WI HUAC had found actual spies?

[RanulfC]

Locke01 wrote:

Well, it's not like just anybody could step up and commute the sentence. In fact, only the president could do that. Both President Truman and President Eisenhower took a pass on clemency in the Rosenberg case, no doubt on the recommendation of their respective Justice Departments.

Clemency IIRC was something they could recommend but they could only actually 'pardon' them which was a total non-starter. I seem to recall that Truman did in fact "officially" request clemency be considered for Ethel and Eisenhower declined to comment. In any case it was too little to late anyway the decision had been made by the 'public' and 'media' and no one with a career to think about was going to rock the boat.

Phx1138 wrote:

Except, as I recall, the Chair could (did!) effectively refuse to allow witnesses (the Ten in particular) to testify at all. So the last two points are, at best, moot in the face of a hostile committee.

No some refused to appear and 'testify', others did appear and once seated called the Committee itself into question on both legal and moral grounds. All were arrested and charged with "Contempt of Congress" and found guilty, (strangely enough only a little over 20 years later lawyers were able to successfully argue and get the same charges thrown out of court for the likes of Abby Hoffman and crew) and sentenced to a year in prison and a $1,000 dollar fine. The charge, the citation, the arrest and conviction in fact were all later found to be violations of both the power and scope of the Committee AND "technically" a violation of the right of Free Speech, specifically as the Committee had 'demanded' answers and told the men that "taking the fifth" would result in exactly the outcome they received for talking!
http://www.history.com/topics/cold-war/hollywood-ten

The Chair could refuse to actually seat a subpoenaed witness but once seated they could not legally prevent them from talking even though they 'could' technically demand the witness refrain from spontaneous outbursts to keep good order. (Again Abby Hoffman comes to mind) The Committee is 'supposed' to assume a witness will be hostile rather than friendly but they'd gotten a bit cocky with initial results so they seated the one of the 10 who showed up and got blasted for it. They started pre-screening witness' after that and tended to only call 'friendly' witness' after the Ten. (Or at least ones they could theoretically 'cow' into submission)

Randy

 

[RanulfC]

There may be an opening. It's likely that many of the smart, easy steps which add up to good basic security are simply not being done.

An analogy would be how casinos handle cash versus most other businesses. For example, Walmart will allow multiple cashiers to ring on the same till. At this other department store where I worked, cashiers would count a register, write out a small sheet, put the whole thing in a zippered bag, and simply hand it to a person working end of day, often an assistant manager. In a casino, two people might count together and they both sign off.

And it's not the attitude that we're down on people and questioning their integrity. Rather it's the attitude of keeping honest people honest. For example, I remember a video of a guy giving a speech about casino cash management and security. He said, my mother is the most moral, ethical person in the entire world, but if Mom's dealing blackjack, she's going to be on camera and that's just all there is to it.

And we haven't even talked about the political stuff yet . . .

American's have a "love/hate' relationship with security. We tend to over-react one way and then the other. I don't recall the thread but a comment was made on our more 'recent' rush to "secure" ourselves and it was noted that we STILL complain over security measures the rest of the world have been used to and putting up with for decades.

And the thing is the "security" is arguably not worth the effort and damn sure not worth the extra 'power' over our lives it gives those who really should not have it. And therein lies the OTHER issue i that once given away "freedoms" are both harder to re-acquire and more worryingly less 'missed' as time goes on. Anarchy is no way to live, (it's provable that individuals will put at best their immediate family and/or social group before themselves but normally they will put themselves first and anything beyond that is an 'abstract' without very early training) but neither is willing submitting to groups or individuals that SEEK power over you. And arguably that is exactly what the "job" description of political power/government in general and Politicians specifically is.

One such political issue, broadly defined, might be a person in a senior position being lesbian, gay, or bisexual.

I mean, even back in the 1940s, and even someone who really buys into the whole Freudian business that being lesbian or gay is a type of neurosis, or a person being delayed at an earlier stage of development, or some such similar nonsense, they might still see that making it a fire-able offense just increases the blackmail potential.

