Einstein's 1,427-Page F.B.I. File

meow meow cat chow writes: "Fred Jerome of the Gene Media Forum has recently written a book called "The Einstein File: J. Edgar Hoover's Secret War Against the World's Most Famous Scientist." The book talks about how the FBI spied on Einstein and identifies some of the people who said he was a spy. Jerome sued the government to obtain access to the 1,427 page file which can be found at (http://foia.fbi.gov/einstein.htm) The New York Times has an article about the book."

Comments

Re:Not at all

[imr]

You forget sakharow. His struggle, the same as einstein's in this matter, desserved the urss government.

urss would have gone down anyway, would the money have been put in something else than nuclear weapons , as it was unable to stand a long economical war against the usa. Wich is what it was all along.

The fact that both systems chose the weapon area to compete the most is a moral standpoint and shows both system as being bad from this point of view. This is the battlefield that einstein and sakharov chose to fight in.
Ethics. Responsability. not politics and power.

His 'crime' was that he was willing to think.

[Stephen Samuel]

Nuclear weapons are a horrid and nasty thing. We've been lucky that they haven't been used since Nagasaki -- and that's probably at least partly due to the face that Einstein was both willing and able to speak out about the horrors that nuclear weapons were capable of producing.

Communism isn't an inherently evil and nasty system.. The communist governments of Russia and China were/are vicious and corrupt, but that's more a statement about the people that lead them than of the basic systems themselves. It's not like the US is a whole lot better with it's support of people like Agusto Pinochet, Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden -- all in the name of so-called 'democracy'. We sometimes forget that these 'evil nasty people' are a product of our own government's support system.

Einstein 'agitated' for peace. He had ideas that were different than those who were in power at the time. These should never be considered crimes in a truly democratic system. The idea behind democracy is that an idea should either stand or fall on it's own merits -- not based on the fact that someone hates the label that some intolerent extremist attaches to it (like Hoover, McCarthy or even Nixon).

Re:His 'crime' was that he was willing to think.

[PatientZero]

The fact of the matter is that there has never been a non-corrupt communist regime

And there has never been a non-currupt democratic regime, nor a republic or totalitarian regime, so what's your point? You think you are arguing that communism must be corrupt, yet all you're saying is that every government set up by humans has been corrupt. And the sky is blue. So what?

Re:His 'crime' was that he was willing to think.

[PatientZero]

More people were murdered by their own communistic governments than by any wars or famines in the last century.

That would be true only if you disregarded all the various violent external U.S. actions in South America, Africa, and Asia as well as those of the totalitarian regimes the U.S. has set up throughout Latin and South America. Sure, the U.S. tends to avoid killing its own citizens, but our leaders seem to have no qualms about supporting mass murder in other countries.

The over 5,000 children that die in Iraq every month since 1991 from sanctions overshadows any current Communist actions, and it's just the first example.

The point is not that Communism is the best form of government/monetary policy. The point is that when you give lots of power to humans, they tend to exercise it unwisely at the expense of others, regardless of the type of government. The problem as I see it is that because Capitalism's goal is to maximise the control of resources to a few, it allows a much larger abuse of power than other economic models.

For example, under Socialism, the farm workers themselves determine how farmland is used. If twenty farmers "go nuts" and decide to use tons of chemicals on their farm, they only affect one farm. However, under Capitalism, if one transnational corporation "goes nuts" and uses the same pesticides, they will affect the food for several countries instead of 500 people.

Re:His 'crime' was that he was willing to think.

[Permission Denied]

even if you are an absolutely brilliant person in physics, perhaps one of the smartest people who ever lived, you can be a complete ignorant moron when it comes to politics and human relations.

A LOT of Slashdotters could learn this lesson. Just because you are a good programmer (or pick your geek subject) doesn't mean you know beans about how the world should be run.

I'm a good programmer. Does that mean I shouldn't be passing on my opinions about how the world should be run?

Well, let's be fair - that's not what you're saying. You're saying that I shouldn't participate in political discussion unless I know how "the world should be run." There is no other possible conclusion from your post: you're saying that Einstein shouldn't have experimented with Marxism because he obviously didn't understand how people work (and this, in turn, is obvious from his Communist associations). You're saying that sympathizing with socialists shows just how utterly incapable Einstein was to participate in political actions.

