Report: Hoover had plan for mass arrests

Report: Hoover had plan for mass arrests

news.yahoo.com

WASHINGTON - Former FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover had a plan to suspend the rules against illegal detention and arrest up to 12,000 Americans he suspected of being disloyal, according to a newly declassified document.....Hoover had wanted Truman to declare the mass arrests necessary to "protect the country against treason, espionage and sabotage," The New York Times reported Saturday in a story posted on its Web site.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Is this going to happen again? We have to be careful I guess. I know it never actually happened, but again, as is often said now, Hoover stated, "It is necessary for the protection against treason, espionage, and sabotage." That seems to be the reason for everything the government does. As I have stated many times before, I find anytime the government says this, there is shenanegans(spelling?) at hand.

news.yahoo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

...was reading about this earlier tonight, pretty crazy how this does tie into today's terror world where rights have become grey areas while the people of the remaining first world(s) let it happen; from the OP:

"The index now contains approximately twelve thousand individuals, of which approximately 97% are citizens of the United States," Hoover wrote in the now-declassified document. "In order to make effective these apprehensions, the proclamation suspends the writ of habeas corpus."

[edit on 22-12-2007 by anhinga]

Most governments do not like to be afraid of the people, nor do they see the need for it.

Typically, they will resort to arresting mass amounts of citizens in an attempt to scare the rest of the population into compliance.

However, this ALWAYS backfires eventually. The people want their freedom back if pushed enough, and the whole country soon becomes the governments enemy. Once the military itself becomes the enemy, the government has lost.

The best thing any military of any country can do is uphold a set of laws based on freedoms and rights. These laws would trump any and all decisions the government make... hence, if the government becomes totalitarian, the military has pre-made orders to refuse government instructions, and to take the government down by force.

Unfortunately no military I know of holds these powers. But they should.
I think it's high time we got something to that effect passed!

reply to post by johnsky

I think it's high time we got something to that effect passed!

I am all for that to an extent. In a totalitarian state, that would be great I just do not want the military to get on too big of a power trip. No matter how you cut it, there is no winning. We will never actually have a government of the people, for the people, or by the people. That is what saddens me. Have you ever heard of a candidate who might support reform like that? I never have. Ever thought of running for office?

The entire military swears an oath to the Constitution of the United States.

reply to post by Johnmike


So is that supposed to mean that they will always stick to it no mater what? Witnesses take an oath every time they get on the stand and you know they don't always tell the truth. And what about the President, is he always abiding by the Constitution. My point is just because you say something, doesn't mean you will always do it.

There's really not much you can do to "force" people like that. The oath to the Constitution really serves that purpose the best you can. The military is subservient to the president. Should he become tyrannical, he should be impeached.

I would however like to make it exceptionally clear to all government officials that should the government begin infringing on rights, they have no obligation to carry out those orders. That already exists in (not limited to) military and international law.

reply to post by Johnmike


You're absolutely right, and this is the irony of our present situation: if all the plans on the shelf and all the preparatory laws and executive orders are indeed actually used, under whatever pretext, and we are faced with marshal law, then our last hope is the military brass, that they disobey the orders.

But viewing the Pentagon and its lust for accreting power--under Rumsfeld creating its own CIA, or office of special ops--and its overt development of such sci-fi concepts as mind control, "total battlefield management" and other Orwellian control tools--then we really are hoping for the fox to guard the chicken house.

Hoover was a body remover(Chuck D.) and was in charge when a president was murdered as well as bought and paid for by the MAFIA. Blackmailed more people in his rein as director than anyone.It does not surprise me the lest bit that a plan for mass arrest was in the works.The man was in controll nearly half a century through 8 presidents .Power is all that concernd him not the constitution.

It sounds to me like we're headed in that direction again. All it would take would be another terrorist attack, and alot of people here would demand that dissenters be taken to the FEMA camps.

Was this story released to say,"See, we almost did it before. We could do it now and it would be OK."? Many people would go along with it.

