J. Edgar Hoover hit the nail square on the head. The FBI has always
been the "Enforcer" for the Establishment(American Oligarchy).
Every organization I belonged to that protested the government's
policies, contained individuals planted by, or encouraged by the FBI,
to report back. Of course one would expect the government to want to
know of any behavior or plans that would endanger the Establishment.
This is why we never hear of the FBI infiltrating Wall Street.
Carl Jarvis
On 4/10/18, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Despite Its Trump Probe, the FBI Is No Friend to Justice
Tuesday, April 10, 2018
By Aaron J. Leonard, Truthout | Op-Ed
FBI officers are seen outside the White House as several blocks are closed
down by the United States Secret Service on March 3, 2018, in Washington,
DC. (Photo: Alex Edelman / AFP / Getty Images)
Q. How about justice? You hear a lot about justice with law enforcement.
A. Justice is merely incidental to law and order. Law and order is what
covers the whole picture. -- J. Edgar Hoover interview with Walter
Cronkite,
November 14, 1968
In the wake of the FBI's April 9 raid on the office of President Trump's
personal lawyer, the cries of "witch hunt" from right-wing commentators
Sean Hannity and Alex Jones, as well as from Donald Trump himself, have
gone
up another notch. They are alleging that there is an illicit conspiracy
underway to undermine, discredit and remove the president of the United
States from office. At the core of their conspiracy theory is the FBI and
those who purport that Trump had the help of the Russian government in
winning his current job. The Bureau, these conspiracy theorists argue, is
serving partisan aims, and may even be breaking the law.
On the other side, those with an abiding hatred of Trump and everything he
stands for argue that the FBI is under siege for upholding the United
States' democratic principles. In turn, former critics of the FBI --
including large elements in and around the Democratic Party -- are suddenly
defending the Bureau and its leadership.
There are also forces that reject the right's view but argue that the
charge
of "Russian collusion" is a red herring or neo-McCarthyism. While
proponents
of this position (people such as Max Blumenthal, Glenn Greenwald and Ray
McGovern) have few illusions about the FBI's historic role, they are
extremely skeptical -- if not incredulous -- about the Trump collusion
narrative.
Officially, the United States doesn't have a secret police, but in
actuality
it has an abundance of them.
It is a bizarro world, one in which diverse political proponents do not
line
up in predictable ways. One need only take the example of James Comey.
Leaving aside his role in the 2016 election, it was not that long ago that
he was a target for some of his current defenders for his role in
greenlighting the use of torture. Given such a confusion of opinion, it is
worth taking a step back to look at what the FBI is, how it has acted in
the
past, what it is doing now and why it finds itself in the center of the
current political storm.
The US's Secret Police
Officially, the United States doesn't have a secret police, but in
actuality
it has an abundance of them -- albeit with peculiarly American features.
These include the CIA, the NSA, myriad military intelligence agencies,
local
police intelligence and anti-terrorism squads. Collectively, these compose
what may be the most elaborate and sophisticated secret police operation in
the world. The domestic standout in this group is the FBI.
The FBI has always had two mandates: pursuing crimes that fall within
federal jurisdiction (think white-collar and organized crime) and national
security. It is in this second role that the Bureau has garnered some of
its
most controversial attention.
Created in 1908 as the Bureau of Investigation, it was headed for 48 years
(beginning in 1924) by John Edgar Hoover, who previously served as head of
the Bureau's General Intelligence Division. Hoover and the Bureau cut their
teeth during the infamous Palmer Raids of 1919, rounding up thousands of
radical immigrants and suspected communists for detention and deportation.
By 1935, the Bureau of Investigation had become the Federal Bureau of
Investigation and had as a chief focus the ascendant Communist Party, a
target that would occupy its attention throughout the 1940s, '50s and '60s.
By the '60s, the FBI was also contending with a multitude of other forces,
including various revolutionary and Black Nationalist groups, individual
radicals and organizations emerging out of the New Left.
In the '80s the FBI was forced to close down most of its domestic security
investigations. In their place, the Bureau initiated investigations under
the legally imprecise term of "terrorism."
Their single biggest focus, however -- consistent with the terrain of the
Cold War -- was communism. This manifested itself mostly in efforts to
undermine and destroy the Communist Party, but also included efforts to
undercut Trotskyist and Maoist organizations. There were many Bureau
initiatives in this regard, but two are worth exploring here: the plan to
round up dissidents and the FBI's Counterintelligence Program (COINTELPRO).
