Les conseillers prud’hommes du conseil de

Grenoble

s’adressent à vous

Personne ne souhaite se retrouver face à son employeur devant un Conseil de prud’homme ; un tel événement marquant souvent une rupture prochaine ou déjà consommée…

———————————-

Pour autant, cette juridiction nous concerne tous. Unique en Europe,composée à part égale de conseillers salariés et employeurs élus, elle accueille chaque année plus de 200.000 salariés spoliés dans leurs droits ou victimes de licenciements injustifiés.

——————————–

Sans pallier l’absence d’organisation syndicale, elle est le seul rempart contre l’arbitraire patronal pour un grand nombre de salariés des PME. Ses jugements ont un réel caractère dissuasif, surtout en cette période de « crise » où le droit du travail est trop souvent présenté comme une entrave à la compétitivité des entreprises.

—————————-

Elle joue aussi un rôle important dans l’émergence d’une jurisprudence favorable aux salariés : ce sont les conseils de prud’hommes qui ont mis un terme aux fameux « contrats nouvelle embauche » qui imposaient aux salariés une période de deux ans pendant laquelle ils pouvaient être mis à la porte sans motif ni explication…

—————————————-

Le 3 décembre 2008, lors des élections prud’homales, vous avez été près de cinq millions à voter, malgré un mode de scrutin complexe, entaché d’erreurs matérielles et privé d’une campagne médiatique informant chaque salarié des enjeux de cet événement et des propositions des différents syndicats.

———————————-

Aujourd’hui la CGT, placée en tête de vos suffrages avec 34% des voix, a le devoir de vous alerter sur les très graves menaces qui pèsent sur cette juridiction.

——————

En 2008, une refonte de la carte judiciaire a supprimé 62 conseils sur 271, imposant à des dizaines de milliers de justiciables des frais supplémentaires et des pertes de temps pour saisir un conseil éloigné de leur domicile.

———————-

Peu après, un décret a imposé aux conseillers un temps limité pour étudier les dossiers ou rédiger un jugement, alors que le droit du travail est de plus en plus complexe. Cette mesure pèse sur la qualité des jugements et augmente encore le risque d’un recours à la cour d’appel, allongeant d’autant les procédures.

———————————————————-

Actuellement, la conciliation prud’homale est une procédure gratuite qui permet d’informer les parties de leurs droits, de prendre des mesures d’urgence (remise d’attestation Assedic, provisions sur salaire du) et de préparer les dossiers de jugement s’il n’y a pas conciliation. Elle ferait place à une sorte de médiation, la « procédure participative », préalable au dépôt d’une demande aux prud’hommes et obligatoirement menée avec des avocats, donc payante.

—————————————————

La procédure prud’homale est orale, sans formalisme et se déroule en présence des parties elles-mêmes. S’ils le souhaitent, les demandeurs peuvent se faire assister par un avocat ou un défenseur syndical. Un décret en préparation prévoit une procédure écrite, avec des échanges de conclusions, des formes à respecter strictement, ce qui rendrait de fait obligatoire la présence d’un avocat, même pour les plus petits litiges…

————————————-

Ces mesures auraient pour conséquences de dissuader un grand nombre de salariés de faire valoir leurs droits. La CGT n’a jamais souhaité la multiplication des procédures et fait d’abord confiance à l’action collective des travailleurs. Mais la possibilité de recourir si nécessaire à un juge disponible et efficace est pour vous une garantie fondamentale de respect du droit et des libertés. Si ce recours devient plus difficile, plus lent, plus coûteux, c’est un encouragement à la violation des règles et aux pratiques patronales arbitraires.

Cet enjeu concerne tous les salariés.

—————————————————

La CGT appelle à faire échec à ces mesures et à engager un véritable débat sur l’évolution nécessaire de la juridiction prud’homale.

En effet, la justice du travail doit être plus efficace et mieux répondre à l’évolution du travail et aux aspirations à plus de démocratie, à plus de respect des salariés à l’entreprise. Il faudrait en particulier :

Élargir les pouvoirs des conseils qui, dans la plupart des cas, ne peuvent accorder que des indemnités sans possibilité, par exemple, d’ordonner le retour à l’emploi d’un salarié abusivement licencié lorsque celui-ci le demande. Ils devraient aussi avoir un rôle préventif et la capacité de suspendre des mesures défavorables au salarié jusqu’à jugement définitif.

Réduire les délais de procédure. Il faut attendre en moyenne 14 mois pour un premier jugement. Le départage par un juge professionnel, qui intervient dans un cas sur six peut prendre jusqu’à deux ans, alors que la loi prévoit un délai d’un mois ! La rédaction et la notification des jugements sont souvent retardées par l’insuffisance des moyens mis à disposition des conseillers et des greffes. 60% des jugements sont déférés à la cour d’appel (délai supplémentaire pouvant atteindre 15 à 24 mois), le plus souvent par des employeurs pour qui «  le temps travaille » et dont les frais sont pris en charge… par l’entreprise.

Une réforme de l’aide juridictionnelle, scandaleusement insuffisante et un véritable statut des défenseurs syndicaux, pour que chaque salarié ait accès au conseil juridique et puisse choisir son défenseur en toute liberté.

—————————————————

La CGT vous propose de signer une pétition nationale pour soutenir un combat qui est le vôtre : la possibilité pour tous les salariés de connaître et de faire valoir leurs droits.

——————

Nous ne voulons pas d’une justice au rabais dont se satisfont patronat et gouvernement. La justice prud’homale doit être accessible, rapide, efficace, en mesure de sanctionner toutes les violations du Code du travail et de rétablir les salariés dans leurs droits.

————————————–

Nous exigeons :

l’abandon des mesures réformant la procédure

prud’homale et de toute limitation du temps

d’activité imposée aux conseillers prud’hommes ;

le maintient de la conciliation et d’une

procédure orale, gratuite, sans formalisme ni

assistance obligatoire par un avocat ;

l’élargissement des prérogatives des Conseils

de prud’hommes, le droit à réintégration des

salariés licenciés illégalement ;

l’augmentation sensible des moyens des

conseils, des personnels des greffes ;

le respect des conseillers et l’amélioration de

leurs droits à la formation, à la documentation

et la reconnaissance du rôle des syndicats dans

l’accueil, l’information, la défense des salariés ;

la réforme de l’aide juridictionnelle.

—————————————–

Nom Prénom

Entreprise

Service ou Fonction

Signature

Grenoble, le 25 novembre 2009

Lettre ouverte à Monsieur le Préfet de l’Isère

Monsieur le Préfet,

Vous vous apprêtez à nous convoquer pour participer au débat initié par le gouvernement sur l’identité nationale.

Autant vous le dire clairement, nous ne viendrons pas.

Nous sommes ce qu’il est communément appelé un corps social, inséré dans la République et contributif de son espace démocratique.

Nous mesurons donc que ne pas se rendre à une sollicitation du représentant de l’Etat n’est pas banal et porte un sens politique.

Nous ne viendrons pas parce que nous ne sommes pas dupes de l’opération à visée électorale, à destination de l’extrême-droite.

Nous ne viendrons pas, parce que pour nous, l’identité d’une Nation ne peut être marquée d’un quelconque sceau ministériel et encore moins d’une hypothétique loi la définissant.

Pour nous, quand un gouvernement entend cadrer ce qui relève de la mémoire historique, il y a tout lieu de s’inquiéter de la qualité de notre démocratie.

L’histoire du syndicalisme est liée intimement, sans en avoir l’exclusivité, à nombre de grandes réalisations sociales.

La protection sociale, le mutualisme, la structuration de services publics contribuant à l’égalité de traitement des citoyens, le code du travail….

Ce sont en définitive des règles communes qui fondent largement notre République auxquelles le syndicalisme a contribué.

Ce sont souvent les capacités de révolte, de contestation de l’ordre établi, quand il met en danger le commun qui ont permis à ce pays de développer un haut niveau d’exigences sociales.

Il ne serait y avoir pour nous, de rapport entre le citoyen et la nation, déconnectés de la question sociale.

Dans la mesure où ce gouvernement- là, réforme après réforme, adapte les pratiques publiques aux seuls besoins de la finance, dénoue les solidarités, il ne serait être question pour la CGT de participer de quelque manière que ce soit, à cette mascarade dont l’objet essentiel semble de justifier une politique d’agression envers les populations les plus fragiles de notre territoire.

L’identité d’une Nation, n’est pas le fruit d’une négociation, mais le résultat de faits historiques, de rapport de forces sociaux et politiques.

Notre pays, et notre département singulièrement ont creusé leurs développements par l’apport de citoyens venus d’autres Nations.

Par leur force de travail, ils ont contribué aux grands travaux structurant notre économie, dans l’industrie singulièrement.

Ils ont fait de leurs apports une richesse, contribué au rayonnement de la France dans le monde par la capacité de notre société à accueillir, former, éduquer les citoyens quelles que soient leurs origines sociales et géographiques.

Le Ministère de l’immigration est synonyme pour nombre de nos concitoyens (et nous pensons à juste titre), de Ministère de la discrimination, de l’arbitraire et de la stigmatisation.

Notre contribution “au vivre ensemble”, à nous, c’est notre engagement aux côtés des salariés sans-papiers pour leur régularisation, pour que ceux-ci puissent devenir des citoyens à part entière, à égalité de droit avec les autres salariés, ce n’est pas la division entretenue de manière démagogique par ce gouvernement qui au final tire vers le bas, l’ensemble des droits sociaux et des garanties collectives.

Notre engagement à nous ce n’est pas une séance en salons préfectoraux d’auto- congratulations d’une France chauvine qui se prendrait pour le phare du monde, mais les solidarités que nous construisons avec les syndicalistes à travers le monde pour une élévation des conditions de vie et d’existence sur l’ensemble de la planète.

Notre engagement à nous, c’est l’action pour le maintien, le développement de services publics, au service de tous, que l’on habite à la ville ou à la compagne, et cela quel que soit le niveau social de nos concitoyens.

Notre engagement à nous, c’est la mobilisation pour la défense de nos emplois industriels, qui fondent la richesse sociale, économique, et culturelle d’une nation développée.

Pour toutes ces raisons, Monsieur le Préfet, et pour bien d’autres, nous ne participerons pas à une réunion sous l’égide d’un Ministère que nous considérons comme le pire Ministère que la République ait connue depuis la Libération.

Recevez, Monsieur le Préfet de l’Isère, nos salutations Républicaines.

Pour l’Union Départementale CGT de l’Isère,

Patrick VARELA,

Secrétaire général

Les travailleurs sans papiers ont investi – ce matin – le POLE EMPLOI, rue Denfert Rochereau (près de Dauphine Libéré Alsace Lorraine).

Des mouvements de police sont à craindre, nous invitons donc tous les camarades disponibles à se rendre immédiatement au POLE EMPLOI afin de soutenir les travailleurs sans papiers.

merci pour votre présence et votre soutien

Amitiés,

Virginie SIMON-CHAUTEMPS

Secrétariat

UL CGT de Grenoble / USTM Isère

Bourse du travail

32 av de l’Europe

38030 GRENOBLE Cedex 2

Tél.: 04.76.09.65.54   / Fax : 04.76.33.13.99

Grâce au coup coup de main de Henry notre devise devient :

” France (du football) : pays des doigts de l’homme “

Aimé Ces airs

THE FBI’S COVERT ACTION PROGRAM TO DESTROY THE BLACK PANTHER PARTY

SUPPLEMENTARY DETAILED STAFF REPORTS ON INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES AND THE RIGHTS OF AMERICANS
_______
BOOK III

_______

FINAL REPORT
OF THE
SELECT COMMITTEE

TO STUDY GOVERNMENTAL OPERATIONS
WITH RESPECT TO
INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES

UNITED STATES SENATE

APRIL 23 (under authority of the order of April 14), 1976

THE FBI’S COVERT ACTION PROGRAM TO DESTROY THE BLACK PANTHER PARTY

INTRODUCTION

In August 1967, the FBI initiated a covert action program — COINTELPRO — to disrupt and “neutralize” organizations which the Bureau characterized as “Black Nationalist Hate Groups.” 1 The FBI memorandum expanding the program described its goals as:

1. Prevent a coalition of militant black nationalist groups….

2. Prevent the rise of a messiah who could unify and electrify the militant nationalist movement … Martin Luther King, Stokely Carmichael and Elijah Muhammad all aspire to this position….

3. Prevent violence on the part of black nationalist groups….

4. Prevent militant black nationalist groups and leaders from gaining respectability by discrediting them….

5. . . . prevent the long-range growth of militant black nationalist organizations, especially among youth. 2

The targets of this nationwide program to disrupt “militant black nationalist organizations” included groups such as the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), the Revolutionary Action Movement (RAM), and the Nation of Islam (NOI). It was expressly directed against such leaders as Martin Luther King, Jr., Stokley Carmichael, H. Rap Brown, Maxwell Stanford, and Elijah Muhammad.

The Black Panther Party (BPP) was not among the original “Black Nationalist” targets. In September 1968, however, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover described the Panthers as:

“the greatest threat to the internal security of the country.

“Schooled in the Marxist-Leninist ideology and the teaching of Chinese Communist leader Mao Tse-tung, its members have perpetrated numerous assaults on police officers and have engaged in violent confrontations with police throughout the country. Leaders and representatives of the Black Panther Party travel extensively all over the, United States preaching their gospel of hate and violence not only to ghetto residents, but to students in colleges, universities and high schools is well.” 3

By July 1969, the Black Panthers had become the primary focus of the program, and was ultimately the target of 233 of the total authorized “Black Nationalist” COINTELPRO actions. 4

Although the claimed purpose of the Bureau’s COINTELPRO tactics was to prevent violence, some of the FBI’s tactics against the BPP were clearly intended to foster violence, and many others could reasonably have been expected to cause violence. For example, the FBI’s efforts to “intensify the degree of animosity” between the BPP and the Blackstone Rangers, a Chicago street gang, included sending an anonymous letter to the gang’s leader falsely informing him that the the Chicago Panthers had “a hit out” on him. 5 The stated intent of the letter was to induce the Ranger leader to “take reprisals against” the Panther leadership. 6

Similarly, in Southern California, the FBI launched a covert effort to “create further dissension in the ranks of the BPP.” 7 This effort included mailing anonymous letters and caricatures to BPP members ridiculing the local and national BPP leadership for the express purpose of exacerbating an existing “gang war” between the BPP and an organization called the United Slaves (US). This “gang war” resulted in the killing of four BPP members by members of US and in numerous beatings and shootings. Although individual incidents in this dispute cannot be directly traced to efforts by the FBI, FBI officials were clearly aware of the violent nature of the dispute, engaged in actions which they hoped would prolong and intensify the dispute, and proudly claimed credit for violent clashes between the rival factions which. in the words of one FBI official, resulted in “shootings, beatings, and a high degree of unrest in the area of southeast San Diego.” 8

James Adams, Deputy Associate Director of the FBI’s Intelligence Division, told the Committee:

None of our programs have contemplated violence, and the instructions prohibit it, and the record of turndowns of recommended actions in some instances specifically say that we do not approve this action because if we take it it could result in harm to the individual. 9

But the Committee’s record suggests otherwise. For example, in May 1970, after US organization members had already killed four BPP members, the Special Agent in Charge of the Los Angeles FBI office wrote to FBI headquarters:

Information received from local sources indicate that, in general, the membership of the Los Angeles BPP is physically afraid of US members and take premeditated precautions to avoid confrontations.

In view of their anxieties, it is not presently felt that the Los Angeles BPP can be prompted into what could result in an internecine struggle between the two organizations. . . .

The Los Angeles Division is aware of the mutually hostile feelings harbored between the organizations and the first opportunity to capitalize on the situation will be maximized. It is intended that US Inc. will be appropriately and discreetly advised of the time and location of BPP activities in order that the two organizations might be brought together and thus grant nature the opportunity to take her due course. [Emphasis added.] 10

This report focuses solely on the FBI’s counterintelligence program to disrupt and “neutralize” the Black Panther Party. It does not examine the reasonableness of the basis for the FBI’s investigation of the BPP or seek to justify either the politics, the rhetoric, or the actions of the BPP. This report does demonstrate, however, that the chief investigative branch of the Federal Government, which was charged by law with investigating crimes and preventing criminal conduct, itself engaged in lawless tactics and responded to deep-seated social problems by fomenting violence and unrest.

A. The Effort to Promote Violence Between the Black Panther Party and Other Well-Armed, Potentially Violent Organizations

The Select Committee’s staff investigation has disclosed a number of instances in which the FBI sought to turn violence-prone organizations against the Panthers in an effort to aggravate “gang warfare.” Because of the milieu of violence in which members of the Panthers often moved we have been unable to establish a direct link between any of the FBI’s specific efforts to promote violence, and particular acts of violence that occurred. We have been able to establish beyond doubt, however, that high officials of the FBI desired to promote violent confrontations between BPP members and members of other groups, and that those officials condoned tactics calculated to achieve that end. It is deplorable that officials of the United States Government, should engage in the activities described below, however dangerous a threat they might have considered the Panthers; equally disturbing is the pride which those officials took in claiming credit for the bloodshed that occurred.

1. The Effort to Promote Violence Between the Black Panther Party and the United Slaves (US), Inc.

FBI memoranda indicate that the FBI leadership was aware of a violent power struggle between the Black Panther Party and the United Slaves (US) in late 1968. A memorandum to the head of the FBI’s Domestic Intelligence Division, for example, stated:

On 11/2/68, BPP received information indicating US members intended to assassinate Leroy Eldridge Cleaver … at a rally scheduled at Los Angeles on 11/3/68. A Los Angeles racial informant advised on 11/8/68 that [a BPP member] had been identified as a US infiltrator and that BPP headquarters had instructed that [name deleted] should be killed.

