downtown LA
    one night last summer, also Boston (YouTube it...), and the message is clear - we are in
    TOTAL control, don't makes waves or we'll brand you "terrorist" and you might just get a two
    AM door knock. The only high-profile political figures that speak truth to this insidious power
    (albeit from quite differing vantages), Ralph Nader and Ron Paul, are summarily given the MSM
    smear job. When the shit really hits the fan and both the Occupy folks and the Tea Party folks
    realizes they've fallen for the divide-and-conquer routine and have the same interests to blame
    (Wall St-DC circle jerk of corruption and swindle) things could get interesting indeed. Or more
    likely the US Army hits the streets and people meekly line up for a bowl of gruel...

             o    Report
             o    Share this comment on Twitter
             o    Share this comment on Facebook






    LostAngeles

    30 December 2012 7:19pmLink to this comment




    Above - "NDAA" not "NADA"

             o    Report
             o    Share this comment on Twitter
             o    Share this comment on Facebook






    ghandigee

    30 December 2012 7:35pmLink to this comment




    4

    There is no smoking gun presented in the article implicating a cabal between government
    agencies and corporations. Read the transcripts. For example discussions regarding the port
    protests centered around the supply chain (must be some secret code word). Anyone familiar
    with the supply chain and the movement of necessary goods is well familiar that most local
    warehouses have on average a 24-48hr. supply to keep the grocery shelves from getting empty.
    A 24-48 hour disruption could have serious implications. The same holds true for necessary
    medical supplies, fuel and so on. These are the same agencies which infiltrated and monitored
    the Tea Party, a movement started and funded by the Koch brothers who are well entrenched
    in the corporate landscape. I am sorry but I see no cabal. The agencies involved did there jobs
    as mandated by law. The occupy movement went on for months and encamped for months.
    Believe me if there were some great cabal the movement would have never happened. What
    killed the occupy movement was not the message, they had a great amount of support both
    public and private. The movement faded because of a lack of leadership and the inability to
    centralize an issue and articulate it effectively. I refuse to go off the conspiracy cliff and my
    refusal in no way is meant to be interpreted as support for the corporations and banks.
             o   Report
             o   Share this comment on Twitter
             o   Share this comment on Facebook






    Joe Anbody

    30 December 2012 7:35pmLink to this comment




    3

    In Portland Oregon the police were seen [undercover] at a Portland Occupy meeting as early in
    the year as 9.30.11 ... they were 'outed' which prompted them to leave the meeting:
    http://youtu.be/XcerdvfjD-o [short video clip of undercover cops at Portland Occupy]

             o   Report
             o   Share this comment on Twitter
             o   Share this comment on Facebook






    Julie Daniels

    30 December 2012 7:38pmLink to this comment




    8

    The current system is bound to fail. why? Because like every other attempt by ruling classes
    consumed by blinded greed it's a system that doesn't benefit 99% of people, and people
    eventually wake up to that.
    Hence the only reason the ruling elite has gone to these extremes. Thank god Occupy does not
    have leaders. It is very obvious if Occupy did have leaders they would be removed by any
    means necessary.
    What a sad sad world we live in.
    Thanks to Naomi for the article, will share.
    Happy new year everyone.

             o   Report
             o   Share this comment on Twitter
             o   Share this comment on Facebook





    Captive Audience

    30 December 2012 7:48pmLink to this comment




    10

    Their right to peacefully demonstrate is codified in the constitution. Having law enforcement
    agencies, corrupt politicians and criminal corporations conspiring to oppress peaceful dissent
    just reinforces what many American already know: America is a fascist, plutocratic, dictatorship
    whose freedom exists only in its propaganda.

              o   Report
              o   Share this comment on Twitter
              o   Share this comment on Facebook






    fiscalfucktitude

    30 December 2012 7:52pmLink to this comment




    6

    No surprise, but still fucking sickening:-(

              o   Report
              o   Share this comment on Twitter
              o   Share this comment on Facebook


         o

                       kg95929sfe

                       31 December 2012 7:50pmLink to this comment




                       foad kusse

                      Report
                      Share this comment on Twitter
                      Share this comment on Facebook





    jonasplanck

    30 December 2012 8:05pmLink to this comment




    8

    Sure is astroturf in here. Tell me, O brave defenders of the banking-federal cartel, do you
    genuinely believe that the authority you so willfully submitted to (presumably while pissing
    yourself) can be trusted with such power, or are you just advertising your gullibility so that
    receive more chain e-mails from Nigerian princes? Come on, defend your ignorant
    misconceptions that you hold in service to your masters. Earn your fifty cents. I'd like to see one
    of you use REASON for once. I don't think you're capable of it.

              o     Report
              o     Share this comment on Twitter
              o     Share this comment on Facebook






    jim1132

    30 December 2012 8:13pmLink to this comment




    1

    500+ comments in so I can't be the first person to notice that Domestic Security Alliance
    Council = DOSAC. Haven't I heard that acronym before somewhere?

              o     Report
              o     Share this comment on Twitter
              o     Share this comment on Facebook






    LibrisFidelis

    30 December 2012 8:14pmLink to this comment




    4

    This article was shared in one of our Iowa USA member of Facebook Timelines, and the
    following discussion ensued:
    Libris Fidelis The biggest infiltration was the $850,000 paid to a banking lobbiest and research
    company to have them infiltrate Occupy Wall Street to find out everything that could be found
    out about who the organizers and leaders were, and then another $1.4 million to the same firm
    to have them infiltrate Occupy in other major cities across our country and SUBVERT them !!!!!
    I do not know if I still have the notes but it is probably researchable using an internet search!

