100%

Scanned image of the page. Keyboard directions: use + to zoom in, - to zoom out, arrow keys to pan inside the viewer.

Page Options

Download this Issue

Share

Something wrong?

Something wrong with this page? Report problem.

Rights / Permissions

This collection, digitized in collaboration with the Michigan Daily and the Board for Student Publications, contains materials that are protected by copyright law. Access to these materials is provided for non-profit educational and research purposes. If you use an item from this collection, it is your responsibility to consider the work's copyright status and obtain any required permission.

December 10, 1978 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily, 1978-12-10

Disclaimer: Computer generated plain text may have errors. Read more about this.

Page 4-Sunday, December 10, 178-The Michigan Daily
hie3idbi gan iBa61g
420 Maynard St., Ann Arbor, MI 48109
Eighty-Nine Years of Editorial Freedom
Vol. LXXXIX, No. 78 News Phone: 764-0552
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan
Dear Stansfield Turner:

Semester in review

'WE WOULD LIKE TO TAKE
this opportunity to'clarify our
position on the activities of the Central
Intelligence Agency and respond to
some of the important issues you raise
in your letter to The Daily dated
November 14, 1978.
As you point out in your letter, the
Senate Select Committee on
Intelligence Activities chaired by
Senator Frank Church (D-Idaho)
reported that a broad range of factors
has shaped the CIA, including the
course of international events,
pressures from other government
agencies, and its own internal norms.
This is an obvious assessment with
which surely no one could differ. But it
does not bring to light the essence of
our basic difference, that the CIA is out
of control.
To understand this basic conclusion,
it is helpful to look back on some of
these factors which have, over the
course of the CIA's 31-year history,
shaped this government agency which
has always been, and remains, a threat
to the ideal of democracy.
The CIA was established in 1947,
under the National Security Act, when
the Cold War was building and many in
this country perceived World War II as
a very real possibility. United States
policy makers needed accurate
intelligence on and objective analysis
of events outside of the country. The
CIA was created to provide that
service.
xAccording to the Senate Select
Committee's final report: "There is no
substantial evidence that Congress
intended by passage of the National
Security Act of 1947 to authorize covert
action by the CIA or that Congress
even anticipated that the CIA would
engage in such activities."
Again, according to the Committee's-
report, the director of central
intelligence (DCI) approved all covert
action projects on his own authority
between 1949 and 1952. From that point
to the mid-1950s, there was only
minimal restrictions placed on the DCI
- the DCI coordinated approval of
covert action projects with a
subcommittee of the National Security
Council.
What is most important about this
virtually unfettered period in the CIA's
history is the attitude which pervaded
the agency and the tone, if not the
general demeanor, it set for all further
CIA covert activities. This attitude
about, and rationale for, covert
activities was described in the
introduction of a top secret report on
CIA covert activities prepared for
President Eisenhower. The report
stated:
It is now clear that we are facing an
implacable enemy whose avowed objective is
world domination by whatever means, and
at whatever cost. There are no rules in such a
game. Hitherto acceptable norms of human
conduct do not apply. If the U. S. is to
survive, longstanding American concepts of
'fair play" must be reconsidered. We must
develop effective espionage and
counterespionage services and must learn to
subvert, sabotage, and destroy our enemies
by more clever, more sophisticated, and
more effective methods than those used
against us. It may become necessary that the

American people be made acquainted with,
understand and support this fundamentally
repugnant philosophy.
T WAS THIS "fundamentally repug-
nant philosophy" in the CIA
which gave rise to the secret 25-year,
$25 million effort by the agency to
learn how to control the human mind.
Under the project names of
BLUEBIRD, ARTICHOKE,
MKULTRA, and MKDELTA, the CIA
essayed to develop, according to a
January 25, 1952 CIA memorandum,
'any method by which we can get
information from a person against his
will and without his knowledge."

used as a subject.
Despite the apparent immensity of
the program, it was just part of the
abuses perpetrated by the CIA since its
inception. In Western Europe after
World War II the CIA, in an effort to
keep France and Italy from going
communist, recruited underworld
figures to squash labor strikes.
But these seem like minor
infractions when compared to the
overthrow of Premier Mohammed
Mossadegh in Iran, the coup which
brought Shah Mohammed Reza
Pahlavi to power, the overthrow of
President Jacofo Arbenz Guzman of
Guatemala, and the overthrow of
President Salvadore Allende in
Chile. These are just a few of the
numerous guerrilla warfare
expeditions the CIA has carried out
around the world.
The CIA has also funneled a great
deal of energy and money into
a mammoth propaganda program to
sway world opinion in favor of United
States foreign policy.
In some cases, the CIA used, and
continues to use, American university
and college professors to write
propaganda. This brings the discussion
to CIA activities within the United
States and particularly on university
campuses. Today, the CIA is using
several hundred academics -
professors, administrators, and
graduate students involved in teaching
- to covertly recruit students on
campus.
The domestic spying operation,
which the CIA has no charter to
perform, can only be mentioned in
passing, along with the other covert
operations mentioned hence.
The list of abuses is long and still
largely unknown, due to the agency's
obsession with secrecy in the name of
national security.
You state in your letter, Mr. Turner,
that "rather than being out of control
as (we) allege, the United States
intelligence community, and
specifically the CIA, are under the
tightest internal and externals controls
of their history.''
The question here is, whose control.
Yes, President Nixon did give the word
to eliminate President Allende. But the
justification that "we were only
following orders" sounds all too
terribly familiar. No President of the
United States should be able to use
such a destructive tool as the CIA. It
was never intended and should not be.
Mr. Turner, the point which you
seem to be missing is that regardless
of where, for example, the order to
eliminate President Allende came, it
was wrong - morally and
unequivocably wrong. It was not in
keeping with American foreign policy
objectives - at least what most
Americans believe is the essence of
American foreign policy.
Do you sincerely believe that, if in
1970, a plebiscite were held,
Americans, by ' a simple majority,
would have voted to order the CIA to
overthrow the President of Chile? Do