During BPP rally, US members including one [name deleted], were ordered to leave the rally site by LASS members (Los Angeles BPP Security Squad) and did so. US capitulation on this occasion prompted BPP members to decide to kill [name deleted] and then take over US organization. Members of LASS . . . were given orders to eliminate [name deleted] and [name deleted]. 11

This memorandum also suggested that the two US members should be told of the BPP’s plans to “eliminate” them in order to convince them to become Bureau informants. 12

In November 1968, the FBI took initial steps in its program to disrupt the Black Panther Party in San Diego, California by aggravating the existing hostility between the Panthers and US. A memorandum from FBI Director Hoover to 14 field offices noted a state of “gang warfare” existed, with “attendant threats of murder and reprisals.” between the BPP and US in southern California and added:

In order to fully capitalize upon BPP and US differences as well as to exploit all avenues of creating further dissention in the ranks of the BPP, recipient offices are instructed to submit imaginative and hard-hitting counterintelligence measures aimed at crippling the BPP. 13

As the tempo of violence quickened, the FBI’s field office in San Diego developed tactics calculated to heighten tension between the hostile factions. On January 17, 1969, two members of the Black Panther Party — Apprentice “Bunchey” Carter and John Huggins — were killed by US members on the UCLA campus following a meeting involving the two organizations and university students. 14 One month later, the San Diego field office requested permission from headquarters to mail derogatory cartoons to local BPP offices and to the homes of prominent BPP leaders around the country. 15 The purpose was plainly stated:

The purpose of the caricatures is to indicate to the BPP that the US organization feels that they are ineffectual, inadequate, and riddled with graft and corruption. 16

In the first week of March, the first cartoon was mailed to five BPP members and two underground papers, all in the San Diego area. 17 According to an FBI memorandum, the consensus of opinion within the BPP was that US was responsible and that the mailing constituted an attack on the BPP by US. 18

In mid-March 1969, the FBI learned that a BPP member had been critically wounded by US members at a rally in Los Angeles. The field office concluded that shots subsequently fired into the, home of a US member were the results of a retaliatory raid by the BPP. 19 Tensions between the BPP and US in San Diego, however, appeared to lessen, and the FBI concluded that those chapters were trying “to talk out their differences.” The San Diego field office reported:

On 3/27/69 there was a meeting between the BPP and US organization. . . . Wallace [BPP leader in San Diego] . . . concluded by stating that the BPP in San Diego would not hold a grudge against the US members for the killing of the Panthers in Los Angeles (Huggins and Carter). He stated that lie would leave any retaliation for this activity to the black community. . . .

On 4/2/69, there was a friendly confrontation between US and the BPP with no weapons being exhibited by either side. US members met with BPP members and tried to talk out their differences. 20

On March 27, 1969 — the day that the San Diego field office learned that the local BPP leader had promised that his followers “would not hold a grudge” against local US members for the killings in Los Angeles — the San Diego office requested headquarters’ approval for three more cartoons ridiculing the BPP and falsely attributed to US. One week later, shortly after the San Diego office learned that US and BPP members were again meeting and discussing their differences, the San Diego field office mailed the cartoons with headquarters’ approval. 21

On April 4, 1969 there was a confrontation between US and BPP members in Southcrest Park in San Diego at which, according to an FBI memorandum, the BPP members “ran the US members off.” 22 On the same date, US members broke into a BPP political education meeting and roughed up a female BPP member. 21 The FBI’s Special Agent in Charge in San Diego boasted that the cartoons had caused these incidents:

The BPP members … strongly objected being made fun of by cartoons being distributed by the US organization (FBI cartoons in actuality) … [Informant] has advised on several occasions that the cartoons are “really shaking up the BPP.” They have made the BPP feel that US is getting ready to move and this was the cause of the confrontation at Southcrest Park on 4/4/69. 24

The fragile truce had ended. On May 23, 1969, John Savage, a member of the BPP in Southern California, was shot and killed by US member Jerry Horne, aka Tambuzi. The killing was reported in an FBI memorandum which staked that confrontations between the groups were now “ranging from mere harrassment up to and including beating of various individuals.” 25 In mid-June, the San Diego FBI office informed Washington headquarters that members of the US organization were holding firearms practice and purchasing large quantities of ammunition:

Reliable information has been received … that members of the US organization have purchased ammunition at one of the local gun shops. On 6/5/69, an individual identified as [name deleted] purchased 150 rounds of 9 MM ammunition, 100 rounds of .32 automatic ammunition, and 100 rounds of .38 special ammunition at a local gun shop. [Name deleted] was tentatively identified as the individual who was responsible for the shooting of BPP member [name deleted] in Los Angeles on or about 3/14/69. 26

Despite this atmosphere of violence, FBI headquarters authorized the San Diego field office to compose an inflammatory letter over the forged signature of a San Diego BPP member and to send it to BPP headquarters in Oakland, California. 27 The letter complained of the killing of Panthers in San Diego by US members, and the fact that a local BPP leader had a white girlfriend. 28

According to a BPP bulletin, two Panthers were wounded by US gunman on August 14,1969, and the next day another BPP member, Sylvester Bell, was killed in San Diego by US members. 29 On August 36, 1969, the San Diego office, of US was bombed. The FBI believed the BPP was responsible for the bombing. 30

The San Diego office of the FBI viewed this carnage as a positive development and informed headquarters: “Efforts are being made to determine how this situation can be capitalized upon for the benefit of the Counterintelligence Program …. ” 31 The field office further noted:

In view of the recent killing of BPP member Sylvester Bell, a new cartoon is being considered in the hopes that it will assist in the continuance of the rift between BPP and US. 32

The San Diego FBI office pointed with pride to the continued violence between black groups:

Shootings, beatings, and a, high degree of unrest continues to prevail in the ghetto area of southeast San Diego. Although no specific counterintelligence action can be credited with contributing to this overall situation, it is felt that a substantial amount of the unrest is directly attributable to this program. [Emphasis added.] 33

In early September 1969, the San Diego field office informed headquarters that Karenga, the Los Angeles US leader, feared assassination by the BPP. 34 It received permission front headquarters to exploit this situation by sending Karenga a letter, purporting to be from a US member in San Diego, alluding to an article in the BPP newspaper criticizing Karenga and suggesting that he order reprisals against the Panthers. The Bureau memorandum which originally proposed the letter explained:

The article, which is an attack on Ron Karenga of the US organization, is self-explanatory. It is felt that if the following letter be sent to Karenga, pointing out that the contents of the article are objectionable to members of the US organization in San Diego, the possibility exists that some sort of retaliatory action will be taken against the BPP . . . . 35

FBI files do not indicate whether the letter, which was sent to Karenga by the San Diego office, was responsible for any violence.

In January 1970, the San Diego office prepared a new series of counterintelligence cartoons attacking the BPP and forwarded them to FBI headquarters for approval. 36 The cartoons were composed to look like a product of the US organization.

The purpose of the caricatures is to indicate to the BPP that the US Organization considers them to be ineffectual, inadequate, and [considers itself] vitally superior to the BPP. 37

One of the caricatures was “designed to attack” the Los Angeles Panther leader as a bully toward women and children in the black community. Another accused the BPP of “actually instigating” a recent Los Angeles Police Department raid on US headquarters. A third cartoon depicted Karenga as an overpowering individual “who has the BPP completely at his mercy . . . .” 38

On January 29, 1970, FBI headquarters approved distribution of these caricatures by FBI field offices in San Diego, Los Angeles, and San Francisco. The authorizing memorandum from headquarters stated:

US Incorporated and the Black Panther Party are opposing black extremist organizations. Feuding between representatives of the two groups in the past had a tendency to limit the effectiveness of both. The leaders and incidents depicted in the caricatures are known to the general public, particularly among the Negroes living in the metropolitan areas of Los Angeles, San Diego and San Francisco.

The leaders and members of both groups are distrusted by a large number of the citizen within the Negro communities. Distribution of caricatures is expected to strengthen this distrust. 39

Bureau documents provided to the Select Committee do not indicate whether violence between BPP and US members followed the mailing of this third series of cartoons.

In early May 1970, FBI Headquarters became aware of an article entitled “Karenga King of the Bloodsuckers” in the May 2, 1970, edition of the BPP newspaper which “vilifies and debases Karenga and the US organization.” 40 Two field offices received the following request from headquarters:

[s]ubmit recommendation to Bureau . . . for exploitation of same under captioned program. Consider from two aspects, one against US and Karenga from obvious subject matter; the second against BPP because, inherent in article is admission by BPP that it has done nothing to retaliate against US for killing of Panther members attributed to US and Karenga, an admission that the BPP has been beaten at its own game of violence. 41

In response to this request, the Special Agent in Charge in Los Angeles reported that the BPP newspaper article had already resulted in violence, but that it was difficult to induce BPP members to attack US members in Southern California because they feared US members. 42 The Los Angeles field office hoped, however, that “internecine struggle” might be triggered through a skillful use of informants within both groups:

The Los Angeles Division is aware of the mutually hostile feelings harbored between the organizations and the first opportunity to capitalize on the situation will be maximized. It is intended that US Inc. will be appropriately and discretely advised of the time and location of BPP activities in order that the two organizations might be brought together and thus grant nature the opportunity to take her due course. [Emphasis added.] 43

The release of Huey P. Newton, BPP Minister of Defense, from prison in August 1970 inspired yet another counterintelligence plan. An FBI agent learned from a prison official that Newton had told an inmate that a rival group had let a $3,000 contract on his life. The Los Angeles office presumed the group was US, and proposed that an anonymous letter be sent to David Hilliard, BPP Chief of Staff in Oakland, purporting to be from the person holding the contract on Newton’s life. The proposed letter warned Hilliard not to be around when the “unscheduled appointment” to kill Newton was kept, and cautioned Hilliard not to “got in my way.” 44

FBI headquarters, however, denied authority to send the letter to Hilliard. Its concern was not that the letter might cause violence or that it was improper action by a law enforcement agency, but that the letter might violate a Federal statute:

While Bureau appreciates obvious effort and interest exhibited concerning anonymous letter … studied analysis of same indicates implied threat therein may constitute extortion violation within investigative jurisdiction of Bureau or postal authorities and may subsequently be embarrassing to Bureau. 45

The Bureau’s stated concern with legality was ironic in light of the activities described above.

2. The Effort To Promote Violence Between the Blackstone Rangers and the Black Panther Party

In late 1968 and early 1969, the FBI endeavored to pit the Blackstone Rangers, a heavily armed, violence-prone, organization, against the Black Panthers. 46 In December 1968, the FBI learned that the recognized leader of the Blackstone Rangers, Jeff Fort, was resisting Black Panther overtures to enlist “the support of the Blackstone Rangers.” 47 In order to increase the friction between these groups, the Bureau’s Chicago office proposed sending an anonymous letter to Fort, informing him that two prominent leaders of the Chicago BPP had been making disparaging remarks about his “lack of commitment to black people generally.” The field office observed:

Fort is reportedly aware that such remarks have been circulated, but is not aware of the identities of the individual responsible. He has stated that he would “take care of” individuals responsible for the verbal attacks directed against him.

Chicago, consequently, recommends that Fort be made aware that [name deleted] and [name deleted] together with other BPP members locally, are responsible for the circulation of these remarks concerning him. It is felt that if Fort were to be aware that the BPP was responsible, it would lend impetus to his refusal to accept any BPP overtures to the Rangers and additionally might result in Fort having active steps taken to exact some form of retribution toward the leadership of the BPP. [Emphasis added.] 48

On about December 18, 1968, Jeff Fort and other Blackstone Rangers were involved in a serious confrontation with members of the Black Panther Party.

During that day twelve members of the BPP and five known members of the Blackstone Rangers were arrested on Chicago’s South Side. 49 A report indicates that the Panthers and Rangers were arrested following the shooting of one of the Panthers by a Ranger. 49a

That evening, according to an FBI informant, around 10:30 p.m., approximately thirty Panthers went to the Blackstone Rangerss’ headquarters at 6400 South Kimbark in Chicago. Upon their arrival Jeff Fort invited Fred Hampton, Bobby Rush and the other BPP members to come upstairs and meet with him and the Ranger leadership. 49b The Bureau goes on to describe what transpired at this meeting:

. . . everyone went upstairs into a room which appeared to be a gymnasium, where Fort told Hampton and Rush that he had heard about the Panthers being in Ranger territory during the day, attempting to show their “power” and he wanted the Panthers to recognize the Rangers “power.” Source stated that Fort then gave orders, via walkie-talkie, whereupon two men marched through the door carrying pump shotguns. Another order and two men appeared carrying sawed off carbines then eight more, each carrying a .45 caliber machine gun, clip type, operated from the shoulder or hip, then others came with over and under type weapons. Source stated that after this procession Fort had all Rangers present, approximately 100, display their side arms and about one half had .45 caliber revolvers. Source advised that all the above weapons appeared to be new.

Source advised they left the gym, went downstairs to another room where Rush and Hampton of the Panthers and Fort and two members of the Main 21 sat by a table and discussed the possibility of joining the two groups. Source related that Fort took off his jacket and was wearing a .45 caliber revolver shoulder holster with gun and had a small caliber weapon in his belt.

Source advised that nothing was decided at the meeting about the two groups actually joining forces, however, a decision was made to meet again on Christmas Day. Source stated Fort did relate that the Rangers were behind the Panthers but were not to be considered members. Fort wanted the Panthers to join the Rangers and Hampton wanted the opposite, stating that if the Rangers joined the Panthers, then together they would be able to absorb all the other Chicago gangs. Source advised Hampton did state that they couldn’t let the man keep the two groups apart. Source advised that Fort also gave Hampton and Rush one of the above .45 caliber machine guns to “try out.”

Source advised that based upon conversations during this meeting, Fort did not appear over anxious to join forces with the Panthers, however, neither did it appear that he wanted to terminate meeting for this purpose. 49c

On December 26, 1968 Fort and Hampton met again to discuss the possibility of the Panthers and Rangers working together. This meeting was at a South Side Chicago bar and broke up after several Panthers and Rangers got into an argument. 49d On December 27, Hampton received a phone call at BPP Headquarters from Fort telling him that the BPP had until December 28, 1968 to join the Blackstone Rangers. Hampton told Fort he had until the same time for the Rangers to join the BPP and they hung up. 49e

In the, wake of this incident, the Chicago office renewed its proposal to send a letter to Fort, informing FBI headquarters:

As events have subsequently developed . . . the Rangers and the BPP have not only not been able to form any alliance, but enmity and distrust have arisen, to the point where each has been ordered to stay out of the other territory. The BPP has since decided to conduct no activity or attempt to do recruiting in Ranger territory. 50

The proposed letter read:

Brother Jeff:

I’ve spent some time with some Panther friends on the west side lately and I know what’s been going on. The brothers that run the Panthers blame you for blocking their thing and there’s supposed to be a hit out for you. I’m not a Panther, or a Ranger, just black. From what I see these Panthers are out for themselves not black people. I think you ought to know what they’re up to, I know what I’d do if I was you. You might hear from me again.

(sgd.) A black brother you don’t know. [Emphasis added.] 51

The FBI’s Chicago office explained the purpose of the letter as follows:

It is believed the above may intensify the degree of animosity between the two groups and occasion Forte to take retaliatory action which could disrupt the BPP or lead to reprisals against its leadership.

Consideration has been given to a similar letter to the BPP alleging a Ranger plot against the BPP leadership; however, it is not felt this would be productive principally because the BPP at present is not believed as violence prone as the Rangers to whom violent type activity — shooting and the like — is second nature. 52

On the evening of January 13, 1969, Fred Hampton and Bobby Rush appeared on a Chicago radio talk show called “Hot Line.” During the course of the program Hampton stated that the BPP was in the “process of educating the Blackstone Rangers.” 52a Shortly after that statement Jeff Fort was on the phone to the radio program and stated that Hampton had his facts confused and that the Rangers were educating the BPP. 52b

Oil January 16, Hampton, in a public meeting, stated that Jeff Fort had threatened to blow his head off if he came within Ranger territory. 52c

On January 30, 1969, Director Hoover authorized sending the anonymous letter. 53 While the Committee staff could find no evidence linking this letter to subsequent clashes between the Panthers and the Rangers, the Bureau’s intent was clear. 54

B. The Effort To Disrupt the Black Panther Party by Promoting Internal Dissension

1. General Efforts to Disrupt the Black Panther Party Membership

In addition to setting rival groups against the Panthers, the FBI employed the full range of COINTELPRO techniques to create rifts and factions within the Party itself which it was believed would “neutralize” the Party’s effectiveness.”

Anonymous letters were commonly used to sow mistrust. For example, in March 1969 the Chicago FBI Field Office learned that a local BPP member feared that a faction of the Party, allegedly led by Fred Hampton and Bobby Rush, was “out to get” him. 56 Headquarters approved sending an anonymous letter to Hampton which was drafted to exploit dissension within the BPP as well as to play on mistrust between the Blackstone Rangers and the Chicago BPP leadership:

Brother Hampton:

Just a word of warning. A Stone friend tells me [name deleted] wants the Panthers and is looking for somebody to get you out of the way. Brother Jeff is supposed to be interested. I’m just a black man looking for blacks working together, not more of this gang banging. 57

Bureau documents indicate that during this time an informant within the BPP was also involved in maintaining the division between the Panthers and the Blackstone Rangers. 57a

In December 1968, the Chicago FBI Field Office learned that a leader of a Chicago youth gang, the Mau Mau’s, planned to complain to the national BPP headquarters about the local BPP leadership and questioned its loyalty. 58 FBI headquarters approved an anonymous letter to the Mail Mau leader, stating:

Brother [deleted] :

I’m from the south side and have some Panther friends that know you and tell me what’s been going. I know those two [name deleted] and [name deleted] that run the Panthers for a long time and those mothers been with every black outfit going where it looked like they was something in it for them. The only black people they care about is themselves. I heard too they’re sweethearts and that [name deleted] has worked for the man that’s why he’s not in Viet Nam. Maybe that’s why they’re just playing like real Panthers. I hear a lot of the brothers are with you and want those mothers out but don’t know how. The Panthers need real black men for leaders not freaks. Don’t give up ‘brothers. [Emphasis added.] 59

A black friend.

