Talk:COINTELPRO
|
|
| Contents |
Early Discussions
For a legal filing concerning the ongoing FBI use of COINTELPRO tactics, see http://www.judibari.org/COINTELPRO-OOP_020514.pdf --user:Daniel C. Boyer
"Burglarize" is not an Americanism unless "Americanism" means a traditional English word that everyone in England used in 1750 that has recently (since about 1900) been replaced in England by a new word while continuing to be used in America. There are hundreds -- maybe thousands -- of those. American are more traditional that the British (who are in turn more traditional than continental Europeans). 131.183.81.100 21:16 Apr 28, 2003 (UTC)
- What has that to do with "burglarize"? Internal evidence shows it isn't an older usage in English (it ends with "-ise" or "-ize", which means a recent derivation from Latin or Greek), and the latter ending strongly points at an American-only usage. While some Americanisms are indeed archaisms, this is no archaism. PML.
"Burglarize" is a common term defined in most dictionaries. The Mirriam-Webster online dictionary (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary) defines it:
- transitive senses
- 1 : to break into and steal from
- 2 : to commit burglary against
- burgled is very rare, at least in the USA. Because Wikipedia allows both British and US usage, this term should have been left alone. Arthur 21:36 Apr 28, 2003 (UTC)
Well I'll be... it looks very odd... Cgs
This article should be merged with cointelpro. -- BenRG 20:55, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Hoover
- Wiretapping and other intrusive techniques were discouraged by J. Edgar Hoover, FBI Director in the mid-1960s and eventually were forbidden completely unless they conformed to the Omnibus Crime Control Act.
This makes it sound like J. Edgar Hoover acted as a bulwark for good government, and tried to rein in these activities. I find this doubtful. Would be great if a knowledgeable person could eliminate that line, or expand and explain it. Tempshill 00:28, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Murder?
What's the proof that MURDER was one of the tactics used? Anybody know? (I mean reliable proof, not just hearsay or suspicion.) Thanks.
POV discussion: contextualizing the FBI perspective.
The intention of this discussion is to account for FBI POV, keep coherent chronology, and include info that nonviolent organizations were the primary targets of the investigation.
- 14:30, 18 Apr 2005
COINTELPRO is an acronym ('COunter INTELligence PROgram') for a program of the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation aimed at attacking dissident political organizations within the United States.
to
COINTELPRO is an acronym ('COunter INTELligence PROgram') for a program of the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation aimed at investigating, monitoring and countering violent dissident political organizations within the United States.
and changed.
Although covert operations have been employed throughout FBI history, the formal COINTELPRO's of 1956-1971 were broadly targeted against organizations that were (at the time) considered politically radical, such as Martin Luther King Jr.'s Southern Christian Leadership Conference.
to
Although covert operations have been employed throughout FBI history, the formal COINTELPRO's of 1956-1971 were broadly targeted against organizations that were (at the time) considered politically radical or potentially violent or actually violent, such as the Black Panthers and the Weathermen, groups committing (at least rhetorically) to the violent overthrow of the United States Government. The Bureau when led by J. Edgar Hoover also authorized investigations and counter intelligence of groups committed to non-violent change, such as various groups associated with Martin Luther King Jr..
and
"Counterintelligence" was a misnomer for the FBI programs, since the targets were American political dissidents, not foreign spies. In the atmosphere of the Cold War, the American Communist Party was seen as a serious threat to national security. Over the years, anti-Communist paranoia extended to civil rights, anti-war, and many other groups.
to
"Counterintelligence" was a misnomer for the FBI programs, since the targets were American political dissidents perceived to be violent or potentially violent, not foreign spies. In the atmosphere of the Cold War, the American Communist Party was seen as a serious threat to national security and may well have been if left unchecked.
The changes by TonyMartin confuse the chronology of COINTELPRO and alter the article's POV from what COINTELPRO was to a POV of the FBI's perception of what it was doing. The FBI, going back to the days of the "Bureau of Investigations" in the 1910's never made a distinction between militant and violent behavior. Whether socialist/christian/labor/African American/etc. organizations were purely political or advocated self-defense the FBI was of not interest to the Bureau. The investigations always intended to subvert organizations which challenged the political status quo, per se. The more effective the organization, the greater the degree of investigation and infiltration by the government. The FBI agents and informants frequently invented riotous language where none existed, specifically because this kind of speech invites investigation. Rereading the sources or the speeches that the FBI is reporting on almost always confirms that the FBI has made an interpretive judgement to expedite investigation. Read the primary COINTELPRO texts which were released following the SWP's court case and the congressional investigations of the 1970s.
The investigation involved disruption of the organizations through misinformation (anonymous letters) and agents or informants infiltrating the organizations to act as agent provocateurs. These infiltrators would take the most violent or extreme stances if it was likely to disrupt or discredit the organization. The documentary evidence for this is extensive. You can find an extensive history of the genisies of this practice in the 1910s and 1920's based on FBI records in Theodore Kornweibel's books, referenced here African Blood Brotherhood. For a discussion of the FBI's efforts to gin up an armed confrontation between two organizations, see discussion of the FBI's role in provoking conflict between the Black Panther Party and the United Slaves organization in L.A. in the Further Reading texts.