Hoover had wanted Truman to declare the mass arrests necessary to "protect the country against treason,...

Thats classic..."lets suspend Habeus Corpus to protect America form traitors."

This makes me wonder where they would have been incarcerated. The article says in military prisons, but what does that mean? Is that Hoover speak for internment camp?

Something tells me that 12,000 names is on the short side. I bet once Hoover got the program running that number would multiply exponentially. If he could imprison anybody he wanted, anybody who disagreed with his stasi policies would be "in prison".

Government should be repressive no further than is necessary to secure liberty by protecting the equal rights of each from aggression on the part of others, and the moment governmental prohibitions extend beyond this line they are in danger of defeating the very ends they are intended to serve. – Henry George


[edit on 23-12-2007 by METACOMET]

I think that this is all a little sad. You seem to have been so conditioned to expect the worst that everything is doom and gloom. This is not necessarily the case, and not necessarily why the arrests were not sanctioned.

According to the reports the FBI requested that they be able to detain a little over 12,000 people. I am sure that if you think about it rationally you will realise that that is hardly going to stop or control any population. Far too few people, even in 1950 that must have been an insignificant proportion of the population.

Also, don't believe in everything that you read. J Edgar Hoover wasn't always a twisted paranoid drag queen. He got that way through hard knocks and these documents probably refer to one of those knocks. J Edgar Hoover, was once young and idealistic, he thought he could make a difference to his country. He became twisted only when he found himself impotent to act upon intelligence he had gathered, this interference often came from the highest level and led, quite naturally, to a distrust of the Presidency.

Though history remembers Hoover as a pariah he was often a lone watchmen against government corruption and coporationism. It is worth looking at this a little more deeply and keeping that knee jerk under control.

Deny ignorance!?

As it was in 1950, I would guess the 12,000 or so were suspected communists, suspected communist sympathizers, or anyone else Hoover thought was too far to the left. Sadly, the "Red scare" had a lot of popular support and the people of America would probably have accepted it without too much question. It's a good thing Truman had some sense.

reply to post by KilgoreTrout


So what are you getting at? Because Hoover took some "hard knocks", it is alright for him to send thousands of Americans that had committed no crime to jail? Then have them tried by judges that are not binded by evidence?

I see loads wrong with that, breaking the law in the name of the law is corruption at its worst. Good intentions is not a valid excuse to restrain liberty.

Originally posted by METACOMET
I see loads wrong with that, breaking the law in the name of the law is corruption at its worst. Good intentions is not a valid excuse to restrain liberty.

What if those people, or at least some of them were a real danger to the liberty of the majority of Americans? I don't disagree with you and am curious as to your answer - being British I am largely neutral on this one.
What do you consider the appropriate way in which to treat someone who may have committed treason? What if those people are powerful, with access to the kind of legal representation that would render due process impotent.

I have read a little about the kind of investigations that the FBI were involved in in the years preceding 1950. Many of the names on that list will have come from those investigations. Hoover's agents spent considerable time investigating the activities and associates of the Nazis/Europeans in the US - business, espionage, diplomacy etc during World War 2. The results of those investigations were thwarted by the direct intervention of President Truman. I would wonder if the names of those that profitted from World War 2 would feature on a list presented at the outbreak of another war.

We know today of the industrial military complex and we know of the role that the CIA plays in the maufacture of war and conflict. We know the effect that these people have had on the liberty that exists today in the USA, directly or indirectly. We also know that J Edgar Hoover was the arch rival of Allen Dulles.

What if sometimes the ends really do justify the means? Wouldn't you really like to see who is on that list?

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
What if sometimes the ends really do justify the means? Wouldn't you really like to see who is on that list?

Yes, I would like to know who was on the list.
Yes, some of these people very well could have committed treasonous acts.

No, The end doesn't justify the means when the bill of rights gets trampled in the process. I know thats an old cliche but dammit, its true.