    Bill Klahn: What do you expect from a government who infiltrated our own anti war committee,
    and went trough our trash? Mumford was actually at my apartment one evening when we were
    all hanging out. I felt violated when I found out
    .
    Libris Fidelis: It was not just Mumford, guy! My gosh, I cannot believe how ignorant Iowans are!
    Timothy Guager and Brian Grislack revealed their infiltrator hands to me by the way they
    orchestrated UofIAC activities and interfered with some really great projects, as well as kept me
    out of committees because they knew my background since I am blacklisted from my California
    and Nevada activities! That was when I realized why UofI never cracked down on the arrests
    and news media-covered "bad publicity" as a UofI student organization, UofI''s own employees
    in UofI were the true infiltrators, and Mumford was "outed" because he was no longer useful,
    the same with CIA operative Valerie Plame, who's husband personally thanked me for my
    public microphone comments when she spoke here! The UofI Anti-war Committee was the
    resource-gathering and monitoring mechanism to find out who would be prone to being or
    becoming anti-US policy protestors, pure and simple! Why do you think I drew criticism for my
    accurate anti-war protest signs and my white-and-yellow "Support The Truth" flags when I was
    abandoned by the group at the Washington D.C. train station ??????

             o   Report
             o   Share this comment on Twitter
             o   Share this comment on Facebook






    marinated

    30 December 2012 8:20pmLink to this comment




    3

    This is why I am increasingly suspicious of of the dismissive use of the term paranoid
    'conspiracy theorists'-

    Because more and more frequently its used to
    deflect attention from corrupt exploitative organisations/goverments/individuals
    involved in CONSPIRACIES.

    Obviously discernment has to be used - Im not talking about Lizard people, Mr Icke

             o   Report
             o   Share this comment on Twitter
             o   Share this comment on Facebook


    david721

    30 December 2012 8:25pmLink to this comment




    3

    There isn't in Britain, a politically aware working class to oppose the corporations, the unions
    were emascultated by Mrs Thatcher 30 years ago.
    So the middle classes are a bit stuck and feeling the pinch now that Thatcher's dream is
    becoming a reality. In the US, Obama appeased big business, had to, to get past first base in
    his presidential ambitions, he's not going to break up fascist coalitions geared to put down
    dissenting groups.

             o    Report
             o    Share this comment on Twitter
             o    Share this comment on Facebook






    bargepoled

    30 December 2012 8:30pmLink to this comment




    7

    and we are surprised by this because of what?

    The USA has been a neo fascist state since the day after the 2nd world war finished.

    When the corporate powers and the military powers combine into the military industrial complex
    all you have is state fascism.

    Its not as overt as Mussolini or Hitler, that lesson was learnt during the 2nd world war but its
    fascism in all but name. Mass propaganda, state controlled and co opted media and the illusion
    of a democratic choice are its hall marks.

             o    Report
             o    Share this comment on Twitter
             o    Share this comment on Facebook


        o

                      david721
                      30 December 2012 8:39pmLink to this comment




                      6

                      The American Dream, 1 in 6 living in poverty, it suits the very wealthy, they
                      get to keep more of the loot.

                     Report
                     Share this comment on Twitter
                     Share this comment on Facebook


        o

                      RideAPaleHorse

                      30 December 2012 11:33pmLink to this comment




                      6

                      General Smedley Butler was hired to lead a fascist coup in the United States
                      in the 1930's but he basically went along with it to find out who the hell was
                      behind it all before going before Congress and the American people with the
                      truth.

                      "When the corporate powers and the military powers combine into the
                      military industrial complex all you have is state fascism...

                      ...Mass propaganda, state controlled and co opted media and the illusion of a
                      democratic choice are its hall marks."

                      Well said. Perfectly sums it up. Apparently it's inevitable that the pursuit of
                      vested interests will ultimately come at the disadvantage of the masses and
                      consequently result in authoritarianism in varying degrees.

                     Report
                     Share this comment on Twitter
                     Share this comment on Facebook






    Projection123

    30 December 2012 9:08pmLink to this comment




    2
    1984

              o   Report
              o   Share this comment on Twitter
              o   Share this comment on Facebook






    InnerCynic

    30 December 2012 9:58pmLink to this comment




    2

    Of course who is to say the entire OWS "movement" wasn't co-opted and the very "message"
    twisted to fit the statist narrative? Even the Tea Party "movement" was infiltrated from the get-
    go and the very founders jumped ship when it became obvious it had been infiltrated by party
    apparatchiks eager to tap into the anger of the common man and thus misdirect and obfuscate
    its earlier message. This is standard operating procedure for the elites: infiltrate, co-opt, distort,
    make "mainstream"... dilute and eventually assimilate them until they no longer present a
    "threat" to the SYSTEM. Welcome to the Federal Farm all you tax slaves!

              o   Report
              o   Share this comment on Twitter
              o   Share this comment on Facebook


        o

                       RideAPaleHorse

                       30 December 2012 11:07pmLink to this comment




                       1

                       It more than likely was infiltrated if not instigated by agents of the State.

                      Report
                      Share this comment on Twitter
                      Share this comment on Facebook






    bobsyouruncle1

    30 December 2012 10:08pmLink to this comment
    6

    Chris Hedges and yourself have been talking about this Naomi. I wonder where it's all going. I
    thought you were both overstating the case for a move towards a fully autocratic state based on
    the wealthy oppressing the poor. It's hard to see for sure where it's all going. Like we found out
    in the UK in the previous summer, the descent into chaos can be REALLY quick. But,
    realistically, it might be the only choice people feel they have if the true nature of the state is
    laid before them.