Maybe someone hits upon the idea, if the issue comes up and we can't avoid it, we're going to ask a person to talk with a general practitioner physician, but that's all we're going to do. No, I'm not a big fan of the psychiatric profession, not even in our relatively enlightened times of 2017. Way back in the 1930s, 40s, and 50s, different gay activists and historians have written about how the medicalization of homosexuality was, if anything, even worse than the criminalization. And I think that even today many mental health professionals tend to be ideologues committed to a single theory. That is, one trick ponies. As always, YMMV (your mileage may vary)

Ahh but that isn't a "political" issue but a moral one. What's the difference? Nothing really but if you 'define' it as such then the difference is clear... (As mud yes but keep in mind it's a thought process NOT something that can be proven or even really quantified )

"Deviant" sexual behavior was, "obviously" as Un-American as being Communist so the correlation is there for the making. As "obviously" if you are mentally 'deviant' then it doesn't matter at all WHY you are, all that matters is you are 'naturally' Un-American... And in the end defining what WAS "American" was the whole point of the HUAC from the start. And where it failed utterly as an American, by definition isn't a race, a culture, or something with defining characteristics. It's an ideal and the fact the HUAC let alone it's predecessors, (or decedents for that matter) consistently fail to live up to that ideal is itself a lesson to be learned.

Being American's though we also strive to live up to that whole 'doomed to repeat it' thing as well so...

Randy

 

[sloreck]

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither. He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security. (Benjamin Franklin)

 

[Roger II]

Actually if we have better counterintelligence in the 50s and earlier, does that butterfly HUAC? And how do we improve counterintelligence?

 

[sloreck]

As others have said, HUAC was not really about finding spies. It had several levels. Political aggrandizement of those involved with the committee, and pushing an agenda of defining "Americanism" that fit within a procrustian bed of a certain group of folks. This sort of thing, defining "Americanism" was not new, and has not gone away. There are folks today in the USA whose view of what is "American" is narrow and exclusive.

 

[phx1138]

Actually if we have better counterintelligence in the 50s and earlier, does that butterfly HUAC? And how do we improve counterintelligence?

IDK if it butterflies HUAC entire, but maybe it undercuts the circus, which would be good.

IDK what all the reasons are, but IMO a lot of it can be laid on Hoover. He put heavy emphasis on good PR for himself, & the Bureau, so catching bank robbers & such. Busting orgcrime was (apparently) less headline-worthy, even tho it would've been better for the country in the long run. Catching spies (better CI) was the worst thing: catching a spy means (in a sense) admitting failure, because he got in to start with...& that's bad for the Bureau's image. (Spinning it as a win might not have occurred to J. Edgar, IDK.)

So, to get better CI, first thing is probably to get rid of Hoover. (Doing that in the face of his blackmail files will be no easy job, however.) Second is to simply put more money into it; it needed more manpower--doing that in the Depression won't be easy, either.

Which is part of the reason I'm laying this on HUAC: Congress will give itself the $$ to investigate, if it means headlines, & if they stumble on a real spy, they can hang Hoover with it & not have to be (quite so) afraid of him. Yes, it means a media circus in the '30s. I don't see a better way.

 

[Locke01]

Locke01 wrote:


Clemency IIRC was something they could recommend but they could only actually 'pardon' them which was a total non-starter. I seem to recall that Truman did in fact "officially" request clemency be considered for Ethel and Eisenhower declined to comment. In any case it was too little to late anyway the decision had been made by the 'public' and 'media' and no one with a career to think about was going to rock the boat.

The president's pardoning power includes (but is not limited to) the authority to commute a federal death sentence to a term of imprisonment regardless of what anyone else in government thinks or desired. If either Truman or Eisenhower had wanted to spare the Rosenbergs, they could have done so with a stroke of the pen. In fact, President Eisenhower commuted the death sentence of the last person to be convicted of treason in the United States, and President Truman spared the life of a Puerto Rican nationalist who tried to assassinate him in 1950.

 

[RanulfC]

IDK if it butterflies HUAC entire, but maybe it undercuts the circus, which would be good.

IDK what all the reasons are, but IMO a lot of it can be laid on Hoover. He put heavy emphasis on good PR for himself, & the Bureau, so catching bank robbers & such. Busting orgcrime was (apparently) less headline-worthy, even tho it would've been better for the country in the long run. Catching spies (better CI) was the worst thing: catching a spy means (in a sense) admitting failure, because he got in to start with...& that's bad for the Bureau's image. (Spinning it as a win might not have occurred to J. Edgar, IDK.)

So, to get better CI, first thing is probably to get rid of Hoover. (Doing that in the face of his blackmail files will be no easy job, however.) Second is to simply put more money into it; it needed more manpower--doing that in the Depression won't be easy, either.

