Commentary Magazine


Topic: J. Edgar Hoover

Spying on Americans, Then and Now

John and Bonnie Raines are America’s newest libertarian heroes. The pair earned this distinction nearly 43 years ago, when, along with several accomplices, they broke into an F.B.I. regional office in Media, Pennsylvania and made off with a massive haul of confidential files that turned out to be proof of a secret program that authorized spying on anti-Vietnam War protesters. Baffled authorities never solved the theft and the group leaked enough of the documents to the press to help set in motion a backlash against the intelligence community that ultimately brought an end to such practices. As such, the burglars—who dubbed themselves the Citizen’s Commission to Investigate the F.B.I.—can claim to have had a real impact on government policy. Even more to the point, they seem to think they set a precedent for future whistle-blowers like Edward Snowden who made off to Russia with a far bigger treasure trove of secrets about the activities of the National Security Agency.

The Raines couple as well as the other members of their circle have now come forward after keeping quiet for so long as part of the publicity campaign surrounding a book about their exploits by former Washington Post reporter Betty Medsger that generated a front-page feature in today’s New York Times as well as a number of television interviews. It’s quite a tale and one that summons up a bygone era of abuses when F.B.I. Director J. Edgar Hoover was a power unto himself with virtually no accountability to Congress or the presidents who came and went while he lingered in office for five decades. But before we attempt to use this case to justify Snowden or to lionize the F.B.I. burglars, it’s important to understand both the context of the government’s concerns about peace protesters as well as to draw a distinction between what they did and the contemporary movement to hamstring the NSA.

Read More

John and Bonnie Raines are America’s newest libertarian heroes. The pair earned this distinction nearly 43 years ago, when, along with several accomplices, they broke into an F.B.I. regional office in Media, Pennsylvania and made off with a massive haul of confidential files that turned out to be proof of a secret program that authorized spying on anti-Vietnam War protesters. Baffled authorities never solved the theft and the group leaked enough of the documents to the press to help set in motion a backlash against the intelligence community that ultimately brought an end to such practices. As such, the burglars—who dubbed themselves the Citizen’s Commission to Investigate the F.B.I.—can claim to have had a real impact on government policy. Even more to the point, they seem to think they set a precedent for future whistle-blowers like Edward Snowden who made off to Russia with a far bigger treasure trove of secrets about the activities of the National Security Agency.

The Raines couple as well as the other members of their circle have now come forward after keeping quiet for so long as part of the publicity campaign surrounding a book about their exploits by former Washington Post reporter Betty Medsger that generated a front-page feature in today’s New York Times as well as a number of television interviews. It’s quite a tale and one that summons up a bygone era of abuses when F.B.I. Director J. Edgar Hoover was a power unto himself with virtually no accountability to Congress or the presidents who came and went while he lingered in office for five decades. But before we attempt to use this case to justify Snowden or to lionize the F.B.I. burglars, it’s important to understand both the context of the government’s concerns about peace protesters as well as to draw a distinction between what they did and the contemporary movement to hamstring the NSA.

There can be no defense for Hoover’s decision to unleash the secret “Cointelpro” program—a term discovered in the burglars’ cache of documents but not revealed as the code name for a domestic spying and dirty tricks agenda pursued by Hoover until the 1980s—that ran amok from the 1950s to the 1970s.  The effort involved work by agents provocateurs and other operatives not only to monitor leftist radicals, Communists, and civil-rights groups, but also attempts to disrupt their activities and even, in the case of Martin Luther King Jr., to blackmail him about extramarital affairs that were discovered in the course of F.B.I. spying.

Almost all of it was done without proper authorization from political authorities or the courts and, needless to say, must be characterized as an unconstitutional invasion of privacy as well as an illegal abuse of authority. As such, the revelations about the F.B.I.’s activity led to necessary reforms that put an end to this unconstitutional mayhem.

But it should also be noted that any self-righteous posturing on the part of the burglars or their contemporary fans must be tempered by the knowledge that while Hoover’s behavior was outrageous, not all anti-war activity in the late 1960s and early 1970s was blameless. This was an era in which a small portion of the anti-war movement had morphed into a violent terrorist group known as the Weather Underground that committed a number of robberies, bombings, and murders to pursue their aims. That was also true of the Black Panthers, a murderous gang of thugs who were able to persuade a large number of naïve liberals to buy into their masquerade as civil-rights activists.