The FBI also resorted to anonymous phone calls. The San Diego Field Office placed anonymous calls to local BPP leaders naming other BPP members as “police agents.” According to a report from the field office, these calls, reinforced by rumors spread by FBI informants within the BPP, induced a group of Panthers to accuse three Party members of working for the police. The field office boasted that one of the accused members fled San Diego in fear for his life. 60

The FBI conducted harassing interviews of Black Panther members to intimidate them and drive them from the Party. The Los Angeles Field Office conducted a stringent interview program

in the hope that a state of distruct [sic] might remain among the members and add to the turmoil presently going on within the BPP. 61

The Los Angeles office claimed that similar tactics had cut the membership of the United States (US) by 50 percent. 62

FBI agents attempted to convince landlords to force Black Panther members and offices from their buildings. The Indianapolis Field Office reported that a local landlord had yielded to its urgings and promised to tell his Black Panther tenants to relocate their offices. 63 The San Francisco office sent in article from the Black Panther newspaper to the landlord of a BPP member who had rented an apartment under an assumed name. The article, which had been written by that member and contained her picture and true name, was accompanied by an anonymous note stating, “(false name) is your tenant (true name)” 64 The San Francisco office secured the eviction of one Black Panther who lived in a public housing project by informing the Housing Authority officials that she was using his apartment for the BPP Free Breakfast Program. 65 When it was learned that the BPP was conducting a Free Breakfast Program “In the notorious Haight-Ashbury District of San Francisco,” the Bureau mailed a letter to the owners of the building:

Dear Mr. (excised):

I would call and talk to you about this matter, but I am not sure how you feel, and I do not wish to become personally embroiled with neighbors. It seems that the property owners on (excised) Street have had enough trouble in the past without bringing in Black Panthers.

Maybe you are not aware, but the Black Panthers have taken over (address deleted). Perhaps if you drive up the street, you can see what they are going to do to the property values. They have already plastered a nearby garage with big Black Panther posters.

– A concerned property owner. 66

The Bureau also attempted to undermine the morale of Panther members by attempting to break up their marriages. In one case, an anonymous letter was sent to the wife of a prominent Panther leader stating that her husband had been having affairs with several teenage girls and had taken some of those girls with him on trips. 67 Another Panther leader told a Committee staff member that an FBI agent had attempted to destroy his marriage by visiting his wife and showing photographs purporting to depict him with other women. 68

2. FBI Role in the Newton-Cleaver Rift

In March 1970, the FBI initiated a concerted program to drive a permanent wedge between the followers of Eldridge Cleaver, who was then out of the country and the supporters of Huey P. Newton, who was then serving a prison sentence in California. 69 An anonymous letter was sent to Cleaver in Algeria stating that BPP leaders in California were seeking to undercut his influence. The Bureau subsequently learned that Cleaver had assumed the letter was from the then Panther representative in Scandanavia, Connie Matthews, and that the letter had led Cleaver to expel three BPP international representatives from the Party. 70

Encouraged by the apparent success of this letter, FBI headquarters instructed its Paris Legal Attache to mail a follow-up letter, again written to appear as if Matthews was the author, to the Black Panther Chief-of-Staff, David Hilliard, in Oakland, California. The letter alleged that Cleaver “has tripped out. Perhaps he has been working too hard,” and suggested that Hilliard “take some immediate action before this becomes more serious.” The Paris Legal Attache was instructed to mail the letter:

At a time when Matthews is in or has just passed through Paris immediately following one of her trips to Algiers. The enclosed letter should be held by you until such an occasion arises at which time you are authorized to immediately mail it in Paris in such a manner that it cannot be traced to the Bureau. 71

In early May, Eldridge Cleaver called BPP national headquarters from Algeria and talked with Connie Matthews, Elbert Howard, and Roosevelt Hilliard. A Bureau report stated:

Various items were discussed by these individuals with Hilliard. Connie Matthews discussed with Hilliard “those letters” appearing to relate to the counterintelligence letters, which have been submitted to Cleaver and Hilliard purportedly by Matthews ….

It appears … that [Elbert Howard] had brought copies of the second counterintelligence letter to David Hilliard with him to Algiers which were then compared with the … letter previously sent to Cleaver in Algiers and that … discussed this situation …. 72

The San Francisco Field Office reported that some BPP leaders suspected that the CIA or FBI had sent the letters, while Others suspected the Black Panther members in Paris. A subsequent FBI memorandum indicated that suspicion had focused on the Panthers in Europe. 73

On August 13 1970 — the day that Huey Newton was released from prison — the Philadelphia Field Office had an informant distribute a fictitious BPP directive to Philadelphia Panthers, questioning Newton’s leadership ability. 74 The Philadelphia office informed FBI Headquarters that the directive:

stresses the leadership and strength of David Hilliard and Eldridge Cleaver while intimating Huey Newton is useful only as a drawing card.

It is recommended this directive … be mailed personally to Huey Newton with a short anonymous note. The note would indicate the writer, a Community Worker in Philadelphia for the BPP, was incensed over the suggestion Huey was only being used by the Party after founding it, and wanted no part of this Chapter if it was slandering its leaders in private. 75

Headquarters approved this plan on August 19,1970. 76

FBI officials seized on several incidents during the following months as opportunities to advance their program. In an August 1970 edition of the BPP newspaper, Huey Newton appealed to “oppressed groups,” including homosexuals, to “unite with the BPP in revolutionary fashion.” 77 FBI headquarters approved a plan to mail forged letters from BPP sympathizers and supporters in ghetto areas to David Hilliard, protesting Newton’s statements about joining with homosexuals, hoping this would discredit Newton with other BPP leaders. 78

In July and August 1970, Eldridge Cleaver led a United States delegation to North Korea and North Vietnam. Ramparts editor Robert Scheer, who had been a member of the delegation, held a press conference in New York and, according to the Bureau, glossed over the Panther’s role in sponsoring the tour. 79 The New York office was authorized to send an anonymous letter to Newton complaining about Sheer’s oversight to strain relations between the BPP and the “New Left.”‘80 On November 13, 1970, the Los Angeles field office was asked to prepare an anonymous letter to Cleaver criticizing Newton for not aggressively obtaining BPP press coverage of the BPP’s sponsorship of the trip. 81

In October 1970, the FBI learned that Timothy Leary, who had escaped from a California prison where he was serving a sentence for possessing marijuana, was seeking asylum with Eldridge Cleaver in Algiers. The San Francisco field office, noting that the Panthers were officially opposed to drugs, sent Newton an anonymous letter calling his attention to Cleaver “playing footsie” with Leary. 82 In January when Cleaver publicly condemned Leary, FBI headquarters approved sending Newton a bogus letter from a Berkeley, California commune condemning Cleaver for “divorcing the BPP from white revolutionaries.” 83

In December 1970, the BPP attempted to hold a Revolutionary Peoples’ Constitutional Convention (RPCC) in Washington, D.C. The Bureau considered the convention a failure and received reports that most delegates had left it dissatisfied. 84 The Los Angeles FBI field office suggested a letter to Cleaver designed to

provoke Cleaver to openly question Newton’s leadership … It is felt that distance and lack of personal contact between Newton and Cleaver do offer a counterintelligence opportunity that should be probed.

In view of the BPP’s unsuccessful attempt to convene a Revolutionary People’s Constitutional Convention (RPCC), it is suggested that each division which had individuals attend the RPCC write numerous letters to Cleaver criticizing Newton for his lack of leadership. It is felt that, if Cleaver received a sufficient number of complaints regarding Newton it might . . . create dissension that later could be more fully exploited. 85

FBI headquarters approved the Los Angeles letter to Cleaver and asked the Washington field office to supply a list of all organizations attending the RPCC. 86 A barrage of anonymous letters to Newton and Cleaver followed:

Two weeks later, the San Francisco office mailed Newton an anonymous letter, supposedly from a “white revolutionary,” complaining about the incompetence of the Panthers who had planned the conference. 86a The New York office mailed a complaint to the BPP national headquarters, purportedly from a black student at Columbia University who attended the RPCC as a member of the University’s student Afro-American Society. 86b The San Francisco office sent a letter containing an article from the Berkeley Barb to Cleaver, attacking Newton’s leadership at the RPCC. Mailed with the article was a copy of a letter to Newton criticizing the RPCC and bearing the notation:

Mr. Cleaver,

Here is a letter I sent to Huey Newton. I’m sincere and hope you can do something to set him right and get him off his duff. 86c

In January 1971, the Boston office sent a letter, purportedly from a “white revolutionary,” to Cleaver, stating in part:

Dear Revolutionary Comrade:

The people’s revolution in America was greatly impeded and the stature of th Black Panther Party, both nationally and internationally, received a major setback as an outcome of the recent Revolutionary People’s Constitutional Convention. . . .

The Revolutionary People’s Constitutional Convention did little, if anything, to organize our forces to move against the evils of capitalism, imperialism and racism. Any unity or solidarity which existed between the Black Panther Party and the white revolutionary movement before the Convention has now gone down the tube. . . .

The responsibility of any undertaking as meaningful and important to the revolution . . . should not have been delegated to the haphazard ways of [name deleted] whose title of Convention Coordinator . . . places him in the . . . position of receiving the Party’s wrath . . . Huey Newton himself (should) have assumed command . . . .

The Black Panther Party has failed miserably. No longer can the Party be looked upon as the “Vanguard of the Revolution.”

Yours in Revolution,

Lawrence Thomas,

Students for a Democratic Society.

Memorandum from Boston Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 1/8/71. This letter was sent to Cleaver through Oakland BPP headquarters to determine whether the BPP in California would forward the letter to him. (Ibid.)

One letter to Cleaver, written to appear as if it had come from Connie Matthews, Newton’s personal secretary read in part:

Things around headquarters are dreadfully disorganized with the comrade commander not making proper decisions. The newspaper is in a shambles. No one knows who is in charge. The foreign department gets no support . . . I fear there is rebellion working just beneath the surface . . . .

We must either get rid of the Supreme Commander [Newton] or get rid of the disloyal members. 87

In a January 28, 1971, evaluation, FBI headquarters noted that Huey Newton had recently disciplined high BPP officials and that he prepared “to respond violently to any question of his actions or policies.” The Bureau believed that Newton’s reaction was in part a “result of our counterintelligence projects now in operation.”

The present chaotic situation within the BPP must be exploited and recipients must maintain the present high level of counterintelligence activity. You should each give this matter priority attention and immediately furnish Bureau recommendations . . . designed to further aggravate the dissention within BPP leadership and to fan the apparent distrust by Newton of anyone who questions his wishes. 88

The campaign was intensified. On February 2, 1971, FBI headquarters directed each of 29 field offices to submit within eight days a proposal to disrupt local BPP chapters and a proposal to cause dissention between local BPP chapters and BPP national headquarters. The directive noted that Huey Newton had recently expelled or disciplined several “dedicated Panthers” and

This dissention coupled with financial difficulties offers an exceptional opportunity to further disrupt, aggravate and possibly neutralize this organization through counterintelligence. In light of above developments this program has been intensified … and selected offices should … increase measurably the pressure on the BPP and its leaders. 89

A barrage of anonymous letters flowed from FBI field offices in response to the urgings from FBI headquarters. A fictitious letter to Cleaver, signed by the “New York 21,” criticized Newton’s leadership and his expulsion of them from the BPP. 90 An imaginary New York City member of the Youth Against War and Facism added his voice to the Bureau’s fictitious chorus of critics of Newton and the RPCC. 91 An anonymous letter was sent to Huey Newton’s brother, Melvin Newton, warning that followers of Eldridge Cleaver and the New York BPP chapter were planning to have him killed. 92 The FBI learned that Melvin Newton told his brother he thought the letter had been written by someone “on the inside” of the BPP organization because of its specificity. 93 Huey Newton reportedly remarked that he was “definitely of the opinion there is an informer in the party right in the ministry.” 93a

On February 19, 1971, a false letter, allegedly from a BPP official in Oakland, was mailed to Don Cox, a BPP official close to Cleaver in Algeria. The letter intimated that the recent death of a BPP member in California was the result of BPP factionalism (which the Bureau knew was not the case.) The letter also warned Cleaver not to allow his wife, Kathleen, to travel to the United States because of the possibility of violence. 94

A letter over the forged signature of “Big Man” Howard, editor of the BPP newspaper, told Cleaver:

Eldridge:

[Name deleted] told me Huey talked with you Friday and what he had to say. I’m disgusted with things here and the fact that you are being ignored…. It makes me mad to learn that Huey now has to lie to you. I’m referring to his fancy apartment which he refers to as the throne. . . .

I can’t risk a call as it would mean certain expulsion. You should think a great deal before sending Kathleen. If I could talk to you I could tell you why I don’t think you should. 95

The San Francisco office reported to headquarters that because of the various covert actions instituted against Cleaver and Newton since November 11, 1970:

fortunes of the BPP are at a low ebb…. Newton is positive there is an informant in Headquarters. Cleaver feels isolated in Algeria and out of contact, with Newton and the Supreme Commander’s [Newton's] secretary (Connie Matthews) has disappeared and been denounced. 96

On April 8, 1976 in Executive Testimony Kathleen Cleaver testified that many letters, written to appear as if they had come from BPP members living in California caused disruption and confusion in the relationship between the Algerian Section and the BPP leadership in Oakland. She stated:

We did not know who to believe about what, so the general effect, not only of the letters but the whole situation in which the letters were part was creating uncertainty. It was a very bizarre feeling. 96a

On February 26, 1971, Eldridge Cleaver, in a television interview, criticized the expulsion of BPP members and suggested that Panther Chief of Staff David Hilliard be removed from his post. As a result of Cleaver’s statements, Newton expelled him and the “Intercommunal Section of the Party” in Algiers, Algeria. 97

On March 25, 1971, the Bureau’s San Francisco office sent to various BPP “Solidarity Committees*’ throughout Europe bogus letters on “fascsimiles of BPP letterhead,” stating:

To Black Panther Embassies,

You have received copies of February 13, 1971 issue of The Black Panther declaring [three BPP members] as enemies of the People.

The Supreme Servant of the People, Huey P. Newton, with concurrence of the Central Committee of the Black Panther Party, has ordered the expulsion of the entire Intercommunal Section of the Party at Algiers. You are advised that Eldridge Leroy Cleaver is a murderer and a punk without genitals. D.C. Cox is no better.

Leroy’s running dogs in New York have been righteously dealt with. Anyone giving any aid or comfort to Cleaver and his jackanapes will be similarly dealt with no matter where they may be located.

[Three BPP international representatives, names deleted] were never members of the Black Panther Party and will never become such.

Immediately report to the Supreme Commander any attempts of these elements to contact you and be guided by the above instructions.

Power to the People

David Hilliard, Chief of Staff

For Huey P. Newton

Supreme Commander. 98

On the same day, FBI headquarters formally declared its counterintelligence program aimed at “aggravating dissension” between Newton and Cleaver a success. A letter to the Chicago and San Francisco Field Offices stated:

Since the differences between Newton and Cleaver now appear to be irreconcilable, no further counterintelligence activity in this regard will be undertaken at this time and now new targets must be established.

David Hilliard and Elbert “Big Man” Howard of National Headquarters and Bob Rush of Chicago BPP Chapter are likely future targets….

Hilliard’s key position at National Headquarters makes him an outstanding target.

Howard and Rush are also key Panther functionaries; and since it was necessary for them to affirm their loyalty to Newton in “The Black Panther” newspaper of 3/20/71, they must be under a certain amount of suspicion already, making them prime targets.

San Francisco and Chicago furnish the Bureau their comments and recommendations concerning counterintelligence activity designed to cause Newton to expel Hilliard, Howard and Rush. 99

C. Covert Efforts To Undermine Support of the Black Panther Party and to Destroy the Party’s Public Image

1. Efforts To Discourage and To Discredit Supporters of the Black Panthers

The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s program to “neutralize” the Black Panther Party included attempts to deter individuals and groups from supporting the Panthers and, when that could not be accomplished, often extended to covert action targeted against those supporters.

The Bureau made a series of progressively more severe efforts to destroy the confidence between the Panthers and one of their major California supporters, Donald Freed, a writer who headed an organization of white BPP sympathizers called “Friends of the Panthers.” In July 1969, the Los Angeles Field Office sent the local BPP office a memorandum bearing Freed’s name and address to “Friends of the Panthers.” Written in a condescending tone and including a list of six precautions whites should keep in mind when dealing with Panthers, the memorandum was calculated to cause a “rift between the Black Panther Party and their assisting organizations.” 100 A few days later, the Bureau had leaflets placed in a park near a BPP-sponsored national conference in Oakland, California, alleging that Freed was a police informant. 101

The FBI viewed with favor an intensive local investigation of Freed for “harboring” and “possession of illegal firearms.”

