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.

October 10, 1970 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily, 1970-10-10

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


Eighty years of editorial freedom
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan

The

FBI: Federal Bureau of Instigation?

420 Maynard St., Ann Arbor, Mich.

News Phone: 764-0552

Editorials printed in The Michigan Daily express the individual opinions of staff writers
or the editors. This must be noted in all reprints.

SATURDAY, OCTOBER 10, 1970

NIGHT EDITOR: ROBERT KRAFTOWITZ

q

Standstill cease-fire:
Standstill aggression

PRESIDENT NIXON'S proposal for a
standstill cease-fire in Vietnam as a
precursor to meaningful negotiations in
Vietnam marks only a continuance of the
policies that have d r i v e n this country
through five years of slaughter in Viet-
nam.
Confused and distorted as the war has
made it, the key to the conflict continues
to be the question of self-determination
for the Vietnamese people. Nixon's pro-
posal is unacceptable because the con-
tinuing presence of U.S. military forces
in Indochina, constitutes very real po-
litical influeice-influence to which this
country has no moral claim.
A much more reasonable solution to
the war was proposed by the Viet Cong
three weeks ago, but it was quickly brush-
ed aside as "nothing new" by the Nixon
administration. Under the Viet Cong pro-
posal, a cease-fire, swift U.S. troop with-
drawals and the election of a coalition
government would have been undertaken.
But the continued assumption of an
American right to influence in the gov-
ernance of Vietnam is hardly surprising.
For, in essence, the history of the war is
simply the story of how political domina-
tion by outside powers has turned to re-
pression and genocide in the hands of the.
bloody obstinancy of the U.S. military.
THE CONFLICT in Indochina began
during World War II, at first as a
nationalist movement to throw out the
Japanese occupation forces. It continued
as a war against the French, who at-
tempted to resume their colonial role at
the end of the world war.
Militarily defeated by the Viet Minh in
1954, the French left Vietnam and the
country was "temporarily" divided be-
tween North and South under the pro-
visions of the G e n e v a Accords. This
agreement, which was never ratified by
the United States, called for reunifica-
tion of the country under a government
to be elected in 1956.'
When the time for elections came, how-
ever, the right-wing Bao Dai govern-
ment in the South refused to hold them
and was supported by the United States.
Had the elections been held, the country
would almost surely have been unified
under Ho Chi Minh, the most well-known
I e a d e r 'of the Vietnamese nationalist
struggle.
Substantial n u m b e r s of those who
moved north of the demilitarized zone in
1954 had actually been residents of areas
under the Saigon regime. In the late 50's,
many of these Vietnamese returned to
the south to resume the fight against the
Saigon government.
FROM THEN ON, the conflict escalated,
with increases in U.S. military in-
volvement matched by increased military
support for the National Liberation Front
from Hanoi.
As a result, the countryside has been
decimated, the death toll staggering and
the devastated h u m a n dislocation im-
mense. Total recovery, even if the war
were to end today, would take decades.
Almost all of these horrors are directly
attributable to the actions of the U.S.
military.
In fact, the U.S. government has never
been able to produce a document show-
ing that the Saigon government, then
very unstable and dependent on Ameri-
can support, ever asked for or agreed to
the massive influx of U.S. troops in 1965.
In a very concrete sense, this dramatic
increase in troop level was simply an in-
vasion of South Vietnam.
Beyond the mere presence of U.S. troops
and bombers, the manner in which the
U.S. military has chosen to press the
struggle has demonstrated the unprin-
cipled immorality of American intentions
and tragically added to the destructive-

ness of the war.
THE STORY of how the Vietnam War
has been fought remains largely un-
told because representatives of the press
have been kept away from crucial battle
zones and have only occasionally looked
beyond official government statements.
Nonetheless, certain patterns are be-
coming increasingly clear. For example
the My Lai massacre was not an isolated
incident. As the frustration of the U.S.
military was heightened by continual in-

