The History Book Club discussion

Hello Everyone,

Welcome to the third week of discussion for Enemies: A History of the FBI.

The third week's reading assignment is:

Week Three - June 18th - June 24th :

Chapters NINE, TEN, ELEVEN, TWELVE p. 73 - 108
NINE - "The Business of Spying, TEN - The Juggler, ELEVEN - Secret Intelligence, and TWELVE - "To strangle the United States"

We will open up a thread for each week's reading. Please make sure to post in the particular thread dedicated to those specific chapters and page numbers to avoid spoilers. We will also open up supplemental threads as we did for other spotlighted books.

This book kicked off on June 4th. We look forward to your participation. Amazon, Barnes and Noble, Borders and other noted on line booksellers do have copies of the book and shipment can be expedited. The book can also be obtained easily at your local library, or on your Kindle/Nook. We offer a special thank you to Random House for their generosity.

There is no rush and we are thrilled to have you join us. It is never too late to get started and/or to post.

Bryan will be leading this discussion.

Welcome,

~Bentley & Bryan

TO ALWAYS SEE ALL WEEKS' THREADS SELECT VIEW ALL

Tim Weiner

Notes:

It is always a tremendous help when you quote specifically from the book itself and reference the chapter and page numbers when responding. The text itself helps folks know what you are referencing and makes things clear.

Citations

If an author or book is mentioned other than the book and author being discussed, citations must be included according to our guidelines. Also, when citing other sources, please provide credit where credit is due and/or the link. There is no need to re-cite the author and the book we are discussing however.

If you need help - here is a thread called the Mechanics of the Board which will show you how:

http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/2...

Glossary

Remember there is a glossary thread where ancillary information is placed by the moderator. This is also a thread where additional information can be placed by the group members regarding the subject matter being discussed.

http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/8...

Bibliography

There is a Bibliography where books cited in the text are posted with proper citations and reviews. We also post the books that the author used in her research or in her notes. Please also feel free to add to the Bibliography thread any related books, etc with proper citations. No self promotion, please.

http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/8...

Q&A with Tim

Please as you are reading post questions to the author's Q&A thread because Tim Weiner will be looking in periodically and will be posting answers to your questions and will be available for a chat. We are very fortunate that he is making time to spend with us.

http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/8...

Tim Weiner

Chapter Overviews and Summaries

Chapter Nine: The Business of Spying

In 1934, FDR enlisted Hoover to gather intelligence on Hitler's agents in the U.S. Despite the legal precedent that prohibited disclosure of wiretaps, Hoover continued it, because he did not plan to use the wire tap material in court. The FBI got help from broken German codes which led to arrests, many do not end up with convictions, though.

Hoover steered FDR toward Communists, especially since the U.S. officially recognized the Soviet Union, so there were many embassy employees and diplomats in the country. Secretary of State Hull told Hoover to investigate "subversive activities" which was a very broad order. By 1938, Hoover expanded the FBI offices and powers to do these investigations.

Chapter Ten: The Juggler

When World War II began, Hoover was now in charge of espionage. It became easier to investigate individuals due to the Smith Act, a strong sedition law. Hoover ignored Supreme Court cases to continue his wiretapping program. The AG, Robert Jackson, threatened to ban the wiretap program, so Hoover went to Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau for help. He told the secretary of a scheme of German residents investing U.S. dollars to the Third Reich. He needed wiretaps to break up the scheme. Hoover got the president's permission. Hoover tapped the German, Italian, Japanese, French, and Russian embassies, along with others such as members of the American First movement.

Chapter Eleven: Secret Intelligence

The FBI was involved in breaking up a German spy ring in the U.S. They planted a double agent at the radio, sending misinformation to 33 German spies. With the help of Vincent Astor and his dummy corporation, they arrested the agents.

However, many Axis agents were still in Mexico, Brazil, Peru, and other South American countries. Hoover looked to expand his operations overseas when he got unofficial permission to create the Special Intelligence Service (SIS).

