Ernie Lazar Posted June 17, 2010 Author Share Posted June 17, 2010 John: there are numerous privacy and law enforcement-related exemptions which the Bureau can invoke to deny access to files or to justify major redactions. Almost all of my FOIA research has focused upon deceased individuals and organizations/publications which were active sometime during the period 1920 to approximately 1980 --- so I rarely confront outright denials because the material I request is so old and the individuals who are the subjects of my requests are deceased. The Bureau does not normally claim that a file "does not exist" -- if it actually does exist.. Instead, they just invoke whatever exemption(s) they think precludes release of the file or specific documents in a file. For example: they could cite exemption (-b-)(1) which pertains to Executive Orders that forbid release of secret data involving national defense or foreign policy or (-b-)(7) which pertains to documents/files that "could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings" or which "would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or impartial adjudication" or "could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source" or "would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions" or "could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual". Ernie. There are a number of matters there I'd challenge or dipute, but I do come from a socialist viewpoint and inevitably my views will be tainted by that. re the FBI disclosure Q. It's my understanding that ''open'', or active, police files in the US (or some states thereof) are not available to FOIAs, or can readily be deemed to be so. IOW they can be said to not exist. The question is whether the FBI has a similar SOP re ''open'' files, or ones they consider to be so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernie Lazar Posted June 17, 2010 Author Share Posted June 17, 2010 Greg: I guess there must be two different people in this forum who use the name Greg Parker since you claim that you "never accused [me] of dishonesty". From message #48: Ernie, you have not, as we will see, even been honest, let alone earnest. So, according to you: I am neither serious or honest. Terrific! With respect to my comment which you quoted i.e. "your knowledge is not credible" -- you conveniently forget that I was responding to the data you provided which, I repeat, is not reliable for adequate understanding of the matter we are discussing. It is not "arrogant" to make that observation based upon what you presented. You could say that I am mistaken -- and then present your best case against my conclusion -- which is all I have attempted to do in response to your messages. With respect to all the rest of your comments --- we are just going around in circles and I don't see much point in continuing this discussion. However I will make this final observation for anyone who believes Greg's fiction about the FBI not having investigated the White Citizens Councils movement because he found a single document in Goldwater's file and he thinks that the literal text of that one document constitutes everything one needs to know about the matter. In other words, it is not even necessary to review any of the Bureau's White Citizens Council files. My suggestions to interested parties: (1) Send an FOIA request to the FBI for HQ main file #105-34237 which is 2076 pages. (2) Check out serial #2 which is a 1/10/55 memo from A.H. Belmont to L.V. Boardman -- paragraph 4 which states: "The Citizens Council movement is subject of a security investigation which was opened in December 1954." (3) Then check out serial #5 which is a 60-page investigative report by the Memphis field office dated 2/16/55 with copies to New Orleans LA, Birmingham AL, Mobile AL, and Assistant Attorney General William F. Tompkins. (4) Then check out serial #6 which is a 19-page investigative report by the New Orleans field office dated 2/18/55. (5) Then check out serial #8 which is a 3/9/55 memo from J. Edgar Hoover to SAC New Orleans stating: "Inasmuch as investigation is being conducted at the specific request of the Department, it is desired that your investigation be continued." (6) Then check out serial #28 which is a 9/16/55 memo from J. Edgar Hoover to Assistant Attorney General William Tompkins which concludes on page 2 with this paragraph: "We are conducting an investigation of the captioned organization in connection with Executive Order 10450. The Department has been furnished reports in this matter." (7) Then check out serial #422 dated 11/24/58 which summarizes the "investigations" conducted by the Bureau into the White Citizens Councils movement. (8) Then check out serial #440 dated 10/19/62 in which Assistant Attorney General Burke Marshall instructs J. Edgar Hoover to open an investigation on W.J. Simmons, the head of the Association of Citizens Councils of Mississippi. (9) Then check out serial #441 dated 10/23/62 which explains the circumstances under which the Bureau opened "investigations" of the White Citizens Councils. (10) Last -- check out all the various serials which mention all of the field offices who were instructed to provide specific information about the Citizens Councils in their territory (including background on the officers and activities of the group), and offices which were instructed to acquire Citizens Councils publications, newsletters, or to monitor speeches made by Citizens Councils speakers. THEN form your own opinion regarding whether or not Greg Parker's conclusion is accurate. GREG: I usually do not bother to answer critics, like yourself, who accuse me of dishonesty – but I will make one final attempt to bring us back to a civil and productive discussion. One final attempt? I haven’t seen the first yet, Ernie. This is what you said to me in our initial exchange “obviously, your knowledge about this matter is not credible.” You made that statement without even bothering to ask about my source material. And you have the gall to call me arrogant? And I never accused you of dishonesty. I asked if you were mistaken, bluffing or lying. I will try to answer all your questions, comments, and concerns. But first, I do not understand why you consider my previous comments to betoken “intellectual snottiness”. I have taken your comments seriously and I have tried to specifically address your comments and questions. Ernie, you have not, as we will see, even been honest, let alone earnest. But I note for the record that there is a major difference between you and I. Apparently, (and please correct me if I am mistaken) – you have NOT reviewed actual FBI files – i.e. the primary source evidence? -- correct? This is a perfect example of your snottiness. Did I not provide a quote from my review of the first 100 pages of the Goldwater FBI file (which itself was part of a series reviewing the whole file)? As for other FBI files, those who know me here, know how wrong that comment is. Greg: you never indicated that you reviewed any file. You simply quoted what you claimed was ONE document appearing in the Goldwater file. Initially, yes, that is true. But in post # 27, I said; "From a post I made to another forum around 9 years ago summarizing the first 100 pages in the file." I then quoted from what I wrote in that other forum. As for it being just one document, what is your point? However, my inquiry was specifically referring to whether or not you have reviewed the files pertaining to the WHITE CITIZENS COUNCILS movement. What inquiry? Please point specifically to where you have asked me whether or not I have reviewed FBI files pertaining to the WCC. I have looked and I’m damned if I can see that question put to me anywhere. So my question again to you is, are you mistaken, are you bluffing, or are you lying? So, it is not “snottiness” – it is simply an inquiry to determine the nature and extent of your knowledge. Apparently, you do not like to be challenged –and that is what you consider “snottiness” It is snottiness when no such question has been put. If you can be “mistaken” about what you have said (not to mention what I have said!) in this very thread, how can anything you claim about your reviews of FBI files be trusted? So you are relying exclusively upon interpretations made in secondary sources. And if you find two secondary sources that seem to agree with one another – then THAT is what you consider compelling factual truth – correct? Uh - huh. Let's see what you admit further down... Now with respect to your specific comments. I bold type your comments; my replies are in blue font. Did any FBI Special Agents ever violate Bureau rules? Of course and, in fact, my on-line report concerning Dan Smoot documents in great detail what led to Smoot’s censure and being placed on probation and being transferred to a small insignificant field office. [During his relatively brief FBI career, Smoot was censured 3 times.] That was not my question , Ernie. This was it: So no one to your knowledge deliberately flouted procedure? Is that it? I asked because you keep harping about the horrible fate of those with poor grammar, while I have been discussing the deliberate flouting of regs involving informants. Of course there may have been individuals who “deliberately flouted [bureau] procedure” but with respect to deliberately flouting “regs involving informants” – I would have to address the specific evidence for each specific case you want to present. It certainly was not a widespread practice---if that is what you are getting at. Even critics noted the insanity of Hoover's cultural Wonderland? And they are scholars? Amazing. Now I can see why you are so impressed with them. Their powers of perception are unmatched; their gallantry in reporting, beyond epic. I mean, where do we go from here, now that we have reached the pinnacle of critics being well... er...critical! I don’t know what your purpose is in attempting to discredit, wholesale, all of our nation’s most knowledgeable scholars about FBI history. Everything which you think you know about Bureau improprieties was discovered largely as a result of their research. Scholars like Dr. Athan Theoharis have devoted their entire careers to unearthing factual data about the FBI as an institution. Theoharis has forgotten more about the FBI than you will ever know. Oh I wasn't discrediting them, Ernie. I do note you snipped what I had replied to, so let's reinsert it: But the fact remains that Bureau Agents were accountable to their superiors for even the smallest infractions of Bureau policies---including, as previously mentioned, grammatical mistakes in their reports or failure to follow Bureau policies. Even the scholars who are among the Bureau’s most severe critics have reported in great detail on this culture within the FBI. My response was just taking the piss out of you. In essence, you said "even critics were critical". No big deal. I just found your wording amusing. You seem to have missed my point (again). There are many scholars who have devoted considerable time and resources to researching FBI history – particularly by acquiring first-time-released files and documents and interviewing numerous FBI officials. You denigrated, through sarcasm, my respect for their research. I then responded to your sarcasm. Nope. Wrong again. I denigrated your use of language. What you were actually talking about was immaterial to my sarcasm. My larger point was that those scholars do not agree with your interpretations as reflected in your comments in this thread. Interpretations of what? The FBI report I quoted from the Goldwater file? I would be more than happy to look at those scholarly interpretations of that document. In fact, I would be more than interested in seeing in what other way “DUE TO BUREAU REGULATIONS PROHIBITING ACTIVE INVESTIGATION OF CITIZENS COUNCILS” can be interpreted. Swearingen book and “verifying accuracy” of material The famous philosopher, Karl Popper, pointed out that one can always “prove” something if one looks only for “confirmations” because in the universe of available data, there are ALWAYS “confirmations”. And the historian, David Iredale pointed out "Original material may be ... prejudiced, or at least not exactly what it claims to be." This would be particularly true of intelligence agency files from the likes of the CIA, KGB, MI5, FBI etc I have never heard of David Iredale. What “history” has he written about? No problem Glad to. As soon as you tell me what “history” Popper” wrote about. What has been his exposure to FBI files/documents? First what was Popper’s again? Not sure what you are asking me here. Are you asking me to identify who Popper is? If so, see: http://en.wikipedia....iki/Karl_Popper Thanks, but I know who Popper is. You wanted to know what exposure Iredale has had to FBI files and what “history” he has written about. I think it behooves you to first show those things in regard to Poppin since you chose to quote him in the context of our discussion on FBI files. I’m sure that won’t be any problem for you since you claim you did not introduce this philosopher to turn this into a philosophical discussion. Broad generalizations can’t really help us deal with specific matters we are discussing here. Your comprehension is slipping yet again. I stated what SPECIFICALLY my quote could be applied