cramped cities where they can be effec-
tively controlled by the Saigon govern-
ment. Especially in the Mekong Delta
area, those who refused to leave the
homelands of their ancestors were wiped
out by intensive bombing raids. Forced
urbanization is now being employed in
Cambodia as well.
Between 1965 and 1968, the countryside
of North Vietnam, especially the area
near the DMZ was subjected to concen-
trated destruction by B-52 bombers. The
fire power of the bombs dropped during
this period was greater than that of all
bombs dropped during World War II.
Even now, after the "cessation" of bomb-
ing, U.S. planes conduct frequent bomb-
ing runs over the North under the Catch-
22 guise of "retaliation" for the anti-air-
craft resistance other U.S. bombers have
received!
MEANWHILE, THE bombing and chem-
ical defoliation of S o u t h Vietnam
continue on an expanded scale. And with
the opening of hostilities in Cambodia,
the pattern is being repeated there. U.S.
bombers are operating in tactical support
of government troops, and in an attempt
to destroy the supply trails from North
Vietnam to nationalist Cambodian forces.
That massacres, bombings and forced
urbanization were carried out at all is
shattering to all moral sensibilities. That
they were carried out in support of gov-
ernments like those in Saigon and Phnom
Penh o n 1 y underscores t h e mythical
character of the claim that the real con-
cern of the U.S. government is democracy
for the Indochinese people.
THE PRESENT m i1i t a r y government
came to power in a military coup cul-
minating a series of such takeovers last-
ing about 18 months. At a minimum, this
coup had the passive support of both the
U.S. military and the Central Intelligence
Agency.
Since then, the takeover has been "legi-
timized" by the 1967 "democratic" elec-
tions in South Vietnam. In that vote,
however, the Thieu-Ky ticket garnered
substantially less than 50 per cent of the
vote. The r u n n e r u p in the elections,
Troung Dinh Dzu, captured about 30 per
cent of the vote running on a ticket sup-
porting a coalition government for South
Vietnam. He was soon after sentenced to
five years in jail by the Thieu govern-
ment under a law which made it a crime
to advocate a coalition government. He
is still in prison.
So are several members of dissenting
factions of the National Assembly. So are
many South Vietnamese students who
have objected to compulsory military
training in the universities. So are many
newspaper e d i t o r s and reporters who
have broken the government's strict cen-
sorship rules.
Clearly, the Saigon regime has no re-
gard for any of the basic principles of
democracy.
OBSESSED BY the ideology of the cold
war, the United States was drawn
deeper and deeper into the quagmire of
Vietnam.
Failing to adequately bolster the Sai-
gon government by aid alone, massive
numbers of troops were committed. Find-
ing the Vietnamese people solidly antag-
onistic, the military turned to the wide-
spread terrorism of random slaughter.
Faced with a government in Saigon that
was acceptable to neither Vietnam nor
America the military created one that
was repressive enough to maintain con-
trol and, at the same time, structurally
democratic so as to lend some semblance
of sanity to the claims of a desire for
democracy.

No extension of this policy can rectify
the damage that has been done to the
people of Vietnam. The issue is still self-
determination for South Vietnam and
Cambodia, and self-determination will
never be accomplished as long as U.S.
troops and bombers remain in these
countries.
IMMEDIACY IS the key to making even
" total withdrawal an acceptable solu-
tion to the war. For by using a prolonged
disengagement, the U.S. is molding Viet-
nam in a way that may become increas-
in el ir-n rh1 r- a crvnn. 91-