Chapter Twelve: "to strangle the United States"

The SIS was funded by the president. Headed by Percy Foxworth, the SIS agents were poorly trained. By March 1941, Hoover was looking to kill the program. Hoover arrested Gaik Ovakimian, the head of the Russian trade group, for spying. However, the charges were dropped when Hitler invaded Russia. The intelligence agencies in the U.S. were not sharing information and they missed the fact that the Japanese were building an intelligence network and looking at U.S. bases like Pearl Harbor. William Donovan tried to tie the groups together by creating a central intelligence organization. It created a turf war with Hoover. Donovan wanted to remove Hoover, while Hoover wanted to remove him. Donovan spread rumors that Hoover was gay, but it was unfounded.

FDR continued to spread the news that the Axis were using South America as a base of operations in the Western Hemisphere, even claiming he had a map that proved Germany wanted to conquer the area. The map was a fake.

You really see Hoover getting better at this political game. 1. Getting Secretary Hull to issue broad instructions, and 2. use a loophole in the Communications Act.

Maybe I’m missing something, but can someone please tell me what the President meant with this quote on page 88:

“Its too late to do anything about it after sabotage, assassinations, and ‘fifth column’ activities are completed.”

What is the ‘fifth column’?

Jason wrote: "Maybe I’m missing something, but can someone please tell me what the President meant with this quote on page 88:

“Its too late to do anything about it after sabotage, assassinations, and ‘fifth co..."

Here is the answer:

clandestine group or faction of subversive agents who attempt to undermine a nation’s solidarity by any means at their disposal. The term is credited to Emilio Mola Vidal, a Nationalist general during the Spanish Civil War (1936–39). As four of his army columns moved on Madrid, the general referred to his militant supporters within the capital as his “fifth column,” intent on undermining the loyalist government from within.

A cardinal technique of the fifth column is the infiltration of sympathizers into the entire fabric of the nation under attack and, particularly, into positions of policy decision and national defense. From such key posts, fifth-column activists exploit the fears of a people by spreading rumours and misinformation, as well as by employing the more standard techniques of espionage and sabotage.
(Source: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/t...)

More:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_co...

Bryan wrote: "Here is the answer:"

Thanks Bryan!

Glad to help, Jason.

As I was reading these chapters, it did seem like the between the war years weren't the years that Hoover was at the apex of his power. Which was surprising to me, as I generally associate the rise of the FBI with the agency's role in hunting down gangsters during Prohibition, which wasn't really covered extensively in this book (although I guess the book focuses more on political intelligence than this aspect of the FBI.)

But even when looking at his role within the realm of political intelligence, Hoover obviously gained power during the Cold War years and Civil Rights era, but even before this time period when he was younger, his role in the Palmer Raids and creation of the FBI were significant.

I wonder if his slighter role during the 1940s could be attributed to the strength of FDR as executive leader or perhaps the fact that world affairs was the primary focus of the United States from 1941-45?

Craig wrote: "As I was reading these chapters, it did seem like the between the war years weren't the years that Hoover was at the apex of his power. Which was surprising to me, as I generally associate the ris..."

I get the same sense, the 1920s were not the same as the 1930s. Hoover seemed to have gained considerable power under FDR. He has broad powers from Secretary Hull and FDR gives him unwritten power to spy. FDR and Hoover developed a close relationship.

One thing comes to mind, though. If you do have unwritten power, is it easier to take it away, or is it harder?

The more I read this book, the more horrified and angry I become at the lack of legality in the actions of the FBI, and the more I make parallels to modern-day policy and practices.

When Hoover died and broad changes were made to the FBI (e.g. tenure of director), I simply made the assumption that as a people we learned the lessons of what not to do to our citizens and residents. Re-learning about the Olmstead ruling and the ways in which Hoover simply decided to bypass the law sickened me. And reminded me of things like the Patriot Act. I understand that we do need to safeguard our country, but Justice Brandeis said it best: "If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for the law" (reading via Kindle so don't have a page number. It's troubling that we continue to have a government breeding contempt for the law. We can certainly point to Hoover as being the model for these types of civil liberty violations today.

I also never realized the extent that FDR was complicit in this activity and how much approval he provided for it. I always saw FDR as a champion of the people, but to simply say ignore the Supreme Court and our system of checks and balances and do what you want to do... shocking. It has definitely put FDR in a new light for me.

Really looking forward to the WW2 stuff that's coming up. I never knew pre-war that the FBI was given Latin America, and, to be honest, was amused at the failures the agents had in the region :)

Bryan wrote: "One thing comes to mind, though. If you do have unwritten power, is it easier to take it away, or is it harder?"