Just as the existence of a small cadre of real-life Communist spies in Washington and elsewhere in this country didn’t justify the blacklisting of every radical during the McCarthy era, neither the Weather Underground, the Black Panthers, nor other such criminal enterprises can excuse everything that was done in the name of Cointelpro.

That is where we are being urged by libertarian and leftist government critics to make the link between these ’70s peaceniks and Snowden. Like Snowden, they still assert their illegal breaking and entering as well as theft of classified government documents was necessary because without them, the country would not have known what Hoover was up to. But even if we take the defense of their activity at face value—a position that is undermined by doubts about whether they were more interested in defending ordinary peace protesters or a desire to have the government back off on efforts to deal with genuinely dangerous radicals—there is a huge difference between the 1971 burglary and what Snowden has done.

After all, for good or for ill, everything in the stolen F.B.I. files related to domestic surveillance that could probably not be presented in court as part of a legal investigation. Even much of the monitoring of real criminals operating under the rubric of war-protesters was legally murky or at least had probably not been properly vetted by the courts, the Justice Department, or Congress.

But none of that can be said about the vast trove of intelligence files stolen by Snowden. While the courts will have the final say about the NSA metadata mining (one lower federal court has ruled it was illegal, another, rightly in my view, said it was not), the FISA court had authorized the activity, as had congressional oversight committees and the highest political authorities in the land.

Even more to the point, had Snowden only leaked files about domestic operations by the NSA he might have merited at least a superficial comparison to the burglars of 1971. But instead what he released was a vast body of intelligence, most of which related to America’s efforts to deal with foreign threats and other routine spying on targets abroad. What he sought to do was to effectively eviscerate any intelligence work by the U.S. government, something that not only endangered agents in the field but could potentially render America helpless to defend itself against future 9/11-style attacks. Any comparison between that kind of broad-based attack on a vital government function and Hoover’s over-reach is absurd. So, too, is the notion that Snowden is a whistle-blower who deserves to be honored or at least pardoned. The F.B.I. burglars may not be quite the heroes that they are now making themselves out to be, but the long-term impact of their actions should not be treated as a precedent for a genuine rogue like Snowden.

Read Less

Smearing Reagan Never Goes Out of Style

There is a longstanding tradition on the political left to attack contemporary conservatives by comparing them to the right’s leaders in the past. That means that Republicans who were reviled by liberals during their lifetimes are sometimes treated kindly in retrospect because it serves the political purpose of diminishing the reputations of their successors. But in some precincts of the left, bashing Ronald Reagan never goes out of style.

That’s the motivation for a thin hit piece published in the New York Times Sunday Review under the sensational headline, “Reagan’s Personal Spying Machine.” The conceit of this article is that Ronald Regan “spied” for the FBI against fellow actors in Hollywood and then used the FBI for personal spying on his family. The author’s intent is to shock a public that thinks well of the 40th president as well as to brand Reagan as a hypocrite since he was a proponent of limited government. But the problem here is that there is nothing especially shocking about any of it. Reagan’s principled anti-Communism is well known and is the foundation of his political reputation, not a skeleton in his closet. As for the FBI “spying” on Reagan’s family, this appears to be much ado about nothing and would not have attracted much criticism even if it had been aired when he was running for president.

Read More

There is a longstanding tradition on the political left to attack contemporary conservatives by comparing them to the right’s leaders in the past. That means that Republicans who were reviled by liberals during their lifetimes are sometimes treated kindly in retrospect because it serves the political purpose of diminishing the reputations of their successors. But in some precincts of the left, bashing Ronald Reagan never goes out of style.

That’s the motivation for a thin hit piece published in the New York Times Sunday Review under the sensational headline, “Reagan’s Personal Spying Machine.” The conceit of this article is that Ronald Regan “spied” for the FBI against fellow actors in Hollywood and then used the FBI for personal spying on his family. The author’s intent is to shock a public that thinks well of the 40th president as well as to brand Reagan as a hypocrite since he was a proponent of limited government. But the problem here is that there is nothing especially shocking about any of it. Reagan’s principled anti-Communism is well known and is the foundation of his political reputation, not a skeleton in his closet. As for the FBI “spying” on Reagan’s family, this appears to be much ado about nothing and would not have attracted much criticism even if it had been aired when he was running for president.