By LINDSAY CHANEY
PRESIDENT NIXON'S recent call for an additional
1,000 FBI agents to deal with campus unrest and
aerial hijacking bolsters the grand old tradition of the
G-men - a tradition which, unfortunately, is outdated
by about 30 years.
The FBI tradition was born in the 1930's when ,the
G-men spent their time chasing glamorous gangsters in
exploits that garnered headlines across the country. Be-
cause of the publicity thus generated, the Bureau culti-
vated an image as a super-efficient police force whose
actions were always in the national interest and whose
motives were beyond reproach.
Although the era of the shoot-'em-up gangster is ov-
er, the FBI spends much of its time trying to maintain
the image that was built up during the 1930's. One way
of doing t h i s is concentrating on headline-grabbing
crimes such as kidnapings and bank robberies. Another
is to make sure the Bureau has impressive statistics on
numbers of felons caught, arrests made, conspiracies
broken, and the other activities by which police forces
justify their existence.
To bolster the yearly statistical report and hence
make themselves appear even more efficient, the FBI
regularly pursues trifling criminals, such as those who
fail to record a change of address with their local draft
board. Such people are fairly easy to trace, and become
another number on the list of "federal fugitives appre-
hended."
FBI priorities in the area of law enforcement are
thus determined by what will h e1p to maintain the
"image" of the Bureau. Because of these priorities, per-
haps the most serious crime problem - that of organ-
ized crime - is practically ignored. Of course, there is
some effort devoted to breaking up big time crime, but
the slow work necessary to build a case against the mob-
sters does not produce statistics which will preserve the
"image" of the Bureau.
DUE TO the large amount of publicity which any FBI
effort at breaking up organized crime receives, some
people are under the impression that the Bureau is ex-
tremely active in this area. Unfortunately, this impres-
sion is misleading. Given the damage and pain caused
by organized crime compared to that caused by petty
crime, the proportion of FBI resources spent on organ-
ized crime is out of balance.
This criticism of the FBI is not to imply that it is
composed of bumbling idiots - it is probably the best
trained police force in the world. Its agents receive con-
tinuing in-service training and make use of the latest
technical developments in criminology. However, the
legitimacy of an organization whose priorities are deter-
mined by what will maintain its "image" is questionable.
The principal'cause of the misguided priorities and
operation of the FBI is the simplistic notions of right
and wrong and the excessive power of J. Edgar Hoover.
Within the bureau, Hoover's word is law. Agents who
disagree with him often find themselves transferred to
remote regions of the country, or asked to resign.

good for everyone else, he distributed weight charts put
out by an insurance company and decreed that each
agent be within the "desirable" limit for his height and
frame.
Although the insurance company intended the charts
to be only approximate guides, the Bureau took them as
the absolute authority. Agents were turned down for pro-
motions for being one pound over the "desirable" mark,
and at least one agent collapsed and died while attempt-
ing to reach his "desirable" limit by means of a crash
diet.
One of Hoover's fanatic obsessions for over thirty
years has been the "Great Menace of Communism."
Through the 1940's, 50's and 60's. the FBI trailed known
Communists and compiled extensive and elaborate files on
their activities and the people they met. Recently, how-
ever, according to columnists such as Russell Baker and
Art Buchwald, Communism has resigned from its post
as the Great Menace, and the position will soon be filled
by the American college student.
Hoover, being in tune with such changes, has given
indications he will pursue the college student "menace"
with the same or even greater vigor than that with which
he pursued Communism. One such indication was an op-
en letter to college students, entered into the Sept. 23
Congressional Record, in which Hoover "exposed" the
methods by which radicals "entrap" unwary, uncom-
mitted, students.
OF COURSE, FBI involvement with and infiltration of
radical groups has been going on for some time. It is the
FBI's record in this area which causes uneasiness at the
prospect of an additional 1,000 agents joining the game.
The purpose of FBI undercover agents in radieal groups
is supposedly to spot advocates of violence and act in
time to prevent massive property damage and loss of life.
However, there is increasing evidence to indicate the FBI
encourages students to acts of violence, and makes ar-
rests after the event. Such tactics are fine for the pur-
pose of increasing arrest statistics, but the people who
are arrested would probably never have committed their
crime in the absence of the FBI provocateurs.
An example of FBI action with regard to radical
groups comes from three American Civil Liberties Union
lawyers who have charged that a paid FBI informer was
- acting on FBI instructions - the principle advocate of
violence during disturbances at the University of Ala-
bama Tuscaloosa campus last May. The lawyers claim
the agent was often the only advocate of violence at
numerous radical groups' meetings.
The FBI's questionable priorities, its dominance by
one man, and its autonomy are sufficient reasons to de-
mand that the myth behind which the Bureau operates
be erased and the inner mechanisms of the Hoover ma-
chine be exposed to public scrutiny. The proper instru-
ment to acconplish this objective would be a Congres-
sional investigation. However, the chances of such an in-
vestigation being initiated are slim, due to Hoover's po-
litical pull in Washington.

