David Talbot's posting today from Italy

[Larry Hancock]

Ron, first its Ernie Lazar who just posted after I had messaged him for information.  I consider Ernie our resident expert on the FBI. As  you can see from his post Division 5 is probably best described as domestic intelligence focused on national security issues including espionage, subversion and sabotage - and at times also tasked with "loyalty issues".  I suspect they are the ones who also do background checks for security clearances such as the early AEC Q clearances and individual clearances for the military, government personnel etc.

My reference to counter intelligence in regard to the CIA was to the CIA CIA groups, not just Angleton's mole hunting people but CI information that would come from the various geographic "desks" of the Agency such as the Russian desks. I do know that Angleton was a liaison on that but its unclear how active he was, he appears to have done nothing on Tumbleweed (which is mentioned in SWHT 2010 but not sure where off the top of my head),

Since I'm in this thread now I would also toss in that if one is looking at Underhill and mysterious Golden Triangle connections Henry Hecksher had far more time and clout in the Golden Triangle than Lucian Conein, being assigned there for some very special activities after being essentially forced out as Station Chief in Laos over his conflicts with State there. Given that he had worked in MC during the Cuba project and had been assigned to head AM/WORLD, in direct charge of Artime and his people - including Felix Rodriquez - that's a very interesting  place to look.  And he is in SWHT and also Shadow Warfare. 

 

[David Andrews]

In more sensationalist writing about intel ops, Division Five gets credited with black bag work (office and home break-ins, document theft or photography, and related arts) in both the cold war and Cointelpro periods, and is sometimes cited as a domestic death squad.  The death squad business is chiefly what I meant by "rumors."  That's why I brought Division Five up after Cliff's post above, and I think these rumors are what Paul was interested in.  It's great to get the organizational facts from Ernie and Larry, but what about the rumors?

Mae Brussell bought into the rumors, yet the places where she couldn't separate fact from paranoia, and so disseminated both, are the weakest parts of her research and the least useful parts of her writing and broadcasting.

Edited June 26, 2017 by David Andrews

[Larry Hancock]

David if you want to get away from that sort of sensationalism I would recommend the following book which relates some of the really nasty stuff that was done - but keeps it within the realm of reality.

https://www.amazon.com/Spying-America-Domestic-Counterintelligence-Program/dp/0275934071/ref=mt_hardcover?_encoding=UTF8&me=

 

 

[Paul Brancato]

any  correlation between FBI division 5 and DISC - defense industrial security command?

[Larry Hancock]

Paul, I have gone over that time and time again trying to find something real in it, most recently with Russ Baker who was looking to find something substantive on it and to date neither of us has and it seems like DISC is largely a myth.  Certainly the FBI would have had internal security responsibilities under the Industrial Security Act of 1957 and more recently there is an agency with something of a similar name.  

If you find anything on it outside the Torbett document and the conspiracy community let me know.  There is a DISCO which stores security and backround records on contractors but that is a far different thing. 

 

 

[Ernie Lazar]

1 hour ago, Larry Hancock said:

David if you want to get away from that sort of sensationalism I would recommend the following book which relates some of the really nasty stuff that was done - but keeps it within the realm of reality.

https://www.amazon.com/Spying-America-Domestic-Counterintelligence-Program/dp/0275934071/ref=mt_hardcover?_encoding=UTF8&me=

 

 

If you use half.com to purchase this book, it is available in good condition for as little as 75 cents plus shipping.

[Ernie Lazar]

39 minutes ago, Larry Hancock said:

Paul, I have gone over that time and time again trying to find something real in it, most recently with Russ Baker who was looking to find something substantive on it and to date neither of us has and it seems like DISC is largely a myth.  Certainly the FBI would have had internal security responsibilities under the Industrial Security Act of 1957 and more recently there is an agency with something of a similar name.  

If you find anything on it outside the Torbett document and the conspiracy community let me know.  There is a DISCO which stores security and backround records on contractors but that is a far different thing. 

 

 

It would be fun to learn how all this stuff gets started.  Specifically:  if there was a unit called DISC which was organized by the FBI, then why is it not mentioned in ANY FBI file?  For example:  every Division and every field office of the FBI was subject to an annual inspection (sometimes more often when problems were found).  

Those inspections usually took 10 to 21 days to complete.  The inspections of HQ units (the Divisions and their sub-sections) would always describe each section and the personnel assigned as Supervisors and Section Chiefs.  In addition, there would be statistical summaries to reflect whether or not Bureau objectives were being met.  For example: within each Division, the clerical staff was evaluated in terms of their error rate (typing speed and data input).  Dictation by Agents was evaluated in terms of their clarity, grammar, syntax.