    Thank god they're all watching the X Factor and dreaming of being Beyonce or Kanye. Both of
    you tap into this doom narrative, which seems to borrow from the existing Christian apocalyptic
    narrative, but changes the terms to point towards oligarchy, etc. I don't know. Maybe there'll be
    a tipping point when the environmental catastrophe kicks in (Hurricane Sandy was and the rain
    over in the UK here was just a taster), and food prices keep going up, and we heard towards
    recession no 2/3. Maybe then the public will realise they've been sold a pup. I wouldn't count on
    it though. The general public as so easy to manipulate and lie to, I doubt they'd get the truth it it
    came and punched them in the face. The media is majority right wing (not liberal as many
    would have us believe), and as long as they keep repeating lies, the public will keep believing
    them.

              o   Report
              o   Share this comment on Twitter
              o   Share this comment on Facebook


        o

                       marinated

                       31 December 2012 4:46amLink to this comment




                       We are ALL members of the 'General Public'-This kind of generalised
                       contempt is not helpful in unifying people towards a common goal.

                      Report
                      Share this comment on Twitter
                      Share this comment on Facebook






    Mark Peer

    30 December 2012 10:18pmLink to this comment




    7
    Thank you Naomi. We need more information like this. Occupy is so much bigger than anyone
    knows.

             o   Report
             o   Share this comment on Twitter
             o   Share this comment on Facebook






    samedaymadness

    30 December 2012 10:24pmLink to this comment




    5

    "The Partnership for Civil Justice Fund, in a groundbreaking scoop that should once more
    shame major US media outlets (why are nonprofits now some of the only entities in America
    left breaking major civil liberties news?), filed this request." - They Seems they have no shame;
    no principles, no shame.

    Pathetic fear-based methods and modes of control only expose certains for what they are -
    weak, frightened bullies who are terrified of positive change, decency and fairness. These
    unnecessarily aggressive and violent tactics used to 'manage' protesters are signs of weakness
    and the lack of genuinely decent motivation - not to mention a sign of utterly lacking basic
    American rights and values. We should not ignore or allow the reality and criminality of
    tyrannical suppression in OUR home. Crackdowns like this come from the spiritless and insipid.
    OWS movt is mostly 'terrifying' to those the OWS movt is confronting, naturally.

             o   Report
             o   Share this comment on Twitter
             o   Share this comment on Facebook






    mypipsranout

    30 December 2012 10:47pmLink to this comment




    14

    This co-ordination between corporate interests and police and national security has been going
    on in usurped western democracies for some time now. In the film The Corporation is a
    psychopath Marc Barry states:

    I was invited to Washington D.C. to attend this meeting that was being put together by
    the National Security Agency called, "The Critical Thinking Consortium". I remember
    standing there in this room and looking over on one side of the room and we had the
    CIA, NSA, DIA, FBI, Customs, Secret Service. And then on the side of the room we
    had Coca-Cola, Mobile Oil, GTE and Kodak. And I remember thinking, "I am like in the
    epicenter of the intelligence industry right now". I mean, the line is not just blurring, it's
    just not there anymore. And, to me, it spoke volumes as to how industry and
    government were consulting with each other and working with each other.

    http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt0379225/quotes
    Hopefully 2013 will be the year the world wakes up and says enough is enough, as we are going to have
    to fight back sooner or later, or we will end up living enslaved in a global corporate fascist state.

               o   Report
               o   Share this comment on Twitter
               o   Share this comment on Facebook






    Publican

    30 December 2012 10:50pmLink to this comment




    10

    I was detained and illegally searched by local police and later investigated and interrogated at
    my home by FBI and Homeland Security for triggering an event regarding photography of
    critical infrastructure.

    I was told that this episode triggered an FBI regional alert and that joint terrorism task force and
    Fusion center were involved somehow.

    I suspected that this put me on a domestic watch list, and subsequent harassment by police for
    other photography episodes confirmed that suspicion.

    Subsequent to these episodes, I attended several OWS events and wrote and posted
    photographs at my blog in support of their work.

    During the OWS uprising, I was traveling on Interstate 81 in Tennessee and was pulled over by
    a Homeland Security vehicle, I strong suspect based upon license plate scanning technology.

    I think this is evidence of this wider FBI/Homelands Security harassment campaign.

    How can I research this through FOIA? I need help in drafting a FOIA. My State chapter of the
    ACLU would not represent me until I could demonstrate legal "injury in fact". They suggested I
    tried to but a gun or purchase a 1 way plane ticket. I refused to take part in this ruse.

    Suggestions? Is anyone interested in followup on this? They a lll know e byway, so no harm in
    revealing that I blog at:

    http://www.wolfenotes.com/

               o   Report
               o   Share this comment on Twitter
             o   Share this comment on Facebook






    lupin54321

    30 December 2012 10:54pmLink to this comment




    5

    In the western world, Truth, Justice and Reason have been demolished.
    Maggie, Murdoch, Bush and Blair have destroyed centuries of progress.
    The Dark Ages that follow are their legacy.
    The Methusalahs will Rule.

             o   Report
             o   Share this comment on Twitter
             o   Share this comment on Facebook






    Graihwing

    30 December 2012 11:18pmLink to this comment




    4

    Here is my tour of Camp Occupy San Francisco, filmed just before the eviction:

    http://youtu.be/lqYqXifDaAQ

    And for this we need the FBI?

             o   Report
             o   Share this comment on Twitter
             o   Share this comment on Facebook


        o

                      maxie59

                      31 December 2012 6:32pmLink to this comment
                       Well you gave me a 5 min ride through some streets of S.F. and I want to
                       thank you for that. Since I've never been out there it makes me want to visit
                       the city.