*

1

-Daily-Richard Lee
AN ANN ARBOR agent of the FBI stands guard in
the Student Activities Bldg. this summer. The FBI
attempted to gain access to one of the student offices
where, they claimed, allegedly stolen federal property
from North Hall was being held.
Hoover's influence over bureaucratic structures ex-
tends beyond the FBI. His access to personal files makes
him a valuable friend for various politicians, and these
politicians in turn see that no one from the outside in-
terferes with the management of the Bureau.
As a result, although the FBI is supposedly under the
jurisdiction of the Justice Department a n d Attorney
General, it has developed into an autonomous entity and
is held accountable to no one.
With no effective checks from outside or within, the
FBI is thus guided by the mental aberrations of an aging
man who lives a third-of-a-century in the past. His ob-
sessions, fantasies and daydreams, ludicrous though they
may be, are transformed into FBI policies.
A PRIME example was the weight program instituted
by Hoover in 1958 when doctors advised him to lose a
few pounds. Deciding that what was good for him was

0-

U' housing funds: A question of pri~orities.

(EDITOR'S NOTE: The fol-
lowing article is an official
position paper of the Ann Arbor
Tenants Union.)
As everyone knows, there is a
housing shortage in Ann Arbor.
The private housing market is in-
operative. This is not really the
fault of the private housing in-
vestors; they cannot build be-
cause of the state of the national
economy. Loans for construction
are only attainable at interest
rates approaching 10 per cent;
there has been no significant
apartment construction in A n n
Arbor since 1966 when the interest
rate was under 6 per cent. In
addition, restrictive zoning laws
effectively forbid the construction
of housing that is of high enough
density to have low rent in the
central campus area. An ineffi-
cient bus system means that stu-
dents cannot commute from the
cheaper areas (if there were any).
Together these factors mean
there is no adequate low-price
housing for students or the low-
income employes of the Univer-
sity in Ann Arbor. Not that the
existing high priced housing is of
high quality, it is mostly low
quality. High rents are only pos-
sible because the private housing
supply has broken down. A n d
those investors lucky enough to
have invested in apartments in the
early sixties - your landlords -
are taking advantage of the situa-

tion with the help of the Univer-
sity's inaction.
The University is the low-in-
come renter's only possible hope.
No one is predicting a sufficient
increase in the private supply be-
fore the mid-seventies. But any
public university can finance hous-
ing development at 3 per cent
below the market interest rate.
Since the University is the only
group capable of doing so, it must
break the housing market short-
age that its expansion has creat-
ed.
Instead of doing this, however,
the University has for ten years
been following a policy of with-
drawing from its responsibility for
the housing supply in Ann Arbor.
Increasingly, money for student
housing has been a low priority in
the annual University budgeting
process. From 1957 until 1966 the
University budgeted about $800,-
000 per year for support of stu-
dent housing. However, beginning
in 1967 that support declined, and
it now stands at only $220,000. It
is now policy not to supply hous-
ing or to compete with local busi-
nessmen.
It is not that anyone in the Ad-
ministration Building has been
very much surprised by this de-
veloping crisis - for 5 years
there have been numerous inde-
pendent reports and a special ad-
visory committee urging the Uni-
versity to invest in apartment
style housing. But all advocates

have been silenced with the same
story, "that there is just no money
available." They are 1 told each
year that this particular year the
budget is unusually tight. How is
the University budget made and
why is there no money for hous-
ing? Is there a group of evil
people in the administration build-
ing who want to see the students
suffer in inadequate housing and
who are conspiring against us?
Probably not. Perhaps our bril-
liant financial planners have just
evaluated each budget item mathe-

what will be best for the stu-
dents, but about what will make'
their boss and fellow function-
aries happy and secure. Not rock-
ing the bureaucratic boat is what
makes their boss happy. So every
year each department in the Uni-
versity gets the same fraction of
the total budget that it got last
year.
Unfortunately the budgeting
game is one that the Housing Of-
fice is losing; this year $400,000
which has been previously alloted
for housing construction has been