It is felt that any prosecution or exposure of either Freed or [name deleted] will severely hurt the BPP. Any exposure will not only deny the Panthers money, but additionally, would cause other white supporters of the BPP to withdraw their support. It is felt that the Los Angeles chapter of the BPP could not operate without the financial support of white sympathizers. 102

The Bureau’s Los Angeles Division also arranged for minutes of a BPP support group to be provided to the BPP when it was learned that statements of members of the support group were critical of Panther leaders. 103

The FBI attempted to disaffect another BPP supporter, Ed Pearl of the Peace and Freedom Party, by sending him a cautionary letter bearing a fictitious signature. A Bureau memorandum describing the letter says:

The writer states that although he is not a member of the BPP, he is a Mexican who is trusted by BPP members. The writer advises that he has learned from BPP members that certain whites in the PFP who get in the way of the Panthers will be dealt with in a violent manner. The object sought in this letter is to cause a breach between the PFP and the BPP. The former organization had been furnishing money and support to the latter. 104

Famous entertainment personalities who spoke in favor of Panther goals or associated with BPP members became the targets of FBI programs. When the FBI learned that one well-known Hollywood actress had become pregnant during in affair with a BPP member, it reported this information to a famous Hollywood gossip columnist in the form of an anonymous letter. The story was used by the Hollywood columnist. 105 In June 1970, FBI headquarters approved an anonymous letter informing Hollywood gossip columnist, Army Archerd that actress Jane Fonda had appeared at a BPP fund-raising function, noting that “It can be expected that Fonda’s involvement with the BPP cause could detract from her status with the general public if reported in a Hollywood ‘gossip column.’” 106 The wife of a famous Hollywood actor was targeted by the FBI when it discovered that she was a financial contributor and supporter of the BPP in Los Angeles. 107 A caricature attacking her was prepared by the San Diego FBI office. 108

A famous entertainer was also targeted after the Bureau concluded that he supported the Panthers. Two COINTELPRO actions against this individual were approved because FBI headquarters “believed” they:

would be an effective means of combating BPP fund-raising activities among liberal and naive individuals. 109

The Bureau also contacted the employers of BPP contributors. It sent a letter to the President and a Vice-President of Union Carbide in January 1970 after learning that a production manager in its San Diego division contributed to the BPP. The letter, which centered around a threat not to purchase Union Carbide stock, stated in part:

Dear Mr. [name deleted]:

I am writing to you in regards to an employee in your San Diego operation, [name deleted]. . . .

I am not generally considered a flag-waving exhibitionist, but I do regard myself as being a loyal American citizen. I, therefore, consider it absolutely ludicrous to invest in any corporation whose ranking employees support, assist, and encourage any organization which openly advocates the violent overthrow of our free enterprise system.

It is because of my firm belief in this self-same free enterprise, capitalistic system that I feel morally obligated to bring this situation to your attention.

Sincerely yours,

T. F. Ellis

Post Office Box —

San Diego, California 110

The response of Union Carbide’s Vice President was reported in a San Diego Field Office memorandum:

On 3/21/70, a letter was received from Mr. [name deleted], Vice President of the Union Carbide Corporation, concernIng a previously Bureau-approved letter sent to the Union Carbide Corporation objecting to the financial and other support to the BPP of one of their employees, [name deleted]. The letter indicated that Union Carbide has always made it a policy not to become involved in personal matters of their employees unless such activity had an adverse affect upon that particular employee’s performance. 111

One of the Bureau’s prime targets was the BPP’s free “Breakfast for Children” program, which FBI headquarters feared might be a potentially successful effort by the BPP to teach children to hate police and to spread “anti-white propaganda.” 112 In an admitted attempt “to impede their contributions to the BPP Breakfast Program,” the FBI sent anonymous letters and copies of an inflammatory Black Panther Coloring Book for children to contributors, including Safeway Stores, Inc., Mayfair Markets, and the Jack-In-The-Box Corporation. 113

On April 8, 1976 in Executive Testimony a former member of the BPP Central Steering Committee stated that when the coloring book came to the attention of the Panther’s national leadership, Bobby Seale ordered it destroyed because the book “did not correctly reflect the ideology of the Black Panther Party . . .” 114

Churches that permitted the Panthers to use their facilities in the free breakfast program were also targeted. When the FBI’s San Diego office discovered that a Catholic Priest, Father Frank Curran, was permitting his church in San Diego to be used as a serving place for the BPP Breakfast Program, it sent an anonymous letter to the Bishop of the San Diego Diocese informing him of the priest’s activities. 115 In August 1969, the San Diego Field Office requested permission from headquarters to place three telephone calls protesting Father Curran’s support of the BPP program to the Auxiliary Bishop of the San Diego Diocese:

All of the above calls will be made from “parishioners” objecting to the use of their church to assist a black militant cause. Two of the callers will urge that Father Curran be removed as Pastor of the church, and one will threaten suspension of financial support of the church if the activities of the Pastor are allowed to continue..

Fictitious names will be utilized in the event a name is requested by the Bishop. It is felt that complaints, if they do not effect the, removal of Father Curran . . . will at least result in Father Curran becoming aware that his Bishop is cognizant of his activities and will thus result in a curtailment of these activities. 116

After receiving permission and placing the calls, the San Diego office reported: “the Bishop appeared to be . . . quite concerned over the fact that one of his Priests was deeply involved in utilization of church facilities for this purpose. 117

A month later, the San Diego office reported that Father Curran had been transferred from the San Diego Diocese to “somewhere in the State of New Mexico for permanent assignment.”

In view of the above, it would appear that Father Curran has now been completely neutralized.

The BPP Breakfast Program, without the prompting of Father Curran, has not been renewed in the San Diego area. It is not anticipated at this time that any efforts to re-establish the program will be made in the foreseeable future. 118

In another case, the FBI sent a letter to the superior of a clergyman in Hartford, Connecticut who had expressed support for the Nlack Panthers, which stated in part:

Dear BISHOP:

It pains me to have to write this letter to call to your attention a matter which, if brought to public light, may cause the church a great deal of embarrassment. I wish to remain anonymous with regard to the information because in divulging it I may have violated a trust. I feel, however, that what I am writing is important enough that my conscience is clear.

Specifically, I’m referring to the fact that Reverend and Mrs. [name deleted] are associating with leaders of the Black Panther Party. I recently heard through a close friend of Reverend [name deleted] that he is a revolutionist who advocates overthrowing the Government of the United States and that he has turned over a sizable sum of money to the Panthers. I can present no evidence of fact but is it possible Reverend [name deleted] is being influenced by Communists? Some statements he has made both in church and out have led me to believe he is either a Communist himself, or so left-wing that the only thing he lacks is a card.

I beseech you to counsel with Reverend [name deleted] and relay our concern over his political philosophies which among other things involves association with a known revolutionist, [name deleted], head of the Black Panther Party in New Haven. I truly believe Reverend [name deleted] to be a good man, but his fellow men have caused him to go overboard and he now needs a guiding light which only you can provide.

Sincerely,

A Concerned Christian. 119

Anonymous FBI mailings were also sent to public officials and persons whose help might sway public opinion against the BPP. In December 1969, the FBI mailed Bureau-reproduced copies of BPP “Seasons Greetings” cards to ten FBI field offices 120 with the following instructions:

Enclosed for each office are 20 copies of reproductions of three types of Black Panther Party (BPP) “seasons greetings cards” which depict the violent propensities of this organization. You should anonymously mail these cards to those newspaper editors, public officials, responsible businessmen, and clergy in your territory who should be made aware of the vicious nature of the BPP. 121

The San Francisco office mailed its cards to several prominent local persons and organizations. 122

The Bureau also targeted attorneys representing Black Panther members. In July 1969, the Los Angeles Field Office suggested that a break between the BPP membership and Charles Garry, an attorney who frequently represented BPP members, might be accomplished by planting a rumor that Garry, Bobby Seale, and David Hilliard were conspiring to keep BPP leader Huey Newton in jail. 123 This proposal was rejected by FBI headquarters out of concern that the Bureau might be recognized as the source of the rumor. 124 Headquarters did suggest, however:

Los Angeles should review the ideas set forth … especially as they pertain to Charles Garry, Bobby Seale, and David Hilliard, and prepare a specific counterintelligence proposal designed to create a breach between the BPP and Garry. Consider such things as anonymous communications and anonymous telephone calls as well as cartoons and other logical methods of transporting your idea. 125

When the San Francisco Division learned that Garry intended to represent Bobby Seale at the Chicago 7 trial, it sent the Chicago office transcripts of hearings before the House Committee on Un-American Activities and the California State Senate’s Report on Un-American Activities, which allegedly showed that Garry was connected with the Communist Party. It was intended to distribute this material “to cooperative news media in that City.” 126

Similarly, when two local BPP leaders filed suit against the San Diego Police Department charging harassment, illegal arrest, and illegal searches, the San Diego Field Office reviewed its files

to determine if any public source information is available which describes [the attorney's] activities in behalf of CP (Communist Party) activities. If so, an appropriate request will be forwarded to the Bureau concerning a possible letter to the editor and/or an editorial. 127

The FBI also sought to destroy community support for individual BPP members by spreading rumors that they were immoral. This idea was originally advanced in an August 1967 memorandum from FBI headquarters to all major field offices:

Many individuals currently active in black nationalist organizations have backgrounds in immorality, subversive activity, and criminal records. Through your investigation of key agitators, you should endeavor to establish their unsavory backgrounds. Be alert to determine evidence of misappropriation of funds or other types of personal misconduct on the part of militant nationalist leaders so any practical or warranted counterintelligence may be instituted. 128

An example of “successful” implementation of this program was a 1970 report from the San Diego Field Office that it had anonymously informed the parents of a teenage girl that she was pregnant by a local Panther leader:

The parents showed extreme concern over a previously unknown situation and [name deleted] was forced to resign from the BPP and return home to live. It also became general knowledge throughout the Negro community that a BPP leader was responsible for the difficulty being experienced by [name deleted]. 129

The field office also considered the operation successful because the mother of another girl questioned the activities of her own daughter after talking with the parent the agents had anonymously contacted. She learned that her daughter, a BPP member, was also pregnant, and had her committed to a reformatory as a wayward juvenile. 130

Efforts To Promote Criticism of the Black Panthers in the Mass Media and To Prevent the Black Panther Party and Its Sympathizers from Expressing Their Views

The FBI’s program to destroy the Black Panther Party included a concerted effort to muzzle Black Panther publications to prevent Panther members and persons sympathetic to their aims from expressing their views, and to encourage the mass media to report stories unfavorable to the Panthers.

In May 1970, FBI headquarters ordered the Chicago, Los Angeles, Miami, Newark, New Haven, New York, San Diego, and San Francisco field offices to advance proposals for crippling the BPP newspaper, The Black Panther. Immediate action was deemed necessary because:

The Black Panther Party newspaper is one of the most effective propaganda operations of the BPP.

Distribution of this newspaper is increasing at a regular rate thereby influencing a greater number of individuals in the United States along the black extremist lines.

Each recipient submit by 6/5/70 proposed counterintelligence measures which will hinder the vicious propaganda being spread by the BPP.

The BPP newspaper has a circulation in excess of 100,000 and has reached the height of 139,000. It is the voice of the BPP and if it could be effectively hindered it would result in helping to cripple the BPP. Deadline being set in view of the need to receive recommendations for the purpose of taking appropriate action expeditiously. 131

The San Francisco Field Office submitted an analysis of the local Black Panther printing schedules and circulation. It discouraged disruption of nationwide distribution because the airline company which had contracted with the Panthers might lose business or face a law suit and recommended instead:

a vigorous inquiry by the Internal Revenue Service to have “The Black Panther” report their income from the sale of over 100,000 papers each week. Perhaps the Bureau through liaison at SOG [seat of government] could suggest such a course of action. It is noted that Internal Revenue Service at San Francisco is receiving copies of Black Panther Party funds and letterhead memoranda.

It is requested that the Bureau give consideration to discussion with Internal Revenue Service requesting financial records and income tax return for “The Black Panther.” 132

The San Diego Field Office, while noting that the BPP newspaper had the same legal immunity from tax laws and other state legislation as other newspapers, suggested three California statutes which might be used against The Black Panther. One was a State tax on printing equipment; the second a “rarely used transportation tax law”; and the third a law prohibiting business in a residential area. 133

The San Diego Field Office had a more imaginative suggestion however; spray the newspaper printing room with a foul smelling chemical:

The Bureau may also wish to consider the utilization of “Skatol”, which is a chemical agent in powdered form and when applied to a particular surface emits an extremely noxious odor rendering the, premises surrounding the point of application uninhabitable. Utilization of such a chemical of course, would be dependent upon whether an entry could be achieved into the area which is utilized for the production of “The Black Panther.” 134

The San Diego Division also thought that threats from another radical organization against the newspaper might convince the BPP to cease publication:

Another possibility which the Bureau may wish to consider would be the composition and mailing of numerous letters to BPP Headquarters from various points throughout the country on stationary [sic] containing the national emblem of the Minutemen organization. These letters, in several different forms, would all have the common theme of warning the Black Panthers to cease publication or drastic measures would be taken by the Minutemen organization….

Utilization of the Minutemen organization through direction of informants within that group would also be a very effective measure for the disruption of the publication of this newspaper. 135

On another occasion, however, FBI agents contacted United Airlines officials and inquired about the rates being charged for transporting the Black Panther magazine. A Bureau memorandum states that the BPP was being charged “the General Rate” for printed material, but that in the future it would be forced to pay the “full legal rate allowable for newspaper shipment.” The memorandum continued:

Officials advise this increase . . . means approximately a forty percent increase. Officials agree to determine consignor in San Francisco and from this determine consignees throughout the United States so that it can impose full legal tariff. They believe the airlines are due the differences in freight tariffs as noted above for past six to eight months, and are considering discussions with their legal staff concerning suit for recovery of deficit. . . . (T)hey estimate that in New York alone will exceed ten thousand dollars. 136

In August 1970, the New York Field Office reported that it was considering plans:

directed against (1) the production of the BPP newspaper; (2) the distribution of that newspaper and (3) the use of information contained in particular issues for topical counterintelligence proposals.

The NYO [New York Office] realizes the financial benefits coming to the BPP through the sale of their newspaper. Continued efforts will be made to derive logical and practical plans to thwart this crucial BPP operation. 137

A few months later, FBI headquarters directed 39 field offices to distribute copies of a column written by Victor Riesel, a labor columnist, calling for a nationwide union boycott against handling the BPP newspaper.

Enclosed for each office are 50 reproductions of a column written by Victor Riesel regarding the Black Panther Party (BPP).

Portions of the column deals with proposal that union members refuse to handle shipments of BPP newspapers. Obviously if such a boycott gains national support it will result in effectively cutting off BPP propaganda and finances, therefore, it is most desirable this proposal be brought to attention of members and officials of unions such as Teamsters and others involved in handling of shipments of BPP newspapers. These shipments are generally by air freight. The column also deals with repeated calls for murder of police that appear in BPP paper; therefore, it would also be desirable to bring boycott proposal to attention of members and officials of police associations who might be in a position to encourage boycott.

Each office anonymously mail copies of enclosed to officials of appropriate unions, police organizations or other individuals within its territory who could encourage such a boycott….

Handle promptly and advise Bureau of any positive results noted. Any publicity observed concerning proposed boycott should be brought to attention of Bureau.

Be alert for any other opportunities to further exploit this proposal. 138

Bureau documents submitted to the Select Committee staff do not indicate the outcome of this plan.

On one occasion the FBI’s Racial Intelligence Section concocted a scheme to create friction between the Black Panthers and the Nation of Islam by reducing sales of the NOI paper, Muhammed Speaks:

While both papers advocate white hate, a noticeable loss of revenue to NOIT due to decreased sales of their paper caused by the BPP might well be the spark to ignite the fuel of conflict between the two organizations. Both are extremely money conscious.

We feel that our network of racial informants, many of whom are directly involved in the sale of the NOI and BPP newspapers, are in a position to cause a material reduction in NOI newspaper sales. Our sources can bring the fact of revenue loss directly to NOI leader, Elijah Muhammad, who might well be influenced to take positive steps to counteract the sale of BPP papers in the Negro community. We feel that with careful planning and close supervision an open dispute can be developed between the two organizations. 139

FBI headquarters promptly forwarded this suggestion to the field offices in Chicago, New York, and San Francisco with the express hope that Elijah Muhammed might be influenced “to take positive steps to counteract the sale of BPP newspapers in the Negro community.” 140 The following month, the Chicago Field Office advised against using informants for this project because animosity was already developing between the BPP and NOI, and any revelation of a Bureau attempt to encourage conflict might serve to bring the BPP and NOI closer together. 141

Numerous attempts were made to prevent Black Panthers from airing their views in public. For example, in February 1969, the FBI joined with the Chicago police force to prevent the local BPP leader, Fred Hampton, from appearing on a television talk show. The FBI memorandum explaining this incident states:

the [informant] also enabled Chicago to further harass the local BPP when he provided information the afternoon of 1/24/69 reflecting that Fred Hampton was to appear that evening at local TV studio for video tape interview. . . . The tape was to be aired the following day.

Chicago was aware a warrant for mob action was outstanding for Hampton in his home town and the above information . . . was provided the Maywood Police Department with a suggestion that they request the Chicago Police Department to serve this arrest warrant. This was subsequently done with Hampton arrested at television studio in presence of 25 BPP members and studio personnel. This caused considerable embarrassment to the local BPP and disrupted the plans for Hampton’s television appearance. 142

Headquarters congratulated the Chicago Field Office on the timing of the arrest “under circumstances which proved highly embarrassing to the BPP.” 143

The Bureau’s San Francisco office took credit for preventing Bobby Seale from keeping a number of speaking engagements in Oregon and Washington. In May 1969, while Seale was traveling from a speaking engagement at Yale University to begin his West Coast tour, a bombing took place in Eugene, Oregon which the FBI suspected involved the Black Panthers. The San Francisco Field Office subsequently reported:

As this was on the eve of Seale’s speech, this seemed to be very poor advance publicity for Seale. . . . It was . . . determined to telephone Mrs. Seale [Bobby Seale's mother] claiming to be a friend from Oregon, bearing the warning that it might be dangerous for Seale to come up. This was done.