to. Your quote was the one given as a generalization. No, Greg, your quote was a generalization made by someone (Iredale) about whom I know nothing whatsoever. If, for example, he has had no exposure to FBI history or files, then what is the relevance of his comment? One could make the exact same comment about everything in life – i.e. our initial contacts with people or information may not be trustworthy or there may be “prejudice” which colors our perceptions. Iredale was speaking about historical research. It was not a generalization. Popper on the other hand, was not speaking specificlly about historical research. Memoirs are primary sources, too, Ernie. I realise you might not like that notion, but maybe one day, you'll get over your intellectual snottiness. Memoirs are subjective and often self-serving. Can I have a citation from a relevant authority on this assertion, please. There is no “authority” – it is just common sense. Memoirs are not normally documented – they are simply subjective personal recollections. Often, assertions are made which cannot be verified because the parties discussed in the memoir are deceased (and cannot be asked pertinent questions) or the incidents mentioned are incapable of being proven or disproven. Consequently, they are among the most unreliable sources available. They have usefulness primarily as a starting point for further research--not an ending point from which reliable conclusions can be drawn. After calling the sources I quoted “secondary” sources before having to admit they are in fact exactly what I said they were – PRIMARY sources, you are now looking for another escape hatch with the use of broad generalizations. The Kennedy assassination btw, is replete with FBI files that are self-serving. Many times they are written to excuse or defend or divert attention from behavior which would reflect unfavorably upon the author. They are primary sources only in the sense that they reveal the thoughts of the person writing them. Okay. Progress. You’re admitting you were wrong when you said the memoires I quoted from were secondary sources (“So you are relying exclusively upon interpretations made in secondary sources.”) Were you mistaken, bluffing or lying, Ernie? Inquiring minds need to know! No, Greg, I made no such "admission". The only source you specifically identified was the Swearingen memoir. A serious researcher has no way to determine if what Swearingen has written in his book is accurate and truthful – although, interestingly, he makes a comment which could be interpreted as undermining a major component of your previous argument and supporting my statement about protocols regarding informants. He mentions FBI Supervisor Joseph M. Culkin and he then observes: “I could not tell Joe Culkin that Rockne had two bogus informants because Culkin would pass the buck and tell the SAC of the office, Richard D. Auerbach and Rockne would be in trouble for falsifying government documents. I would then be in trouble for informing on a fellow agent.” When you cite Swearingen as a reliable source of information about FBI practices, we are left with the obvious question concerning how you went about verifying his assertions? Did you contact him to ask questions? Did you contact anyone he mentions in his book to inquire if Swearingen’s recollections were accurate or if there might be alternative interpretations? Have you compared Swearingen’s memoir to other FBI Special Agent memoirs or the research done by scholars into FBI practices? I looked at other memoirs and news stories and you called it “searching for confirmation”, leading into your philosophical byway via Popper. As for what you did or did not admit... in the one post, you referred to memoirs initially as secondary sources. Bythe end of the post, you begrudgingly admitted they are in fact primary sources. You can deny you did that all you want, but it is there for all to see. The fact is, I have presented two authors independently saying that the FBI had a quota for informants, the difficulties in meeting that quota, and ways in which they met it i.e. inventing informants. If you want, I can also point you too a New York Magazine article from 1975 which again verifies the informant quota for agents and the difficulty in meeting it. Whilst it does not mention faking informants to meet the quota, the article does deal with the corruption of the Chicago office. Greg: This is very difficult to discuss as an abstraction – and, in any event, I’m not sure how it pertains to our original discussion. Periodically, field offices were instructed by HQ to increase their informant coverage in certain groups as a result of specific events --- but that does not obviate the fact that informants were subject to certain protocols which were spelled out in the Bureau’s Manual of Instructions. And being subject to such protocols is no guarantee the protocols were always followed. You seem to live in a twilight zone where the very existence of a rule ensures it is always followed. No—I have already acknowledged the obvious: in any large organization there are people who do not follow established rules and procedures—and who look for short-cuts. The operative question here, however, is what happens to people who violate such rules and procedures? That is why I mentioned my report concerning FBI Special Agent Dan Smoot. I provide specific evidence for your correct observation that the existence of a rule does not mean it is always followed. Why are you so hung up about what happens when agents get caught breaking procedure? The only material fact is that some did – regardless of whether they got caught and what happened by way of punishment. I think I understand where we are headed here. It is what I describe as “Argument By Anomaly”, i.e. find a few exceptions to a general practice and then pretend that the exceptions were the general practice or, at a minimum, use the exceptions to de-value, dismiss, or ignore more voluminous and more compelling factual evidence. And once again you're stating what you wish I said instead of what I have actually said. I have no problem believing or accepting what the memoires state about faked informants was the exception and not the rule. My purpose was to suggest, since such anomalies did exist, then perhaps the subject of this thread also fits within those anomalous spaces. OK fine – then we can agree upon this. Maybe we just had a mis-communication about this matter because your original statement (see below) was so absolutist. I’ll grant that I could have worded it to better reflect what I meant (that is, I should have said “You are absolutely wrong if you believe the entire FBI always adhered to policies and etc...” In my own defense, it never occurred to me you would take it as literally meaning NONE of them followed policy… nevertheless, I'll accept your point. Greg – the problem we have here is that you want this to be a philosophical discussion. Yet, so far, you are the only one to quote a philosopher. Go figure. If you think what I wrote above is a philosophical argument, I’m afraid there is little purpose in wasting further time. A philosophical discussion does not require quoting a philosopher. My point is that it is much easier to deal in specific details rather than broad generalizations or abstractions. You have used generalizations throughout this latest response. I prefer we deal with specific cases. But the problem is that you have no first-hand knowledge of FBI files – and specifically with FBI informant files – correct? Not correct, but it yet again demonstrates your snottiness. It is not “snottiness” Greg. You simply have not identified what files you have obtained and reviewed whereas I have. I will repeat mine again: Oh but I did – the Goldwater file. I also indicated I have read countless FBI documents pertaining to the assassinations of the ‘60s. http://ernie1241.googlepages.com/foia In particular, we have been addressing your statement concerning White Citizens Councils not being investigated by the FBI. You have never once indicated that you have seen any FBI file on any of the White Citizens Councils. Nor did you identify any informant files you have reviewed, whereas, again, I have done so. Once again, Ernie, it wasn’t my statement. I was quoting the FBI. So how do we address that? Your snottiness? I fear it may be too ingrained. You should have had it knocked out of you in kindergarten. As previously mentioned, anybody can search internet and find a universe of data which will always provide “confirmations” for anything whatsoever that one wants to believe. This puts me at a great disadvantage because you can always come up with something which contradicts a statement I make -- and then I have to continually refute your "evidence" but you are not required to present any primary source evidence of your own because you have never reviewed the actual FBI files we are discussing. Let’s just get something straight here. You are not the Master; I am not the Pupil. Obtaining 500,000 – or even 5,000,000 FBI files does not automatically endow you with expertize in reviewing them. Though you may possess some expertiize, I have seen little sign of it here. You are too busy lecturing others about what you percieve their shortcomings to be. Bad form, old boy. Bad form. I’m sorry if I have offended you by giving you some specific details about the nature and extent of my research and what I have acquired. I can understand, however, why you don't want to provide comparable details. Tush and nonsense. I’ll take quality over quantity any day. Here’s a question for you: are you aware of any cases in which a person has publically outed themselves as an FBI informant, only to have the FBI falsely deny the claim? And where I say "falsely" I mean where the claim, at some point, has been verified through FBI files? So, Greg, what do you prefer that I believe? ---> The primary source documents and FBI files (both HQ and field office) in my possession or your speculations? Your comprehension needs some work. I was not speculating. I gave a direct quote from an FBI document. Here it is again: however the membership of this organization is not known to this office, DUE TO BUREAU REGULATIONS PROHIBITING ACTIVE INVESTIGATION OF CITIZENS COUNCILS You have shown that there was some investigative work done on Citizen's Councils in the 1950s. What I quoted was written in 1963 - which is the period under discussion here. Greg: I note for the record that you did not answer my questions. In order to answer you intelligently, please define your terms: Excuse me, I did answer your question as far as I could since it was predicated on the incorrect notion that I was speculating. No—you totally ignored my questions – and you continue to do so with ever-increasing hostility. Not true, Ernie. (1) What do YOU think constitutes an “active investigation”? Please give us the specific elements which you believe comprises an "active investigation" Again, I am not playing pupil to your master. If you don’t know, I may help you out if you ask properly. Your “snottiness” is beginning to show. Obviously, any discussion or debate must begin by mutual understanding of terms of reference. Your unwillingness to answer a basic question reveals more about you than me. Your question is based on the false notion that I have been speculating. It’s a “when did you stop beating your wife” kind of deal. (2) What type of information exists in an “investigative file” that does NOT exist in other types of FBI files? As above. (3) Why do you want to limit the discussion to one particular year – 1963? The subject of this thread alleges he was an FBI informant inside JBS during what - ? 