Have you read Drift: The Unmooring of American Military Power by Rachel Maddow? In it she discusses how the President /Executive Branch has, over time, taken away the powers of war from Congress (and how Congress has let them). She suggests that Congress simply isn't going to get that power back as a President is less likely to hand their perceived powers to them, even if it is Constitutionally mandated. I think of this while reading this book, although it did take the death of Hoover for powers to "return" to their proper place (to a degree).

by

Thanks, Misty. I think you say is true that the modern presidency is harder to unravel.

Misty wrote: "The more I read this book, the more horrified and angry I become at the lack of legality in the actions of the FBI, and the more I make parallels to modern-day policy and practices.

When Hoover di..."

It is pretty eye opening read so far. Tim wrote about the inept programs of the CIA operations like the FBI in Latin America.

Tim Weiner

What has been amazing me too is the role that newspapers played in all of this, either in working against the FBI or aiding it.

And I am increasingly intrigued by the character of Hoover. He's one of those guys who can be cast in a myriad roles, depending on what side you're on. This books makes me want to pick up a biography on him.

The Fourth Estate has always had a murky role with the government. It's almost as if it wants the entire cake, but to eat it when it wants. I've only a passing knowledge of Vincent Astor from my Titanic readings earlier this year, but I can assume that he was just caught up in the times: a lot of media really got on the bandwagon when it came to WW2, and there wasn't too much objective reporting or separation between government and media like we expect (and get shocked when there isn't) today.

Justin, I completely agree. I think when I am finished reading this book I will look for a good biography on Hoover.

Mckris10 wrote: "Justin, I completely agree. I think when I am finished reading this book I will look for a good biography on Hoover."

You check out our thread:
http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/8...

There are some good ones listed.

Why would Agent Leon Turrou tell his suspects that they would be subpoenaed to appear before a grand jury, thus losing them??

An excellent question - maybe Tim has some perspective on that too.

Turrou was trying to play both ends against the middle -- that's a poker term where you try to bluff everyone into thinking your hand is better than it is. He was going to parlay the Nazi spy case into a book, and he was trying to play good cop with the suspects, and he was doing all this without telling Hoover. It all worked out precisely according to Murphy's law. And that violated Hoover's most important edict to agents: "Don't embarrass the Bureau."

Amazing, Tim, a recipe for disaster.

Thanks Tim for that wonderful explanation.

What are the group's thoughts about Hoover's philosophy on wiretaps? The part about Hoover and AG Jackson was interesting. You can understand Jackson's frustration that you can't indict people with the information on a wiretap. Then....what is it used for????

I wonder what the 1930s wiretap consisted of as compared to say the 1960s, 90s or today? My guess is it would have been easier to intercede phone calls back then?

Nice question, Craig, I'd pose that to Tim; I think he might be able to help us on that.

I know today wiretapping includes Internet.

I bet party lines made it very easy to get a whole of people on tape!

People have been tapping wires as long as there have been wires to tap. Leaving aside the legal issues, it was simpler back in the good old days.

An FBI agent literally had to get on the line -- which was not hard. He would simply find a telephone junction box in a basement and attached two alligator clips to the copper wire of the line. In a more intensive and far-reaching wiretap investigation, AT&T would give the FBI leased telephone lines that would tap into multiple numbers; the tapes would roll as soon as the targeted line was engaged.

Things got exponentially more complicated in the 1990s when America and the world switched from hard-wired telephones to buried digital cables that carried thousands of lines -- and to cell phones that could be tossed away by anyone with criminal intent. Add to that freely available encryption systems like Pretty Good Privacy that protected e-mails from being read.

By 1995, the year the Internet went public, the FBI was, quite suddenly, 10 years behind the techological curve.

What the FBI (and the electronic eavesdropping National Security Agency) sought -- and finally won after 9/11 under secret presidential orders -- was a series of trap doors that allowed them to tap into the switching posts of the major telecoms. Many international calls and almost all the world's e-mails are routed, if only for a fraction of a second, through servers in the United States.

This was a very secret procedure, and it stayed secret for almost five years. We still don't know a lot of what went on under Bush and Cheney.