If there was probable cause to arrest those on the list, Hoover could have gone through proper channels to have them arrested and tried. The fact that he made plans for blanket arrests makes me assume he was deliberately bypassing the rule of law on purpose for dubious and maybe personal reasons.

I doubt that operation paperclip, CIA, or government interests would be included in these arrests. Hoover had skeletons in his closet from playing the game so long, and he had a penchant for blackmail. Not exactly the combo you look for in the man that is supposed to be the top law enforcement official in the country. Anyways, I suspect that this list was full of personal enemies that had committed no crime other than getting on a powerful mans sh**list.

[edit on 26-12-2007 by METACOMET]

In regards to the F.B.I. memo.Hoover is replying to the Attorney General and the President,and his National Security Advisers,that if you want to the F.B.I. to activate the plan,it's never going to happen,unless he see their signatures authorizing it. translation,the F.B.I. is not going to be the fall guy for one of their crazy idea's.

Originally posted by METACOMET
I doubt that operation paperclip, CIA, or government interests would be included in these arrests.

I made no mention of Paperclip and though those people may have been on the list I was refering to the investigations that Hoover's agents carried out against espionage, financial misdealings, illegal diplomacy and trade abuses that were carried out on US soil in the inter-war to 1947 period.

People like the heads of General Motors, Gillette, Texaco, ITT, Ford, Standard Oil - the people that profited from World War 2 and continue to profit from war. People like Prescott Bush and his descendants. Or the thousands of Abwehr agents who were working for the Nazis giving away technological expertise throughout the war period, who though US citizens felt a greater loyalty to the economies of Europe than their new home. Or the Anglo-European/US-European establishment who were willing to negotiate a peace with Heinrich Himmler if he could 'get rid of' Hitler (talk about out of the frying pan...) whose meetings at the Waldorf Astoria and the Mark Hopkins Hotel (San Fran) the FBI routinely bugged and yet despite this overwhelming evidence Truman vetoed prosecutions. Why, because GM, Ford, Gillette et al lobbied Truman not to.

We all have skeletons in our closets and that does not necessarily make us bad people. I don't admire Hoover as such, he had numerous faults and foibles but I do think that half of his faults were due to being prevented from carrying out the job that he was employed to do, but then he was employed by Roosevelt.

twright makes a very valid point. Was it even Hoover's list or Hoover's request? If Truman's ear was firmly in the Industrial Military complex then perhaps the list reflected their interests, not Hoover's. Wonder why that list isn't part of the release of documents???

Truman was placed in the position of President without any knowledge of the scheming that had occured during the war, as such he was highly vunerable to the influence of the rich and powerful. Truman did more damage, unknowingly, than any President before or since. The USA today reflects that legacy.

I agree with you, in an ideal world, due process should be enough. But when was the last time any of us lived in an ideal world? All legal systems are open to corruption and the truth of the matter is that if you are rich you can pretty much buy yourself immunity. I am not an American, but from my perspective, warts and all, Hoover cared about America and its way of life. There are several books and documentaries that discuss his faults, but little do we hear of when he was right and it seems to me that he had more against the abuses of wealth and priviledge than he did against the common man.

It is quite possible to theorise based on documentary evidence, that Hoover had much less against Communists than he was against Fascists. He wasn't though allowed to pursue the Fascists, he was allowed to chase Communists.

The course of due process can be drawn out and in certain cases you may know that evidence exists you just need access to it. Due process can allow that evidence to be destroyed.

I don't have to agree in principle to see why there would need to be a blanket approach to arrests if your target is amongst the rich and powerful, but I would also presume that many of those arrests would have proved very short term (assuming genuine motives). If you consider arresting everyone connected to a particular corporation for example, the arrests could easily tip 12,000.

I don't agree with illegal detention, but I do think that there is more than meets the eye to this story and much more to the story of why J Edgar Hoover is so riviled. There is a reason for everything and it is not always the most obvious. We shouldn't just believe what we are told.