The number of cases assigned to each field office or HQ unit were specified along with the delinquency rate.  The percentage of overtime for each employee (compared to last inspection) would be discussed.  And, in the Security Division (aka Domestic Intelligence Division), there were statistical summaries regarding the number of informants developed (racial, security, criminal, ghetto), as well potential informants, the number of double agents, and each Bureau program was discussed in detail.

Keep in mind that all this information was developed for internal use only.  It was not sent outside the Bureau.  Then, each Assistant Director responsible for such matters would receive a letter from Hoover summarizing what the inspections revealed (good and bad) and what changes or improvements needed to be made.

CONSEQUENTLY:  

(1)  How is it possible for an alleged program or unit (such as DISC) to be TOTALLY absent from ALL inspection reports as well as absent from all memos/reports circulated among the senior management of the Bureau -- such as nothing in the FBI file pertaining to Executive Conference meetings (which consisted of Hoover, Tolson, and the Assistant Directors)?

(2)  How is it possible that no former Assistant Director or Section Chief who has written a memoir about his FBI service has ever written a single word about DISC?

(3)  How is it possible for our nation's foremost scholars about FBI history (such as Dr. Athan Theoharis) to have absolutely no knowledge about the existence of DISC? 

(4)  Lastly, how is it possible that the FBI files on the persons supposedly involved with DISC (such as former SAC Guy Banister, former Assistant Director William C. Sullivan, David Ferrie, Clay Shaw etc) -- never mention DISC?

Edited June 26, 2017 by Ernie Lazar

[David Andrews]

2 hours ago, Larry Hancock said:

David if you want to get away from that sort of sensationalism I would recommend the following book which relates some of the really nasty stuff that was done - but keeps it within the realm of reality.

https://www.amazon.com/Spying-America-Domestic-Counterintelligence-Program/dp/0275934071/ref=mt_hardcover?_encoding=UTF8&me=

 

 

Larry, what are the best FBI books for the period 1980-present?  Counterterrorism emphasis a plus.

Edited June 26, 2017 by David Andrews

[Paul Brancato]

Or is DISC Defense Intelligence Security Command? I'm not disputing anything said by Ernie or Larry or anyone else. Just wonder whether FBI records are the wrong place to look. Possibly DIA? 

Is Rod MacKenIe considered a kook? Is there any reason to think he is telling the truth in his book 'The Men That Don't Fit In'?

[Paul Brancato]

I think I can safely answer my own question about MacKenzie. Phony is a better description than kook, or possibly disinformation agent.

Edited June 26, 2017 by Paul Brancato

[Larry Hancock]

To Paul...I've seen nothing to suggest its real.  On the other hand if somebody has a copy and wants to cite some sources, including anything that actually documents that DISC existed in a form that would support his story I'd be happy to pursue it.

To David, actually I reviewed a lot of the more contemporary books on the FBI when I wrote Surprise Attack and I really was not satisfied by any of them, way too much attitude and agenda in most of it.  Bashing is easy to do when you tackle these subjects but an even handed, objective inquiry is hard to find. I found more balance in the books dealing with counterterriorism across both the CIA and FBI, and those are what I used as sources. I would recommend The Art if Intelligence by Harry Crumpton and Against All Enemies by Richard Clarke.

Also, as I have done before I for anyone who is serious and wants to see the larger picture of intelligence in the real world, I recommend The US Intelligence Community by Jeffrey Richelson but get the seventh edition which is most current.  Actually the sheer fact that the man has written seven editions should tell you he knows what is real and what isn't.

 

 

To

[David Andrews]

Larry - thanks.  I've read the Crumpton book and gotten a lot out of it.  I'll have to re-read Richard Clarke to see why you would recommend it. It struck me as a bit empty, like Louis Freeh's My FBI, but I should review Clarke in light of what I've read since his book came out.

One book I got a bit out of is Matt Apuzzo, Enemies Within: Inside the NYPD's Secret Spying Unit and Bin Laden's Final Plot against America, which gives good background on the interworkings of CIA and FBI with NYPD prior to 9/11.

How do you feel about the portrayal of FBI in Peter Lance's books?

Edited June 26, 2017 by David Andrews

[Larry Hancock]

I thought his first book, 1,000 Years for Revenge, was good and tallied quite well with the other sources I found credible - the others seem to be a little repetitive in some areas but do have a more specific individual focus.  As to Clarke I thought his personal take on what it took to get the FBI's attention was very much on target - but my endorsement there is specifically in regard to the comparison between FBI CT under Clinton and Bush. I think we can get some good insights on FBI and CT from these books, but I don't see anything that gives me a broad, objective view of everything the Burueau is doing these days.  Then again I haven't looked really recently so I may be missing that. I do know I'm always more impressed by a book like that that reviews both successes and failures, losses and wins. That was one thing I liked about Clarke.