                       I would say the city of S.F. may want to use your video (partly) as a part of
                       marketing campaign to visit .... Other than that you showed me a 3 min (sort
                       of) of a walk through a camp. They (the city) gave these people trash bins for
                       garbage, and a place to "do their business" e.g. port-o-potties. So in essence
                       as far as I am concerned your YouTube which shows me 3 mins of what
                       lasted how many months?

                       Even those true "Occupy Activists" when disasembling and breaking down
                       the camp agreed it had become a place for homeless people to camp out.
                       Some were not using the facilities afforded them and the smell of urine and
                       fecies could be smelled and seen on the streets. REALLY sorry but how
                       gross and how unsanitary.

                       May I ask why didn't you go back at different intervals and film that or did you
                       and simply choose not to. I really dislike extemist on BOTH sides. Both
                       extremes are so busy spewing "IT'S MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY" that
                       nothing will ever be accomplished.

                       They had been told for two weeks that the deadline was approaching, the
                       police and other city workers had to clean up their messes. As was stated
                       and seen on T.V. the reason was a water main break needed repair and the
                       needed that area to repair. And apparently many people who lived and
                       worked in that area were actually quite happy when removed. It could now be
                       "clean" again.

                       IF one side is truly right and the other wrong it would withstand a total
                       unbaised view straight through ... not an edited short version.

                      Report
                      Share this comment on Twitter
                      Share this comment on Facebook






    willie48

    30 December 2012 11:37pmLink to this comment




    2

    Suppression of protest aggravates unredressed grievance, and amplifies the alienation of self
    reliant, self governing humans.

    It's no wonder the ruling elite want to suppress the people's right to assult rifle ownership . The
    credable threat of revolution afforded by assult rifles , threatens the easy harvesting of a world's
    resource, and the autonomy of the peoples's mind and labors.

    Learnt helplessness must be enforced ; creativity and self reliance must be bannished. The
ruling class can't help it ; their psychosis is intrensic to their character , to their sub specie. This
is just how planetary parasites consume their host ; bequeathing to future generations not the
traditions of a more viable civilization, but a sea of puss in the carcass of a dead world.

          o   Report
          o   Share this comment on Twitter
          o   Share this comment on Facebook


    o

                    Jan-Kamil Rembisch

                    31 December 2012 12:15amLink to this comment




                    4

                    Yes very true: and it is why; left as I am I SUPPORT the 2nd Amendment. I
                    don't 'like' guns or own one myself but very much support the US attitude
                    towards GOverment, Deep healthy suspicionand contempt.
                    Many of the Righties are rabid racist hypocrits but like they say about
                    stopped clocks. The very best thing in the US apart from it's their being the
                    only truelly multicultural (human) society is it's vigour, it's activism and their
                    fierce beleif in protecting liberty, dead right!
                    Wether left or Right, black or White they like the Grateful Dead are 'don't
                    tread on me people'. When Racist cops kil black youth the black community
                    get up in arms; preacher s preach and people shout, My experience growing
                    up in the UK ; which made me emigrate the moment it was physically
                    possible was the 'sorry sir; could you beat me some more' attitude of
                    deference to the inbred and bigoted or bulying (lots of violence was inflicted
                    on me as a child in one of thier elite schools in which 3 boys hung them
                    selves in the 5 years I was there (Clifton Collage; where John Cleese went to
                    by the way; we had the same English Teacher; mr Gover a wonderful
                    eccentric).
                    Anyway the Brits have been buggering their poor for a millenium with all the
                    contempt the privelaged can have for the less privelaged or caste inferiors.
                    THe guardian is the ruling classes best kept secret weapon as it persaudes
                    the more educated to despair or red herrings (gay marraige).
                    This is the rag that gave us Tony Blair, betrayed Assange and convinced
                    enough leftist idjiots to vote Lib dem sto ensure Tory hegemony. Not even
                    Rpert Murdoch and his many rags help the Elite as this single one organ.
                    Better than the *volksiche Beobachter' was for the Nazis. Think of the
                    Gaurdian as 'Pravda' being under the editorial control of Joseph Goebbles
                    and you understand that this paper is the single most evil intruement of
                    totalitarianism in the West.
                    Here in Sweden we have Dagens Nyheter who play the same game. All for
                    elite driven feminism and gay Rights as a toll for increased racism,
                    Islamohobia, hatred of US Libertarianism, contempt for non Nordics, support
                    for surveilance; fear of feral youth, anarchists and yes hatred of Julius
                    Assange!

                   Report
                   Share this comment on Twitter
                      Share this comment on Facebook






    BellumSeIpsumAlet

    31 December 2012 12:13amLink to this comment




    1

    All that hard work and all it took to thwart OWS was a little bit of rain.

              o   Report
              o   Share this comment on Twitter
              o   Share this comment on Facebook


        o

                       Jan-Kamil Rembisch

                       31 December 2012 12:26amLink to this comment




                       6

                       In feeble England where the 'people' say shaft me deeply while i gaze into
                       Kates lovely face.
                       But in the US it took open beating's, 'invented evidence', Agent provocateurs,
                       gas, Faked evidence, purgery, sodomy, ehanced interrogations and the odd
                       dissapearance as well as an organised continent wide police coordination;
                       along wi the fool on the Right who stupidly bury thir own 'Liberty' by not
                       seeing that, what ever their many real differances, they have far more
                       important thing in common when it comes ot the right to speak up (some
                       Righties and lefties are starting to get it; ala Ron Paul who get left and right
                       support).
                       I beleive ironically ; as it is the US that is the heart of the beast, that only in
                       the US does democracy stand a chance as the racists are being outbred.
                       And once the righties get used to the idethat the GOP can only survive WITH
                       atholic conservative support a permanant change will have finally arrive. The
                       end of racsim as the driving force of politics. This will force a realignemt as
                       the left will need to refocus on liberty as well as redistribution.
                       And no matter what bad laws the US passes, they unlike European ones will
                       be overturned by the Supreme Court. just as when NY's Supreme Court
                       nullified Giulian's law arresting the homesless.
                       UNCONSTITUTIONAL! You bet!