61 -64 period? The real question is why you brought up investigations during the ‘50s which were not relevant. Huh? I did not bring up any investigations during the 1950’s except in answer to your falsehood that the Bureau never investigated White Citizens Councils. And, just for clarity, those investigations continued into the 1960’s. If they continued into mid ’63, then that would make the statement in the Goldwater file I quoted untrue. Having reviewed the entire file, the WCC was certainly not investigated in relation to the bombing threats connected to racial matters the FBI was ostensibly so concerned about, despite what appears to have been probable cause to do so. I thought we were discussing your original comment in message #11 that the Bureau never investigated the White Citizens Councils movement? Yes. The period I was indicating was defined by you in the subject of the thread. Sorry if that confuses you. Huh again! The subject of this thread is Harry Dean. YOU introduced White Citizens Councils, not me. Yes, I did, but only more or less as an aside. It was you who defined the timeframe for any discussion in the thread by making it about Harry’s claims to have been an FBI informant. Harry’s claims for that do not go back to the ‘50s. Your original comment never limited the discussion to one particular year. You then introduced a single document which you state exists in the FBI file on Goldwater and apparently you want everyone to accept that one document as definitive – even though you have never seen any of the 400+ FBI HQ files or the hundreds of field office files on the White Citizens Councils movement – correct? (It just occurred to me that I could, if you like, introduce the idea that it is YOU that is accepting "at face value" whatever documentation you think will advance your argument.) If you are alleging the FBI document I quoted from does not mean what it says, just spit it out. Your comprehension needs some improvement. As I previously stated, one document does not make a case--particularly when the subject matter covers 2 or 3 decades and involves 12-15 field offices. I spent 11 years interpreting government policy and legislation. I know how to read documents. And it matters not that I am talking about a single document. It only matters what that document states – and the quoted wording is unambiguous. You are again refering to the 1950s. If you want to dispute the accuracy of the quote I provided, that is your call, but you really need to take it up with the FBI --- or better still, just provide examples from 1963 which shows it to be a lie concocted by the FBI author of the document. Greg, one does not have to “lie” in order to recognize that there are different instructions at different periods of time or unique instructions which apply to specific locations for some period of time. I am troubled by the way you attempt to use evidence. I think the problem here (once again) is that you have never seen any FBI file and, more importantly, you have never bothered to provide us with YOUR definition of what constitutes an “investigation”. And I can find your definition where exactly in the thread? Since you are the one who stated that no investigations were made of White Citizens Councils – I suggest that you explain your comment. Let me quote from your message #11 again – in case you forgot: Ernie, you are absolutely correct that the FBI did not investigate groups like the JBS and White Citizen's Council (amazingly even when they had cause to). You are also absolutely wrong in believing that the FBI adhered to policies and procedures in handling informants. Read FBI secrets: an agents exposé by Lesley Swearington. Incidentally, notice the unconditional nature of your comment concerning FBI adherence to policies and procedures. Instead of declaring the obvious, i.e. there are examples of violations, you instead declared with absolute certitude that it is "absolutely wrong" to "believe that the FBI adhered to policies and procedures in handling informants". This all-or-nothing approach to evidence is quite revealing re: your mindset. Addressed earlier. Until you answer that question – we cannot proceed to discuss this matter intelligently. And, again, I wonder if you are proposing that we "accept at face value" every document you introduce simply because you think it advances your argument? No. We can’t discuss it intelligently until you learn to read and stop putting up straw arguments. Your weasel words do not divert us from the fact that you will not answer the obvious question which would quickly and easily resolve our dispute You want my definition of what constitutes an “investigation” despite not having provided your own. Your question is in any case, just more of your snottishness. Even if I had no clue, do you think I could not quickly find out? That alone renders your question as one designed for reasons other than resolving anything. Sorry. Not playing that game. The bottom line is that the wording of what I quoted mentions nothing about being a policy only for a specific city, county or state. "Bureau regulations" can only mean regs applying accross the board - "prohibit" is self-explanatary. So what do "Bureau regs" "prohibit"? Active investigation of the WCC. The prohibition in this case meant they did not even have a list of members (or claimed not to) so that the name given in relation to the bomb threats could be checked against such a list (recall that the person making the threats claimed to be a member). Reinforcing this prohibition is the fact that the WCC comes under no further scrutiny in the matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernie Lazar Posted June 17, 2010 Author Share Posted June 17, 2010 (edited) As a postscript to my final reply to Greg Parker, I also suggest that interested parties review the following FBI HQ files: (1) 100-423395 = Seaboard White Citizens Council aka White Citizens Council of District of Columbia which is a 1747 page investigative file covering the period from 6/8/56 thru 4/8/65 Also see the following field office investigative files pertaining to the Seaboard White Citizens Council: Baltimore 100-20015 Charlotte 105-0471 Knoxville 105-0122 Mobile 105-0258 Newark 105-3383 Norfolk 105-0242 NYC 105-19792 Philadelphia 105-2702 Pittsburgh 105-1364 Richmond 105-0632 Washington DC field 100-33226 (2) 100-4651 = North Alabama White Citizens Council / Asa Earl Carter -- which is a 1291 page investigative file covering the period from 8/16/56 thru 5/11/71 (3) And the following representative sample of the over 400 investigative files: ALABAMA: 105-45763 = Alabama Citizens Council 105-45103 = Anniston Citizens Council 105-50576 = Autayga County Citizens Council 105-50577 = Baldwin County Citizens Council 105-50579 = Bullock County Citizens Council 105-42756 = Butler County Citizens Council 105-43132 = Central Alabama Citizens Council 105-45984 = Citizens Council of Cullman County 105-44731 = Citizens Council of Easy Birmingham 105-45096 = Citizens Council of Hueytown 105-45069 = Citizens Council of North Birmingham 105-46526 = Citizens Council of Pelham 105-46001 = Citizens Council of Tuscaloosa 105-51293 = Coosa County Citizens Council 105-50583 = Dallas County Citizens Council 105-50591 = Macon County Citizens Council 105-50596 = Mobile County Citizens Council 105-46397 = Sumter County Citizens Council ARKANSAS 105-40673 = White Citizens Council of Arkansas FLORIDA 105-49060 = Bay County Citizens Council 105-47974 = Citizens Council, Chattahoochee 105-46960 = Citizens Council, inc., St. Petersburg 105-51089 = Daytona Beach Citizens Council 105-40391 = Florida Citizens Council 105-52639 = Walton County Citizens Council GEORGIA 105-37158 = States Rights Council of Georgia KENTUCKY 105-50230 = Citizens Councils of Kentucky 105-52849 = White Citizens Council of Henderson County LOUISIANA 105-48558 = Arcadia Citizens Council 105-44536 = Association of Citizens Councils of Louisiana 105-49764 = Bossier City Citizens Council 105-48955 = Citizens Council of Franklin Parrish 105-49770 = Citizens Council of Homer 105-40774 = Citizens Council of New Orleans 105-46604 = Citizens Councils of America 105-51477 = Cotton Valley Citizens Councikl 105-50210 = Plain Dealing Citizens Council 105-45268 = Shreveport Citizens Council MARYLAND 105-52696 = Talbot White Citizens Committee MICHIGAN 105-48111 = Citizens Councils of Michigan MISSISSIPPI 105-54706 = Belzoni Citizens Council 105-54669 = Citizens Council of Crystal Springs 105-54677 = Citizens Council of Greenville 105-54727 = Citizens Council of Greenwood 105-54652 = Indianola Citizens Council 105-54708 = Jackson County Citizens Council 105-54712 = Lauderdale County Citizens Council 105-34237 = Lee County Citizens Council NEW JERSEY 105-51816 = Citizens Council of Newark NORTH CAROLINA 105-40167 = States Rights League of North Carolina OKLAHOMA 105-52777 = Citizens Council of Tulsa 105-41923 = Oklahoma Association of Citizens Councils SOUTH CAROLINA 105-43243 = Allendale County Citizens Council 105-43141 = Charleston Citizens Council, Inc. 105-43716 = North Charleston Citizens Council TENNESSEE 105-44096 = Association of Citizens Councils of Tennessee 105-45769 = States Rights Council of Tennessee 105-53627 = Tennessee White Citizens Councils TEXAS 105-39894 = Association of Citizens Councils of Texas 105-40498 = Citizens Council of Big Springs 105-40876 = Orange County Citizens Council 105-43334 = Texas Citizens Council (Dallas) 105-44696 = Texas White Citizens Council, Houston 105-45671 = Citizens Council of Waco VIRGINIA 105-52860 = Citizens Council of Clarksville 105-53030 = Citizens Council of Newport News 105-49006 = Citizens Councils of Virginia 105-32909 = Defenders of State Sovereignty and Individual Liberties 105-44495 = Fairfax Citizens Council 105-38960 = Virginia League Anyone who would like additional details may contact me directly at: ernie1241@aol.com The ultimate problem with Greg's argument is three-fold: (1) First, he wants to limit the interpretation of the universe of available data to a single document which does not even appear in any of the main files pertaining to White Citizens Council movement or the individual files opened on specific WCC groups. [This makes about as much sense as telling me to rely upon one FBI memo in the FBI's file on columnist Carl Rowan which expresses a favorable opinion of a highly critical article about Rowan published in the Birch Society magazine -- as if THAT was the ONLY pertinent data I needed to review to discover what the Bureau thought about Robert Welch and the Birch Society!] Incidentally, I would like to encourage Greg to provide us with the following information since he is so impressed with this one document which he says is in the Goldwater file: ** What is the file number and serial number? ** If this is an internal FBI memo, please provide the "to" and "from" details (i.e. who wrote the memo and who was it addressed to?) (2) Second, since he refuses to answer a first-principles question (i.e. what constitutes an FBI "investigation?") Greg neatly avoids the critical matter of definition of terms so all of us can understand what he (or anybody else) means when they say the FBI "never conducted an investigation" of the WCC. (3) Third, Greg introduces a total non-sequitir. Greg claims that I was limiting the time-frame for the discussion in this entire thread exclusively to the years when Harry Dean claims to have been an FBI informant. There are two problems with that absurdity: (1) I did not state or even hint that any discussion should be limited to specific years. I did, obviously, quote comments made by Harry himself in which HE identified the period of time during which he purported to be an FBI informant but my argument from the beginning was that Harry was NOT an FBI informant -- period -- regardless of what years may be mentioned. (2) The main dispute between Greg and myself began when Greg introduced the idea that the FBI never investigated either the JBS or WCC "even when they had cause to". That last phrase is so pregnant with meaning. What "cause" might Greg be referring to? As all of us know, there were scores of race-based incidents during the 1950's and 1960's (murders, lynchings, castrations, bombings, voting rights violations, intimidation/threats, etc). When such violations were subject to FBI jurisdiction, the Bureau obviously would want to consider persons who would top their list of "the usual suspects". Now: how would the FBI go about determining the identity of potential suspects in such race-based matters? What sources of reliable information did they possess? If you go back to my previous message which discusses the memo written by Assistant Director Alan Belmont, you will get a clue which would answer that question. The problem here is that the Bureau had many different files which captured data about people they considered security concerns or rabble rousers or violence-prone fanatics. In August 1967 the Bureau started its Rabble Rouser Index (later known as Agitator Index). It was initially described as an Index designed to capture background information about individuals "who have demonstrated by their actions and speeches that they have a propensity for fomenting racial disorder." (SAC Letter 67-47). Here, again, notice the elastic nature of their definition. "Speeches" and "propensity for fomenting racial disorder". A subsequent 1967 SAC Letter (67-70) made the following observations. I underline one key portion for emphasis. "A rabble rouser is defined as a person who tries to arouse people to violent action by appealing to their emotions, prejudices, etc.; a demagogue. You will note that under prior criteria the Rabble Rouser Index served as an index only for individuals of national prominence with particular consideration given to those who travel extensively and was limited to those fomenting racial disorder. It is the intent of this expanded criteria to have within each division as well as nationwide an index of agitators of all types whose activities have a bearing on the national security. This would include, for example, black nationalists, white supremacists, Puerto Rican nationalists, anti-Vietnam demonstration leaders, and other extremists. White Citizens Councils frequently organized functions at which "rabble rousers" would speak and fire up their audiences about "traitors" and "subversives" in government and "unconstitutional usurpations" of "state's rights". These speakers made favorable references to "interposition and nullification" re: de-segregation laws. State legislatures in Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Virginia adopted resolutions of "interposition and nullification," which condemned the U.S. Supreme Court ruling and which stated that they refused to enforce the desegregation of public schools. The Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission worked hand-in-glove with WCC officials to make sure that "agitators" in Mississippi were