Shortly thereafter, Mrs. Seale reported this to BPP headquarters, claiming an unknown brother had sent a warning to Bobby front Oregon. Headquarters took this very seriously and when Bobby arrived shortly thereafter, he decided not to go north with “all the action going on up there.” He subsequently cancelled a trip to Seattle. It is believed that the above mentioned telephone call was a pivotal point in persuading Seale to stay home. 144

The San Francisco office reported that not only had Seale been prevented from making his appearances, but that he had lost over $1,700 in “badly needed” fees and that relations between Seale and “New Left” leaders who had been scheduled to appear with him had become strained.

In December 1969, FBI headquarters stressed to the San Francisco Field Office the need to prevent Black Panther speaking engagements:

Several recent communications received at the Bureau indicate tile BPP is encouraging their branches to set up speaking engagements at schools and colleges and the showing of films in order to raise money . . . San Francisco should instruct [local FBI] office covering to immediately submit to the Bureau for approval a counterintelligence proposal aimed at preventing the activities scheduled. . . .

The BPP in an effort to bolster its weak financial position is now soliciting speaking engagements and information has been developed indicating they are reducing their monetary requirements for such speeches. We have been successful in the past through contacts with established sources in preventing such speeches in colleges or other institutions. 145

In March 1970, a representative of a Jewish organization contacted the San Francisco FBI Field Office when it learned that one of its local lodges had invited David Hilliard, BPP Chief-of-Staff, and Attorney Charles Garry to speak. San Francisco subsequently reported to headquarters:

Public source information relating to David Hilliard, Garry, and the BPP, including “The Black Panther” newspaper itself, was brought to

[/source]

attention. He subsequently notified the [FBI] office that the [name deleted] had altered their arrangements for this speech and that the invitation to Hilliard was withdrawn but that Charles Garry was permitted to speak but his speech was confined solely to the recent case of the Chicago 7. 146

The FBI exhibited comparable fervor in disseminating information unfavorable to the Black Panthers to the press and television stations. A directive from FBI headquarters to nine field offices in January 1970 explained the program:

To counteract any favorable support in publicity to the Black Panther Party (BPP) recipient offices are requested to submit their observations and recommendations regarding contacts with established and reliable sources in the television and/or radio field who might be interested in drawing up a program for local consumption depicting the true facts regarding the BPP.

The suggested program would deal mainly with local BPP activities and data furnished would be of a public source nature. This data could be implemented by information on tile BPP nationally if needed. . . .

All offices should give this matter their prompt consideration and submit replies by letter. 147

Soon afterward, the Los Angeles office identified two local news reporters whom it believed might be willing to help in the effort to discredit the BPP and received permission to

discreetly contact [name deleted] for the purpose of ascertaining his amenability to the preparation of a program which would present the true facts about the Black Panther Party as part of a counterintelligence effort. 148

Headquarters also suggested information and materials to give to a local newsman who expressed an interest in airing a series of prograins against the Panthers. 149

In July 1970, the FBI furnished information to a Los Angeles TV news commentator who agreed to air a series of shows against the BPP, “especially in the area of white liberals contributing to the BPP.” 150 In October, the Los Angeles Division sent headquarters a copy of an FBI-assisted television editorial and reported that another newsman was preparing yet another editorial attack on the Panthers. 151

In November 1970, the San Francisco Field Office notified the Director that Huey Newton had “recently rented a luxurious lakeshore apartment in Oakland, California.” The San Francisco office saw “potential counterintelligence value” in this information since this apartment was far more elegant than “the ghetto-like BPP ‘pads’ and community centers utilized by the Party.” It was decided not to “presently” leak “this information to cooperative news sources,” because of a “pending special investigative technique.” 152 The information was given to the San Francisco Examiner, however, in February 1971, and an article was published stating that Huey P. Newton, BPP Supreme Commander, had moved into a $650-a-month apartment overlooking Lake Merritt in Oakland, California, under the assumed name of Don Penn. 153 Headquarters approved anonymously mailing copies of the article to BPP branches and ordered copies of the, article for “divisions with BPP activity for mailing to newspaper editors.” 154

The San Francisco office informed FBI headquarters later in February that

BPP Headquarters was beseiged with inquiries after the printing of the San Francisco Examiner article and the people at headquarters refuse to answer the news media or other callers on this question. This source has further reported that a representative of the Richmond, Virginia, BPP contacted headquarters on 2/18/71, stating they had received a xeroxed copy of . . . the article and believed it had been forwarded by the pigs but still wanted to know if it was true. 155

D. Cooperation Between the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Local Police Departments in Disrupting the Black Panther Party

The FBI enlisted the cooperation of local police departments in several of its covert action programs to disrupt and “neutralize” the Black Panther Party. The FBI frequently worked with the San Diego Police Department, supplying it with informant reports to encourage raids on the homes of BPP members, often with little or no apparent evidence of violations of State or Federal law. 156

Examples are numerous. In February 1969, the San Diego Field Office learned that members of the local BPP chapter were following each other to determine if police informants had infiltrated their organization. The field office passed this information to the San Diego police with the suggestion that BPP members engaged in these surveillances might be followed and arrested for violations of “local Motor Vehicle Code laws.” 157 When the San Diego Field Office received reports that five BPP members were living in the local BPP headquarters and “having sex orgies on almost a nightly basis,” it informed the local police with the hope that a legal basis for a raid could be found. 158 Two days later, the San Diego office reported to headquarters:

As a result of the Bureau-approved information furnished to the San Diego Police Department regarding the “sex orgies” being held at BPP Headquarters in San Diego, which had not previously been known to the Police Department, a raid was conducted at BPP Headquarters on 11/20/69. [Name deleted], San Diego Police Department, Intelligence Unit, advised that, due to this information, he assigned two officers to a research project to determine if any solid basis could be found to conduct a raid. His officers discovered two outstanding traffic warrants for [name deleted], a member of the BPP, and his officers used these warrants to obtain entry into BPP Headquarters.

As a result of this raid [6 persons] were all arrested. Seized at the time of the arrests were three shotguns, one of which was stolen, one rifle, four gas masks and one tear gas canister.

Also as a result of this raid, the six remaining members of the BPP in San Diego were summoned to Los Angeles on 11/28/69…. Upon their arrival, they were informed that due to numerous problems with the BPP in San Diego, including the recent raid on BPP Headquarters, the BPP Branch in San Diego was being dissolved.

Also, as a direct result of the above raid [informants] have reported that [name deleted] has been severely beaten up by other members of the BPP due to the fact that she allowed the officers to enter BPP Headquarters the night of the raid. 159

A later memorandum states that confidential files belonging to the San Diego Panthers were also “obtained” during this raid. 160

In March 1969, the San Diego Field Office informed Bureau headquarters:

information was made available to the San Diego Police Department who have been arranging periodic raids in the hope of establishing a possession of marijuana and dangerous drug charge [against two BBP members]. . . .

The BPP finally managed to rent the Rhodesian Club at 2907 Imperial Avenue, San Diego, which will be utilized for a meeting hall. A request will be forthcoming to have the San Diego Police Department and local health inspectors examine the club for health and safety defects which are undoubted by [sic] present. 161

The San Diego office also conducted “racial briefing sessions” for the San Diego police. Headquarters was informed:

It is also felt that the racial briefing sessions being given by the San Diego Division are affording tangible results for the Counterintelligence Program. Through these briefings, the command levels of virtually all of the police departments in the San Diego Division are being apprised of the identities of the leaders of the various militant groups. It is felt that, although specific instances cannot be attributed directly to the racial briefing program, police officers are much more alert for these black militant individuals and as such are contributing to the over-all Counterintelligence Program, directed against these groups. 162

The Committee staff has seen documents indicating extensive cooperation between local police and the FBI in several other cities. For example, the FBI in Oakland prevented a reconciliation meeting between Huey Newton’s brother and former Panthers by having the Oakland police inform one of the former Panthers that the meeting was a “set up.” The San Francisco office concluded:

It is believed that such quick dissemination of this type of information may have been instrumental in preventing the various dissidents from rejoining forces with the BPP. 163

Another Bureau memorandum reflected similar cooperation in Los Angeles:

The Los Angeles office is furnishing on a daily basis information to the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Office Intelligence Division and the Los Angeles Police Department Intelligence and Criminal Conspiracy Divisions concerning the activities of the black nationalist groups in the anticipation that such information might lead to the arrest of these militants. 164

Information from Bureau files in Chicago on the Panthers was given to Chicago police upon request, and Chicago Police Department files were open to the Bureau. 165 A Special Agent who handled liaison between the FBI’s Racial Matters Squad (responsible for monitoring BPP activity in Chicago) and the Panther Squad of the Gang Intelligence Unit (GIU) of the Chicago Police Department from 1967 through July 1969, testified that he visited GIU between three and five times a week to exchange information. 166 The Bureau and Chicago Police both maintained paid informants in the BPP, shared informant information, and the FBI provided information which was used by Chicago police in planning raids against the Chicago BPP. 167

According to an FBI memorandum, this sharing of informant information was crucial to police during their raid on the apartment occupied by several Black Panther members which resulted in the death of the local Chairman, Fred Hampton, and another Panther:

[Prior to the raid], a detailed inventory of the weapons and also a detailed floor plan of the apartment were furnished to local authorities. In addition, the identities of BPP members utilizing the apartment at the above address were furnished. This information was not available from any other source and subsequently proved to be of tremendous value in that it subsequently saved injury and possible death to police officers participating in a raid … on the morning of 12/4/69. The raid was based on the information furnished by the informant . . . ” 168 [Emphasis added.]

Footnotes:

1 For a description of the full range of COINTELPRO programs, see the staff report entitled “COINTELPRO: The FBI’s Covert Action Programs Against American Citizens.”

2 Memorandum from G. C. Moore to W. C. Sullivan, 2/29/68, pp. 3-4.

3 New York Times, 9/8/68.

4 This figure is based on the Select Committee’s staff study of Justice Department COINTELPRO “Black Nationalist” summaries prepared by the FBI during the Petersen Committee inquiry into COINTELPRO.

5 Memorandum from Chicago Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 1/13/69.

6 Ibid.

7 Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to Baltimore Field Office (and 13 other offices), 11/25/68.

8 Memorandum from San Diego Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 1/16/70.

9 James Adams testimony. 11/19/75, Hearings, Vol. 6, p. 76.

10 Memorandum from Los Angeles Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 5/26/70, pp. 1-2.

11 Memorandum from a. C. Moore to W. C. Sullivan, 11/5/68.

12 Ibid. An earlier FBI memorandum had informed headquarters that “sources have reported that the BPP has lot a contract on Karenga [the leader of US] because they feel lie has sold out to the establishment.” (Memorandum from Los Angeles Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 9/25/68, p. 1.)

13 Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to Baltimore Field Office (and 13 other field offices), 11/25/68.

14 Memorandum from San Diego Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 1/20/69.

15 Memorandum from San Diego Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 2/20/69.

16 Ibid.

17 See memorandum from San Diego Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 3/12/69.

18 Memorandum from San Diego Field Office to FBI Headquarters. 3/12/69, p. 4.

19 Memorandum from Los Angeles Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 3/17/69.

20 Memorandum from San Diego Field Office to FBI Headquarters. 4/10/69.

21 Memorandum from San Diego Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 3/27/69.

22 Memorandum from San Diego Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 4/10/69, p. 4.

23 Ibid.

24 Ibid.

25 memorandum from San Diego Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 6/5/69, p. 3.

26 Memorandum from San Diego Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 6/13/69.

27 Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to San Diego Field Office, 6/17/69.

28 Memorandum from San Diego Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 6/6/69.

29 Memorandum from San Diego Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 8/20/69.

30 Memorandum from San Diego Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 9/18/69.

31 Ibid, p. 3.

32 Ibid., p. 1.

33 Ibid., p. 2.

34 Memorandum from San Diego Meld office to FBI Headquarters, 9/3/69.

35 Memorandum from San Diego Meld Office to FBI Headquarters, 11/12/69.

36 Memorandum from San Diego Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 1/23/70.

37 Ibid., P. 1.

38 Ibid., p. 2.

39 Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to San Diego Field Office, 1/29/70.

40 Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to Los Angeles and San Francisco Field Offices, 5/15/70.

41 Ibid.

42 Memorandum from Los Angeles Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 5/26/70.

43 Ibid., pp. 1-2.

44 Memorandum from Los Angeles Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 8/10/70.

45 Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to Los Angeles Field Office, 9/30/70.

46 There is no question that the Blackstone Rangers were well-armed and violent. The Chicago police had linked the Rangers and rival gangs in Chicago to approximately 290 killings from 1965-69. Report of Captain Edward Buckney, Chicago Police Dept., Gang Intelligence Unit, 2/23/70, p. 2. One Chicago police officer, familiar with the Rangers, told a Committee staff member that their governing body, the Main 21, was responsible for several ritualistic murders of black youths in areas the gang controlled. (Staff summary of interview with Renault Robinson, 9/25/75.)

47 Memorandum from Chicago Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 12/16/68. Forte also had a well-earned reputation for violence. Between September 1964 and January 1971, he was charged with more than 14 felonies, including murder (twice), aggravated battery (seven times), robbery (twice), and contempt of Congress. (Select Committee staff interview of FBI criminal records.) A December 1968 FBI memorandum noted that a search of Forte’s apartment had turned up a .22 caliber, four-shot derringer pistol. (Memorandum from Chicago Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 12/12/68, p. 2.)

48 Memorandum from Chicago Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 12/16/68, p. 2.

49 Letter Head Memorandum, 12/20/68.

49a From confidential FBI interview with inmate at the House of Correction, 26th and California St. in Chicago, 11/12/69.

49b Letterhead Memorandum, 12/20/68,

49c Ibid., pp. 3-4.

49d FBI Special Agent Informant Report, 12/30/68.

49e Ibid.

50 Memorandum from Chicago Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 1/10/69.

51 Memorandum from Chicago Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 1/13/69, p. 1.

52 Ibid.

52a Memorandum from Special Agent to SAC, Chicago, 1/15/69.

52b Ibid.

52c Memorandum from Special Agent to SAC, Chicago, 1/28/69, reporting on informant report.

53 Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to Chicago Field Office, 1/30/69.

54 There are indications that a shooting incident between the Rangers and the Panthers on April 2, 1969, in a Chicago suburb may have been triggered by the FBI. According to Bobby Rush, coordinator of the Chicago BPP at the time, a group of armed BPP members had confronted the Rangers because Panther William O’Neal — who has since surfaced as an FBI informant — had told them that a Panther had been shot by Blackstone Rangers and had insisted that they retaliate. This account, however, has not been confirmed. (Staff summary of interview with Bobby Rush, 11/26/75.)

55 The various COINTELPRO techniques are described in detail in the Staff Report on COINTELPRO.

56 Memorandum from Chicago Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 3/24/69.

57 Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to Chicago Field Office, 4/8/69.

57a Memorandum from Chicago Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 1/28/69.

58 Memorandum from Chicago Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 12/30/68.

59 Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to Chicago Field Office, 1/30/69.

60 Memorandum from San Diego Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 3/12/69.

The FBI had success with this technique in other eases. For example, the FBI placed another anonymous call to Stokely Carmichael’s residence in New York City. Carmichael’s mother was informed falsely that several BPP members were out to kill her son, and that he should “hide out.” The FBI memorandum reporting this incident said that Mrs. Carmichael sounded “shocked” on hearing the news and stated that she would tell Stokely when he came home. The memorandum observed that on !the next day, Stokely Carmichael left New York for Africa. (Memorandum from New York Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 9/9/68, p. 2.)

61 Memorandum from Los Angeles Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 3/17/69, p. 1.

62 Memorandum from Los Angeles Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 2/3/69.

63 Memorandum from San Diego Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 9/8/69. The FBI discovered that the Indianapolis BPP would have difficulty in new quarters because of its financial plight, a fact which was discovered by monitoring its bank account. (Memorandum from Indianapolis Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 9/23/69.)

64 Memorandum from San Francisco Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 9/15/69.

65 Memorandum from San Francisco Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 10/21/70.

66 Memorandum from San Francisco Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 10/22/70.

67 Memorandum from San Francisco Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 11/26/68.

68 The Bureau documents presented to the Committee do not record of this contact.

69 In September 1969, FBI Headquarters had encouraged the field offices to undertake projects aimed at splitting the BPP on a nationwide basis. (Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to Newark, New York, and San Francisco Field Offices, 9/18/69.)

70 Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to Legat, Paris and San Francisco Field Office, 4/10/70.

71 Ibid., pp. 1-2.

72 Memorandum from San Francisco Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 5/8/70.

73 Memorandum from San Francisco Field Office to FBI Headquarters 5/28/70.

74 Memorandum from Philadelphia Field Office to FBI Headquarter,,;, 8/13/70.

75 Ibid. pp. 1-2.

76 Memorandum from FBI Headquarter,,, to Philadelphia and San Francisco Field Offices, 8/19/70.

77 Memorandum from San Francisco Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 8/31/70.

78 Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to San Francisco Field Office, 9/9/70.

79 Memorandum from San Francisco Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 10/21/70.

80 Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to San Francisco and New York Field Office, 10/29/70

81 Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to Los Angeles Field Office, 11/3/70.

82 Memorandum from San Francisco Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 10/28/70.

83 Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to San Francisco and New York Field Offices, 2/5/71.

84 Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Washington Field Offices, 12/15/70.

85 Memorandum from Los Angeles Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 12/3/70, p. 2.

86 Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Washington Field Offices, 12/15/70. A list of 10 organizations whose members attended the RPCC was forwarded to the FBI offices in Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Detroit, New York, and San Francisco. (Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to Atlanta (and 5 other Field Offices), 12/31/70.) There is no indication concerning how the Bureau obtained this list.