"Since the University is the only force capable
of doing so, it must break the housing market
shortage that its expansion has created."
:.::::': .::J:':;":i}..1}:}".:::: "Vs~m~it }" Jtsstsms#^ " "'"#s: sisi ss :V5# $ 1" :":}" t . "..5:":.'?'.:t: .": : ":

having more "bureaucratic pull"
than the Housing Office.
This misallocation of resources
is what the BAM strike was all
about last spring: BAM said the
University is not serving all the
people of Michigan, that the Uni-
versity is an upper class, white
school and therefore racist. Flem-
ing said he liked blacks but had
no money for them because the
University was already spending
it on so many other more import-
ant things. But think of all the
things that the University does
that are less important than end-
ing the racist-elitist condition of
the University of Michigan. One
reason that this is a school of
rich white students is that poor
students cannot afford the high
rents of Ann Arbor. Until t h e
students, the poor, and the blacks
in Ann Arbor force the University
to reconsider its stance toward
their welfare, the budget-makers
will do nothing. The University
was not going to chpange its old
bureaucratic way of allocating
money until BAM struck , last
spring. Likewise, the University
will never finance adequate low
rent housing until the students
and the poor take whatever action
is necessary to make themselves
heard. If we do not take action
there will always be greedy ad-
ministrators to suck up the bud-
get for such irrelevant expenses
as walkie-talkies for the garden-
ers and the Univeristy Golf Course.

matically and have discovered
that everything the University
does including raking leaves is
more important at its present lev-
el than more dollars for housing.
This is certainly not a valid con-
clusion.
The truth is that budgeting is a
bureaucratic game. The function-
aries who decide on the budget
gave Student Housing this year
about what they gave it last year;
no one decided whether money for
housing is better than money for
the Plant Department. T h e s e
administrators do not think about

diverted to remodel the old Food
Services Building and make it into
neuroscience labs. The Tenants
Union would like to know whether
the budget-makers have decided
that $400,000 for a neuroscience
lab is better for the students, the
citizens of Ann Arbor and, the
general welfare of mankind than
$400,000 to underwrite a loan to
house 1000 students in low rent
apartments (apologies to all
neuroscience-freaks). We do not
think any budget-maker ever
thought about it; the Medical
School merely won the battle by

4F,

LETTERS TO THE DAILY

Driving the

Arabs

into

the desert?'

To the Daily:
I HAVE DULY taken note of
the two letters appearing in to-
day's Daily (Oct. 7) taking me to
task for not being politically "cor-
rect" with regard to the Middle
East. The headline reads: "Driv-
ing the Israelites into the Sea." I
would suggest, however, that a
more historically accurate title
would be: "Driving the Arabs into
the Desert."
The two writers quote Arab
sources to justify their attitudes.
The first quote is over twenty-two
years old! that is just too outdated
to reflect accurately events of the
area which change so drastically
from week to week. None of the
statements is more recent than
1967. One cannot use antiquated
references to comprehend f r e s h

Arab question must surely con-
sist of a secular state of Pales-
tine where the Palestinian Arabs
can live with rights equal to those
of the Palestine Jews. While it
is often argued by Zionists that
Palestine is the national home-
land of the Jewish people (Bal-
four Declaration), let us not for-
get that it is also the national
homeland of the Palestinian Arabs.
Even the most casual observer
must surely realize that the 1.5
million Arab refugees living on 10
cents a day in UN ghettos form the
underlying question. Offer these
peace with justice and the whole
problem will evaporate. T h e s e
hapless refugees have come to
believe in a new type of A r a b
Zionism which dreams of a re-
turn to their national homeland,
a homeland that lies within sight
of their squalid camos. After all.

Mr. Egner's first point is that
"time-honored political tradition
dictates" that a politician support
a member of his own party who is
running for elective office. What
Mr. Egner fails to realize is that
this tradition, though it may have
been somewhat applicable in the
past, no longer holds water. In the
past, the two parties were fairly
different from one another in
their view of the nature and role of
government. This difference be-
tween the two parties has stead-
ily diminished, and it is now in-
cumbent upon every concerned
Republican to disavow a member
of his party who, for all practical
purposes, better represents t h e
prevalent views of the Democratic
Party.
Presumably, one enters politics
to attempt to achieve certain

mendable, and not wrong, for Mr.
Agnew to have denounced Senator
Goodell.
Finally, does "time-honored pol-
itical tradition dictate" t h a t
Democrats support, or at least

"keep their mouths shut about,"
the southern white racists among
their own ranks?
-Alan Harris, Chairman
U.M. New Republican Coalition
Oct. 8

f 1f
9 /

"
O

/ i

44

i

Back to Top

© 2021 Regents of the University of Michigan