For most of Hoover's tenure, the Bureau oversaw an index, initially called
the Custodial Detention Index, later called the Security Index, and later
still the Administrative Index. This index, a database in today's terms,
was
established to keep files on anyone deemed a threat to US internal
security,
communists being chief targets. The files, numbering over 10,000, were to
be
updated in a timely fashion so that in the event of a "national emergency"
-- war or some other calamity -- those on the list could be put in
detention
camps, much in the way Japanese-Americans were interned during World War II
(a move Hoover actually opposed). The index was not fully discontinued
until
January 1978.
The other standout activity of the Bureau was an array of
counterintelligence operations -- counterintelligence being efforts to
undermine subversion, especially foreign subversion. Initially begun as an
initiative against the Communist Party, it was expanded to include programs
targeting Black radicals, the Puerto Rican independence movement, the
American Indian Movement, the Socialist Workers Party, the New Left, white
supremacists and others.
The problem for the FBI, it seems, is not so much domestic fascists and
racists, but those who aggressively oppose them.
Rather than simply gathering intelligence, COINTELPRO deployed a huge bag
of
dirty tricks to disrupt and neutralize targets. Among its operations were
an
effort to convince Martin Luther King Jr. to commit suicide by sending him
a
letter exposing his extramarital affairs; an attempt to set the Chicago
Black Panther Party against the Chicago gang Blackstone Rangers through the
spreading of rumors (similar plans aimed at the Black Panther Party had
dire
results); passing the floor plan of Chicago Panther leader Fred Hampton's
apartment to the Chicago Police, who in turn used it to carry out a raid in
which they fatally shot Hampton as he slept; various initiatives to
undermine the Students for a Democratic Society, the largest radical
student
group of the '60s; and the establishment of a phony Maoist faction within
the Communist Party. Kept secret until 2015, this phony faction was first
used to destabilize the Communist Party and was later used as an instrument
to undermine the New Communist Movement.
By the late 1970s, with the onset of myriad revelations and scandals about
US intelligence operations, the US defeat in Vietnam, the resignation of
Richard Nixon, and larger geopolitical shifts, the FBI was forced to
abandon
most of its domestic intelligence operations. In turn, it was required to
adhere to a different legal standard. It would now have to show actual
evidence of plans for violence, versus vague suspicion, before carrying out
an investigation. One of the consequences was the replacement of the
Bureau's de facto carte blanche for electronic surveillance by the
establishment in 1978 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which
oversaw the approval of wiretaps. That, of course, did not end electronic
surveillance. In fact, according to Mother Jones, by 2013 the court had
approved over 33,900 warrants, rejecting only 11, in its 33 years in
effect.
The Bureau's problem with certain social justice activism is impelled not
by
concerns over US sovereignty, but rather its desire to exercise domestic
control.
As the '70s gave way to the '80s, the FBI was forced to close down most of
its domestic security investigations -- investigations targeting groups and
individuals deemed threatening to national security. This was a result of
scandals and exposures and the adoption of new investigatory guidelines by
the attorney general. In their place, the Bureau initiated investigations
under the legally imprecise term of "terrorism" -- which it applied to both
individual violence and groups the government claimed were bent on
political
violence. This change also corresponded with major shifts in global
politics, including the diminishment of the perceived communist threat. The
FBI did, however, continue domestic investigations -- though often
suggesting they were terrorist investigations -- such as its investigation
of the group CISPES (the Committee in Solidarity with the People of El
Salvador) in the 1980s.
With the passage of the USA Patriot Act in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist
attacks, the Bureau and other law enforcement agencies were able to expand
their repressive toolkits, which they used to target forces they claimed to
be implicated in terrorist incidents. The result was a proliferation of
investigations and high-profile arrests in which, more often than not --
the
motor of the plot was an FBI informant. Indeed, the Bureau's use of
informants has been its most consistent and effective weapon. These
anti-terrorism measures also strengthened the FBI's ability to target
protesters, as it did in Minnesota in 2010, using the statute of "material
support for terrorism" to conduct raids against antiwar activists.
More recently, as Truthout has reported, the FBI's creation of a new
investigatory classification of "Black Identity Extremist" has paved the
way
for increased surveillance of Black activists engaged in anti-racist
organizing. The designation, coming on the heels of the July 2016 shooting
of police officers in Dallas in the wake of a Black Lives Matter (BLM)
protest, has the effect of conflating a social justice movement with an
individual act of violence and opens the BLM to further repressive
scrutiny.
Indeed, Black Lives Matter activists reported that the FBI had
"interviewed"
them (subjected them to an FBI intimidation method) in advance of the 2016
Republican National Convention.