[Ernie Lazar]

1 hour ago, Larry Hancock said:

To Paul...I've seen nothing to suggest its real.  On the other hand if somebody has a copy and wants to cite some sources, including anything that actually documents that DISC existed in a form that would support his story I'd be happy to pursue it.

To David, actually I reviewed a lot of the more contemporary books on the FBI when I wrote Surprise Attack and I really was not satisfied by any of them, way too much attitude and agenda in most of it.  Bashing is easy to do when you tackle these subjects but an even handed, objective inquiry is hard to find. I found more balance in the books dealing with counterterriorism across both the CIA and FBI, and those are what I used as sources. I would recommend The Art if Intelligence by Harry Crumpton and Against All Enemies by Richard Clarke.

Also, as I have done before I for anyone who is serious and wants to see the larger picture of intelligence in the real world, I recommend The US Intelligence Community by Jeffrey Richelson but get the seventh edition which is most current.  Actually the sheer fact that the man has written seven editions should tell you he knows what is real and what isn't.

 

 

To

One has to distinguish between three types of books (or doctoral dissertations) pertaining to the FBI

(1)  The sensationalist crap written by people like Anthony Summers -- who regurgitate every rumor, every bit of gossip, and voluminous hearsay about Hoover and/or the FBI.  

These books rarely (if ever) uncover any NEW information because the authors have done no fact-based independent research into FBI files, nor have they visited archives at colleges and universities and other institutions, and they rarely (if ever) interview any living FBI officials.  Sometimes, however, they credulously quote disgruntled former FBI Special Agents (without verifying their assertions and accusations).

A sub-set of this genre are the books and articles authored by former FBI employees who are best described as malcontents.  This would include former Agents like Jack Levine and William W. Turner.  However, when careful research is undertaken about these folks, you will usually discover that they worked at the FBI for very short periods of time and/or they never had extensive exposure to the type of cases about which they claim to be an expert.

My favorite example of this type is Jack Levine.

In 1962, former FBI Agent Jack Levine made comments (after he resigned from the FBI) which were widely repeated in books and articles (see for example, the October 20, 1962 issue of The Nation magazine for Levine's article entitled "Hoover and the Red Scare").

Some very well-known and respected scholars repeated Levine's comments regarding the number of FBI informants inside the CPUSA.  Levine declared that 1500 of the 8500 members of the CPUSA were paid FBI informants and, consequently, the FBI was the single largest financial contributor (from dues payments) to the Communist Party in our country.
 
Domestic Intelligence Division Inspection Reports (and the NYC field file on CPUSA membership) establish that there were only 401 FBI informants inside the CPUSA in 1962 and the Party had only 5164 members at that time.  
 
Levine was employed by the FBI from September 12, 1960 through August 4, 1961 and then he resigned.  

Since FBI Agents usually have a minimum of 13 or 14 weeks of "New Agent" training classes before being assigned to a field office, that means Levine had a maximum of EIGHT MONTHS work experience within the FBI.  Typically, a new Special Agent is assigned to work on what is known as "applicant cases" and bankruptcy cases and perhaps some general criminal cases during his first 2 or 3 field office assignments.  In addition, most new Special Agents are often transferred from their first field office assignment within 8-12 weeks.  I have often seen examples where a new Agent was literally transferred 5 or 6 times within a 2-3 year period.

Jack Levine never worked at FBI HQ in Division 5 (where Agents had access to classified information regarding CPUSA membership numbers and the actual number of FBI informants inside the Party.)

Pulitzer-Prize winning historian (David J. Garrow) sent me an email making the following observations about this matter after I sent him data which falsified what Levine wrote:

Hi--This is superb--thank you tremendously for e-mailing me! First off, I'm not at all surprised by the informant numbers. On present-day reflection those make *much* more sense than the Levine #, and Levine of course was not a Division 5 HQ guy who would have been in any informed position to know the overall total--what he knew was no doubt street agent chatter. I've seen tens of thousands of pages of FBI docs, but I've never before seen unredacted inspection reports, and filing for inspection reports was a brilliant FOIA idea, and one neither I (nor anyone else that I'm aware of) ever thought of. 

(2)   The uncritical or hagiographic publications written by people who were favored by the FBI (such as by journalists like Don Whitehead or even Dr. Harry Overstreet).

Sometimes, these publications are fairly good summaries re: FBI history but they often avoid discussing (or they trivialize and de-value) any critical information regarding FBI behavior.

(3)   The serious academic studies written after extensive seminal research into FBI files and FBI-related archives at various institutions plus oral history interviews with former FBI officials and FBI Agents. (Dr. Athan Theoharis is arguably our nation's foremost scholar about the FBI.  Most of the adverse information we now know regarding illegal and unethical activities by senior FBI employees was uncovered by Theoharis).

[Ron Bulman]

Larry, David and Ernie, Thank You.