                      Report
                      Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        RideAPaleHorse

        31 December 2012 2:28amLink to this comment




        2

        @Jan-Kamil Rembisch - Yo Jan! You make me sick of living here, you really
        do!! The longer I stay in England listening to the media on television on on
        the radio the more stupid the whole society seems to be.

        Your stuff is spot on - I couldn't put it any better than you. You're probably the
        best commentator on CIF man!

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        Zhubajie

        31 December 2012 5:25amLink to this comment




        @Jan-Kamil Rembisch - Pretty naive. Racism won't disappear at all quickly.
        The Supreme Court is as corrupted at the rest of our institutions and if it were
        not, it would be ignored. Cf. Andrew Jackson vs John Marshall.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        Jan-Kamil Rembisch

        31 December 2012 11:32amLink to this comment




        2

        @Zhubajie -
        There's nothing naive about me. Many of my friends from Chicago back to
                      1968 and the whole anti-war/Black Panther, Peace movement. My older
                      brothers who I learned from and Know I try to pass it on plus some of my
                      own insight.
                      O course racism will not just simply dissapear but the reality is (watch FOX;
                      even they admit it) that the GOP can never win without non white suppport
                      as they can no longer win a majority. The beauty of democracy. And the idea
                      of people who wanted to go to the border and shoot mexicans will have to
                      form a Party together warms the cockels of my heart.
                      SO like I said a game changer!

                     Report
                     Share this comment on Twitter
                     Share this comment on Facebook






    epenny

    31 December 2012 12:16amLink to this comment




    4

    as i see it, the Occupy movement got its legs by a groundswell of people that are so disgusted
    with the overt ways in which the American (and other) government(s) are so enmeshed with
    corporations and their profit goals. It seems this article just confirmed all of that for us.
    as for claims that this article and movement are all bullocks, i just shake my head and hope
    people can see this as the hyperbole that hates hyperbole of another shade...

             o   Report
             o   Share this comment on Twitter
             o   Share this comment on Facebook


        o

                      RideAPaleHorse

                      31 December 2012 1:42pmLink to this comment




                      1

                      Fifty Shades of Hyperbole...

                     Report
                     Share this comment on Twitter
                     Share this comment on Facebook


    Amy Maple

    31 December 2012 12:24amLink to this comment




    12

    To those who say "Occupy did nothing" or it was just "a bunch of dirty hippies with no goal" or
    "It's dead", go back through these comments. It is everywhere, and will not go away and this
    was its goal. Even as the trolls rail they empower those who have become complacent to
    reactivate and engage. And for every, "taking out the trash", "dirty, jobless, socialist" "Stupid
    and disorganized" that you spew, you further feed it. Even the trolls propel Occupy. I find that
    beautiful.

              o   Report
              o   Share this comment on Twitter
              o   Share this comment on Facebook






    rivelle

    31 December 2012 1:04amLink to this comment




    "There are only two ways out of the real dilemma involved in this structural crisis. One is to
    establish a non-capitalist authoritarian world-system which will use force and deception rather
    than the “market” to permit and augment the inegalitarian world distribution of basic
    consumption. The other is to change our civilizational values.

    In order to realize a relatively democratic and relatively egalitarian historical system in which to
    live, we do not need “growth” but what is being called in Latin America buen vivir. What this
    means is engaging in continued rational discussion about how the whole world can allocate the
    world’s resources such that we all not only have what we really need to survive but also
    preserve the possibility for future generations to do the same.

    For some parts of the world’s populations, it means their children will “consume” less; for others,
    they will “consume” more. But in such a system, we can all have the “safety net” of a life
    guaranteed by the social solidarity that such a system makes possible.

    The next twenty to forty years will see an enormous political battle, not about the survival of
    capitalism (which has exhausted its possibilities as a system) but about what kind of system we
    shall collectively “choose” to replace it – an authoritarian model that imposes continued (and
    expanded) polarization or one that is relatively democratic and relatively egalitarian."

    from Immanuel Wallerstein, "Austerity- At Whose Cost?"
    http://www.iwallerstein.com/austerity-cost/

              o   Report
              o   Share this comment on Twitter
              o   Share this comment on Facebook






    GaladrielofEast

    31 December 2012 1:12amLink to this comment




    2

    'If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The
    lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political,
    economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State
    to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus
    by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State'.

    Funnily enough this was realised by the Nazi Joseph Goebbels.