you even believe that if the question
were put to Congress that it would have
voted to order the CIA to overthrow
Salvadore Allende?
The facts speak for themselves. The
conclusion is simple and yet of the
utmost importance: the CIA must be
disbanded.
To simply reorganize or pass new
legislation would not be sufficient. It
would leave in place the mechanism
and the temptation to again abuse the
human rights of all individuals for the
sake of national security.
Clearly policy makers have a need
for intelligence and objective analysis.
We would like to see a new intelligence

President
Fleming
resigns
When University President Robben
Fleming arrived on campus in 1967, he said a
person should only retain such a post for 10
years. On September 14 of this year, he ended
the rumors and speculation by announcing he
would leave the University in December,
after an 11-year reign.
Fleming told the Regents that heplanned to
assume the presidency of the Washington
D.C. based Corporation for Public
Broadcasting (CPB) in January. University
Law Professor and former Vice, President for
Academic Affairs Allan Smith was chosen to y<.
be acting president while a committee of
Regents, faculty, alumni and students
conduct a search for Fleming's permanent
replacement.
Fleming said the decision to leave was a
difficult one, but he noted that he would
become eligible for a University pension
when he reaches age 62 in December, and he
reiterated the philosophy behind his "10 years
and out" statement of 1967.
"I think it is good for universities to turn
over their top leadership," he explained.
The Regents lauded Fleming for the
stability and leadership qualities he brought
to the University. .
"We will evernbe in your debt for the service
you have given us,"~ said Regent Thomas
Roach (D-Detroit).
Fleming came to the University during a Fleming was, at the time, Chancellor of the
lull between crises, but he became well- Madison campus of the University of
known for even-handed management of the Wisconsin, and contemplating an offer to
era of student protest in the late 1960s, and become president of the University of
early 1970s. Minnesota, when the Regents finally offerec
Fleming replaced Harlan Hatcher, who had him the Ann Arbor post.
proved himself totally incapable of handling With Fleming in charge, the office of th(
the student power movement. Hatcher presidency changed. He made himself
isolated himself in his office, and refused to available to students, and encouraged them to
meet with student groups. express their views. In fact, he even sidec
The Regents were aware that the student with tiudent protesters on several issues
movement was growing, and this was an most notably his anti-war stance and his
important factor in choosing Fleming. His support for a non-voting student Regent.
background as a top labor negotiator, and his Fleming earned the respect and thanks of
easy, affable nature convinced the Regents the faculty, adr'inistration and'Regents for
that he would be the perfect mediator his level-headed actions during those
between the students and the University. turbulent times.

Sam off strugg
Political Science Assistant Prof. Joel
Samoff continued his fight to overturn his
tenure denial this semester as his supporters
stepped up efforts to keep Samoff in Ann Ar-
bor.
Samoff has twice been denied tenure-a job
guarantee, without which he will be dismissed
by the University.
Inadequate research was given as the of-
ficial explanation for the departments tenure
refusal. However, Samoff's backers charged
that political bias may have been involved.
Samoff, who specializes in the study of
southern Africa and Third World affairs, uses
a Marxist methodology in his work. His sup-
porters say that other faculty members may
have been unwilling to have another Marxist
in the department.
Ironically, Samoff received a distinguished
service award from President Robben
Fleming at the annual State of the University
address Oct. 9 for his teaching and con-
tributions to the University community.
Samoff's backers say his tenure denial also
highlights the lack of emphasis on teaching
ability in faculty tenure decisions campus-
wise.
In September, Samoff filed a formal appeal
of his case to the Literary College (LSA)
Executive Committee. Under LSA
procedures, a tenure appeal board, consisting
of one member nominated by Samoff, one
chosen by Political Science Chairman Sam
Barnes, and a third picked by the first two,
will hear the appeal.
The Samoff Support Committee, mean-
while, has been pursuing public channels to
fight the tenure denial. Their biggest showing
was at the November meeting of the Board of
Regents,'when more than 100 students and
faculty members appeared to push for
Samoff's retention.
As the Winter term approached, the support
group opted for a more militant strategy.
Some 15 students signed a protest letter,
vowing to boycott courses offered by the
Political Science Department until Samoff
receives tenure. How many others will join
the boycott remains to be seen. Clearly the
Samoff case is far from closed at term's end.

.4

Back to Top

© 2020 Regents of the University of Michigan