On this day in 1971, a group of activists broke into an FBI field office in Media, Pennsylvania and stole about a thousand government documents with a mysterious notation, “COINTELPRO.” The public revelation of these documents ranks with the Pentagon Papers as one of the most significant exposés of government secrets in U.S. history.
The burglars, who have never been identified, entered the two-person office in Media as much of the nation was huddled around television sets to watch the Muhammad Ali-Joe Frazier fight. The activists did not fully understand the documents they found, but they quickly decided that the public had the right to see them.
About two weeks later, two prominent antiwar lawmakers and reporters at major newspapers received copies of the files in plain brown envelopes. Most of the recipients accepted the FBI’s judgment that the files were “secret”: the New York Times and Los Angeles Times did not write about the documents, and the legislators returned their sets to the FBI. But Washington Post editors believed that the public had the right to know about the spying. The Post broke the first COINTELPRO story on March 24, 1971, revealing how the bureau had used mail carriers and a campus switchboard operator to eavesdrop on a radical professor at Swarthmore College.
A Senate investigating committee headed by Frank Church of Idaho later revealed the vast reach of COINTELPRO, which was the acronym for the FBI’s counterintelligence program. FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover started the operation in 1956 in response to Supreme Court rulings that made it more difficult to prosecute Communists. Under COINTELPRO, the bureau recruited “informants” – a euphemism for “informer” – to infiltrate the dwindling ranks of the Communist Party, disrupt its plans, and discredit its members. COINTELPRO agents planted “snitch jackets,” or false letters identifying a target as an informer, wrote anonymous poison pen letters, and spread rumors about political apostasies and marital infidelities. In other words, the FBI did not just monitor these individuals, but tried to break up their marriages, “seed mistrust, sow misinformation,” and provoke them to commit crimes so that they could be arrested.
The FBI originally directed this program at American Communists, but it soon broadened its definition of communism. By 1960, when the Communist Party counted about five thousand members in the United States, the bureau maintained more than eighty times that number of files on “subversive” Americans at its headquarters, and FBI field offices around the country collected even more. One purpose of COINTELPRO, according to an official memo, was to “enhance the paranoia endemic in [dissident] circles” and convince activists that “there is an FBI agent behind every mailbox.” The agents believed that paranoid, divided dissident groups were easier to handle than purposeful, united dissident groups. In other words, the FBI conspired to create fear of conspiracy.
By the mid-1960s, COINTELPRO had expanded to spy on, infiltrate, and disrupt a wide variety of activist groups, including the antiwar movement, women’s liberation groups, civil rights organizations, and the black power movement. The FBI also targeted some “white hate” groups like the Ku Klux Klan, but most of its efforts went into disrupting the left. Most notoriously, FBI officials spied on Martin Luther King, Jr. At Hoover’s direction, agents wiretapped King’s phones, bugged his hotel rooms, and did everything they could to take him “off his pedestal and to reduce him completely in influence,” as one FBI memo put it. The FBI peddled evidence of King’s extramarital affairs to public officials and journalists. Just before King was to accept the Nobel Peace Prize in 1964, the assistant FBI director sent the new laureate his own copy of the evidence. King received a composite tape in the mail that included audio recordings of his alleged trysts. A letter sent with the tape concluded with this threat: “King, there is only one thing left for you to do. You know what it is. …You are done. There is but one way out for you.” The FBI, in other words, tried to persuade the internationally recognized leader of the American civil rights movement to kill himself.
The Church Committee denounced COINTELPRO as a “sophisticated vigilante operation aimed squarely at preventing the exercise of First Amendment rights of speech and association.” With all due respect to the committee, FBI agents are, by definition, not vigilantes; they’re agents of the state. In this case, they were state agents of repression. It took vigilantes who fought for the right to know – those burglars in Media – to bring this secret government program to public attention.


13 comments
March 8, 2009 at 8:59 pm
ekogan
I’m very happy that something happened on this day in the past.
The statute of limitations on burglary is 5 years in PA. I wonder why the Citizens’ Commission to Investigate the FBI, who committed the break-in, never announced who they are. They would’ve been heroes of the left.
March 8, 2009 at 9:16 pm
Ahistoricality
The statute of limitations on burglary is 5 years in PA.
What’s the statute of limitations on revealing state secrets?
They would’ve been heroes of the left.
And that’s always been an unalloyed advantage ….
March 8, 2009 at 10:37 pm
Jake
For the average person, revealing state secrets isn’t a crime. Only if you have a security clearance. There’s an exception for nuclear weapon information, that has never been tested AFAIK.
You can also pretty easily think COINTELPRO should be stopped while being strongly anti-leftist. It’s too bad in a way, because in the abstract the “conspire to induce paranoia” tactic is pretty inspired. If only such ingenuity was deployed against actual enemies of the state.
March 9, 2009 at 5:51 am
Chris
Anyone that those tactics are employed against *will be* enemies of the state, whether they started out that way or not.
Who watches the FBI agents? Sure looks like *someone* should have been.
March 9, 2009 at 5:53 am
politicalfootball
We can all be grateful that those days are long behind us, and that you couldn’t imagine such a thing happening today.
March 9, 2009 at 7:01 am
Charlieford
Death to the fascist insect that preys upon the lives of the people.
March 9, 2009 at 7:50 am
ekogan
They would’ve been heroes of the left.
And that’s always been an unalloyed advantage ….
Being a polarizing lefty hero might be a disadvantage to a public figure like George Soros, but I fail to see how it would be a hindrance to an otherwise obscure private citizen. “Do this thing, boychik, and you’ll never have to pay for a chai latte in this town again…”
March 9, 2009 at 7:51 am
StevenAttewell
I think it is fair in some respects to call them vigilantes, in the sense that much of their activities were carried out without knowledge of Justice Department officials or Presidents or Congress; J. Edgar Hoover spent most of his career lying, stonewalling, and blackmailing politicians to make this happen.
So state-sponsored vigilantes is an accurate description.
March 9, 2009 at 8:51 am
Chris J
Nice piece. In one of those odd butterfly wing/chaos theory moments, these events also allowed me to go to medical school. I was taking physics at the time from Bill Davidon (a Haverford professor embroiled in the matter) and it was not going well at all; sadly, physics and I were as strangers. But when Davidon had to go to court, he cancelled all classes for the rest of the semester and gave everybody an A or a B. Without that B in physics I never would have made it. And so, besides the light shed on these nefarious FBI affairs, the Media break-in made my career.
March 9, 2009 at 5:51 pm
Charlieford
Here’s hoping, Chris, that you’re not a radiologist . . .
March 10, 2009 at 8:45 am
ajay
Being a polarizing lefty hero might be a disadvantage to a public figure like George Soros, but I fail to see how it would be a hindrance to an otherwise obscure private citizen.
You do? Look a bit further up and you’ll see a link to an article about how the FBI used to engage in illegal harassment of leftists. Now, what do you think the FBI might do to someone who a) was a leftist themselves and b) exposed such harassment?
March 10, 2009 at 10:54 pm
herbert browne
**So state-sponsored vigilantes is an accurate description**
I don’t see the “vigilance” here. Now, if you called them the “amoral ass-covering minions of a power-mad cretin” I could go with That…
^..^
March 14, 2009 at 8:30 am
gravity’s rainbow » Blog Archive » What I’ve Noticed
[...] What you didn’t learn in your high school history class. [...]