    We call it 'Ideology' these days.....

              o   Report
              o   Share this comment on Twitter
              o   Share this comment on Facebook


        o

                        RideAPaleHorse

                        31 December 2012 2:30amLink to this comment




                        3

                        I can hear Nick Clegg trying to justify similar sentiment

                       Report
                       Share this comment on Twitter
                       Share this comment on Facebook






    David V. McIntyre
    31 December 2012 1:29amLink to this comment




    1

    Ok, I'm calling it, if The Newsroom gets a third season, this will absolutely be the plot of an
    episode.

              o   Report
              o   Share this comment on Twitter
              o   Share this comment on Facebook






    norecovery

    31 December 2012 1:41amLink to this comment




    4

    Remember which branch of the govt the FBI and NSA belong to? The Executive Branch and
    the Department of Defense, respectively. They are under the command of the President. The
    buck stops there. Notice also the crackdown on whistleblowers under Obama? All part of the
    same neo-fascist program that HE coordinates.

              o   Report
              o   Share this comment on Twitter
              o   Share this comment on Facebook






    buddharocket

    31 December 2012 1:46amLink to this comment




    More government will solve this.

              o   Report
              o   Share this comment on Twitter
              o   Share this comment on Facebook





    vicjo15

    31 December 2012 2:01amLink to this comment




    5

    Boy, does this remind people of the 1960s or what? How much of the violence was created by
    the undercover operatives within the ranks to give the protestors a bad name? It's happened
    before and it looks like the FBI and other agencies are up to their old tricks again.

              o   Report
              o   Share this comment on Twitter
              o   Share this comment on Facebook


        o

                      RideAPaleHorse

                      31 December 2012 2:32amLink to this comment




                      15

                      You're right. It isn't anything new. The Co-Intel op have NEVER shut down.

                      I wonder if we will witness a new era of Gladio style operations within Europe
                      in the near future.

                     Report
                     Share this comment on Twitter
                     Share this comment on Facebook






    creeksneakers2@aol.com

    31 December 2012 2:50amLink to this comment




    3

    The documents referred to in this story don't support the wild conclusions of this writer. The
    documents are generally just routine passing on of threat infomation. The threats generally
    weren't from Occupy but other groups. Occupy is repeatedly described as peaceful. There is
    almost no follow up. Law enforcement is left entirely up to locals, unless they request
    assistance.
    All the threat information comes from public web sites except one E-mail somebody received
and in another case a protester went to the feds about individuals considering disrupting the
Iowa caucuses. Monitoring websites is not intrusive and understandable when a group names
themselves "Occupy." Occupation is a hostile criminal act. "Occupy" is a threat.

The documents: http://www.justiceonline.org/commentary/fbi-files-ows.html

         o   Report
         o   Share this comment on Twitter
         o   Share this comment on Facebook


    o

                  AntiFascisti

                  31 December 2012 7:20amLink to this comment




                  8

                  Here is someone who either is naive, or more likely a disinfo asset. Yes, do
                  take a look at the documents...I'd suggest page 26 as they have them
                  ordered and you'll find a Florida official [likely of the Police, but it is redacted]
                  suggesting to the Police in a major city they long-term planning for killing [yes
                  that is the word used] of the heads of OWS [sic] by use of sharpshooters. It is
                  pro-fascist, anti-Occupy / anti-Justice / anti-Freespeech persons like yourself
                  that are the threat to everything US and UK society say they are [but never
                  have been and are not quickly retreating even further than ever before
                  toward blatant fascist police states].

                 Report
                 Share this comment on Twitter
                 Share this comment on Facebook


    o

                  creeksneakers2@aol.com

                  31 December 2012 8:12amLink to this comment




                  1

                  @AntiFascisti - Read the document again. Its page 61 here.
                  http://www.justiceonline.org/commentary/fbi-files-ows.html
                  They are reporting a threat made against OWS leaders. They are not
                  planning assassinations and there is nothing about police in Florida because
                  the focus is Texas.

                  Your concerns and fears about me are unfounded. I am not against free
                  speech. I'm left of center. Perhaps you could find help for your irrational fears.
                     Report
                     Share this comment on Twitter
                     Share this comment on Facebook


        o

                      TheRealCmdrGravy

                      31 December 2012 5:06pmLink to this comment




                      1

                      @AntiFascisti - If you're going to get that worked up about something it's
                      usually a good idea to understand what you're getting worked up about first.

                      In this case you have clearly misunderstood the document. The sniper threat
                      against OWS does NOT come from the Police or FBI but from some other
                      group of protesters/terrorists/whatever. The document clearly shows the FBI
                      working to protect Occupy rather than anything else.

                     Report
                     Share this comment on Twitter
                     Share this comment on Facebook






    Canonman

    31 December 2012 6:51amLink to this comment




    7

    Why is this story not front page news?

             o   Report
             o   Share this comment on Twitter
             o   Share this comment on Facebook


        o

                      AntiFascisti

                      31 December 2012 7:14amLink to this comment
                      8

                      Quite simply because the MainStream Media are owned by and report the
                      'news' as wished to be presented by the .01%. They are some of the main
                      propaganda tools in the kit. Those who control the Police and the Intelligence
                      apparatus, control the MSM too. Occupy challenged every one of those
                      tentacles - even the body of the Beast. There will also be no debates nor
                      'investigations' about this in Parliament nor, more aptly, in Congress. It didn't
                      happen. Shut up Little Man [and Woman] and 'go shopping'....... America is a
                      post-fascist state. Sadly, most Americans haven't a clue. The UK is only a
                      step behind on the same path, IMHO.

                     Report
                     Share this comment on Twitter
                     Share this comment on Facebook






    UrsusIndomitus

    31 December 2012 7:06amLink to this comment




    4

    I'm no fan of occupy, but look at the Bankster/Corporatist NWO thugs.in action
    We need to be as well armed as they are. Crunch day is coming.

             o    Report
             o    Share this comment on Twitter
             o    Share this comment on Facebook






    Chris Lynch

    31 December 2012 7:12amLink to this comment




    8

    Doesn't surprise me, the banks run America. We the people, don't.

             o    Report
             o    Share this comment on Twitter
             o    Share this comment on Facebook
        o

                       UrsusIndomitus

                       31 December 2012 7:17amLink to this comment




                       5

                       The bank and non government money organizations run the WORLD, little
                       one.

