--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bbrigante <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, MDixon6569@ wrote: <snip> > > > However I did have to chuckle when Jimmy Carter tried to take > > > a poke at Bush when he referred to illegal wire tapings and > > > spying on of citizens Martin Luther King and wife. What was so > > > funny was Ted Kennedy was sitting not 30 feet from Carter and > > > it was John Kennedy and Bobby Kennedy that ordered the wire > > > taps on the Kings. > > > > > > OOOPs! Who was Jimmy trying to embarres? > > > > You've just "embarressed" yourself. Here's the Church > > Commission report on the wiretapping of Dr. King: > > > > http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/cointelpro/churchfinalreportIIIb.htm > > > > Read it and weep. > > ***************** > > From the link you cite, Robert Kennedy did approve wiretaps on > King, although the FBI went further than Kennedy had in mind, > evidently:
That's the understatement of the month. Obviously Kennedy shouldn't have approved the wiretaps in the first place--at least morally; it was legal for him to do so--and apparently he did so reluctantly. But how MDixon thinks the FBI's vastly worse behavior reflects badly on *Teddy* Kennedy, who has been outspokenly opposed to Bush's ILLEGAL wiretapping of many thousands of Americans, is really hard to figure. > http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/cointelpro/churchfinalreportIIIb.htm > > IV. ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE OF DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING AND THE > SOUTHERN CHRISTIAN LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE > Introduction and Summary > > In October 1963, Attorney General Robert Kennedy approved an FBI > request for permission to install wiretaps on phones in Dr. King's > home and in the SCLC's New York and Atlanta offices to determine the > extent, if any, of "communist influence in the racial situation." > The FBI construed this authorization to extend to Dr. King's hotel > rooms and the home of a friend. No further authorization was sought > until mid-1965, after Attorney General Katzenbach required the FBI > for the first time to seek renewed authorization for all existing > wiretaps. The wiretaps on Dr. King's home were apparently terminated > at that time by Attorney General Katzenbach; the SCLC wiretaps were > terminated by Attorney General Ramsay Clark in June 1966. > > In December, 1963 -- three months after Attorney General Kennedy > approved the wiretaps -- the FBI, without informing the Attorney > General, planned and implemented a secret effort to discredit Dr. > King and to "neutralize" him as the leader of the civil rights > movement. One of the first steps in this effort involved hiding > microphones in Dr. King's hotel rooms. Those microphones were > installed without Attorney General Kennedy's prior authorization or > subsequent notification, neither of which were required under > practices then current. The FBI continued to place microphones in > Dr. King's hotel rooms until November 1965. Attorney General > Katzenbach was apparently notified immediately after the fact of the > placement of three microphones between May and November 1965. It is > not clear why the FBI stopped its microphone surveillance of Dr. > King, although its decision may have been related to concern about > public exposure during the Long Committee's investigation of > electronic surveillance. > > This chapter examines the legal basis for the wiretaps and > microphones, the evidence surrounding the motives for their use, and > the degree to which Justice Department and White House officials > were aware of the FBI's electronic surveillance of Dr. King. > > A. Legal Standards Governing the FBI's Duty to Inform the Justice > Department of Wiretaps and Microphones During the Period of the > Martin Luther King Investigation > > The FBI's use of wiretaps and microphones to follow Dr. King's > activities must be examined in light of the accepted legal standards > and practices of the time. Before March 1965, the FBI followed > different procedures for the authorization of wiretaps and > microphones. Wiretaps required the approval of the Attorney General > in advance. However, once the Attorney General had authorized the > FBI to initiate wiretap coverage of a subject, the Bureau generally > continued the wiretap for as long as it judged necessary. As former > Attorney General Katzenbach testified: > > The custom was not to put a time limit on a tap, or any wiretap > authorization. Indeed, I think the Bureau would have felt free in > 1965 to put a tap on a phone authorized by Attorney General Jackson > before World War II. 130 > > In "national security" cases, the FBI was free to carry out > microphone surveillances without first seeking the approval of the > Attorney General or informing him afterward. The Bureau apparently > derived authority for its microphone practice from a 1954 memorandum > sent by Attorney General Brownell to Director Hoover, stating: > > It is clear that in some instances the use of microphone > surveillance is the only possible way to uncovering the activities > of espionage agents, possible saboteurs, and subversive persons. In > such instances I am of the opinion that the national interest > requires that microphone surveillance be utilized by the Federal > Bureau of Investigation. This use need not be limited to the > development of evidence for prosecution. The FBI has an intelligence > function in connection with internal security matters equally as > important as the duty of developing evidence for presentation to the > courts and the national security requires that the FBI be able to > use microphone surveillance for the proper discharge of both such > functions. The Department of Justice approves the use of microphone > surveillance by the FBI under these circumstances and for these > purposes.... I recognize that for the FBI to fulfill its important > intelligence function, considerations of internal security and the > national safety are paramount and, therefore, may compel the > unrestricted use of this technique in the national interest. 131 > > The Justice Department was on notice that the FBI's practice was to > install microphones without first informing the Justice Department. > Director Hoover told Deputy Attorney General Bryon White in May > 1961: > > in the internal security field we are utilizing microphone > surveillances on a restricted basis even though trespass is > necessary to assist in uncovering the activity of Soviet > intelligence agents and Communist Party leaders.... In the interest > of national safety, microphone surveillances are also utilized on a > restricted basis, even though trespass is necessary, in uncovering > major criminal activities. 