Which is part of the reason I'm laying this on HUAC: Congress will give itself the $$ to investigate, if it means headlines, & if they stumble on a real spy, they can hang Hoover with it & not have to be (quite so) afraid of him. Yes, it means a media circus in the '30s. I don't see a better way.

Hoover was always more political than criminal in running the FBI. He used the gangster threat to expand the powers and scope of the FBI but the main 'work' was by section chiefs and individual agents. The main 'focus' was always on "Communists" and political threats to the US as Hoover saw it. From what I've seen his main falling out with Purvis wasn't that Purvis wasn't very, very good at his job it was Purvis would not commit to less focus on crime and more on politics. Hoover really, really wanted the FBI to be the main "intelligence" arm of the Federal government.

Having something happen to Hoover in the late 20s to mid-30s would have radically changed the nature and focus of the FBI but I doubt it would have effected the HUAC and it's predecessors as they were very much political animals.

Randy

 

[RanulfC]

The president's pardoning power includes (but is not limited to) the authority to commute a federal death sentence to a term of imprisonment regardless of what anyone else in government thinks or desired. If either Truman or Eisenhower had wanted to spare the Rosenbergs, they could have done so with a stroke of the pen. In fact, President Eisenhower commuted the death sentence of the last person to be convicted of treason in the United States, and President Truman spared the life of a Puerto Rican nationalist who tried to assassinate him in 1950.

Thanks I wasn't really sure how that went. But again, no neither Truman nor Eisenhower could have politically survived direct intervention in the Rosenberg's case. Truman really should have once he was a lame-duck but didn't.

Randy

 

[GeographyDude]

American's have a "love/hate' relationship with security. We tend to over-react one way and then the other. . .

I'll again go with casinos and this time pick the analogy of police conduct. The issue of body cams should have been a no-brainer and casinos have had this for decades. A cop turning off his camera should be no more acceptable than a blackjack dealer turning off his or her camera.

Another issue with police conduct is, don't high low-high an officer with his or her schedule. Don't give them a schedule which migrates all over the place, unless there's a genuine, once or twice a year public safety emergency.

And in general, I think there are many ways for can have both security and liberty, or at the very least better security which doesn't so directly infringe on public liberty.

* I don't think casinos are the most moral of businesses, but we can learn from them!

 

[phx1138]

his main falling out with Purvis

IMO, you're entirely right about that. Purvis would have been an excellent choice as a "cop's Director", if Hoover got fired. (Seems more likely Hoover'd be replaced by the likes of early drug warrior Harry Anslinger.)

Hoover was always more political than criminal in running the FBI. He used the gangster threat to expand the powers and scope of the FBI but the main 'work' was by section chiefs and individual agents. The main 'focus' was always on "Communists" and political threats to the US as Hoover saw it. From what I've seen his main falling out with Purvis wasn't that Purvis wasn't very, very good at his job it was Purvis would not commit to less focus on crime and more on politics. Hoover really, really wanted the FBI to be the main "intelligence" arm of the Federal government.

Having something happen to Hoover in the late 20s to mid-30s would have radically changed the nature and focus of the FBI but I doubt it would have effected the HUAC and it's predecessors as they were very much political animals.

I think you may be reading me backwards. I'm suggesting HUAC could be the "something" happening to Hoover, leading to him being removed. I don't expect HUAC to be in any fashion limited by FBI.

As far as the Bureau becoming a leading "intel" organization, IDK. Operations overseas were (AIUI) already undertaken by the likes of State Department intelligence & ONI (to name just 2); FBI, by law (AIUI), was prohibited. (That might be after CIA was created.)

Could the Bureau have become a premiere CI organization, on par with (better than?) MI-5? Certainly. (Could it have been better against orgcrime, too? Without question.) I would welcome that as an outcome. So long as Hoover is in charge, it ain't happening.

The issue of body cams should have been a no-brainer and casinos have had this for decades. A cop turning off his camera should be no more acceptable than a blackjack dealer turning off his or her camera.

Agreed. The only reason to turn off the camera is to hide something. Should it be a firing offence? Maybe not. Should it draw punishment? No question.

That said, body cams aren't an unvarnished good. I've seen documentary simulations showing "pursuits" with the faux cop saying, "Stop resisting", where an objective-POV camera shows no actual resistance... Until everybody starts wearing cams... (Not to mention the issues of surveillance without warrant.)