                      Report
                      Share this comment on Twitter
                      Share this comment on Facebook






    PappaStu

    31 December 2012 8:43amLink to this comment




    1

    Zero Dark Hippie

             o   Report
             o   Share this comment on Twitter
             o   Share this comment on Facebook






    StabbyMcMurderson

    31 December 2012 8:46amLink to this comment




    9

    Anyone that thinks Occupy was a failure is mistaken. It was not intended to really change
    anything, as a revolution is needed for that, but Occupy was like a huge classroom. Solidarity
    was shown for the movement in many other countries, each with their own Occupy
    encampment, and many people coming together and talking about many key issues that affect
    all of our lives. There were food kitchens set up to feed ALL, libraries, workshops, volunteers
    that had training in medical emergencies and people that were not part of the encampment
    could come down and donate food and discuss political issues/differences with the Occupiers.
    This in and of itself is a success, learning lessons for the inevitable future struggles, and the
    crackdown on Occupy showed exactly just what happens when you attempt to get all uppity
    and reject the policies of the psychopathic death machine that is modern capitalism.

             o    Report
             o    Share this comment on Twitter
             o    Share this comment on Facebook






    Lote

    31 December 2012 8:59amLink to this comment




    2

    Ah The Power of Dollaracy!

             o    Report
             o    Share this comment on Twitter
             o    Share this comment on Facebook






    HarryTheHorse

    31 December 2012 11:51amLink to this comment




    4

    Once again "small state" conservatives prove to be nothing of the sort when they approve of
    the use of big government federal agencies infiltrating protest groups they disapprove of. But
    then conservatism is not noted for its consistency or intellectual honesty.

    Personally I found Occupy to be amateurish and shallow in its analysis of the political situation.
    More an embarrassment than the vanguard of the People. Which makes the waste of public
    money in infiltrating it even harder to justify. None of this bothers conservatives of course and
    they love thieving other peoples' money and spending it on their own hobby horses.

             o    Report
             o    Share this comment on Twitter
             o    Share this comment on Facebook
o

        pantokrator

        31 December 2012 12:12pmLink to this comment




        4

        It is no waste of public money if said spend keeps the rich elite in control.

        Don't forget that the alternative could lead to democracy, which no one 'in
        power' wants.

        Vive le status quo!!!

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


o

        Ronald Farber

        31 December 2012 3:36pmLink to this comment




        7

            More an embarrassment than the vanguard of the People.

        Occupy made the concept of wealth inequality visible. It was almost never
        discussed in the mainstream before they coined the concept of the 99%.
        That was a monumental achievement.

        Anyone expecting a grassroots movement to act as a vanguard is going to
        be disappointed. It's not meant to be the Russian revolution, with a
        revolutionary group that claim to know what's best for the rest of the us.

        It was about the people that are affected by decisions, making those
        decisions. It was about taking back the public space to do this, in system
        where participation is not encouraged.

        The Occupy people have moved off to work in many areas: they haven't
        gone away. One recent example is Hurricane Sandy relief.

       Report
       Share this comment on Twitter
       Share this comment on Facebook


    bpowell555

    31 December 2012 12:10pmLink to this comment




    1

    I don't see this as a particular shock. US PR invented FUD. Hence though something is true
    have someone label it a paranoid fantasy and gain plausible deniability should it be true. In this
    case Occupy are merely losers against a better organised group. Isn't it ironic that in the US
    freedom means having the freedom to deny others their freedom :)

             o    Report
             o    Share this comment on Twitter
             o    Share this comment on Facebook






    jeromebarry

    31 December 2012 12:30pmLink to this comment




    Between the nefarious origin of it and the nefarious end of it, we learned a lot about
    nefariousness.

    In my local county, the small OWS campsite, about 1000 statutory miles from Zucotti Park, was
    a mostly harmless spectacle until one of the occupiers was found dead in his tent. While I do
    not know of the medical examiner's conclusions as to a cause of death, this was clearly both
    harmful and out of hand. The local government quickly shut it down as a threat to public health.

             o    Report
             o    Share this comment on Twitter
             o    Share this comment on Facebook






    oxfordlawyer

    31 December 2012 12:33pmLink to this comment
    1

    I find this article to be slightly incoherent but I believe I understand the main message although
    I would appreciate seeing some of this documentation but hey ho, with regards the FBI
    organising a response to the Occupy Movement I would suggest that this might well have been
    justified, not to peaceful protest of course, but the occupy movement did not stop at peaceful
    protest there was splinter groups who did threaten and target the corporate buildings of
    institutions such as banks these threats themselves constituted criminal offences, as would the
    acts if or indeed as in some cases when those threats were indeed carried out, therefore an
    organisation which is in place to prevent criminality might legitmately be involved to prevent
    criminality, beyond that it is standard practice to warn individuals or indeed organisations that
    might be subject to criminal acts whether the collusion went to far in this case is debatable

             o    Report
             o    Share this comment on Twitter
             o    Share this comment on Facebook


        o

                       HarryTheHorse

                       31 December 2012 12:56pmLink to this comment




                       4

                           with regards the FBI organising a response to the Occupy
                           Movement I would suggest that this might well have been justified,
                           not to peaceful protest of course, but the occupy movement did
                           not stop at peaceful protest there was splinter groups who did
                           threaten and target the corporate buildings of institutions such as
                           banks these threats themselves constituted criminal offences

                       So where is the evidence that the FBI restricted its operations to those
                       "splinter groups"? We all know that the FBI targeted Martin Luther King
                       despite his avowed and sincere commitment to lawful and non-violent protest,
                       so I find your excuses for the FBI in this respect to be naive at best.

                      Report
                      Share this comment on Twitter
                      Share this comment on Facebook






    oxfordlawyer

    31 December 2012 12:39pmLink to this comment
Further to my above post even the designation of the Occupy movement as 'terrorist' whilst
primae facie shocking could be argued they made it plain there intention to promote their cause
was to bring down wall street and in the UK the FTSE 100 had they succeeded they would at
the least caused billions of $ or £ respectively to wiped off these markets and conequently the
worlds and thrown the worlds entire financial systems into disarray in this situation the US
authorities could argue that this does clearly represent a threat to national security and
consequently we have 'a group whose stated objective is to carry out acts which if successful
would be a threat to national security' that could easily constitute a terrorist group

         o   Report
         o   Share this comment on Twitter
         o   Share this comment on Facebook


    o

                  AntiFascisti

                  31 December 2012 5:24pmLink to this comment




                  1

                  You have a bright future working as a lawyer of the Corporation theives,
                  Banksters, Politicians [owned by the aforementioned] or the Police and/or
                  Intelligence Agencies - as you know nothing of Justice, Freedom of Speech
                  and action, Democracy, Liberty, Proportionality or the law being equally
                  applied to those who have too much power and wealth and those they exploit.
                  If you really are a lawyer, we need lawyers like you as a fish needs a bicycle.
                  And didn't they teach you in law school how to do research?...or only how to
                  serve the Oligarchy? I've looked at the documents and they are not hard to
                  find. Page 26 is quite interesting...as it suggests a large city police dept.
                  consider a longterm program to KILL OWS 'leaders' with sharpshooters.
                  Sound legal to you? Don't believe me? Suit your ostrich oxford public school
                  I'm on the side of the elites self.

                 Report
                 Share this comment on Twitter
                 Share this comment on Facebook


    o

                  Heretica

                  01 January 2013 4:57amLink to this comment




                  Where and as what would that argument put high-frequency trading?

                 Report
                 Share this comment on Twitter
                 Share this comment on Facebook


    SnowyWater

    31 December 2012 2:14pmLink to this comment




    1

    The crackdown, (...)–was coordinated with the big banks themselves.

    And in other news: bears sh*t in the woods and the Pope is Catholic.

             o   Report
             o   Share this comment on Twitter
             o   Share this comment on Facebook






    publiclobbyist

    31 December 2012 2:17pmLink to this comment




    1

    Thank you from the bottom of my heart, UK, for being our guardian from across the sea. I
    apologize for my Twitter rants against your Royal obsessions--it was as a tweet called it,
    "rubbish."

    No dirt bag U.S. media originating here would ever cover this story. I am moved to subscribe to
    your fine journalistic talents forever.

             o   Report
             o   Share this comment on Twitter
             o   Share this comment on Facebook






    Willard D Russell

    31 December 2012 2:29pmLink to this comment
    3

    Well guess what? Any American who is willing to stand up to the perverts on Wall St. and the
    bankers will find that they are considered criminals and terrorists.

             o   Report
             o   Share this comment on Twitter
             o   Share this comment on Facebook


        o

                      Skropodopolis

                      31 December 2012 11:00pmLink to this comment




                      Well, if it's only a minority in opposition to all this whilst the majority vote to
                      endorse it......what can one say?

                     Report
                     Share this comment on Twitter
                     Share this comment on Facebook






    Ronald Farber

    31 December 2012 3:14pmLink to this comment




    1

    Not a surprise, they've been at the same thing for years, this is just the modern version of
    COINTELPRO, which is also worth a look.

             o   Report
             o   Share this comment on Twitter
             o   Share this comment on Facebook






    CorporateRaider

    31 December 2012 3:24pmLink to this comment
    I love the caption under the picture: "Police used teargas to drive back protesters following an
    attempt by the Occupy supporters to shut down the city of Oakland."
    'Shutting down' towns and cities is what Occupy are all about. Bankers providing information to
    the police? Nah, I don't care. Bankers can collect all the information they like, it won't do them
    any good should a real political movement suddenly arise from somewhere with a viable
    mandate for reform.
    The Occupy mob should be grateful to the police for keeping them safe from harm.

             o    Report
             o    Share this comment on Twitter
             o    Share this comment on Facebook


        o

                      Skropodopolis

                      31 December 2012 10:59pmLink to this comment




                          it won't do them any good should a real political movement
                          suddenly arise from somewhere with a viable mandate for reform.

                      My thoughts exactly. I am very tired of hearing complaints about peoples' elected
                      representatives - as if no-one voted for them and as if everyone had voted for
                      something entirely different!

                      It's so tedious and pointless to carry-on like this; like a spoiled-child.

                     Report
                     Share this comment on Twitter
                     Share this comment on Facebook






    direct

    31 December 2012 4:17pmLink to this comment




    1

    a PPP - public private partnership - at work. Now why would the author of this report be
    surpürisedof what she reports. Remember tihs is happening in the USA where everyone is
    considedered a terrorist.

             o    Report
             o    Share this comment on Twitter
             o
    Comments for this discussion are now closed.

                                50                                  oldest first       p/3cnxt
    698 comments. Showing                 conversations, sorted
                                                     ‹ Prev

                                                           1…
                                                            4
                                                            5
                                                            6

                                                           Next ›






    fiatlux

    31 December 2012 4:58pmLink to this comment