The FBI's problem with Trump is not at all the same as its conflict with
the
activist left.
The Bureau has also identified "nine persistent extremist movements" on the
FBI's radar, including "white supremacy, militia, sovereign citizens,
anarchists, abortion, animal rights, environmental rights, and Puerto Rican
Nationalism." The list is revealing of the Bureau's priorities: White
supremacist terrorists and fanatics who have killed abortion providers sit
alongside certain animal rights and environmental activists who have been
implicated in property damage.
As for the anarchist category, it now includes antifa activists. In an
April
2016 assessment reported on by Politico, the Department of Homeland
Security
and the FBI warned that anarchist groups could become more lethal if
"fascist, nationalist, racist or anti-immigrant parties obtain greater
prominence or local political power in the United States, leading to
anti-racist violent backlash from anarchist extremists." Here, too, the
priorities are revealing: The problem for the FBI, it seems, is not so much
domestic fascists and racists, but those who aggressively oppose them. What
more is going on behind the scenes -- for the Bureau's "investigations" are
about intimidation and disruption, not research -- is a matter awaiting
further revelations.
The Right's Sudden Distaste for the FBI
Today, many activists on the left find themselves puzzling over what to
make
of right-wing attacks on the FBI. Some have responded by adopting the
position of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend": Because the right is
attacking the FBI, it is the left's job (or, at least, liberals' job) to
defend the FBI. While this might seem to bear a degree of common-sense
logic, it obscures an important reality: The FBI's problem with Trump is
not
at all the same as its conflict with the activist left.
The FBI's reasons for scrutinizing the president are pretty
straightforward.
When he ran for office, Trump publicly associated himself with Russia in
unusual ways -- from calling publicly for Russia to release Hillary
Clinton's emails, to making Paul Manafort his campaign manager, to
demonstrating an obsequiousness to Vladimir Putin. It's no wonder that
these
gestures drew the attention of the FBI, which sees one of its key mandates
as its duty to "protect the United States against foreign intelligence
operations and espionage." Things may have changed considerably since the
collapse of communism in the 20th century, but protecting sovereignty is
still fundamental for nation-states, and the FBI is on the point of that.
As
a result, the FBI is keen to investigate whether Trump is compromising US
sovereignty. What its inquiry will yield is not at all clear.
The Bureau's problem with certain social justice activism, on the other
hand, is impelled not by concerns over US sovereignty, but rather its
desire
to exercise domestic control. Movements and protests that are deemed
disruptive of the social order, to say nothing of the larger stability of
the US, are as a result, potential targets of the Bureau.
In that regard, it is important to note that Trump is not arguing that the
Bureau should stop carrying out its overall mission -- just that it should
stop investigating him. Trump himself -- in an anti-Comey Twitter rant on
December 3, 2017 -- said as much:
The "greatness" Trump wants to restore is, we suspect, one on which the
Justice Department, the executive branch and Congress are all on the same
page. Such was the case in 1971 when Democratic Rep. Frank T. Bow, member
of
the influential House Committee on Appropriations, fawningly told J. Edgar
Hoover, "I think we sleep a little better at night because of your
efforts."
Bow and his kind may have slept better, but the thousands under attack by
the Bureau felt no such reassurance: Their lives had been upended, people
had been sent to prison, and some had even been murdered. In that respect,
harmony at the top of government means more disruption, harassment and
worse
for those fighting for a better world.
Today's is a complex moment. On the one hand, the right's attacks on the
FBI
are perilous, especially if they end up resulting in an upending of
baseline
democratic and constitutional norms. On the other, it's important to
remember that the FBI is not a force for justice. Indeed, justice has never
been the Bureau's mission. Rather, it is an instrument of law and order
tasked with preserving the brutal inequality and injustice that is the
status quo. For those fighting for something better, illusions to the
contrary are dangerously disarming.
Copyright, Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.
Aaron J. Leonard
Aaron J. Leonard is the author of Heavy Radicals: The FBI's Secret War on
America's Maoists (with Conor A. Gallagher) and A Threat of the First
Magnitude: FBI Counterintelligence and Infiltration (also with Conor A.
Gallagher). He lives in Southern California. Visit his website.
Related Stories
FBI's "Suicide Letter" to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Dangers of
Unchecked Surveillance
By Nadia Kayyali, Electronic Frontier Foundation | News Analysis
FBI Greenlights Crackdown on Black Lives Matter Protesters
By Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, AlterNet | Report
FBI Gains New Hacking Powers While GOP Congress Sits on Sidelines
By Sam Sacks, The District Sentinel | Report