132 > > A memorandum by Courtney Evans indicates that he discussed > microphones in "organized crime cases" with the Attorney General in > July 1961: > > It was pointed out to the Attorney General that we had taken action > with regard to the use of microphones in [organized crime] cases > and . . . we were nevertheless utilizing them in all instances where > this was technically feasible and where valuable information might > be expected. The strong objections to the utilization of telephone > taps as contrasted to microphone surveillances was stressed. The > Attorney General stated he recognized the reasons why telephone taps > should be restricted to national-defense-type cases and he was > pleased we had been using microphone surveillances, where these > objections do not apply, wherever possible in organized crime > matters. 133 > > The Justice Department later summarized this practice in a brief to > the Supreme Court: > > Under Departmental practice in effect for a period of years prior to > 1963, and continuing into 1965, the Director of the Federal Bureau > of Investigation was given authority to approve the installation of > devices such as [microphones] for intelligence (but not evidentiary) > purposes when required in the interest of internal security or > national safety, including organized crime, kidnappings, or matters > wherein human life might be at stake. 134 > > On March 30, 1965, at the urging of Attorney General Katzenbach, the > FBI adopted a uniform procedure for submitting both wiretaps and > microphones to the Attorney General for his approval prior to > installation. Director Hoover described the new procedures in a > memorandum to the Attorney General: > > In line with your suggestion this morning, I have already set up the > procedure similar to requesting of authority for phone taps to be > utilized in requesting authority for the placement of microphones. > In other words, I shall forward to you from time to time requests > for authority to install microphones where deemed imperative for > your consideration and approval or disapproval. Furthermore, I have > instructed that, where you have approved either a phone tap or the > installation of a microphone, you will be advised when such is > discontinued if in less than six months and, if not discontinued in > less than six months, that a new request be submitted by me to you > for extension of the telephone tap or microphone installation. 135 > > One week later Katzenbach sent to the White House a proposed > Presidential directive to all Federal agencies on electronic > surveillance. This directive, formally issued by President Johnson > on June 30, 1965, forbade the nonconsensual interception of > telephone communications by Federal personnel, "except in connection > with investigations related to the national security" and then only > after obtaining the written approval of the Attorney General. The > directive was less precise concerning microphone surveillance: > > Utilization of mechanical or electronic devices to overhear > nontelephone conversations is an even more difficult problem, which > raises substantial and unresolved questions of constitutional > interpretation. I desire that each agency conducting such > investigations consult with the Attorney General to ascertain > whether the agency's practices are fully in accord with the law and > with a decent regard for the rights of others. 136 > > B. Wiretap Surveillance of Dr. King and the SCLC: October 1963 -- > June 1966 > > On September 6, 1963, Assistant Director William Sullivan first > recommended to Director Hoover that the FBI install wiretaps on Dr. > King's home and the offices of the Southern Christian Leadership > Conference. 137 Sullivan's recommendation was apparently part of an > attempt to improve the Domestic Intelligence Division's standing > with the Director by convincing him that Sullivan's Division was > concerned about alleged communist influence on the civil rights > movement and that the Division intended, as Sullivan subsequently > informed the Director, to "do everything that is humanly possible" > in conducting its investigation. 138 > > Sullivan's recommendation was viewed with scepticism by the FBI > leadership since Attorney General Kennedy had rejected a similar > proposal two months earlier. Associate Director Clyde Tolson noted > on the memorandum containing Sullivan's Proposal: "I see no point in > making this recommendation to the Attorney General in view of the > fact that he turned down a similar recommendation on July 22, 1963." > 139 Director Hoover scrawled below Tolson's note: "I will approve > though I am dizzy over vacillation as to influence of CPUSA." 140 > > In late September 1963 the FBI conducted a survey and concluded that > wiretap coverage of Dr. King's residence and of the New York SCLC > office could be implemented without detection. 141 On October 7, > citing "possible communist influence in the racial situation," > Hoover requested the Attorney General's permission for a wiretap "on > King at his current address or at any future address to which he may > move" and "on the SCLC office at the current New York address or to > any other address to which it may be moved." 142 Attorney General > Kennedy signed the request on October 10 and, on October 21, also > approved the FBI request for coverage of the SCLC's Atlanta office. > 143 > > Two memoranda by Courtney Evans indicate that the Attorney General > was uncertain about the advisability of the wiretaps. On October 10, > the Attorney General summoned Evans to discuss the FBI's request for > the wiretaps on Dr. King's home telephone and the New York SCLC > telephones. Evans wrote: > > The Attorney General said that he recognized the importance of this > coverage if substantial information is to be developed concerning > the relationship between King and the communist party. He said there > was no question in his mind as to the coverage in New York City but > that he was worried about the security of an installation covering a > residence in Atlanta, Georgia. He noted that the last thing we could > afford to have would be a discovery of a wiretap on King's > residence. > > I pointed out to the Attorney General the fact that a residence was > involved did not necessarily mean there was any added risk because > of the technical nature of the telephone system.... After this > discussion the Attorney General said he felt we should go ahead with > the technical coverage on King on a trial basis, and to continue it > if productive results were forthcoming. He said he was certain that > all Bureau representatives involved would recognize the delicacy of > this particular matter and would thus be even more cautious than > ever in this assignment .... 144 > > According to Evans' memorandum, the Attorney General signed the > authorization for the wiretap immediately after this conversation." > > (more at link) > http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/cointelpro/churchfinalreportIIIb.htm > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