86a Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to San Francisco Field Office, 12/16/70.

86b Memorandum from New York Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 12/14/70.

86c Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to San Francisco Field Office, 1/6/71.

87 Memorandum from San Francisco Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 1/18/70. FBI headquarters authorized this letter on January 21, 1971 stating that the Bureau must now seize the time and “immediately” send the letter, (Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to San Francisco Field Office, 1/21/71, p. 2.) Shortly afterward, a letter was sent to Cleaver from alleged Puerto Rican political allies of the BPP in Chicago, The Young Lords.

What do we get. A disorganized Convention, apologetic speakers and flunkys who push us around, no leadership, no ideas, no nothing…. [Y]our talk is nice, but your ideas and action is nothing…. You are gone, those you left behind have big titles but cannot lead, cannot organize, are afraid to even come out among the people. The oppressed of Amerikka cannot wait. We must move without YOU…. (Memorandum from Chicago Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 1/19/71; memorandum from FBI Headquarters to Chicago and San Francisco Field Offices, 1/27/71.)

88 Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to Boston, Los Angeles, New York, and San Francisco Field Offices, 1/28/71.

89 Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to 29 Field Offices, 2/2/71.

90 Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to New York and San Francisco Field Offices, 2/3/71.

91 Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to New York Field Office, 2/3/71.

92 Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to San Francisco Field Office, 2/10/71.

93 Memorandum from San Francisco Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 2/12 71.

93a The FBI was able to be specific because of its wiretaps on the phones of Huey Newton and the Black Panther headquarters.

94 Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to San Francisco Field Office, 2/19/71.

95 Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to San Francisco Field Office, 2/24/71. The phone call from Cleaver to Newton mentioned in this letter had been intercepted by the FBI. An FBI memorandum commented that the call had been prompted by an earlier Bureau letter purporting to come from Connie Matthews: “The letter undoubtedly provoked a long distance call from Cleaver to Newton which resulted in our being able to place in proper perspective the relationship of Newton and Cleaver to obtain the details of the Geronimo [Elmer Pratt] Group and learn of the disaffections and the expulsion of the New York group.” (Memorandum from San Francisco Field Office to FBI Headquarters. 2/25/71.)

96 Memorandum from San Francisco Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 2/25/71.

96a Kathleen Cleaver testimony, 4/8/76, p. 34.

97 Memorandum from San Francisco Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 3/2/71. FBI headquarters instructed the SAC, San Francisco to mail Cleaver a copy of the March 6 edition of the BPP newspaper which announced his expulsion from the BPP, along with an anonymous note saying, “This is what we think of punks and cowards.” (Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to San Francisco Field Office, 3/10/71.)

98 This letter was contained in a memorandum from San Francisco Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 3/16/71, pp. 1-2.

99 Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to San Francisco and Chicago Field Offices, 3/25/71.

100 Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to Los Angeles Field Office, 7/25/69.

101 Memorandum from San Francisco Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 7/28/69.

102 Memorandum from Los Angeles Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 9/24/69.

103 Memorandum from Los Angeles Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 9/29/69, p. 1.

104 Memorandum from G. C. Moore to W. C. Sullivan, 12/27/68.

105 Memorandum from Los Angeles Field Office, to FBI Headquarters, 6/3/70.

106 Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to Los Angeles Field Office, 6/25/70.

107 Memorandum from San Diego Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 2/3/70.

108 Memorandum from San Diego Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 3/2/70.

109 Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to San Francisco Field Office, 3/5/70.

110 Memorandum from San Diego Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 1/22/70. The name “T. F. Ellis” is completely fictitious and the Post Office Box could not have been traced to the FBI.

111 Memorandum from San Diego Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 6/1/70.

112 Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to San Francisco Field Office, 7/30/69.

113 Ibid.; Memorandum from San Francisco Meld Office to FBI Headquarters, 11/30/70.

114 K. Cleaver, 4/8/76, p. 16.

115 Memorandum from San Diego Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 8/29/69; memorandum from FBI Headquarters to San Diego Field Office, 9/9/69.

116 Memorandum from San Diego Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 8/29/69.

117 Memorandum from San Diego Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 9/18/69.

118 Memorandum from San Diego Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 10/6/69, p. 3.

119 Memorandum from New Haven Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 11/12/69, p. 3.

120 The offices were Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Kansas City, Los Angeles, Newark, New Haven, New York, San Diego, and San Francisco.

121 Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to Baltimore (and 9 other Field Offices), 12/24/69, p. 1.

122 These included the Mayor; the Glide Foundation (church foundation) Catholic Archdiocese of San Francisco; Episcopal Diocese of California; Lutheran Church; Editor, San Francisco Chronicle; Editor, San Francisco Examiner; United Presbyterian Church, San Francisco Conference of Christians and Jews; San Francisco Chamber of Commerce; San Francisco Bar Association; and San Francisco Board of Supervisors. (Memorandum from San Francisco Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 1/12/70.)

123 Memorandum from Los Angeles Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 7/1/69.

124 Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to Los Angeles Field Office, 7/14/69.

125 Ibid.

126 Memorandum from San Francisco Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 10/6/69.

127 Memorandum from San Diego Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 1/2/70.

128 Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to Albany (and 22 other Field Offlees), 8/25/67, p. 2.

129 Memorandum from San Diego Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 2/17/70, p. 3.

130 Ibid., p. 5.

131 Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to Chicago (and seven other Field Offices), 5/15/70.

132 memorandum from San Francisco Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 5/22/70.

133 Memorandum from San Diego Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 5/20/70.

134 Memorandum from San Diego Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 5/20/70, p. 2.

135 Ibid., p. 3.

136 Memorandum from New York Field Office to FBI Headquarters and San Francisco Field Office, 10/11/69.

137 Memorandum from New York Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 8/19/70.

138 Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to SAC’s in 39 cities, 11/10/70.

139 Memorandum from G. C. Moore to W. C. Sullivan, 6/26/70.

140 Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to Chicago, New York, and San Francisco Field Offices, 6/26/70.

141 Memorandum from Chicago Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 7/15/70.

142 Memorandum from Chicago Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 2/10/69.

143 Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to Chicago Field Office, 2/20/69.

144 Memorandum from San Francisco Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 5/26/69.

145 Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to San Francisco Field Office, 12/4/69.

146 Memorandum from San Francisco Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 3/18/70.

147 Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to San Francisco Field Office (and 8 other offices), 1/23/70. The San Diego office had already made efforts along the lines proposed in this memorandum. In November 1969 it requested permission from headquarters to inform two newscasters “for use in editorials” that the sister and brother-in-law of a Communist Party member were believed to be members of the local Black Panthers. The office also proposed preparing “all editorial for publication in the Copley press.” (Airtel from SAC, San Diego to Director, FBI, 11/12/69.) The San Francisco office had also leaked information to a San Francisco Examiner reporter, who wrote a front-page story complete with photographs concerning “the conversion by the BPP of an apartment into a fortress.” (Memorandum from San Francisco Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 1/21/70.)

148 Memorandum from Los Angeles Meld Office to FBI Headquarters, 2/6/70; memorandum from FBI Headquarters to Los Angeles Field Office 3/5/70 (this memorandum bears Director Hoover’s initials).

149 Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to Los Angeles and San Francisco Field Offices, 5/27/70.

150 Memorandum front Los Angeles Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 9/10/70, p. 2.

151 Memorandum from Los Angeles Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 10/23/70.

152 Memorandum from San Francisco Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 11/24/70.

153 Memorandum from San Francisco Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 2/12/71.

154 Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to San Francisco Field Office, 2/8/71.

155 Memorandum from San Francisco Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 2/18/71. In a February 1971 report on recent COINTELPRO activity, the San Francisco Division described the San Francisco Examiner article as one of its “counterintelligence activities.” This report said that because of the article, Newton had given an interview to another San Francisco daily to try to explain his seemingly expensive lifestyle. The report also states that copies of the article were sent to “all BPP and NCCF [National Committee to Combat Fascism] offices in the United States and to three BPP contacts in Europe.” (Memorandum from San Francisco Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 2/25/71.)

156 The suggestion of encouraging local police to raid and arrest members of so-called “Black Nationalist Hate Groups” was first put forward in a February 29, 1968 memorandum to field offices. This memorandum cited as an example of successful use of this technique: “The Revolutionary Action Movement (RAM), a pro-Chinese Communist group, was active in Philadelphia, Pa., in the summer of 1967. The Philadelphia office alerted local police who then put RAM leaders under close scrutiny. They were arrested on every possible charge until they could no longer make bail. As a result, RAM leaders spent most of the summer in jail and no violence traceable to RAM took place.” (Memorandum from G. C. Moore to W. C. Sullivan, 2/29/68, p. 3.)

157 The San Diego office reported to headquarters: “As of one week ago, the BPP in San Diego was so completely disrupted and so much suspicion, fear, and distrust has been interjected into the party that the members have taken to running surveillances on one another in an attempt to determine who the ‘Police agents’ are. On 2/19/69, this information was furnished to the San Diego Police Department with the suggestion that possibly local Motor Vehicle Code laws were being violated during the course of these surveillances.’ ” (Memorandum from San Diego Field Office to FBI Headquarters 2/27/69.)

158 Memorandum from San Diego Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 11/10/69. Headquarters told the San Diego office that if there was no legal basis for a raid, it should “give this matter further thought and submit other proposals to capitalize on this information in the counterintelligence field.” (Memorandum from FBI Headquarters to San Diego Field Office, 11/18/69, p. 1.)

159 Memorandum from San Diego Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 12/3/69, pp. 2-3.

160 Memorandum from San Diego Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 2/17/70.

161 Memorandum from San Diego Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 3/26/69.

162 Memorandum from San Diego Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 12/15/69.

163 Memorandum from San Francisco Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 4/21/69.

164 Memorandum Los Angeles Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 12/1/69.

165 Special Agent deposition, 2/20/75. p. p. 90.

166 Special Agent deposition, 2/26/75, p. 84. The Agent also testified that other FBI agents in the Racial Matters Squad were also involved in the “free flow of information between the Racial Matters Squad and GIU,” and that at one time or another, every agent had exchanged information with GIU.

167 Memorandum from Chicago Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 12/3/69. p. 2; memorandum from Special Agent to Chicago Field Office, 12/12/69.

168 Memorandum from Chicago Field Office to FBI Headquarters, 12/8/69.

]]> http://nethumanitaires.wordpress.com/2009/11/05/acted-acted-s%e2%80%99engage-en-faveur-de-la-protection-des-droits-de-l%e2%80%99homme/ Thu, 05 Nov 2009 12:40:55 +0000 nethumanitaires http://nethumanitaires.wordpress.com/2009/11/05/acted-acted-s%e2%80%99engage-en-faveur-de-la-protection-des-droits-de-l%e2%80%99homme/ http://celinetabou.wordpress.com/2009/10/28/la-chine-est-au-coeur-des-crises-qui-sevissent-dans-la-sous-region/ Wed, 28 Oct 2009 09:43:31 +0000 celinetabou http://celinetabou.wordpress.com/2009/10/28/la-chine-est-au-coeur-des-crises-qui-sevissent-dans-la-sous-region/

D’après Alioune Tine, secrétaire général du Raddho, la Chine est en grande partie responsable de la situation exécrable en Afrique Sub-saharienne. L’organisation panafricaine, Rencontre africaine de défense des Droits de l’homme (Raddho) a exprimé sa lassitude de voir la Chine contribuer à laisser en place des régimes totalitaires et à endiguer la corruption afin “d’exploiter le plus longtemps et à bas prix les sols africains”.

La conférence de presse de la Raddho, le 5 août dernier à Dakar, a pointé du doigt la situation politique nigérienne laquelle se dégrade de plus en plus. Un mois plutôt, le 4 juillet 2009, le gouvernement du Nigéria a voté un référendum proclamant l’installation “d’un régime totalitaire après quinze ans de démocratie”. Réel retour en arrière appuyé par Pékin qui y voit des intérêts économiques conséquents.

Alioune Tine a demandé à Umaru Musa Yar’Adua, président de l’autorité des chefs d’état et du Gouvernement de la Cedeao et au président de l’Union Africaine, Mouammar Khadafi, d’invalider ce referendum et de voter des sanctions contre le Nigeria et particulièrement envers son président, Mamadou Tandja.

Un certain nombre d’exemple permettent de montrer l’implication politique de la Chine dans la région. En effet, l’Empire du milieu parvient à mettre son veto sur des décisions internationales.  Pékin a utilisé son statut de membre permanent du Conseil de sécurité des Nations Unies pour protéger le pouvoir du dirigeant Omar El-Béchir et éviter de contrarier de futurs contrats d’exploitation. Le Conseil de sécurité souhaitait envoyer une force de maintien de la paix au Soudan sans l’accord de Karthoum, ce que la Chine a rejeté.

Cher (e) s ami (e)s et camarades,

Suite à la réunion d’hier soir, vendredi 23 octobre, organisée par l’UL Cgt de Massy pour faire le point sur le mouvement de grève des Travailleurs Sans Papiers en grève depuis le 12 octobre.
Vous trouverez ci-joint le matériel National pour faire connaître largement cette grève.
Pour ce faire, il y a un tract et pétition à faire signer largement. Nous vous joignons aussi le lien de la pétition en ligne :

Adresse de la pétition en ligne : http://www.travailleurssanspapiers.org

N’hésitez pas à faire circuler la pétition et le tract dans vos contacts.

D’avance merci, recevez nos salutations militantes.

Union Locale Cgt de Massy

————————————————————————————————————–

Solidarité avec les travailleurs-euses

« sans-papiers » en grève.

Il faut une circulaire de régularisation !

PETITION:

http://www.travailleurssanspapiers.org/phpPetitions/

A consulter sur le site:

http://www.pcof.net

The Burial Ground of U.S. Imperialism: Afghanistan

by Dennis Rahkonen

September 7th, 2009

When the former Soviet Union’s mighty Red Army defeated Nazi forces in the pivotal WWII battle of Stalingrad, not only was Hitler’s mad dream of a Thousand Year Reich crushed, a concomitant assurance was achieved that the Stars and Stripes, not the Swastika, would be flying from our schoolyard flagpoles today.

Yes, the Normandy invasion and the great sacrifice of our own troops was important, but Stalingrad had already sealed Germany’s fate. Thank Russian soldiers for Americans not speaking German, and for U.S. death camps never having been built to “cleanse” our own country of Jews, our racial minorities, plus other “undesirables”.

But that same, seemingly invincible military that saved the whole world some seven decades ago would later be humiliatingly defeated in Afghanistan, repeating Britain’s tragic folly there much earlier.

Afghanistan is the historical death place of overreaching foreign ambition, a reality that stamps a figurative skull and crossbones squarely on whatever vaguely-defined, wishful hope Barack Obama’s Afghan policy possesses.

Put starkly, if we stay in Afghanistan, we, too, are going to catastrophically lose. Think Vietnam, but on an even more disastrous scale of debacle.

Afghanistan combines a just-right amalgam of geographic, religious, and patriotic factors — manifested in the Afghan people’s steely determination to resist conquest, in an ideal defensive setting — to make their land a veritable black hole of doom for foreigners having grand notions of imposing their outside will on a dusty, desolate, yet passionately loved homeland.

Add to that an Afghan continuity stretching back to the beginnings of human habitation on this planet, and it’s reasonable to expect that there will still be an essential Afghanistan long after the USA has morphed, or crumbled, into something pathetically different than its current incarnation.

In fact, attempting to futilely impose arrogant Yankee will on Afghanistan would prove to be a key facilitator of our descent into an American future absent the power and influence, whether real or already largely imagined, that we wield now.

But what of al Qaeda and the Taliban? Are they not scourges that we’re obligated to battle to the bitter end?

Not if the way in which we fight — as alien aggressors in their native midst — provides them additional determination (i.e., a powerful sense of just cause), and our abiding foolishness gives them more recruits than we can ever hope to kill.

How blindly foolish we are in thinking that continued Predator attacks on innocent goat herders and wedding parties can bring us victory.

It’s the same illogic that produced the “it became necessary to destroy the village to save it” madness in Vietnam, and the depraved insanity of believing that constantly kicking down residential doors in Baghdad made us the “good guys” in Iraq.

We have to face facts, distressing though they assuredly are.

The world doesn’t want our religion, politics, economics, or cultural “values” forced upon it, anymore than we’d tolerate some surpassingly hubristic country from half a planet away trying to violently do the same to us.

Twin towers would still be proudly gleaming on the New York City skyline if we had established a prior record of being a true friend and benefactor to humankind, instead of a world-cop bully serving greedily rapacious corporate and financial interests that see Earth’s inhabitants as nothing more than something to be profitably used and abused, or “converted” to what our profoundly problem-ridden society gives us absolutely no valid reason to think anyone else would gladly embrace.

Furthermore, if we scratched just beneath the official story regarding supposedly gratuitous animosity directed against us by so many around the planet, we’d quickly discover that they’re not “enemies” in the diabolical abstract, but people with painful grievances against the U.S. who would have never become such… had we treated them right in the first place.

If we’d only stop getting up in other people’s faces, and quit trying to control their affairs, no one would then stab us in the back when we weren’t looking.

I suspect, however, that we’re too haughty and pious to ever appreciate that truth.

We’ll just self-destructively hurl a monkey wrench into the sputtering engine of our failing order, putting a complete halt to all possibilities for the USA to remain a major power and decisive player in global relations as the 21st Century wears on.