harassed and intimidated. African American voters were discouraged from exercising their Constitutional rights or were disqualified as eligible voters. [see Neil R. McMillen's 1971 book, The Citizens' Council: Organized Resistance to the Second Reconstruction 1954-1964 for details.] Given this background -- is it so hard to understand WHY the Bureau wanted to keep tabs on the Citizens Council movement -- its leaders, activities, publications, speakers, etc? Especially when the Bureau's top official within their Domestic Intelligence Division was predicting that "extra-legal" activities were likely to commence after the Supreme Court set a date for when de-segregation should be accomplished. Edited June 18, 2010 by Ernie Lazar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernie Lazar Posted June 17, 2010 Author Share Posted June 17, 2010 (edited) I am saying that the JBS, as an organization, never advocated, encouraged, facilitated or condoned violent activities by any of its members. Furthermore, when it discovered a member who did do so, his/her membership was terminated. For example: when the JBS discovered the views and paramilitary activities of Minutemen founder, Robert B. DePugh -- his membership was terminated. Any large organization (left or right) attracts weirdos and wackos -- and the JBS certainly had its share of them. That said, nevertheless, the JBS has never understood how its relentless attacks upon the patriotism and integrity of most of our national leaders and/or our government officials could be interpreted by some nut case as justifying whatever actions he/she might think appropriate to rid the country of what are supposedly "traitors" and "subversives" who are working toward eviscerating our Constitution and our freedoms. There have been individual current or former JBS members who have been arrested and convicted regarding criminal activities such as Jerry Ducote (a former Santa Clara County CA Sheriff's Deputy who burglarized the offices of various left wing groups) and George Colitto (a New York sporting goods store owner who was one of 5 people arrested 08-23-67 on a variety of charges including for plotting to kill Herbert Aptheker, director of American Institute of Marxist Studies). But there is no evidence that these activities were with the knowledge or approval of the JBS as an organization. If the FBI ever thought that the JBS was in any way connected to illegal, criminal, or subversive activities that fell under its jurisdiction, they would have opened a formal investigation in a nanosecond -- just as they did with respect to numerous other right-wing individuals and organizations as a result of information that came into their hands. For example, the Bureau opened a file captioned "KKK Insurrection Plot" when two different Klan informants who were considered reliable stated that JBS member Gen. Edwin A. Walker was allegedly involved in a plot with Klan members to organize an insurrection if Barry Goldwater was defeated in the Presidential election of 1964. Subsequently, the Bureau learned that everything that the Klan informants told their Bureau contacts was based upon rumor and gossip. Similarly, another file was opened when another informant considered reliable, told the Bureau that JBS member David E. Gumaer was organizing "hit teams" comprised of right-wing airline pilots and they planned to assassinate Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and other prominent government officials. One Bureau memo stated about their informant: “Source has on numerous occasions provided information on security matters which has been analyzed to be 95% accurate.” Nevertheless, the Bureau quickly determined that the information was false and the file was closed. The "leeway" you mention with respect to anti-communist groups was not because such groups were anti-communist. It was because groups like the JBS were not involved in promoting or inciting violent activities. For example: Birchers never marched in demonstrations, they never occupied or bombed public buildings or interfered with public speakers, they never spit on or threw rocks at law enforcement officers, they never participated in or condoned or "justified" riots, etc. Just so we're clear, Ernie, when you say the JBS "never" did any of the above, are you saying it was their official policy, therefore they could not have done those things; or are you saying by dent of the type of personality type drawn to the JBS, it just never happened? Mr. LIEBELER - Are you a member or have you ever attended any meetings of the John Birch Society? Mr. PAINE - I am not a member. I have been to one or, I guess chiefly one meeting of theirs. Mr. LIEBELER - Where was that? Mr. PAINE - That was in Dallas? Mr. LIEBELER - When? Mr. PAINE - That was the night Stevenson spoke in Dallas. The CHAIRMAN - When? Mr. PAINE - The night Stevenson spoke in Dallas, U.N. Day. Representative FORD - Was that 1963? Mr. PAINE - Yes, Mr. LIEBELER - Would you tell us the circumstances of your attendance at that meeting and what happened? Mr. PAINE - I had been seeking to go to a Birch meeting for some time, and then I was invited on this night so I went. It was an introductory meeting. Mr. DULLES - On the 9th of November? Mr. PAINE - It was November something, I don't know what, a Wednesday or Thursday night. Mr. LIEBELER - For the record I think the record should indicate that Mr. Stevenson was in Dallas on or about October 24, 1963. Who invited you to this meeting? Mr. PAINE - I had tried once before to go to a meeting which didn't occur. There happens to be a member of our choir, a paid soloist who is a John Birch advocate so I have been applying--so I have been telling her, that I wanted to go. I suppose, I don't remember for certain but I suppose she was the one who told me where and when. Mr. LIEBELER - Did this meeting have anything to do with the activity that occurred at Mr. Stevenson's meeting in Dallas? Mr. PAINE - No. You see they were taking place at the same time. It was rather sparsely attended, most of them were down spitting on Stevenson. Mr. LIEBELER - The Birch meeting which you were down to was sparsely attended? Mr. PAINE - Yes. see also: http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/jfk-f1/the-stevenson-incident-and-the-assassination-t51.htm Edited June 17, 2010 by Ernie Lazar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kelly Posted June 18, 2010 Share Posted June 18, 2010 (edited) Some interesting tidbits about John Birch and Robert Welch. Welch was at Southwest Baptist Theological Seminary in Texas when he was recruited to go to China. "While at Mercer, he decided to become a missionary, and enrolled in Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary at Fort Worth, Texas....A building at the First Baptist Church of Fort Worth, Texas, is named The John Birch Hall..." In April 1942 Lieutenant-Colonel Jimmy Doolittle and his crew crash-landed in China after the Tokyo raid. They had taken off from an aircraft carrier, but flew from Tokyo to China because of lack of fuel, planning to land as best they could. After bailing out, they were rescued by sympathetic Chinese and smuggled by river into Zhejiang province. Birch was told of the survivors, and went to meet them. He assisted them to safety and then helped locate and direct them to friendly territory.When Doolittle arrived in Chongqing, he told Colonel Claire Chennault, leader of the Flying Tigers, about Birch and his help. Chennault said he could use an American for intelligence duties who could speak Chinese and knew the country well. Chennault commissioned Birch as a first lieutenant, although Birch said in a booklater that he was willing to be put in as a private. Birch joined the Fourteenth Air Force on its formation in 1942, and was later seconded to the OSS..... On August 25, as Birch was leading a party of Americans, Chinese Nationalists, and Koreans on a mission to reach Allied personnel in a Japanese prison camp, they were stopped by Chinese Communists near Xi'an. Birch was asked to surrender his revolver; he refused and harsh words and insults were exchanged. Birch was shot and killed; a Chinese Nationalist colleague was also shot and wounded but survived. The rest of the party was imprisoned but released a short time later. Birch was posthumously awarded a Distinguished Service Medal.... Birch's parents had been told that he was killed by a stray bullet, but only after accidently seeing details of his death due to the carelessness of a young military officer. George and Ethel Birch knew that something had gone terribly wrong, and they didn't even know that there had been an official investigation. For five years, Ethel traveled the country grilling those men who served with John, from fellow soldiers to commanding officers. Finally, she wrote to California Senator William Knowland who finally was given access to John Birch's file that was marked "Top Secret." He was so moved by what he saw that he gave a speech on the floor of the Senate on September 5, 1950, berating the government for its cover-up, as the result of bringing John Birch's death to light could have led to different relations with China and North Korea. Nearly ten years after Birch's death, JBS Founder Robert Welch discovered that the death of Captain John Birch had been covered up after reading Knowland's speech. Welch wrote and had published "The Life of John Birch" in 1954.....Welch founded the John Birch Society (JBS) in December 1958.... In October 1965, William F. Buckley, Jr. denounced Welch in his magazine National Review as promoting bizarre conspiracy theories far removed from common sense, and for working with racists like University of Illinois Classics Professor Revilo P. Oliver. While not attacking the members of the society, Buckley attacked Welch in order to prevent his outlandish views from tarnishing the entire conservative movement. Professor Oliver was ousted from the society in a purge of antisemitic and racist members in the early 1960s. Liberal talking heads attacking Robert Welch, the founder of The John Birch Society, for naming Eisenhower a possible communist back in 1950s is becoming quite common. Whether or of MSNBC, we might ask ourselves why now, after nearly sixty years when Welch published The Politician, explaining Eisenhower's meteoritic rise in the military after befriending Roosevelt's daughter. Learn what Robert Welch actually said by reading The Politician. BK: I didn't even know that Roosevelt had a daughter, but it would be interesting if Eisenhower knew her and she helped get him the gig at High Command. It sort of reminds me of Gen. Patraias marrying the West Point Commandant's daughter. Then, When Robert Welch died, Georgia Congressman Larry McDonald became president of the John Birch Society, and became the only member of Congress to be killed by the Communists during the Cold War. …Although conspiracy theories still linger on the Internet, the unanswered questions of this case have long since been settled to the satisfaction of airliner operations experts and government officials. One notable passenger of Flight 007 was Larry McDonald, president of the right-wing John Birch Society and Democratic congressman from Georgia. McDonald believed that international bankers, spearheaded by the Rockefeller family in America, ran both the capitalist US and the Communist USSR in an international economic superstate. A vocal critic of the USSR, McDonald was the founder of the Western Goals Foundation, which was intended to combat the threat from Communism. McDonald was the only U.S. congressman ever killed by the Soviets during the Cold War. North Carolina Senator Jesse Helms and Idaho Senator Steve Symms, both conservative Republicans and Congressman Carroll Hubbard, a Democrat from Kentucky, all staunch critics of the Soviet Union, were scheduled to fly to Seoul on KAL 007, but instead flew on KAL 015 which, with KAL 007, stopped at Anchorage airport for refueling before the next leg of the trip to Seoul. (Shootdown, R.W. Johnson, Viking Penguin, New York, N.Y. 1986, pgs.3,4) While waiting at the airport, Senator Helms even befriended two young American girls, Noelle (5 years old) and Stacy (3 years) Grenfell who were waiting to board KAL 007, not knowing that they had only hours to live. Senator Helms wrote of that meeting - "I'll never forget that night when that plane was just beside ours at Anchorage airport with two little girls and their parents...I taught them, among other things, to say I love you in deaf language, and the last thing they did when they turned the corner was stick up their little hands and tell me they loved me...I'll never forget that.." There is no evidence that the U.S.S.R. knew of the congressman's presence. Also killed was journalist Jack Cox, who co-authored the memoirs of former Nicaraguan President Anastasio Somoza, entitled Nicaragua Betrayed. Congressman McDonald was their publisher…. Edited June 18, 2010 by William Kelly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted June 19, 2010 Share Posted June 19, 2010 Greg: I guess there must be two different people in this forum who use the name Greg Parker since you claim that you "never accused [me] of dishonesty". From message #48:No, but there should be two of me to make up for the two Ernie’s. One who calls memoirs