Thanks, Tim, very helpful.

Was wiretapping the best tactic available at the time to keep track of suspects? Given its success it seems Hoover was on to something.

It was and it is an effective technique of gathering secret intelligence.

But that's not exactly the right question. Was it legal? If not, did the President's authorization make it legal?

According to what I read it clearly still remained illegal. I'm sure there are some who would feel that if the President decides something then it must be valid...

...except that Congress makes laws and the Supreme Court rules on their constitutionality. A state of war does not make the President a king.

FDr seemed to think his word was to be followed but I don't know if he thought what he was doing was legal.

I suppose that further goes to show Hoover's power of persuasion as well as others' tendencies to let themselves be swayed by him.

In contrast I'm somewhat puzzled as to why Hoover wouldn't have the foresight to see that sending poorly trained SIS members to foreign countries wouldn't prove very successful? Spanish lessons, anyone?

FDRs ego was as big as a planet; he seemed to think that he had jurisdiction and the right to stir up the pot anywhere including the Supreme Court; also I think while at war he was cut a lot of slack.

I am not so sure that FDR did not see himself at some level as King (smile). War or no war and he had a bunch of charisma which helped him get away with a lot as president and even in his personal life.

I am not sure that FDR cared what was legal if he could bend a few rules and cut a few corners - he was all for getting the job done his way. And just because he wanted something did not make it right, did not make it legal and did not make it so

Actually I see that sort of personality and mindset in quite a few presidents. Not sure what comes first - the personality or the office.
.

Natacha wrote: "In contrast I'm somewhat puzzled as to why Hoover wouldn't have the foresight to see that sending poorly trained SIS members to foreign countries wouldn't prove very successful? Spanish lessons, an..."

Natacha, it is pretty amazing how inept the SIS project was. No planning, whatsoever, crazy.

Bentley wrote: "FDRs ego was as big as a planet; he seemed to think that he had jurisdiction and the right to stir up the pot anywhere including the Supreme Court; also I think while at war he was cut a lot of sla..."

Interesting, Bentley, you definitely get that impression. He probably felt pretty secure in his 2nd and 3rd term, and felt he could bend the law. Also, I think people did give him slack due to the war.

Personality or the office? We can ask the same question to Hoover. Do you think both men were blinded by their passion for their cause when it came to national security?

You'll remember that FDR was the assistant Navy secretary during World War One. In 1920 he cheerfully admitted spending tens of millions on weaponry illegally, without any congressional appropriation, before America declared war. Referring to this and (obliquely) to intelligence operations like stealing codes from embassies and consulates, FDR boasted -- in public -- that "we in the Navy committed acts for which we could be, and may be yet, sent to jail for 999 years."

And Tim, his house was hit by the 1919 bombing, so he saw first hand, in his mind, what damage can be done on a personal level.

It seems pretty easy to walk down this path of illegal funds. You wished there were more AG Harlan Stones when you need them.

Let me ask you Good Readers a rhetorical question: What parallels and similarities do you find in the story thus far, up to World War Two, with what went on in the US after the 9/11 attacks? Any bells go off?

Sure do! Profiling of citizens of certain cultural and/or religious backgrounds and wiretapping come to mind.

Several things are standing out in this reading. The first one is somewhat ironic. Richard Nixon was forced from office for basically telling the FBI not to do something. (very simplistic summation). FDR used the FBI without regard to any sort of law and was never held accountable. According to Hoovers notes, he and FDR sat and converted the US to a police state. I find some equally interesting and that is the parallel to this book and Tim's book on the CIA where Tim explained that another politician with a reputation of being for the people, Bobby Kennedy was fully engaged in some ugly behavior that had long term ramifications.

Tim pointed out something regarding wiretaps. As someone that deals with big data, wiretaps are pretty much a slow way of doing things now. The ability to data mine today by both the FBI and NSA would shock people. Wired magazine had a great story on the data center being constructed by the NSA. In a short amount of time all phone calls and communication will be routed through IP. Nothing will ever be private again. In addition, we seem to freely put out lives out there for anyone to search and connect the dots.