I've reverted the changes above because they share the FBI's presumption that all who question the status quo deserve investigation and disruption. In particular the replacement of the reference to subversion and disruption of Martin Luther King's Southern Christian Leadership Conference with the Black Panthers and the Weathermen is wrong headed. The investigation of King started in the 1950's and belongs to a tradition of the FBI in destabilizing black political organizations, going back to the early days of the NAACP. If you believe the FBI reports on the Crisis magazine during WWI, you'd think they were bomb throwers. Read the magazine itself, and you will get a different opinion. DJ Silverfish 16:15, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Your recent changes make some pretty broad assumptions that I don’t think can be substantiated. The Black Panthers and Weathermen were violent radical organizations hell bent on destabilizing the United States. I don’t understand why this has been removed. COINTELPRO did also operate against not only leftist groups but also against rightwing organizations like the Klan. Many individuals in these oprganizations were not just simple political dissidents, but many were actively engaged with foreign movements and governments, i.e. VVAW and the North Vietnamese, Black Panthers and the Cubans. TDC 18:07, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
My changes were mainly to eliminate some very leading language placed around the targets of FBI investigation. There are well documented works on the FBI's subversion of peaceful organizations, I've referred to some of them above. The chronology should reflect the FBI's own records and show that the interest in African-American movements was early, continuous and politically motivated.
Do you have any sources for the FBI's infiltration of the KKK? I would be especially interested to know how the FBI developed responses to the Klan in the 1920's when that organization had several million members. The FBI did inflitrate the Klan later, and had a controversial role in the Greensboro Massacre, which is why the collaboration parenthetical comment is warranted.
Chronologically, COINTELPRO began and was sustained as an operation against political dissidents, particularly Civil Rights activists. The NAACP was investigated and disrupted under the FBI's assumption that it was a "communist front". This activity should not be confused with the FBI's later work against the Weathermen, for example. Different time, different place. At this length, the article is fine.
The sole reference for the 'Black Panthers train in Cuba' expose is an anti-Castro and Cuban exile lawyer in Tampa, Florida. This is not well sourced history. His text you referenced is just a series of assertions with no support of any kind. The VVAW and the Weathermen were very different organizations, belonging in a late paragraph on COINTELPR0 in the 1970's. The whole point of the article should be to explain COINTELPRO's evolution over time, not mix its targets up. DJ Silverfish 23:30, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Bring it on
I want to see some actual cites for the claims defending the FBI COINTELPRO Operations. I have over 50 books on the subject, and over 100,000 pages of FBI COINTELPRO files (I work in a library). And you folks critical of the FBI, do some homework and get some cites. COINTELPRO was a distinct operation from 1956 to 1971. Don't blur together criticism of FBI countersubversion activity before and after those dates.--Cberlet 02:22, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Applause! Thank you for some sanity. TDC 00:47, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
I think the article is now really good. Is there any evidence of FBI assasinations. If you can find evidence (and citing secondary sources like Ward Churchill isn't going to be satisfactory. If there is, I'll restore the sentence that asserts this, otherwise let's leave it out. I look forward to your COINTELPRO screenplay. I would like to play J. Edgar or possibly Clyde. TonyMarvin 03:38, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Hm... are Chip and TDC going to have a steel cage match @ the next meet-up? if so I might attend... ;) Sam Spade 07:06, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- TonyMarvin, contrary what you appear to believe, Churchill is not a rabid pamflateer on the subject; his COINTELPRO book is a scholarly work which is massively referenced. Anyone with access to the same primary sources as he could easily debunk it; to the best of my knowledge, no one yet has. Please keep your ill-informed musings to yourself. -- Viajero 09:56, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Ward Churchill is many things: fake Indian, fake Vietnam commando, fake artist, fake researcher, bully, but scholarly certainly is not one of them. TDC 00:47, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
- Please point out a factual error in one of his two FBI books.--Cberlet 03:27, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Citations
In the COINTELPRO#External links section I have added links to the main body and topical subheadings of the Intelligence Activities and the Rights of Americans Senate report. This is for easy reference. There is a great deal more information in the COINTELPRO#Further Reading texts.
I've started internal citations. The Google link is not ideal, because it does not break. If the failure to break is a problem, please substitute this link:
- http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/cointelpro/churchfinalreportIIIa.htm. The cited text is in the fourth paragraph of the document. DJ Silverfish 03:10, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Why did Tony Marvin remove info?
Looks like many links were removed, and apparent POV word choices were added. I will let frequent contributors to this article decide the validity of Tony Marvin's edits. zen master T 06:13, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Reverted. So Tony. Please do not edit the quoted material from Brian Glick. The numbered points are quoted from his book. There was no FBI COINTELPRO against milita groups. They did not exist as a large movement until the 1990s. The quote in the lead was from the FBI document launching the subprogram for Black Nationalist groups. Please do not make it factually false by attribting it to the entire program. Congress specifically found that many of the groups targeted by COINTELPRO were not violent. Calling the Black Panther Party of the 1960's and 1970s a "hate" group may reflect Bureau rhetoric, but it is POV and not supported by the historic record. The FBI perception that there was KGB influence on most of the groups targeted by COINTELPRO turns out to be largely false with the exception of some influence on the CPUSA. ANd on and on. Please cite any further changes becasue you have shown a tendency to insert unsubstantiated POV claims on this page.--Cberlet 17:08, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Brian Glick could say the Earth is flat and you would want that in the article? I have never heard of Mr Glick and I'm sure he is a brilliant man with great insight into FBI mass murders but there is no evidence provided and until then it stays out as rank opinion and polemic.