secondary source material, and the other who correctly, but grudgingly, calls them primary sources. Ernie, you have not, as we will see, even been honest, let alone earnest. So, according to you: I am neither serious or honest. Terrific! It was a play on your name, Ernie. You perhaps noticed when you get to that part of my post being referred to, I made no accusation, but simply repeated the question, “Are you mistaken, bluffing or lying?" And that question still stands, should you wish to answer. With respect to my comment which you quoted i.e. "your knowledge is not credible" -- you conveniently forget that I was responding to the data you provided which, I repeat, is not reliable for adequate understanding of the matter we are discussing. It is not "arrogant" to make that observation based upon what you presented. You could say that I am mistaken -- and then present your best case against my conclusion -- which is all I have attempted to do in response to your messages. Bullxxxx. Here’s the way it works. If you disagreed with what I said, you could ask for a citation. But you’re too arrogant to do that, since you believe, without even knowing anything about anyone here, to be above the pack. With respect to all the rest of your comments --- we are just going around in circles and I don't see much point in continuing this discussion. Yeah, I’m sure. However I will make this final observation for anyone who believes Greg's fiction about the FBI not having investigated the White Citizens Councils movement because he found a single document in Goldwater's file and he thinks that the literal text of that one document constitutes everything one needs to know about the matter. In other words, it is not even necessary to review any of the Bureau's White Citizens Council files. My suggestions to interested parties: (1) Send an FOIA request to the FBI for HQ main file #105-34237 which is 2076 pages. (2) Check out serial #2 which is a 1/10/55 memo from A.H. Belmont to L.V. Boardman -- paragraph 4 which states: "The Citizens Council movement is subject of a security investigation which was opened in December 1954." (3) Then check out serial #5 which is a 60-page investigative report by the Memphis field office dated 2/16/55 with copies to New Orleans LA, Birmingham AL, Mobile AL, and Assistant Attorney General William F. Tompkins. (4) Then check out serial #6 which is a 19-page investigative report by the New Orleans field office dated 2/18/55. (5) Then check out serial #8 which is a 3/9/55 memo from J. Edgar Hoover to SAC New Orleans stating: "Inasmuch as investigation is being conducted at the specific request of the Department, it is desired that your investigation be continued." (6) Then check out serial #28 which is a 9/16/55 memo from J. Edgar Hoover to Assistant Attorney General William Tompkins which concludes on page 2 with this paragraph: "We are conducting an investigation of the captioned organization in connection with Executive Order 10450. The Department has been furnished reports in this matter." (7) Then check out serial #422 dated 11/24/58 which summarizes the "investigations" conducted by the Bureau into the White Citizens Councils movement. (8) Then check out serial #440 dated 10/19/62 in which Assistant Attorney General Burke Marshall instructs J. Edgar Hoover to open an investigation on W.J. Simmons, the head of the Association of Citizens Councils of Mississippi. (9) Then check out serial #441 dated 10/23/62 which explains the circumstances under which the Bureau opened "investigations" of the White Citizens Councils. (10) Last -- check out all the various serials which mention all of the field offices who were instructed to provide specific information about the Citizens Councils in their territory (including background on the officers and activities of the group), and offices which were instructed to acquire Citizens Councils publications, newsletters, or to monitor speeches made by Citizens Councils speakers. THEN form your own opinion regarding whether or not Greg Parker's conclusion is accurate. Well, let’s have a look at what I originally said: Ernie, you are absolutely correct that the FBI did not investigate groups like the JBS and White Citizen's Council (amazingly even when they had cause to). What you have demonstrated is that the FBI was ORDERED to investigate the WCC to see if they should be added to the list of organizations designated under Executive Order 10450. The one investigation of the WCC you list past 1963 actually commenced in 1956, so would not have been halted due to any new policy. That really brings us to the hub of the matter. Most here would believe that the FBI showed favoritism to right wing groups – or at very least, was far more aggressive in its efforts against “the Left”. You have helped underline that point here. The FBI would not have undertaken investigations of the WCC if had not been ordered to. You might be impressed by the number of pages these investigations generated, but as the FBI investigation of the assassination shows, the FBI was very good at generating documents that merely serve to sugarcoat, blow smoke, harrass individuals whose evidence they didn't like, and generally avoid or dismiss areas that actually look promising. The one thing you have avoided addressing is this: at the time that the document in the Goldwater file was written (mid 1963) was it or was it not the policy that the FBI did not actively investigate the WCC? Again - just to be clear, the Seaboard investigation doesn't count, as it was an open investigation at the time and would not be halted as the result of a policy change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted June 19, 2010 Share Posted June 19, 2010 As a postscript to my final reply to Greg Parker, I also suggest that interested parties review the following FBI HQ files: (1) 100-423395 = Seaboard White Citizens Council aka White Citizens Council of District of Columbia which is a 1747 page investigative file covering the period from 6/8/56 thru 4/8/65 Also see the following field office investigative files pertaining to the Seaboard White Citizens Council: Baltimore 100-20015 Charlotte 105-0471 Knoxville 105-0122 Mobile 105-0258 Newark 105-3383 Norfolk 105-0242 NYC 105-19792 Philadelphia 105-2702 Pittsburgh 105-1364 Richmond 105-0632 Washington DC field 100-33226 (2) 100-4651 = North Alabama White Citizens Council / Asa Earl Carter -- which is a 1291 page investigative file covering the period from 8/16/56 thru 5/11/71 (3) And the following representative sample of the over 400 investigative files: ALABAMA: 105-45763 = Alabama Citizens Council 105-45103 = Anniston Citizens Council 105-50576 = Autayga County Citizens Council 105-50577 = Baldwin County Citizens Council 105-50579 = Bullock County Citizens Council 105-42756 = Butler County Citizens Council 105-43132 = Central Alabama Citizens Council 105-45984 = Citizens Council of Cullman County 105-44731 = Citizens Council of Easy Birmingham 105-45096 = Citizens Council of Hueytown 105-45069 = Citizens Council of North Birmingham 105-46526 = Citizens Council of Pelham 105-46001 = Citizens Council of Tuscaloosa 105-51293 = Coosa County Citizens Council 105-50583 = Dallas County Citizens Council 105-50591 = Macon County Citizens Council 105-50596 = Mobile County Citizens Council 105-46397 = Sumter County Citizens Council ARKANSAS 105-40673 = White Citizens Council of Arkansas You can find at least some of the Arkansas docs here: http://scipio.uark.edu/cdm4/index_Civilrights.php?CISOROOT=/Civilrights FLORIDA 105-49060 = Bay County Citizens Council 105-47974 = Citizens Council, Chattahoochee 105-46960 = Citizens Council, inc., St. Petersburg 105-51089 = Daytona Beach Citizens Council 105-40391 = Florida Citizens Council 105-52639 = Walton County Citizens Council GEORGIA 105-37158 = States Rights Council of Georgia KENTUCKY 105-50230 = Citizens Councils of Kentucky 105-52849 = White Citizens Council of Henderson County LOUISIANA 105-48558 = Arcadia Citizens Council 105-44536 = Association of Citizens Councils of Louisiana 105-49764 = Bossier City Citizens Council 105-48955 = Citizens Council of Franklin Parrish 105-49770 = Citizens Council of Homer 105-40774 = Citizens Council of New Orleans 105-46604 = Citizens Councils of America 105-51477 = Cotton Valley Citizens Councikl 105-50210 = Plain Dealing Citizens Council 105-45268 = Shreveport Citizens Council MARYLAND 105-52696 = Talbot White Citizens Committee MICHIGAN 105-48111 = Citizens Councils of Michigan MISSISSIPPI 105-54706 = Belzoni Citizens Council 105-54669 = Citizens Council of Crystal Springs 105-54677 = Citizens Council of Greenville 105-54727 = Citizens Council of Greenwood 105-54652 = Indianola Citizens Council 105-54708 = Jackson County Citizens Council 105-54712 = Lauderdale County Citizens Council 105-34237 = Lee County Citizens Council NEW JERSEY 105-51816 = Citizens Council of Newark NORTH CAROLINA 105-40167 = States Rights League of North Carolina OKLAHOMA 105-52777 = Citizens Council of Tulsa 105-41923 = Oklahoma Association of Citizens Councils SOUTH CAROLINA 105-43243 = Allendale County Citizens Council 105-43141 = Charleston Citizens Council, Inc. 105-43716 = North Charleston Citizens Council TENNESSEE 105-44096 = Association of Citizens Councils of Tennessee 105-45769 = States Rights Council of Tennessee 105-53627 = Tennessee White Citizens Councils TEXAS 105-39894 = Association of Citizens Councils of Texas 105-40498 = Citizens Council of Big Springs 105-40876 = Orange County Citizens Council 105-43334 = Texas Citizens Council (Dallas) 105-44696 = Texas White Citizens Council, Houston 105-45671 = Citizens Council of Waco VIRGINIA 105-52860 = Citizens Council of Clarksville 105-53030 = Citizens Council of Newport News 105-49006 = Citizens Councils of Virginia 105-32909 = Defenders of State Sovereignty and Individual Liberties 105-44495 = Fairfax Citizens Council 105-38960 = Virginia League Anyone who would like additional details may contact me directly at: ernie1241@aol.com The ultimate problem with Greg's argument is three-fold: (1) First, he wants to limit the interpretation of the universe of available data to a single document which does not even appear in any of the main files pertaining to White Citizens Council movement or the individual files opened on specific WCC groups. [This makes about as much sense as telling me to rely upon one FBI memo in the FBI's file on columnist Carl Rowan which expresses a favorable opinion of a highly critical article about Rowan published in the Birch Society magazine -- as if THAT was the ONLY pertinent data I needed to review to discover what the Bureau thought about Robert Welch and the Birch Society!] Why would I NOT rely upon it? Regardless of it being a single document; it was an FBI document, and it's wording was explicit and unambiguous. In how many dcuments would it have to be stated before it becomes a fact, according to you? Incidentally, I would like to encourage Greg to provide us with the following information since he is so impressed with this one document which he says is in the Goldwater file: ** What is the file number and serial number? ** If this is an internal FBI memo, please provide the "to" and "from" details (i.e. who wrote the memo and who was it addressed to?) I no longer have the files as they were lost in a computer crash. I downloaded the files from here: www.apbnews.com/media/gfiles/goldwater/docs.html but as you can see by clicking the link, the page no longer exists. (2) Second, since he refuses to answer a first-principles question (i.e. what constitutes an FBI "investigation?") Greg neatly avoids the critical matter of definition of terms so all of us can understand what he (or anybody else) means when they say the FBI "never conducted an investigation" of the WCC. Avoiding? Not at all. You were the one who first stated that the FBI did not investigate the JBS. You did not give your definition of the term. Once again, you are acting as if you are above having to do such things; it is only something that we lesser mortals need to do. Bah! (3) Third, Greg introduces a total non-sequitir. Greg claims that I was limiting the time-frame for the discussion in this entire thread exclusively to the years when Harry Dean claims to have been an FBI informant. There are two problems with that absurdity: (1) I did not state or even hint that any discussion should be limited to specific years. I did, obviously, quote comments made by Harry himself in which HE identified the period of time during which he purported to be an FBI informant but my argument from the beginning was that Harry was NOT an FBI informant -- period -- regardless of what years may be mentioned. As I have explained, I was referring to the period in which Harry claimed to be a member of the JBS. You can call this absurd, but you yourself had already dismissed Harry’s claims based upon your own investigation of FBI files for the relevant period. Of course other years can be discussed – but on the subject of FBI investigations of JBS (and WCC) I took it to be limited to the time of Harry’s involvement. You, of course, are free to now dismiss that notion. Nevertheless it is what I thought at the time. (2) The main dispute between Greg and myself began when Greg introduced the idea that the FBI never investigated either the JBS or