I also have thought a great deal about the conversations on the expansion of the executive branch. In my opinion, Congress could regain some of their authority back by using it's budget ability and cut off funding to certain things. I believe due to the unity between political parties, this is somewhat difficult if not impossible. Rarely will you see a majority party go agonist the president if he is a member of their party. Nor is there any interest in rolling things back by the minority because they realize they will probably be in the majority some day and will have the power.

There are clear and obvious post 9/11 similarities. Again we allow law enforcement to over reach and use these things as a pretext for greater power. After watching thousands die on the news every night, very few were going to oppose it. It is difficult to accept we have this exclusive tracking of citizens, but where I live have difficulty prosecuting violent crime which occurs on a nightly basis and is probably far more dangerous to the future of the nation than what we are spending billions on spying.

Hey folks, sorry I've been MIA thus far. I was on vacation and then spending a few days catching up with everything that happened while I was away. But now I'm back.

I have definitely read a number of things that with a change of date would have appeared to have happened post 9/11. It seems we don't learn from our mistakes.

Thanks for your great comments, Rodney. Since the Wired article focusing on the present, I moved the link over to the Glossary section.

http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/8...

One of the big similarities I see is using fear. Hoover kept pushing the intelligence to the press and Congress saying Communism will take over the U.S. (Most of it was lies or exaggeration).

There were legitimate threats then and now, and they should be thwarted. This is what is it about. But Hoover crossed the line.

Rodney, you are correct in that Congress could take back the power, and it is difficult in this present climate to do that. We also have a 40 plus years of a strong executive tradition which is also hard to change, too.

I see Hoover and Donovan having a serious turf battle! I didn't know Donovan spread rumors that Hoover was gay. You wonder if Donovan is the Hoover of the OSS (later CIA).

I do see many similarities between the birth and growth of the FBI, and America's response to 9/11.

I keep mulling over the people who protested the techniques of the FBI as an affront to Liberty. One of the most powerful quotations came early in this week's reading: "The greatest dangers to liberty lie in insidious encroachments by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding." - Justice Louis Brandeis (pg 77).

This insidious encroachment is obvious during times of war and is certainly evident post 9/11. Not only did the existing government agencies pour their resources into identifying every potential terrorist in the U.S. and every potential threat overseas, but we also had the establishment of a new agency: the TSA. Have we lost some of our liberties as a result of well-meaning men of zeal since 9/11? All you have to do is fly somewhere in the U.S. to realize that we've lost significant liberty, handing it over to TSA agents that mean well but don't have that much understanding of what's going on. It intrigues and baffles me that very few people object due to concerns for their own personal safety.

Bit by bit, we have lost many liberties as Americans and for the most part it's been with only the slightest of whimpering protests. We seem blind to what we have willingly given up, apparently trusting the federal government to take care of us better than we can take care of ourselves.

Kay wrote: "I do see many similarities between the birth and growth of the FBI, and America's response to 9/11.

I keep mulling over the people who protested the techniques of the FBI as an affront to Liberty...."

It is a great quote, Kay. I think it is an advantage to be more severe during war because people take it in the name of security

The biggest surprise so far for me is how my perceptions of the "Red Scare" have changed. I had always believed that the Scare was unfounded and that Hoover, like Joe McCarthy, was pursuing chimera.

On page 100 Tim recounts that Gaik Ovakimian, an employee of Amtorg, the Soviet trade organization, had been running a Soviet espionage ring in the US for 8 years. On his return to Russia, he became chief of Soviet intelligence operations against the US.

In Chapter 5 - page 35, it was said that reports by Charles Ruthenberg, head of the US Communist Party were filed with the COMINTERM(Communist International. Their avowed purpose was revolution, through illegal acts and armed force if necessary. Ruthenberg 's ashes are buried in the Kremlin Wall. COMINTERM, through John Reed was funding the Communist Party with smuggled gold and diamonds.

So, I wrestle with Hoover's failure to differentiate Communists, Socialists and Labor organizers. I see overreaching and illegal wiretaps. But I also see a foreign government actively formenting treason inside our borders.

Brian wrote: "The biggest surprise so far for me is how my perceptions of the "Red Scare" have changed. I had always believed that the Scare was unfounded and that Hoover, like Joe McCarthy, was pursuing chimera..."

Indeed, Brian. There were legit Soviet spying activities. The fact they got away with a lot is something. Hoover was not prepared.