Dennis Rahkonen, from Superior, Wisconsin, has been writing progressive commentary with a Heartland perspective for various outlets since the ’60s

www.uruknet.info?p=57700

Link: dissidentvoice.org/2009/09/the-burial-ground-of-u-s-imperialism-afghanistan/

Afghan Resistance Statement
From a Farce Elections to Genocide

Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan

Ramadan 15, 1430 A.H, September 6, 2009

In the name of Allah, the Merciful, the Compassionate

The recent staying away of the Afghan Mujahid people from the foreign-dominated electoral process and their clear-cut opposition to the farce election showed once again that the Afghans have decided to resist all ambitious goals and projects of the invaders. This is because the election being conducted by direct bullying, intimidation and arrogance of the invaders has no validity in their eyes. Their unambiguous posturing portrayed that they are not ready to live under the yoke of colonialism even for a little while.

It was more becoming for the Americans to have behaved in a reasonable and mellowed manner after the failure of the election parody; they should have expressed their anger and hopelessness, which was brought about by the election boycott of the Afghan nation, in such ways as news conferences, statements, commentaries etc.

We know the Americans deserve to be offended and angered at the boycott of the Afghan people because they spent billions of dollars and passed through eight prolonged years of belligerence but still they were not able to prevail on the Afghans to leave their houses to cast votes , ironically, in an American project. Ostensibly, the project was aimed at showing to the American people that the Afghans were voluntarily taking part in the election despite the military presence of USA in the country.

But the severe explosion in Kandahar city which killed innocent citizens of Kandahar at the time of sunset when they were to break their fast, showed the polling day frustration and disappointment has driven the invaders to frenzy, fury and bestiality they even are not sparing to exact revenge for the low turnout during this month of fasting and shed blood during these sacred days.

If the Americans believe that they can mislead the Afghans by resorting to explosions and civilian killings, they are wrong. They must know that their crimes will not remain secret from the knowledge of the public for good. You will never be able to spread the cobweb of hatred and division by perpetrating mass murders through pre-planned explosions and fish in troubled water by implicating the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan in such heinous events. The Afghan know whose hands are behind such gruesome incidents.

The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, for his own part, does not believe that such wicked and horrific events will ever bring victory. The Mujahideen affiliated with the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan venture to confront the invading enemy and their surrogates face-to-face in combat in order to avoid civilian casualties. Using this tactic, the Mujahideen daily attack the enemy and take them by shock and awe.

The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan is greatly concerned over the sanguinary event of Kandahar and shares the pains and grief of the bereft families and prays to the Almighty Allah to save this miserable nation from further tragedies, grief and anomalies.

Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan

www.uruknet.info?p=57699

Link: theunjustmedia.com/Afghanistan/Statements/Sept09/From%20a%20Farce%20Elections%20
to%20Genocide.htm

————————————————————————

Australian SAS Units Function as Death Squads in Afghanistan

By James Cogan

An Australian Defence Department (ADD) report published in October, and highlighted on November 26 by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s “Lateline” program, provides a rare account of the shameful operations being performed by the Australian military as part of the US-led occupation of Afghanistan.

The units most involved are from the Special Air Service Regiment (SAS) and the Fourth Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment (4RAR), the Army’s designated commando battalion. These are highly trained troops and their ostensible role in times of war is to carry out long range reconnaissance, surveillance, harassment or raids on enemy targets. In the so-called “war on terror”, they are being used as little more than death squads.

The ADD report presents the findings of an inquiry into a September 17 Australian operation that resulted in the mistaken killing of Rozi Khan, the pro-occupation governor of Chora district in Uruzgan province and a long-time colleague of Afghan president Hamid Karzai. The intended target, codenamed “Musket” by the Australian military, was an alleged member of the Islamist Taliban movement. While much of the mission statement remains censored, it is apparent that a squad was sent out to storm into the man’s house in the dead of night and execute him in cold blood.

The possibility for things to go wrong is inherent in such operations in civilian areas, and on September 17, they went terribly wrong. Just days before the hit on “Musket” was ordered, the Taliban had issued threats against residents of a village, which lay on the route being taking by the Australians. Rozi Khan had encouraged the villagers to resist any attack and promised to come to their aid with his armed followers.

As the Australian troops moved close to the village, sentries atop houses spotted them and assumed they were Taliban intruders. Within minutes, dozens of villagers were firing on the Australians from the east, west and north. Khan and his men, alerted by the gunfire, began moving toward the fighting, as did local Afghan police.

Troops in an Australian back-up unit, who had manoeuvred to try and flank what they believed to be Taliban, engaged Khan’s group and, the inquiry found, most likely inflicted fatal wounds on the district governor. It was not until a police vehicle arrived that the Australians made efforts to communicate with the men they were attacking.

After realising their mistake, the Australian troops aborted their “Musket” mission—at the cost of two dead and five wounded Afghans. The Defence Department inquiry ruled: “That Rozi Khan was among the casualties is resultant of his unfortunate intervention into a complex situation, albeit with altruistic motives.”

The September 17 mission was no isolated incident. It was part of a broader and ongoing operation codenamed “Peeler” that tasks the Australian special forces with “disrupting i.e., killing or capturing Taliban leadership or improvised explosive device facilitators”.

Not all missions result in the target’s assassination. Last month, the alleged Taliban “shadow” governor of Uruzgan, Mullah Bari Ghul, was detained in a raid that was most likely conducted by Australians.

Other missions result in massacres. On November 23, 2007, Private Luke Worsley of 4RAR was killed during an assault on a residence in Chenartu village in Uruzgan. Because of the Australian fatality, details of the incident were made public. The target was Taliban leader Mullah Baz Mohammed, who was expected to be at the house that night.

Australian troops crept up under the cover of darkness, blew the outer doors off the housing compound and rushed in. They left the Daad family—three men, two women and one female child—dead on the floor. A neighbour, Faiz Mohammed, told Time magazine: “There was blood everywhere.” Worsley was shot as he entered the house. Mullah Baz Mohammed was not there.

“Lateline” commented that the Defence Department report “prompts questions about the legality and the ethics of targeted killings, even in the dusty and chaotic battleground of Afghanistan”.

Tim McCormack of Melbourne University, a professor of Humanitarian Law consulted by the program, provided reassurances. “International law is not pacifist law,” he said. “It does allow the killing of enemy combatants and civilians who take a direct part in hostilities—just as it’s also legal for the Taliban to hunt down an Australian SAS person or anybody on the Australian side or any of the allied side”.

McCormack’s remarks, however, serve only to obscure the essential issues. They ignore the thoroughly predatory and, therefore, criminal motives behind the US-led invasion of Afghanistan. The September 11 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington were utilised as the pretext to deploy military forces into the desperately impoverished country with the aim of securing long term bases in the very heart of Central Asia, a region rich in untapped resources. Over the past seven years, the Afghan war has evolved into a component of the struggle for regional dominance between the US—supported at present by its European NATO allies—and Russia and China.

The existence of Al Qaeda bases in Afghanistan had nothing to do with the decision to send in troops. Not only did the Bush administration reject offers by the Taliban to hand Osama bin Laden over to a third country if evidence were presented of his involvement in 9/11, but virtually no steps were taken by the US military to prevent the bulk of Al Qaeda simply moving across the border into Pakistan’s tribal agencies—where it has largely operated ever since.

Australia’s involvement in the war was the result of the most cynical calculations. By sending troops to fight in Afghanistan and then Iraq, the former Howard government hoped to cement Washington’s backing for a series of military operations that would secure Australian strategic and economic interests in the South Pacific, as well as a free trade agreement with the United States. The Rudd Labor government is continuing the same policy.

There is a stark difference—both politically and morally—between the activities of citizens resisting the invasion of their country and those of the invading army. Afghans are fighting for the right to determine their own future free from foreign domination. The Australian military in Afghanistan is an instrument of imperialist aggression. It is conducting a campaign of terror throughout Uruzgan province to force the population to accept a US puppet government.

One obvious parallel to the Afghanistan operation is the Vietnam War’s Operation Phoenix. Over a five-year period, American and South Vietnamese death squads assassinated tens of thousands of Vietnamese on the grounds they were supporting the Viet Cong (VC) liberation movement. Only the most craven apologist for US imperialism would claim that such atrocities were “legal” on the basis that many of the victims belonged to the VC.

The Labor government repeatedly tries to ennoble the Afghan war with flowery descriptions of Australian soldiers as “heroes” who are “putting their lives on the line for the rest us”. The truth is they are killing and maiming people, including entirely innocent civilians, of an oppressed country for a thoroughly reactionary, neo-colonial cause.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article21430.htm

Each year, hundreds or even thousands of Palestinian children are arrested, tortured, interrogated, abused and incarcerated by the criminals of the Israeli military occupation. In many cases the children are abused sexually by the Israeli interrogators. They are also imprisoned together with teenagers, criminals, and drugs dealers, who also attack the children, abused them sexually, and steal their personal belongings. Two children from the Nahalin village near Bethlehem told me how they had been abused sexually at the Israeli jail by criminals detained there.

Here is a Video which shows how the Israeli military treats the Palestinian children and their families while attending their illegal “military courts”.

A child described to me how the military judge accused him of throwing 40 stones at a military patrol near the Etzion military camp. The child swore to me that he had never been there. “Why I should my son travel from Nahalin to Etzion to throw stones at a military patrol driving in the mean street?” his mother asked me incredulous. This was not something logical for her child to do, said the mother of that child.

It is very clear that the accusation were invented, and this child was arrested and spent three years in the Israeli jails illegally, on trumped up charges.

What I also found confusing among the lies, was that the military judge had accused the child of throwing “40 stones” at a military patrol while driving near Etzion. How did the driver count the stones which the child had thrown? Did he stop driving, did he stand quite, calm and with cuffed hands, waiting for the child to start throwing stones, and counting the stones which he threw, 1, 2, 3, 4, … 40?

I have seen IDF soldiers arresting children who were in the kindergarten in Hebron, I also saw how they tortured and shot them just because they were playing football in a garden. I still remember how soldiers under orders from Colonel Yigal Sharon, a former IDF Commander of Hebron, shot Majdi Al-Mohtasib, age of 10 and his sister, age of 5 while playing football. The poor child Majdi had refused to give his ball to an IDF soldier, and received a bullet which broke the bones of his leg.

According to the human rights organization “Defence for Children International” (DCI), many children were jailed under administrative detention without any charge or trial.

Administrative detention is often based on “secret evidence.” Israeli military order 1226 empowers military

commanders to detain Palestinians, including children, for up to six months if they have “reasonable grounds to presume that the security of the area or public security require the detention.” The initial six month period can be extended by additional six-month periods, indefinitely.

The DCI confirmed that the Palestinian child detainees routinely face violations of their human rights during arrest, interrogation and imprisonment. They are exposed to physical and psychological abuse, amounting to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, and sometimes torture. They are denied prompt access to a lawyer and often denied contact with their families and the outside world. These children face substandard conditions of detention and are denied access to proper education services.

http://www.kawther.info/wpr/2009/09/05/video-of-palestinian-children-at-israeli-jail

MESSAGE DE L’UNION LOCALE CGT DU GRESIVAUDAN:

Chers Camarades et Amis (es), Cher Etienne,

C’est avec une grande satisfaction que nous avons reçu votre message
ci-dessous concernant notre Camarade Yacouba OUEDRAOGO. La position du
ministre est nette et, après la signature du protocole de sortie de crise,
c’est une nouvelle victoire pour les travailleurs de TOTAL BURKINA SA en
lutte et pour la CGT-B.

BRAVO à vous !!

Comment maintenant pouvons nous apporter notre soutien à la réintégration
rapide de Yacouba dans son entreprise et ses fonctions ?

A très bientôt de vos bonnes nouvelles

Fraternelles salutations à vous Toutes et Tous

UL CGT du Grésivaudan

————————————————————–

Objet : INFORMATIONS SUR LES SUITES DU DOSSIERS TOTAL BURKINA SA

Bonsoir Camarades

Au nom de l’UL du Kadiogo de la CGT-B, je voudrais une fois de plus,
vous réitérer nos remerciements et notre reconnaissance pour la solidarité
que vous nous avez témoigné lors de la remise en cause du libre exercice du
droit syndical dans notre pays à travers le licenciement du Camarade
OUEDRAOGO Yacouba par la direction Générale de TOTAL BURKINA SA courant
avril 2009.

Face à la dorée du mouvement et les tentatives de démobilisation qui
fusaient de toute part et instruit par des cas similaires qui se déjà
produit dans le passé, le Bureau Confédéral National de la CGTB s’était
saisi du dossier et à oeuvré pour la signature d’un protocole de sorti de
crise après trois semaines de grève. Dans ce protocole, la réintégration du
délégué était restée pendante et la centrale s’était réservée  le droit
d’user de toutes les voix qu’elle jugerait opportune pour obtenir
satisfaction. Conformément au document joint en fichier, le dossier vient de
réintégration une nouvelle évolution avec la réponse du ministre du travail
au recours hiérarchique introduit par le Camarade OUEDRAOUGO Yacouba. C’est
une étape car la législation du travail du Burkina donne la possibilité o la
direction de TOTAL BURKINA SA d’interjeter appel pour le  tribunal du
travail se saisisse du dossier; la procédure pouvant durer deux à trois ans
avant qu’une décision définitive n’intervienne. Elle n’est pas tenue de le
faire et en attendant la réponse du Ministre  au recours vient réconforter
les travailleurs toujours mobilisés.

Nous saisissons également cette occasion pour vous communiquer la
nouvelle adresse électronique de notre union locale. Désormais c’est par
ulcgtb.kadiogo@yahoo.fr que nous vous contacterons et vous pouvez nous
contacter. Merci pour tout et à bientot

Etienne CONVOLBO

Secrétaire Général, ULCGTB/Kadiogo

reponse_du_MTSS_au_recours_de_YACOUBA_OUEDRAOGO

Une journaliste soudanaise très connue , accusée de s’être habillée de façon “indécente”, a déclaré  qu’elle était passible de 40 coups de fouet en cas de condamnation pour un tel crime. Lubna Ahmed al-Hussein, qui rédige souvent  des billets dans le journal de gauche al-Sahafa et travaille aussi pour la Mission des Nations unies au Soudan (Unmis), a été arrêtée la semaine dernière à Khartoum. Elle est accusée de s’être vêtue de manière contraire à l’ordre public. “Le 3 juillet, j’étais au restaurant. Des policiers sont entrés et ont demandé aux filles qui portaient des pantalons de les suivre” au commissariat. “Ils m’ont emmenée ainsi que 12 autres filles, dont des  sudistes. Deux jours plus tard, 10 d’entre elles ont été convoquées au commissariat dans le centre de Khartoum et ont reçu 10 coups de fouet chacune”, a ajouté la jeune femme, qui porte le foulard islamique. Les trois autres femmes, dont elle fait  partie, ont été accusées “en vertu de l’article 152 du code pénal soudanais”, a-t-elle ajouté, soulignant que la date de son audience n’avait pas encore été fixée. Cet article de loi prévoit une peine de 40 coups de fouet pour quiconque “commet un acte indécent ou un acte qui viole la moralité publique ou porte des vêtements indécents”, selon le texte de loi. “Je veux que les gens sachent ce qui s’est passé”, a souligné  la journaliste Lubna Ahmed al-Hussein. Contrairement à d’autres pays de la région, les femmes sont très présentes dans la vie publique au Soudan, un pays majoritairement musulman. Mais certaines lois demeurent discriminatoires à leur égard, estiment des organisations de défense des droits de l’Homme.

Israelis torture, rape applied by US military and agencies to every single detainee in US prisons or camps

http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=96365&sectionid=3510203

The Zionists and Torture in Iraq: Seymour Hersh and the Missing Zionist-Israeli Connection

OBAMA IS COMPLICE OF EVERY SINGLE DEATH, RAPE AND TORTURE… FORGET ABOUT ‘USA IS NOT IN WAR AGAINST ISLAM’, RAPE PICTURES WILL BE PUBLISHED ALL OVER THE WORLD AND WAR CRIMINAL SUCH AS HIM AND PENTAGONE MONSTERS WILL PAY FOR WHAT THEY’VE DONE AND WHAT THEY ARE TRYING TO COVER ! DO YOU THINK IT’S PLAYING THE GAME OF ZIONISTS IN LONDON , BARACK ?

An Exposé of an Exposé

As I read Hersh s highly publicized and influential reports in the New Yorker Magazine on torture in US occupied Iraq (1), it became increasingly apparent that this was not a thoroughly researched exposé of the higher ups responsible for the policy of torture. Hersh s reportage was a selective account guided by selected question about selected officials. As one reads through Hersh s version of events with increasing incredulity it is clear that Hersh hangs his whole argument and exposé of US officials involved in the use of torture on one person Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld – (important to be sure) and not on the other top Defense officials who were extremely influential and responsible for war policy, establishing intelligence agencies and co-coordinating strategy and tactics during the occupation. Rumsfeld was part of an elite, which sanctioned and promoted torture. Throughout his exposé Hersh deliberately omits the role of the Zionists (Wolfowitz, Feith numbers 2 and 3 in the Pentagon) who supported and promoted the war, torture-interrogation and particularly Israeli experts who led seminars teaching the US Military Intelligence their torture-interrogation techniques of Arab prisoners based on their half-century of practice.

In looking for documentary sources of torture interrogation Hersh relies on academic texts and 20 year old CIA manuals, not Israeli practice widely disseminated by the Mossad and Shin Bet advisers presently involved in torture in neighboring Palestine and Iraq today.

Hersh is presented in the mass media as an iconoclastic, investigative journalist, a role which gives his reportages and exposés a great deal of credibility. Yet it was Seymour Hersh who publicly defended torture of suspects and their family members as a method of interrogation, citing the Israeli examples in the wake of September 11, justifying torture in the same way as the Pentagon now justifies the torture of Iraqi suspects. Instead of citing an obscure professor at the University of Chicago, Hersh should have cited the influential tract defending torture by Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz (a fellow Zionist) widely read by the civilian militarists who run the Pentagon, and direct the chain of command leading to interrogation through torture.