Now, you wrote clearly, so there's no need to paraphrase; we can see what you're saying through your own words:

If you are a socialist, then you have no clue about how the world should be run, and should just stay away.

In short, you're telling me to shut the fuck up because I disagree with you. Now, which one of us is "intrinsically anti-freedom?"

Normally, I would tell rabid anti-socialists to form an opinion on Marxism by not by reading anti-Marxist literature but by reading Marx himself, but only after understanding the proper historical framework, by reading John Stuart Mills' On Liberty, Tocqueville's Souvenirs of the Revolution of 1848, and perhaps some of the proceedings of the English parlement on factory workers during 1846-1847. That's normally what I would ask of the rabid anti-socialist. However, I don't ask this of you, since you've already formed an opinion that "Socialism is intrinsically anti-freedom."

I'm neither a communist, a socialist, nor a Marxist - but I know the difference between the three. Economically, I'm more likely to agree with Adam Smith than with Engels. However, unlike you or M. Le Pen, I realize that there is nothing intrinsically dangerous about studying and sharing the teachings of Marx, or even forming political associations based upon Marxist ideology.

I believe my Anonymous Comrade said it best: "You, my friend, are a facist bastard."

Re:His 'crime' was that he was willing to think.

[error0x100]

The fact of the matter is that there has never been a non-corrupt communist regime, which should lead one instantly to deduce that it is communism itself which is the problem

It "should"? No, it most emphatically should NOT lead one instantly to deduce anything of a general nature about communism. That is an invalid logical inference. A fault of reasoning. An incorrect deduction. An unscientific conclusion. You've come to a conclusion but you've left out the part where you explain how you got there.

There has never in the history of humanity been a democratic government that was free of corruption either. What, according to your flawed methodology of reasoning, "should" we deduce about democracy from that?

For the mentally impaired, I'm not advocating communism here at all, I'm just pointing out that ACs method of reasoning is incorrect.

It might well be that communism cannot work, but AC here has not demonstrated that. NOTHING can be concluded from merely pointing to the fact that it hasn't worked anywhere *yet*. That would have been much like stating, around 1880, "The fact of the matter is that man has never flown, which should lead one instantly to deduce that man will never fly, it is impossible". Not a valid logical inference at all.

Feds are worse in 2002

[Anonymous Coward]

Carnivore, anyone? Patriot Act? Homeland Security?

Find some scary factoids from the past to make today seem better than yesterday.

The simple people automatically scrabble after factoids like hens scrabble after proffered grain.

Re:Fifties flashbacks...

[Anonymous Coward]

The government of the USA has fallen under the control of some Very Bad People, no doubt about it.

The only thing that is keeping the public complacent about it is the new role of the major news media as propaganda arms of the government. I know, I know, this is not news according to the likes of Chomsky et al, but there has been a **huge** sea change since 9-11 in how far they are even willing to pretend to go against the government line.

Personally I blame a lot of it on the changing nature of what a "reporter" is. Most of the people doing that job now are drooling for the chance to sit in Wolf Blitzer's chair and become high-paid celebrities. Edward R. Murrow they're not. Rock the boat? Not a chance, that would affect their chances for promotion.

Join la resistance!. The Smirking Chimp - news from the vast left-wing conspiracy.

Re:And what about democracy? (Re:No surprising.)

[dj28]

Who said America was a Democracy? Last time I checked, it was a Republic. The Will of the people decides what is right and wrong in a Republic with strong Democratic ties. If the majority of the public finds that there is no place for Communism in America, then policy should be made on that Will. To think that the government should be some outside entity not influenced by the public opinion of the people it serves is insane. Get a grip with reality and don't resort to childish idealism that so many people here do.

Re:Fifties flashbacks...

[Anonymous Coward]

That is precisely the point.

The issue at hand is the development of an international legal system which has teeth. A system which will might cause a mass-murderer, for instance, to think twice before killing a village full of innocent people.