WCC "even when they had cause to". That last phrase is so pregnant with meaning. What "cause" might Greg be referring to? As all of us know, there were scores of race-based incidents during the 1950's and 1960's (murders, lynchings, castrations, bombings, voting rights violations, intimidation/threats, etc). When such violations were subject to FBI jurisdiction, the Bureau obviously would want to consider persons who would top their list of "the usual suspects". Now: how would the FBI go about determining the identity of potential suspects in such race-based matters? What sources of reliable information did they possess? If you go back to my previous message which discusses the memo written by Assistant Director Alan Belmont, you will get a clue which would answer that question. The problem here is that the Bureau had many different files which captured data about people they considered security concerns or rabble rousers or violence-prone fanatics. In August 1967 the Bureau started its Rabble Rouser Index (later known as Agitator Index). It was initially described as an Index designed to capture background information about individuals "who have demonstrated by their actions and speeches that they have a propensity for fomenting racial disorder." (SAC Letter 67-47). Here, again, notice the elastic nature of their definition. "Speeches" and "propensity for fomenting racial disorder". A subsequent 1967 SAC Letter (67-70) made the following observations. I underline one key portion for emphasis. "A rabble rouser is defined as a person who tries to arouse people to violent action by appealing to their emotions, prejudices, etc.; a demagogue. You will note that under prior criteria the Rabble Rouser Index served as an index only for individuals of national prominence with particular consideration given to those who travel extensively and was limited to those fomenting racial disorder. It is the intent of this expanded criteria to have within each division as well as nationwide an index of agitators of all types whose activities have a bearing on the national security. This would include, for example, black nationalists, white supremacists, Puerto Rican nationalists, anti-Vietnam demonstration leaders, and other extremists. White Citizens Councils frequently organized functions at which "rabble rousers" would speak and fire up their audiences about "traitors" and "subversives" in government and "unconstitutional usurpations" of "state's rights". These speakers made favorable references to "interposition and nullification" re: de-segregation laws. State legislatures in Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Virginia adopted resolutions of "interposition and nullification," which condemned the U.S. Supreme Court ruling and which stated that they refused to enforce the desegregation of public schools. The Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission worked hand-in-glove with WCC officials to make sure that "agitators" in Mississippi were harassed and intimidated. African American voters were discouraged from exercising their Constitutional rights or were disqualified as eligible voters. [see Neil R. McMillen's 1971 book, The Citizens' Council: Organized Resistance to the Second Reconstruction 1954-1964 for details.] Given this background -- is it so hard to understand WHY the Bureau wanted to keep tabs on the Citizens Council movement -- its leaders, activities, publications, speakers, etc? Especially when the Bureau's top official within their Domestic Intelligence Division was predicting that "extra-legal" activities were likely to commence after the Supreme Court set a date for when de-segregation should be accomplished. No. It's not hard to understand why. But you still have to answer the simple question: at the time of writing (mid 1963) was there or was there not a prohibition on active investiagtions of Citizens Councils as indicated in the Goldwater file? Here is the quote from my review of the first 100 pages of the Goldwater file: An FBI memo headed Administrative Data, (which is undated) stated: "The Mobile Division advised...there was no organization known as the 'White Citizens Council' in Mongomery, Alabama, at the present time. There has been in existence... an organization publicly known as Montgomery Citizens Council' aka 'Montomery County Citizens Council', however the membership of this organization is not known to this office, DUE TO BUREAU REGULATIONS PROHIBITING ACTIVE INVESTIGATION OF CITIZENS COUNCILS [emphasis mine]." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernie Lazar Posted June 19, 2010 Author Share Posted June 19, 2010 (edited) Greg: You make some good points but you continue to ignore the fundamental question which I have repeatedly stated is the one which must FIRST be answered in order to respond to your questions. With respect to this question by you: "The one thing you have avoided addressing is this: at the time that the document in the Goldwater file was written (mid 1963) was it or was it not the policy that the FBI did not actively investigate the WCC? Again - just to be clear, the Seaboard investigation doesn't count, as it was an open investigation at the time and would not be halted as the result of a policy change." I have NOT "avoided addressing" this question. I have explicitly and repeatedly addressed it. As Belmont's memo made very clear, there were exceptions made to what you call "the policy that the FBI did not actively investigate the WCC". Again, I ask you to stop playing games. (1) Tell us, specifically, WHAT constitutes an FBI "active investigation" in your judgment. (2) What information exists in an "investigative file" that DOES NOT exist in a non-investigative file? If you will answer those questions, then I can respond appropriately to you. Otherwise, I cannot do so. With respect to this comment by you: That really brings us to the hub of the matter. Most here would believe that the FBI showed favoritism to right wing groups – or at very least, was far more aggressive in its efforts against “the Left”. You have helped underline that point here. The FBI would not have undertaken investigations of the WCC if had not been ordered to. It is not a question of "favoritism" Greg. And, incidentally, how could you arrive at such a conclusion if you haven't reviewed a significant portion of the FBI files on right-wing groups and right-wing individuals? The reason why the Bureau opened more actual formal investigations of left-wing groups is because (1) the Bureau had more specific information concerning known or suspected Communist Party members who were attempting to infiltrate and use such groups--especially legitimate mass organizations (such as civil rights groups or labor unions) and (2) there was not much factual evidence that right-wing groups (despite their often crazy ideas) advocated, or encouraged, or condoned or promoted illegal activities---particularly violence. The major exception being, of course, KKK-groups. With respect to your comment about being "ordered to" investigate WCC: (1) Well, at least you now admit that your original statement was false. The Bureau DID "investigate" WCC (and many of its leaders!) (2) Your comment ignores the fact that the Bureau opened many investigations of white supremacy organizations (aside from WCC) and white supremacy officials WITHOUT being "ordered to". With respect to the Goldwater file document, you ask: Why would I NOT rely upon it? Regardless of it being a single document; it was an FBI document, and it's wording was explicit and unambiguous. In how many documents would it have to be stated before it becomes a fact, according to you? I am very surprised that you do not already know the answer to this question Greg. But I will try to answer you. (1) Whenever one does historical research, it is always tempting to elevate ONE document to ultimate cosmic truth proportions. But any dynamic situation where circumstances rapidly change will always produce revisions or exceptions to "standing" instructions. (2) We have not even established yet WHO wrote the memo you are referencing (if it is actually a memo??) and if they actually knew the Bureau policy. OR even if they did know the actual Bureau policy, whom were the intended recipients of their memo? It is quite possible that the memo was intended for distribution outside the Bureau (including to Hoover's superiors within the Justice Dept) so, obviously, the author would re-state the official policy which the Department handed down without acknowledging the actual state of affairs --- see below for more details. (3) The Bureau often established general guidelines which allowed for exceptions. Sometimes memos were written in language which could be forwarded outside the Bureau to make it appear that the Bureau was adhering to instructions they received from the Department (i.e. nominally Hoover's superiors) but the ACTUAL policy was different. I previously mentioned, for example, that Hoover was instructed to terminate certain activities and he did so on paper -- but then he instructed subordinates to re-create the same program under a different name. But if you rely upon ONE memo [which does not even originate in the main file of the subject under scrutiny!!!] -- you could easily conclude that the original program WAS terminated. Belmont's memo which I have previously brought to your attention, identified exceptions to the general prohibition against across-the-board official investigation of WCC. But the Bureau was (and is) an intelligence-gathering organization. It cannot function if it does not have factual data about matters relating to its responsibilities. The civil rights laws enacted during Eisenhower's tenure greatly expanded the Bureau's responsibilities and the 1958 Atlanta Temple bombing incident dramatically changed the Bureau's attitude about groups who were considered white supremacy activists. [The original suspects in that bombing were National States Rights Party members--some of whom had connections to the WCC.] But the political sensitivity of formally "investigating" organizations which consisted of very prominent individuals in southern communities (including Governors, state legislators, judges, newspaper publishers, etc.) made it necessary to conduct investigations (in order to acquire intelligence) in a very discreet manner. How come you find the one Goldwater document so compelling (written by somebody whose identity we do not even know!) but you are not interested in the material appearing in the actual main file on the WCC movement? What connection did Goldwater have to the WCC? Why are the thoughts of the Assistant Director of the FBI's Domestic Intelligence Division so unimportant to you? I have the FBI HQ main file on Goldwater. I will attempt to find the document you reference -- which is currently packed in boxes in my apartment. If I can find it, I will respond further. Edited June 19, 2010 by Ernie Lazar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted June 19, 2010 Share Posted June 19, 2010 There are documents in the MSC files that describe some FBI investigations. Often information gathering appear half hearted at best when the agents investigators more or less wandered around shooting the breeze with people and heading home. I think that was the level of investihation that really was possible. The effort to convict Byron DeLaBecwith (and investigate accomplices (ditto Emmett Till)) seemed lacking. Manufacturing tapes of MLK in compromising situations and anonymoisly trying to get him to suicide was from the top, Hoover and Sullivan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernie Lazar Posted June 19, 2010 Author Share Posted June 19, 2010 (edited) Greg: One more matter I need to comment upon. It would be helpful if you would be consistent in your replies. You keep changing the terms of reference for our debate. For example: (1) In message #11 you made a categorical statement that the Bureau never investigated WCC (2) In message #35 you criticized my reference to "1950's data" and you then challenged me to "provide examples from 1963 which shows it to be a lie concocted by the FBI author of the [Goldwater file] document" you referenced. I challenge your notion that contradictory evidence can only be evidence of "a lie" concerning this matter. (3) I gave you two examples of investigative files pertaining to WCC organizations which included material from the 1960's or beyond -- but then you changed the rules again. (4) In message #66, you stated that: "The one investigation of the WCC you list past 1963 actually commenced in 1956, so would not have been halted due to any new policy" AND "the Seaboard investigation doesn't count as it was an open investigation at the time and would not be halted as the result of a policy change." (-a-) First of all, I gave you TWO examples of post-1963 investigations: Seaboard WCC and North Alabama WCC which was Asa Carter's group. (See more below). (-b-) Can you give us some substantiation for your claim that when the Bureau declared a new policy which was intended to end investigations, it DID NOT apply to existing or "open" investigations? Perhaps you have seen documents different from what I have seen? I have seen many investigative files CLOSED immediately or after one final summary report after receipt of HQ memos concerning a change in policy. (-c-) EVEN IF we accept your unproven predicate, it still does not change the accuracy of my original assertion -- even though you keep changing the rules for our debate. The basic point is still this: The Bureau DID investigate the WCC movement. It opened HUNDREDS of HQ and field files devoted to each individual WCC chapter --and-- it also opened other files to capture data about the statewide organizations --and-- it opened SCORES of individual investigative files about specific officials of, or key figures connected to, the WCC movement -- such as W.J. Simmons, Louis Hollis, Medford Evans, Robert Patterson, Tom Brady, Mary Cain, Sam Englehardt, Leander Perez, Lester Maddox, Walter Givhan, Cong. John Rarick, Millard D. Grubbs, William S. Stephenson, John Kasper, Asa Earl Carter, Peter L. Xavier, Ned Touchstone, John J. Synon, John C. Satterfield, Roy V. Harris, and many more. It also opened files on WCC publications, such as Ned Touchstone's "The Councilor" and numerous persons who were speakers at WCC functions. In addition, the Bureau opened generic files to capture information about the segregation movement (HQ 62-101087) and pro-segregation organizations such as Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission. As yet another example which disproves your theory: one of the major files opened pertained to National Citizens Protective Association. The Bureau never was "ordered" to open a file on it and the investigative reports continued through 1964. A separate file was opened on its newsletter, The White Sentinel. Many of the individuals connected to NCPA were affiliated with WCC organizations. And numerous field offices also opened files on NCPA. Another example: Greater Los Angeles Citizens Council -- a 573 page file (Los Angeles field 157-0901) opened 6/9/64 which was closed 9/24/73. Another example: North Carolina Defenders of States’ Rights, Inc which was, admittedly, a small file, but nevertheless, the documents cover the period through 1965. Another example: White Citizens Council of Dallas Aka Texas Citizens Council -- whose serials continue through 1969. Another example: Citizens Council of Greater New Orleans -- whose serials continue through 1966. Another example: Citizens Councils of Louisiana -- whose serials continue through 1966. Edited June 19, 2010 by Ernie Lazar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernie Lazar Posted June 19, 2010 Author Share Posted June 19, 2010 ANOTHER CHALLENGE FOR GREG PARKER: I did not want to bring this up until I found a document which I requested in 2006 and which I received in April 2007. I have now found it. I asked the FBI to give me a list of all persons who requested any FBI field office file or the FBI HQ file on the JBS -- including dates when they received documents (if any). I can now report that Greg Parker's name DOES NOT appear on that list of previous requesters. Consequently, when Greg states categorically in message #11 that... "Ernie, you are absolutely correct that the FBI did not investigate groups like the JBS and White Citizen's Council (amazingly even when they had cause to)." ------ one wonders how Greg arrived at his conclusion? Perhaps Greg will tell us that he requested and received JBS files from the FBI after April 2007? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernie Lazar Posted June 19, 2010 Author Share Posted June 19, 2010 A BRIEF RECAP OF MY DISPUTE WITH GREG PARKER Since this debate has produced dozens of messages. I think it would be helpful to quickly summarize what is in dispute. 1. Greg Parker introduced the topic of White Citizens Councils -- not me. 2. Greg initially stated that the FBI never investigated the WCC movement. 3. I have repeatedly asked Greg to define what he considers an FBI "investigation" but, understandably, he has refused to do so 4. Obviously, Greg is afraid that if he provides any specific definition, then I might be able to falsify his understanding of this matter because I actually have dozens of FBI files pertaining to the White Citizens Council movement whereas he does not. Consequently, Greg is afraid to specify anything which I then might be able to use to definitively refute his conclusion --- by quoting from actual FBI files. 5. In an effort to divert attention from his unwillingness to define his terms, Greg has accused me of arrogance and dishonesty. But wouldn't it be a much more compelling and productive argument if Greg simply explained what HE considers the type of data which is developed ONLY through an actual FBI "investigation"? 6. If Greg is CORRECT -- THEN obviously I will not be able to quote any material from FBI files in my possession to dispute Greg's explanation of what constitutes an FBI "investigation". And, consequently, I will just candidly acknowledge that Greg is correct and I have been mistaken -- and our debate will be ended. 7. So why is Greg reluctant to define his terms? Dictionary definition of investigation: To observe or inquire into in detail; examine systematically. To make a detailed inquiry or systematic examination. SYNONYMS for "investigation" from Thesaurus: "A seeking of knowledge, data, or the truth about something: inquest, inquiry, inquisition, probe, research." "A close or systematic study: analysis, examination, inspection, review, survey." SYNONYMS for "investigate" analyze examine explore interrogate search PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE METHODOLOGY TO RESOLVE OUR DISPUTE: 1. Even Greg now acknowledges that the FBI did investigate the WCC during the 1950's because, he says, it was "ordered" to do so. 2. Therefore, if Greg agrees, I will be happy to summarize the data contained in the first investigative report about the WCC movement (the 60-page Memphis field investigative report which I have previously referenced). 3. THEN Greg can identify which type(s) of data contained in that report would ONLY be obtained through an official "FBI investigation" -- so we both can agree on our terms of reference and quickly resolve our dispute. Fair enough?. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted June 20, 2010 Share Posted June 20, 2010 Greg: You make some good points but you continue to ignore the fundamental question which I have repeatedly stated is the one which must FIRST be answered in order to respond to your questions. With respect to this question by you: "The one thing you have avoided addressing is this: at the time that the document in the Goldwater file was written (mid 1963) was it or was it not the policy that the FBI did not actively investigate the WCC? Again - just to be clear, the Seaboard investigation doesn't count, as it was an open investigation at the time and would not be halted as the result of a policy change." I have NOT "avoided addressing" this question. I have explicitly and repeatedly addressed it. As Belmont's memo made very clear, there were exceptions made to what you call "the policy that the FBI did not actively investigate the WCC". Okay. Presumably this is what you are referring to: Belmont then summarizes the policy of the FBI: “Current Bureau policy is that we do not investigate groups that advocate or employ legal means to achieve their objectives; however, where advisable the field is authorized to investigate organizations established for purpose of combating or advocating affirmative action against racial minorities. Such groups activities may result in civil rights violations and in cases such as these organizations it is believed desirable that determination of those involved be made and any activities of the organization be followed. This investigative background will be most useful in the event civil rights violations should occur in the future in connection with their activities. By letter dated 3-22-55, twelve southern offices were informed of the rapid spread of these groups and were instructed to be alert for the formation of such organizations in their territory. These offices were instructed that upon receipt of such information to advise the Bureau immediately by letter setting forth pertinent data concerning the organization and officers thereof. No investigation was to be conducted without prior Bureau authority.” Let’s analyze that in view of what you state in one of your multiple responses. In post #68 you make the observation that: It is quite possible that the memo [to which I was referring – my insersion] was intended for distribution outside the Bureau (including to Hoover's superiors within the Justice Dept) so, obviously, the author would re-state the official policy which the Department handed down without acknowledging the actual state of affairs --- see below for more details. (3) The Bureau often established general guidelines which allowed for exceptions. Sometimes memos were written in language which could be forwarded outside the Bureau to make it appear that the Bureau was adhering to instructions they received from the Department (i.e. nominally Hoover's superiors) but the ACTUAL policy was different. It appears from the subject matter and language that the Belmont memo was written for the Justice Dept. Is that correct? Now let’s look at the Bureau’s efforts in the matters under investigation in the Goldwater file, and see how well they do against Belmont’s policy summation: The Mobile office advised the Chicago office that they did not have a membership list of the local WCC because of Bureau regs prohibiting active investigation of that organization. Was the Mobile Office not one of the 12 “Southern Offices” instructed per Belmont’s memo to maintain pertinent data on the WCC? Or was Belmont’s memo just so much BS for dept consumption? Again, I ask you to stop playing games. What games would they be, Ernie? All I’ve asked you to do is answer “yes” or “no” as to whether the Mobile Office was being truthful. (1) Tell us, specifically, WHAT constitutes an FBI "active investigation" in your judgment. (2) What information exists in an "investigative file" that DOES NOT exist in a non-investigative file? If you will answer those questions, then I can respond appropriately to you. Otherwise, I cannot do so. It does not matter what I think. I’m asking you to respond to what the Mobile Office of the FBI said. That you continue to try and switch the spotlight from the FBI to me, is flattering, but in the end, just part of your game to avoid answering a simple question. With respect to this comment by you: That really brings us to the hub of the matter. Most here would believe that the FBI showed favoritism to right wing groups – or at very least, was far more aggressive in its efforts against “the Left”. You have helped underline that point here. The FBI would not have undertaken investigations of the WCC if had not been ordered to. It is not a question of "favoritism" Greg. And, incidentally, how could you arrive at such a conclusion if you haven't reviewed a significant portion of the FBI files on right-wing groups and right-wing individuals? There you go again with assumptions pulled from thin air. The reason why the Bureau opened more actual formal investigations of left-wing groups is because (1) the Bureau had more specific information concerning known or suspected Communist Party members who were attempting to infiltrate and use such groups--especially legitimate mass organizations (such as civil rights groups or labor unions) and (2) there was not much factual evidence that right-wing groups (despite their often crazy ideas) advocated, or encouraged, or condoned or promoted illegal activities---particularly violence. The major exception being, of course, KKK-groups. The JBS, and similar groups, were the public face of the Far Right, and for the main part, kept at arms length from the more militant groups. Sometimes the militant groups were breakaway groups, split from groups such as the JBS only to have that militancy as one method of advancing the cause, while being able to maintain plausible deniability. In other cases, you had individuals dropping out of such organizations (or simply not joining to start with) so that they could work “underground”. This happened in the Left as well – with even Oswald offering to go “underground” for the Far Left. Here was yet another method employed to recruit from the JBS into the Minutemen. “One of the most dramatic cases of a shift in ideology is evident in Cindy Decker’s story. Cindy first got involved in politics through a family friend who was active in the John Birch Society. This woman helped sponsor Cindy to attend the Freedom School in Colorado Springs. Cindy says the two weeks she spent there “changed my life.” She was exposed to ideas she had never heard about before. She says, “It hadn’t occurred to me that not having a government was a viable alternative… [or] that not having a God was a viable alternative… I got my mind blown all at once and no drugs!” As a result of these experiences Cindy changed from being a Bircher to a Libertarian. Cindy also met her future husband at the Freedom School. Together they became involved with the Minutemen…” A generation divided: the new left, the new right, and the 1960s By Rebecca E. Klatch I submit on these grounds that the reasoning for not investigating such groups was spurious. I would further submit that your support for such spurious reasoning makes you