Reagan’s cooperation with FBI investigations of Communist cells in Hollywood is something we know about because he spoke about it himself. Though author Seth Rosenfeld claims that newly released government files “flesh out what Reagan only hinted at,” there’s nothing new here. As president of the Screen Actors Guild, Reagan thought it was his duty as a citizen to cooperate with the government. He was right. The Communist Party was not, as it has often been portrayed by the left, a club of well-meaning liberals but a group under the orders of a foreign, totalitarian power actively pursuing subversion. The Soviet Union was at that time not merely a rival of the United States but a tyrannical, anti-Semitic dictatorship intent on smothering freedom. Those who aided its efforts on these shores deserved to be exposed.

That charge may stick with some of the Times’s left-wing readership but not on the rest of the country. Yet Rosenfeld really thinks he’s got the goods on Reagan with his revelations about the future president’s family. It seems that his daughter Maureen moved to Washington at the age of 19 and moved in with a married policeman in 1960. That may not seem like such a big deal to some people today but it shocked both Reagan and his ex-wife, actress Jane Wyman. Through a friend, Reagan reached out to friends in the FBI to find out about the man who was living with his daughter.

The FBI granted the request and did some minimal investigation of a situation that was clearly not a government matter and then reported their findings to the Reagans. As it turns out, Reagan was right to be concerned. Maureen Reagan did marry the cop but eventually revealed that during the brief marriage her spouse beat her. This was an improper use of government personnel and shouldn’t have happened. But the fault here lies not with a worried father desperate for help but with a government agency eager to help a celebrity (this was several years before the start of Reagan’s political career).

The other supposedly shocking tale concerns the other child Reagan adopted with Jane Wyman, his son Michael. It appears that as a young man, Michael Reagan was a friend of Joseph Bonanno Jr., the son of a mafia boss. Joe Junior wasn’t in the family business and Michael doesn’t appear to have done anything criminal either. But Bonanno was subpoenaed by the U.S. Attorney to testify about his father. In 1965, some in the FBI team investigating the mafia thought to interview Ronald Reagan about anything his son might have told him about his friend’s family. But, according to the files, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover told his agents not to try and gather any hearsay from the actor but merely tell him that his son was in bad company.

While this is an interesting tale, again there is no evidence of wrongdoing here on Reagan’s part or even on Hoover’s, though perhaps the mere mention of that liberal boogeyman is supposed to horrify readers.

Rosenfeld concludes by saying that Reagan’s cozy relationship with the FBI was confirmed when he asked the agency for a briefing about campus radicals once he became governor of California later in the decade. As Rosenfeld put it, Reagan then used the government to spy on “other people’s children” by seeking FBI help in coping with violent demonstrations at the University of California. Hoover complied and shared the bureau’s domestic surveillance files:

Here was Ronald Reagan, avowed opponent of overdependence on government, again taking personal and political help from Hoover.

Perhaps now and then we all need a little help from Big Brother.

This piece of snark will, no doubt, elicit a chuckle from the left. The FBI’s practice of compiling files on anyone that piqued Hoover’s interest was wrong but there were some people who deserved scrutiny. Violent campus radicals were a threat to public safety as the victims of Weathermen bombings and shooting attacks would learn in subsequent years. In both the 1940s and the 1960s, Reagan was right to align himself against those who sought to tear down American democracy. Neither those incidents nor any concern about his family damages his reputation in the least.

If this is the best the Times can do to trash a conservative icon of the past, they should stick to their lame attempts to besmirch the reputations of his successors, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan.

Read Less




Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor to our site, you are allowed 8 free articles this month.
This is your first of 8 free articles.

If you are already a digital subscriber, log in here »

Print subscriber? For free access to the website and iPad, register here »

To subscribe, click here to see our subscription offers »

Please note this is an advertisement skip this ad
Clearly, you have a passion for ideas.
Subscribe today for unlimited digital access to the publication that shapes the minds of the people who shape our world.
Get for just
YOU HAVE READ OF 8 FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
FOR JUST
YOU HAVE READ OF 8 FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
FOR JUST
Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor, you are allowed 8 free articles.
This is your first article.
You have read of 8 free articles this month.
YOU HAVE READ 8 OF 8
FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
for full access to
CommentaryMagazine.com
INCLUDES FULL ACCESS TO:
Digital subscriber?
Print subscriber? Get free access »
Call to subscribe: 1-800-829-6270
You can also subscribe
on your computer at
CommentaryMagazine.com.
LOG IN WITH YOUR
COMMENTARY MAGAZINE ID
Don't have a CommentaryMagazine.com log in?
CREATE A COMMENTARY
LOG IN ID
Enter you email address and password below. A confirmation email will be sent to the email address that you provide.