The FBI was not racist, it countered racism through its anti-Klan activities. Not to say Hoover wasn't racist, I presume he was everything bad. But the characterization of the Bureau as a force for evil is not appropriate, it's undergraduate and wrong.
I could cite so many examples of Black Panthers acting hatefully but really cannot summon the passion this evening.
"some influence" on the CPUSA!??? They gave them $$$, lots of money. As you'd expect.
Please cite any further changes becasue you have shown a tendency to insert unsubstantiated POV claims on this page. -- TonyMarvin 03:03, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Note to: TonyMarvin. Your last edit was clearly vandalism. Brian Glick has a published book from which quotes have been taken (with permission). Please cite your sources here before making any more changes. The revert by Zen-master was entirely appropriate.--Cberlet 13:23, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
If it was "clearly vandalism" perhaps you should explain how. I stand by every edit I've made as accurate and expressed correctly.
I don't care if "Brian Glick" has given permission to be quoted. I would like to give you permission to provide evidence of his spectacular claims. If you don't then the claims will be deleted. I'll give you a few hours to put up the evidence, if you don't I'll delete the claims. Citing a book of little credibility won't do it, I want respectable sources. TonyMarvin 15:32, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"Granting permission" is aneathma to this project. Credible history books rely on primary sources. Glick and Churchill's COINTELPRO books are both highly credible in that they are based in large part on FBI docs, government reports, public investigations, and contemporary news reports: Brian Glick is an acceptable source. The quote crystalizes many aspects of the COINTELPRO program which strengthen the article. The Church Report is available here, for cross referencing. Many libraries will have one or the other books referenced. Why don't you find a report that contradicts Glick, if you can, in something that references primary sources? I do not think that you will find it, but I'd like to see it. But if you have nothing to add, the continual reversions are vandalism. DJ Silverfish 21:32, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Discussing recent edits
"the formal COINTELPRO operations of 1956-1971 were broadly targeted against organizations that some(at the time) considered to have politically radical elements and communist ties, such as Martin Luther King Jr.'s Southern Christian Leadership Conference to organizations whose stated goal was the violent overthrow of the US government such as the Weathermen, to racist and segregationist groups like the Ku Klux Klan."
There are two problems with this. 1). The issue of the FBI perception of the threat of communist subversion is complicated and dealt with later in the text. 2). As written, it imples that the KKK had communist ties - hardly likely.--Cberlet 02:44, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Excellent work boys. Protected in two minutes. I can hear your stormtroopers kicking down my door now. Zenupassio 04:27, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Folks, there is a mountain of published material on the COINTELPRO program. If anyone has an edit that they want to make, make it with a cite and we can discuss it here. The U.S. Congress found that the program was illegal and violated basic First Amendment rights. Turning this fact on it head is POV.--Cberlet 13:24, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Venona
I don't dispute that the FBI had access to the Venona material--what I dispute is the specific interpretation of that material. Is urging participation in the Civil Rights movement the same as promoting domestic unrest?--Cberlet 17:10, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- What specific interpretation? The material was very clear in stating that the CPUSA as well as its leadership were heavily involved in espionage, infiltration and recruitment efforts for the NKVD and later the KGB. Some good background on this material can be found in VENONA; Decoding Soviet Espionage in America, Yale University Press.
- The only area I added this was to the background and that was to clarify the FBI's reasoning for its earlier actions. The two opening sentenced I change reflected the fact that there was not a suspicion of KGB involvement with the CPUSA, but that the FBI had verifiable concrete information as to the nature of this involvement. I don’t think anyone denies this anymore.
- As for your next point Is urging participation in the Civil Rights movement the same as promoting domestic unrest, it depends by whom and to what end. The FBI's mindset had not changed much when the new left appeared on the scene, and since, despite claims to the contrary, there was a great deal of interaction between the new and old left, I am sure it was a logical assumption to believe that New Left movements were involved in the same activities as the old left. The BPP, for example, sent delegations to the DPKR on more than one occasion. Delegations from VVAW had been sent to "negotiate" with the North Vietnamese during the Paris Peace accords. Clearly there was collaboration with hostile foreign groups and governments and the New Left (not all, but many) and the article should make this point.TDC 18:16, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
- Slight clarification, in no way shape or form was my edit designed to state that the "New Left" had and involvement with foreign intelligence agencies, only that the "old Left" most certainly did. TDC 18:20, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
- That last note does clarify matters somewhat Thanks. I think the text is getting clearer on this issue. I will let others glance at it and I'll leave it alone for a few days.--Cberlet 23:00, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)