look rather like an FBI apologist (willing when cornered to offer up limited hangouts). On favoritism… let’s again look at what we find in the Goldwater file: It shows that most of the victims of the threats just happened to be on the Security Index. The FBI dragged it’s feet in investigating the threats, but through the persistence of a couple of those people, were forced to seek advice from the AG’s office, The advice received was that the threats were too non’s specific to take any action. The FBI break the land speed record in conveying this to the victims. However, further persistence forced them to obtain another opinion. This time, the advice was that the offenses were indeed prosecutable. So how did the FBI react to this? THEY ARGUED AGAINT THAT ADVICE! This was not a “one off” deal. The same type of favorable treatment is seen again and again in the FBI investigation into the assassination. With respect to your comment about being "ordered to" investigate WCC: (1) Well, at least you now admit that your original statement was false. The Bureau DID "investigate" WCC (and many of its leaders!) I have never denied it. Again – when I said the FBI did not investigate the WCC, I was referring to a specific time period which I thought was understood, but which I now know was not. I could not comment about the 1950s even if I had wanted to, because I had not seen the information you have since provided. (2) Your comment ignores the fact that the Bureau opened many investigations of white supremacy organizations (aside from WCC) and white supremacy officials WITHOUT being "ordered to". I’m sure they did when they knew avoiding doing it would cause them harm (e.g. criticism). Absent such a fear, and as the Goldwater file shows, they avoided it like the plague. With respect to the Goldwater file document, you ask: Why would I NOT rely upon it? Regardless of it being a single document; it was an FBI document, and it's wording was explicit and unambiguous. In how many documents would it have to be stated before it becomes a fact, according to you? I am very surprised that you do not already know the answer to this question Greg. But I will try to answer you. (1) Whenever one does historical research, it is always tempting to elevate ONE document to ultimate cosmic truth proportions. But any dynamic situation where circumstances rapidly change will always produce revisions or exceptions to "standing" instructions. Yet you quote a mid ‘50s Belmont memo as evidence I am wrong about what happened almost a decade later? Were there no “rapid changes” in those 8 to 10 years? Was this period an exception to your rule? (2) We have not even established yet WHO wrote the memo you are referencing (if it is actually a memo??) and if they actually knew the Bureau policy. I noted in my review it was captioned as “Administrative Data”. OR even if they did know the actual Bureau policy, whom were the intended recipients of their memo? It was at least in part, a summary of advice received by the Chicago office from the “Mobile Division”. It is quite possible that the memo was intended for distribution outside the Bureau (including to Hoover's superiors within the Justice Dept) so, obviously, the author would re-state the official policy which the Department handed down without acknowledging the actual state of affairs --- see below for more details. Whilst this may be true of the document I quoted, it would not have been true of the memo IT quoted which was sent from Mobile to Chicago office advising that they did not have a list of WCC of members and WHY they didn’t (i.e. due to FBI policy…). THAT memo was for internal use only – i.e. advice from one office to another. (3) The Bureau often established general guidelines which allowed for exceptions. Sometimes memos were written in language which could be forwarded outside the Bureau to make it appear that the Bureau was adhering to instructions they received from the Department (i.e. nominally Hoover's superiors) but the ACTUAL policy was different. Answered above. I previously mentioned, for example, that Hoover was instructed to terminate certain activities and he did so on paper -- but then he instructed subordinates to re-create the same program under a different name. But if you rely upon ONE memo [which does not even originate in the main file of the subject under scrutiny!!!] -- you could easily conclude that the original program WAS terminated. Belmont's memo which I have previously brought to your attention, identified exceptions to the general prohibition against across-the-board official investigation of WCC. But the Bureau was (and is) an intelligence-gathering organization. It cannot function if it does not have factual data about matters relating to its responsibilities. Answered above. The civil rights laws enacted during Eisenhower's tenure greatly expanded the Bureau's responsibilities and the 1958 Atlanta Temple bombing incident dramatically changed the Bureau's attitude about groups who were considered white supremacy activists. [The original suspects in that bombing were National States Rights Party members--some of whom had connections to the WCC.] But the political sensitivity of formally "investigating" organizations which consisted of very prominent individuals in southern communities (including Governors, state legislators, judges, newspaper publishers, etc.) made it necessary to conduct investigations (in order to acquire intelligence) in a very discreet manner. Then this change of attitude is noticeably absent in the Goldwater file pertaining to the early ‘60s. How come you find the one Goldwater document so compelling (written by somebody whose identity we do not even know!) but you are not interested in the material appearing in the actual main file on the WCC movement? I obviously knew the identity at the time I wrote the review. I did not plan on having a computer crash, nor did my crystal ball tell me I would one day be having this debate. What connection did Goldwater have to the WCC? Why are the thoughts of the Assistant Director of the FBI's Domestic Intelligence Division so unimportant to you? The suspect groups were “allegedly” supporters of Goldwater. One of the victims even wrote to Goldwater asking him to publically denounce the actions of his supporters. I have the FBI HQ main file on Goldwater. I will attempt to find the document you reference -- which is currently packed in boxes in my apartment. If I can find it, I will respond further. Very good. I look forward to seeing what you make of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kelly Posted June 20, 2010 Share Posted June 20, 2010 (edited) Maybe Ernie has something going here, and Harry Dean really wasn't working undercover for the FBI, as he thought, but maybe he was False Flagged by another agency? Since the CIA isn't allowed to operate in the USA, though they certainly did with MKULTRA, Domestic Contacts Division, CIAir, the International Operations Division, and with defense contractors, it is more likely that any penetration of such radical groups by an infiltrator would be run by military intelligence - US Army Intelligence and Reserves. One of the stated purposes of the JBS, according to Robert Welch, was to oppose a world government, and by extension, the United Nations, precisely the promotional aim of the World Federalists, co-founded by WWII hero Cord Meyer, and a national organization that also included other such players like Ruth Forbes Paine Young (Michael's mom), Priscilla Johnson McMillan and Walter Cronkite. It is my contention that they didn't have to infiltrate the JBS or the World Federalists with informers because they controlled it from the top - through Cord Meyer (CIA) and Robert Welch (ONI). But Harry Dean was certainly reporting to someone, and if not the FBI or the CIA then who was running him? I would suggest it was US Army CI, who had liason with every local police department in the USA, including Dallas, via Capt. Gannaway. But that's just a hunch. And besides Harry calling attention to such interesting characters as Hall, Seymore, Rousellouet, the Medal of Honor hero Guy Gab, and the Austin Barbeque JBSer who employed Tippitt, he may have been just as confused as Oswald as to who he was really working for. Which brings me to Norman Lee Elkins, who was the only person officially identified by the FBI as potential threat to the president and reported to Secret Service on October 30, 1963 (with photo) [see: CE 836/CE 2583] Elkins apparently made a remark against Kennedy and was investigated by the Dallas PD intelligence division (Gannaway, Revell) and an undercover informant, who reported they checked with Elkins and he said he wasn't going to be in Dallas when the president was there, apparently taking his word for it. But it appears that Elkins, despite the lack of anything among the JFK records, was a student who was himself recruited into one of the radical right wing groups like JBS, and may have been involved in the anti-Stevenson/UN riot. I also find it significant that they went out of their way to review the news film and photos of these demonstrators to try to determine who they were, and Elkin's photo, though mentioned in the documents released, is not included among the released records. So there is more. And then there's Revilo P. Oliver, an early JBS instigator whose name has the unique attribute of being spelled the same foreward and backwards, and whose lenghly testimony before the Warren Commission established the fact that his published rantings condemning Oswald as a Castro-Communist agent was based on information obtained from one Frank A. Capell, a US Army Intelligence officer. On a Final Note I leave you with this little ditty: Dylan wrote this about the John Birch Society, an ultraconservative political organization formed in 1958 to fight Communist threats in the US. This is a parody of the organization, which Dylan thought was a threat to free speech because they accused anyone they didn't like of being a communist. In the '50s and '60s, many famous musicians, including Elvis Presley, The Beatles, The Doors and The Rolling Stones, appeared on The Ed Sullivan Show. Dylan never did, and this is the song that kept him off. On May 12, 1963, he was scheduled to appear on the show, but refused to go on when they would not let him perform this. Advance copies of the album Freewheelin' Bob Dylan included this song, but it was removed prior to the official release. It did not officially appear on an album until Bootleg Series in 1991. (thanks, Brad Wind - Miami, FL) http://www.songfacts...tail.php?id=686 Series in 1991. (thanks, Brad Wind - Miami, FL) Send "Talkin' John Birch Paranoid Blues" Ringtone to your Cell - /songs/talkin-john-birch-paranoid-blues Talkin' Joh n Birch Paranoid Blues Well, I was feelin' sad and feelin' blue I didn't know what in the world I wus gonna do Them Communists they wus comin' around They wus in the air They wus on the ground They wouldn't gimme no peace . . . So I run down most hurriedly And joined up with the John Birch Society I got me a secret membership card And started off a-walkin' down the road Yee-hoo, I'm a real John Bircher now! Look out you Commies! Now we all agree with Hitler's views Although he killed six million Jews It don't matter too much that he was a Fascist At least you can't say he was a Communist! That's to say like if you got a cold you take a shot of malaria Well, I wus lookin' everywhere for them gol-darned Reds I got up in the mornin' 'n' looked under my bed Looked in the sink, behind the door Looked in the glove compartment of my car Couldn't find 'em . . . I wus lookin' high an' low for them Reds everywhere I wus lookin' in the sink an' underneath the chair I looked way up my chimney hole I even looked deep down inside my toilet bowl They got away . . . Well, I wus sittin' home alone an' started to sweat Figured they wus in my T.V. set Peeked behind the picture frame Got a shock from my feet, hittin' right up in the brain Them Reds caused it! I know they did . . . them hard-core ones Well, I quit my job so I could work all alone Then I changed my name to Sherlock Holmes Followed some clues from my detective bag And discovered they wus red stripes on the American flag! That ol' Betsy Ross . . . Well, I investigated all the books in the library Ninety percent of 'em gotta be burned away I investigated all the people that I knowed Ninety-eight percent of them gotta go The other two percent are fellow Birchers . . . just like me Now Eisenhower, he's a Russian spy Lincoln, Jefferson and that Roosevelt guy To my knowledge there's just one man That's really a true American: George Lincoln Rockwell I know for a fact he hates Commies cus he picketed the movie Exodus Well, I fin'ly started thinkin' straight When I run outa things to investigate Couldn't imagine doin' anything else So now I'm sittin' home investigatin' myself! Hope I don't find out anything . . . hmm, great God! Copyright © 1970 by Special Rider Music; renewed 1998 by Special Rider Music Edited June 20, 2010 by William Kelly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted June 20, 2010 Share Posted June 20, 2010 http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=36751075 bob dylan Talkin' Joh n Birch Paranoid Blues Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now