 

[GeographyDude]

. . . That said, body cams aren't an unvarnished good. I've seen documentary simulations showing "pursuits" with the faux cop saying, "Stop resisting", where an objective-POV camera shows no actual resistance... Until everybody starts wearing cams... (Not to mention the issues of surveillance without warrant.)

People are generally authoritarian and justify anything, including the people who are victims of abuse.

Okay, I have the activist bug and have wanted to change the world ever since I was 11 years old. Most other people make the far wiser decision of merely accepting the world.

I do agree that a lot of these cop shows end up 'normalizing' some pretty questionable behavior on the part of the police officer.

 

[phx1138]

I do agree that a lot of these cop shows end up 'normalizing' some pretty questionable behavior on the part of the police officer.

At the risk of a thread derail...

It seems like most people can't tell that fictional TV isn't based on reality... The "ticking bomb" defense of torture might work if you're Jack Bauer, but that's because you've got a powerful ally--the screenwriter... Real life ain't like that at all. Only, it keeps working on TV...so people begin to believe it works for real, too.

Somebody should remind them about, frex, John McCain...

 

[GeographyDude]

Not that we just get lucky that the leadership of HUAC both wants to get credit and do so good.

But I wonder if there could be institutional factors, societal factors putting the incentives in the right place and we could get lucky in this regard?

 

[phx1138]

Not that we just get lucky that the leadership of HUAC both wants to get credit and do so good.

But I wonder if there could be institutional factors, societal factors putting the incentives in the right place and we could get lucky in this regard?

Honestly, I'm thinking any good comes out of this is pure chance. I'm not crediting anybody on any of these committees with being anything but a headline-seeking media hound; they just stumble into somebody: think Insp. Clouseau (without the humor)--& this time, it's Herbert Lom who steals the film. (Pity Niven, don't you?)

 

[ComradeHuxley]

If Samuel Dickstein gets discovered this might lead to some "interesting" times:

"Samuel Dickstein (February 5, 1885 – April 22, 1954) was born into a Jewish family in present-day Lithuanai.He was a Democratic Congressional Representative from New York and a New York State Supreme Court Justice.

He played a key role in establishing the committee that would become the House Committee on Un-American Activities, which he used to attack fascists, including Nazi sympathizers, and suspected communists. Authors Allen Weinstein and Alexander Vassiliev learned in 1999 that Soviet files indicate he was a paid agent of the NKVD.
The Boston Globe stated: "Dickstein ran a lucrative trade in illegal visas for Soviet operatives before brashly offering to spy for the NKVD, the KGB's precursor, in return for cash."Sam Roberts, in The Brother: The Untold Story of the Rosenberg Case, wrote that "Not even Julius Rosenberg knew that Samuel Dickstein had been on the KGB's payroll."Kurt Stone wrote that Dickstein "was, for many years, a 'devoted and reliable' Soviet agent whom his handlers nicknamed 'Crook'"

A prominent Jewish, Anti-Nazi Democrat and founding father of the HUAC itself exposed as a soviet spy. That should be a clutesterfuck all on its own.

 

[Just Leo]

If Samuel Dickstein gets discovered this might lead to some "interesting" times:
Authors Allen Weinstein and Alexander Vassiliev learned in 1999 that Soviet files indicate he was a paid agent of the NKVD.
"Not even Julius Rosenberg knew that Samuel Dickstein had been on the KGB's payroll.

It wasn't possible for Dickstein to be on the KGB payroll. The source of the original claim of Dickstein's complicity is based on one author's seeing documents from a foreign agency, revealed by another foreign agency not necessarily devoted to truth, but certainly dedicated to fucking with the US, then and now. Weinstein wasn't even allowed to have a copy of the document. Based on judicial standards, this sure isn't a sure thing, unless you believe everything you read.

 

[ComradeHuxley]

It wasn't possible for Dickstein to be on the KGB payroll.

It sounded like a good story hook but if it is just a rumor. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Just Leo]

It sounded like a good story hook but if it is just a rumor. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

It requires a temporal anomaly for it to be considered a rumor.

 

[DER386]

During the McCarthy era there was a TV show "I Led Three Lives" about an FBI agent who was supposed to be a family man, a communist party member, as well as an undercover FBI agent. The Red Scare was real at the time. There was lots of literature about how to discover who was a communist, etc