Hersch’s account fails to provide a political context in the Pentagon and in the Middle East for the systematic use of torture. To understand the issue of the US practice of torture and violent abuse of Iraqi prisoners and civilians requires an examination of the ideological demonization of the Iraqi population the Arabs and the US unconditional political and military support for the state of Israel, the principal long-term large-scale practitioner of torture against Arabs. The most vitriolic systematic denigration of Arabs and Muslims in the Middle East is found in the writings an speeches of influential US-based Zionist ideologues, like the Pipes (father and son), the Kristols (senior and junior), the Kagans, Cohens, Goldhagens and others. The first step toward justifying torture is to dehumanize the victim, to label them as untermensch (congenitally violent savages). The Zionists in the US were merely following the pronouncements of their ideological mentors in Israel who not infrequently proclaimed that the only thing the Arab understands is force (Sharon, Golda Meier, Dayan, Rabin etc&). The Zionist ideologues in the Pentagon were influential in arousing hatred of Arabs in several ways. First in their defense of Israel they deliberately distorted the nature of Israel s colonial war, blaming the Palestinian victims for the systematic violence which Israel inflicted on them. The ideologues defended every Israeli violent action: the massacre in Jenin, new Jewish settlements in the West Bank, the murderous assault on Rafah, the killing of UN aid workers and peace activists, the monstrous wall ghettoizing a whole people, the mass murder of hundreds of Palestinians and destructions of thousands of homes in Gaza. Israeli violence against Palestinians made a deep impression on US Zionists who generalized and deepened their animus to Arab Muslims throughout the Middle East, but particularly in Iraq where they were in a position to implement their policies.

The Zionists and Torture in Iraq

The Pentagon s main source of intelligence and propaganda for the invasion and occupation of Iraq was in part derived from the Office of Specials Plans (OSP) and Counter-terrorism Evaluation Group established by ultra-Zionist Douglas Feith, Undersecretary of Defense (third in the Pentagon hierarchy) with strong support from Wolfowitz, Abrams and Rumsfeld. Feith put fellow Zionist, Abram Shulsky in charge of OSP. The Special Group bypassed normal CIA and military intelligence agencies and secured its own intelligence prior to the war and was involved in securing intelligence during the first stages of the occupation (before it was dismantled). As the Iraqi resistance increased its effectiveness and the US justification for the war (weapons of mass destruction) was proven to be a total fabrication of the Special Group, the top echelon of the Pentagon, Rumsfeld and the Zionists grew desperate they collectively passed the orders to intensify and extend torture to all Iraqi suspects in all the prisons. It is a gross simplification to say that the line of command was limited to Rumsfeld, when Wolfowitz, Feith and Abrams were also intimately involved in everyday policies prosecuting the war, defending the occupation and controlling intelligence.

Even more than Rumsfeld, the Zionist zealots in the Pentagon were the most ardent promoters of introducing Israeli methods of torturing and humiliating Arab suspects, lauding Israeli successes in dealing with the Arabs . They, not military intelligence, promoted the use of Israeli experts in interrogation; they encouraged Israeli led seminars in urban warfare and interrogation techniques for the US military intelligence officers and private contractors.

Nothing about the responsibility of the Pentagon Zionists in the torture of Iraqis appears in Hersh s expose . The glaring omissions are deliberate as they are obvious form a systematic pattern and serve the purpose of exonerating the Pentagon Zionists and Israel and hanging the entire responsibility for war crimes on Rumsfeld.

A Close Look at Hersh s Method

A close reading of Hersh’s series of articles in the New Yorker reveals his premises and political perspectives, none of which have anything to do with democratic values or concern with human rights.

Hersh s principal concern is that Rumsfeld’s blanket order to use torture disrupted the operations of an elite group made up of professional commandos involved in a secret special access program designed to murder, kidnap, torture terror suspects throughout the world. In other words by involving thousands of everyday US soldiers (referred to by one of Hersh s sources as hillbillies ) as torturers in Iraq Rumsfeld was endangering the operation of professional killers throughout the world. Hersh s second major concern was that the discovery of the torture would hurt America s (sic) prospects in the war on terror in other words a tactic he attributed (solely and wrongfully) to Rumsfeld was endangering the US empire-building capacity. Hersh s empire-centric view refuses to recognize the elementary rights of self-determination and international law. Hersh s third apparent concern is with Rumsfeld s bypassing the CIA and other intelligence agencies and attempt to monopolize intelligence. This is a bit ingenuous. Wolfowitz and Feith set up the special intelluigence agency that fed Rumsfeld the fabricated intelligence, they promoted Chalabi (known throughout Washington intelligence circles as totally unreliable) as an impeccable source of inside information , in Saddams non-existent weapons of mass destruction knowing in advance that they were passing phony data . As Wolfowitz latter cynically admitted the decision to launch the US invasion over banned weapons was because it was the only issue they could agree upon.

Hersh is not stupid, he knows what everyone else in Washington and out of government knows: the Zionists in the Pentagon were pushing for war with Iraq before 9/11 (even before they took office in Washington and were working with the Israeli state) and were intent on having the US destroy Iraq, at any price including the loss of American lives, budget busting deficits, imperiling oil interests and jeopardizing US global imperial interests.

They launched the invasion bypassing the military central command by deliberately falsifying the response of the conquered Iraqi people ( they will welcome us as liberators Wolfowitz and Perle) and intent on destroying civil and state structures (the so-called de-Baathification purges) in order to forever undermine Iraq s capacity to challenge Israel s domination of the Middle East.

None of Hersh s questions explore these well known facts about who is responsible for the atrocities against Iraqis. He didn t have to cite unnamed intelligence or Pentagon sources General Anthony Zinni and many non-Zionists insiders, as well as the CIA and Central Command knew about the Zionist promoters, plans and moreover knew the role Feith played in pushing for harsher interrogation techniques. But Hersh ignored these questions, those Zionists and their ideological supporters and advisers who did everything possible to undermine any Iraqi economic recovery and capacity to run their own education, health and electoral systems. De-Baathification was meant to turn Iraq into a backward tribal, divided desert country run by their protégé Chalabi, the only candidate who would recognize Israel, supply it with oil and support Mid-East integration under Israeli hegemony. The Zionist Pentagonistas succeeded in securing the war, they succeeded in destroying basic Iraqi social services, they destroyed the state (courts, military, civil services). However in their blind subservience to Israel they overlooked the fact that the disbanded professional soldiers and purged civil leaders and professionals would become part of an experienced armed resistance, that Iraq would become ungovernable, that US rule would crumble, that the US would become bogged down in a politically lost war, that its puppet regime would have neither legitimacy nor popular support. The Zionist did what they thought was best for Israel, even if it provoked greater opposition world-wide, including in the US, where a majority have turned against the occupation by May 2004. Only the Israeli transmission belt, AIPAC would cheer Bush and his continuation of the occupation and pledge allegiance to the Israeli war against Palestinians. When their self-serving prediction of an Iraqi welcoming committee turned into a valiant popular anti-colonial war, Feith and his underlings called for greater use of more forceful interrogation methods Rumsfeld and Feith encouraged Israeli type torture to humiliate the Arabs . Meanwhile Kagan s call to bomb the Arab street was tried and failed to intimidate the Iraqi resistance.

Hersh s exposé of Rumsfeld as the only top culprit turns up at a convenient moment: when US policy has failed and most knowledgeable officials are moving closer to identifying the role of the Pentagon Zionists. It was clever by half: Rumsfeld was universally despised in Congress, among the professional military and a host of others for his policies and arrogant public face. Even in exposing Rumsfeld however Hersh is careful to do so in a fashion that allows his Zionist colleagues to continue in office unscathed.

Hersh justifies some of Rumsfeld s acts of illegal terror by describing legalistic obstacles to eliminating terrorists. Hersh s support for Rumsfeld s resort to unaccountable commandos engaging in assassination, kidnapping and torture of suspects around the world is in effect a way to condone those tactics after Rumsfeld leaves office. If Rumsfeld resigns, torture will continue under colleagues Feith and Wolfowitz. Hersh drags in a fifth level functionary working under Feith, Stephan Cambone, who he tells us was deeply involved in the torture of prisoners more involved than his Zionist superiors? We might ask the peerless investigatory journalist: How is it that Hersh blames those above above (Rumsfeld) and those below (Cambone) but never focuses on Feith and Wolfowitz who designed and directed policy?

In setting up Cambone for the exposé, Hersh profiles Cambome in terms that fit with greater pertinence the Zionists: He advocated war with Iraq (following Wolfowitz, Feith, Perle and Abrams); he disdained the CIA who the Pentagon Zionists viewed as too cautious ; he attacked the CIA for not finding WMD. Since Cambone functioned under Wolfowitz and Feith he was simply repeating what his bosses wanted to hear and perhaps that s why they entrusted him with the relevant dirty tasks of extracting intelligence via torture.

Hersh tries to link Cambone with the extension of the torture practiced selectively by the Special Agency Program. SAP was already operative before Cambone took office and its operations were under the direction of Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith and Abrams. Hersh s dating of the torture in August 2003 with Cambone and Major General Miller (from Guantanamo) assignment is false. It started earlier under the SAP and with Israeli trained interrogators. Moreover the Pentagon headed by the same three (Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Feith) ordered Miller s use of torture on suspects at Guantanamo who moved him to Iraq as a reward for exemplary work. Hersh does not explore Miller s links with Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Feith before going to Iraq. He simply aborts the analysis looks at the middle and lower levels of power: Cambone, Miller, interrogators, and enlisted soldiers. Out of this framework Hersh comes up with a detailed piece of selective investigatory journalism. Hersh exposes some but covers up for those most actively involved in invoking the war and directing it in a way that served Israeli interests. The cost in US lives and the degradation of young US servicemen forced to assume the role of torturers is of little concern to the Pentagon Zionists. Even after all the exposés of torture, killings and rapes, major Zionist ideologues like Kristol, Krauthammer, Rubin, Perle, Kagan and Frum have launched attacks on Bush for backing off from the war.

The Pentagon s Zionists are under attack. In the face of the US debacle in Iraq, the anti-Zionist coalition found in the State Department, the Military, the CIA and elsewhere have launched a counter-offensive. Marine General Anthony Zinni, Senator Fritz Hollings and other prominent political, diplomatic and military leaders have openly identified the role of the Pentagon Zionists in launching and directing the war to favor Israel. The most recent and visible move was the marginalization of the pro-Israel Chalabi the protégé of Wolfowitz, Feith and Abrams. The raid on his house and the carting off of his records, ostensibly to investigate financial irregularities is a symbolic setback. So is the US abstention in the Security Council on Israel s rape of Rafah much to the chagrin of the Israel First crowd at the AIPAC convention. In response all the major Jewish organizations and publications from the Forward, Anti-Defamation League, AJC and others have denounced the critics of the Pentagon Zionists.

Hersh attempts to head off the anti-Zionist headhunting coalition by focusing on the two Goyim Rumsfeld and Cambone has been to no avail. The knives are drawn. Because of Zionist power in and out of the government, the anti-Zionist coalition and their supporters use code words, the most common of which is neo-conservative , which everyone now knows means Wolfowitz, Feith, Abrams and other Zionists in and out of the government. AIPAC, the Anti-Defamation League and other Israel Firsters sensing the danger to their co-thinkers have turned to labeling critics of the neo-conservative militarists anti-Semites and arousing Congress members, the media and their propaganda machine into silencing the coalition into submission..

But the Coalition is gaining influence Bush is insisting on handing over symbolic power to Iraqi Shias in a subtle game of cooption promoted by the State Department. Already the Zionists led by Kagan and Kristol have all but called Bush a traitor and coward for retreating.

The photos of torture, which have discredited the war policy, threaten to isolate the Zionist zealots. Faced with the indignation of the whole civilized world at the war crimes, the progressive Zionist apologists, like Hersh, take to isolating blame on Cambone and Rumsfeld and minimizing the responsibility to a few soldiers in a cell block , as did Senator Lieberman while the AIPAC elite cheer Bush on with the war ignoring the muck and blood of torture.

Rumsfeld has shrewdly tied his future to his Zionist partners in the Pentagon and outside, counting on riding on their coat tails and reaping the support of the powerful Jewish lobby and their leaders in the Israeli state, who stand behind them. He has few other influential allies.

Conclusion

In the final analysis even if Wolfowitz, Feith, Abrams, Rubin, Libby and the current crop of Zionist Pentagonistas are forced to resign it will only be a temporary setback. The Zionist political organizations remain intact, their influence over Congress remains overwhelming and they have pledges from both major presidential candidates that Israel s cause is America s cause (Bush and Kerry). The Zionist juggernaut grinds on, securing sanctions against Syria and calling for the bombing of Iran s supposed nuclear facilities. If you can t find a real threat to the US maybe the next crop of Zionists in power will cook up another consensual pretext . Holbrooke and Sandy Berger can tutor the US on multi-lateral wars of aggression.

Meantime among those who still deny Zionist power in US foreign policy, one only has to read the accounts of the AIPAC conference in Washington in May 2004. At a time when Israel was killing children in the streets of Rafah and destroying hundreds of homes under the horrified eyes of the entire civilized world, when an indignant UN Security Council finally rose to its feet and unanimously condemned Israel, US Congressional leaders and the two major Presidential candidates pledged unconditional support to Israel, evoking the bloodthirsty cheers of investment brokers, dentists, doctors, lawyers the cream of the cream of American Jewish society. The cause of Israel is the cause of America rings out from the mouth of every candidate as the Israelis bulldoze homes and snipers shoot small girls on their way to buy candy. Its almost as if Sharon wanted to demonstrate the power of the Zionists in the US, timing the vile destruction of Rafah to coincide with the AIPAC convention and the disgusting appearance of the spineless American politicians supporting ongoing crimes against humanity. Not one voice was raised in even meek protest. To those who claim that the Zionist are just one of a number of influential lobbies try explaining the unconditional support for Israel s genocide of the Palestinian people by the most powerful politicians in the US.

It is almost a perverse pleasure to watch Sharon smear the muck and gore of Rafah on the groveling faces of US politicians they deserve each other. But for those of us who support a democratic anti-imperialist foreign policy this is one of the most humiliating moments in US history. Something we won t read in the exposés of Hersh or the erudite Zionist treatises in defense of endless wars.

(1) Seymour Hersh, Torture at Abu Ghraib: American soldiers brutalized Iraqis. How far does responsibility go?, New Yorker, May 10, 2004; The Gray Zone: How a secret Pentagon program came to Abu Ghraib, New Yorker, May 25, 2004, and Mixed Messages: Why the government didn t know what it knew, New Yorker, June 3, 2004

Ques

tions:

• comment, dans une démocratie,

peux-t-on laisser s’accaparer, par

quelques personnes, les moyens de

production?

• Peux-t-on parler de démocratie

indstrielle?

Voir le film:

Chomsky et compagnie

(Pour en finir avec le fabrique de l’impuissance)

un film de Olivier AZAM et Daniel MERMET

d’après une série de reportage de Daniel Mermet et Civ Anquetil pour LA-BAS SI J’Y SUIS (FRANCE INTER)

une production Les Mutins de la Pangée 2008

Wikipedia: opinion politique de NOAM CHOMSKY

Union Locale de

Massy et des environs

Pétition reprise par le syndicat Cgt Tyco Electronics Fance SAS: http://cgttefsas.wordpress.com/

Les menaces s’étaient intensifiées après le sit-in de 5 heures devant le siège de l’entreprise à Ouagadougou, le 27 mars dernier. Elles ont été mises en exécution le 23 avril, après l’arrivée de Paris, du responsable Afrique du groupe Total, Stanislas Mitelman, qui agit avec le soutien de l’État burkinabé. Depuis, les travailleurs de Total Burkina sont en grève illimitée.

Le personnel de Total Burkina revendique une prime de bilan, une révision de la grille des salaires et une amélioration de leur conditions de vie et de travail. Mais au Burkina comme ailleurs, le groupe Total (13,9 milliards de bénéfices en 2008) n’a su répondre que par l’exploitation et la répression.

La rapacité et le cynisme de ce groupe phare de l’impérialisme français, symbole du système odieux néo-colonial de la « Françafrique » est sans limites. Sa soif de profits passe avant les impératifs écologiques (marée noire de l’Erika) et avant la sécurité des populations (explosion d’AZF). Elle n’épargne ni les pays qu’il pille (Gabon, Birmanie…), ni ceux où il vend ses carburants à des prix exorbitants (C’est cette hausse des prix des carburants et des produits alimentaires de première nécessité qui, l’année dernière, ont provoqué des émeutes au Burkina, comme dans de nombreux autres pays africains.) C’est avec ce même cynisme qu’il a annoncé un projet de 555 suppressions d’emplois dans plusieurs usines françaises, quelques jours à peine après la publication des ses profits « historiques » !

Nous, nous félicitons de la solidarité immédiatement manifestée par la coordination des syndicats CGT de Total France. Comme l’a montré l’engagement des salariés d’Yves Rocher France lors de la longue lutte des femmes de la Gacilienne (Groupe Yves Rocher – Burkina), c’est ensemble que nous pouvons faire reculer nos patrons communs.

Nous apportons notre TOTAL SOUTIEN à la lutte du personnel de TOTAL BURKINA.

Ses revendications doivent être satisfaites, Yacouba doit être réintégré !

Nom / Prénom	Ville	Signature

Cette pétition sera remise à la CGT du Burkina.

Elle est diffusée par l’Union Locale Cgt de Massy, ulcgtmassy@wanadoo.fr et peut être reprise et diffusée par toute organisation d’accord avec son contenu.