Such a system must have extraterritorial jurisdiction over any signatory state as far as some very particular cases are concerned. In the absence of this power the court is meaningless. While I'm no fan of the current administration, I respect their concern that the court could become a forum for politically-motivated prosecutions. The wise solution to this is not to actively subvert the court itself, but to become a serious party to the system, and to work to make it fair and balanced.

Are you seriously proposing that the blessed state of being "An American" should trump prosecution for mass murder? You might argue that the American legal system itself should handle this prosecution, but that ain't gonna help make some warlord in South Berzerkistan think twice before levelling a village with his black-market Soviet gunship. This is the missing element of vision in the American policy. The rest of the world can go hang, it seems to be saying.

The USA is in the process of withdrawing itself from what little connection it had with international law. It is becoming a rogue state. Right now the Europeans are looking quietly at one another, and at the Russians, and the Chinese, and thinking... If the USA chooses to make itself the singular enemy of all mankind, where does one stand for security?

Re:HELLO, people, the FBI was *right*, okay?

[TheLastUser]

Just because Einstein associated with a lot of socialists and communists does not establish that he believed in ALL of the tenants of these organizaions. Just as a person who votes Republican may be in favor of the "pro-choice" stance on abortion.

I have read some stuff written by Einstein and he was, I believe, merely scared to death that there was going to be a nuclear war. And he, as someone who could well imagine the implications, and as someone with a good moral compass, decided to use his celebrity status to try and save the world from destruction.

Its more srprising to me that after the slaughter of WW1 and WW2, that someone like Einstein, who was plainly looking for a novel solution to the problem or war, was under investigation by the government, instead of being supported by the government.

I think the root of this investigation is that governments like to have a ready pool of kids to send off to their death. Anyone that interferes with that ability touches on how government leaders define their power, and probably their manhood.

It is also interesting that 25 or so years later people would be practising what Einstein was proposing, to end the Vietnam vs. the USA war.

In a different light

[npsimons]

I view these numbers in a different light. It only takes 588 pages to tell that the Klu Klux Klan is evil because it's so obvious.

On the other hand, proving Martin Luther King Jr is the spawn of Satan is quite difficult, it takes about 100 times as much research!

As for the Aryan Brotherhood I figure a lot of it is "see article on Adolph Hitler" so they can save duplicate research.

Re:Fifties flashbacks...

[Anonymous Coward]

The USA is just another country, remember that and maybe things will improve.

The USA is a bit like the control freak at work who insists on doing everything him/herself because he doesn't trust anyone else to be able to do anything else competently. They think they are always in the moral right, they think they are the only ones capable of doing anything competently, they think they are the only ones capable of doing things objectively, and think they are better than everyone else. When they drop nuclear bombs on another country's women and children, they consider it justifiable ("pearl harbour blah blah", what, 2K *soldiers* dead? Try hundreds of thousands of women and children). Now they want to bomb Iraq, Northern Korea etc .. and of course "they are in the right", "they have God on their side" blah blah. Its an incredibly dangerous situation.

And its only getting worse, under Bush. The US is becoming increasingly paranoid that everyone is out to get them, and they think that "being American" automatically trumps everyone.

Re:Fifties flashbacks...

[Anonymous Coward]

When the Netherlands declares extraterritorial jurisdiction over Americans and brings them to trial there, I'd damn well expect the US to do what was necessary to get them back.

As opposed to the US declaring extraterritorial jurisdiction over people from many parts of the world. Typically being abducted and not even placed on trial. Including for the "crime" of defending themselves against US forces invading their country.
Can you understand the concept of "double standards".

Re:And what about democracy? (Re:No surprising.)

[Permission Denied]

You:

If the majority of the public finds that there is no place for Communism in America, then policy should be made on that Will.

Some other people:

Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So, what's the point here? Why were these words spoken?

If you read Rousseau, you'll see that he says almost exactly what you're saying: nobody can go against the will of the sovereign whole.

However, the writers of the above words also dealt with another issue, an issue that Rousseau didn't touch: the so-called "tyranny of the majority."

Perhaps I may quote someone to better express what I mean by this trite concept:

Majority rule only works if you're also considering individual rights. Because you can't have five wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for supper.

Now, in an ideal democratic society, I wouldn't be afraid to attribute this citation, and the idea would be considered on its own merit rather than on preconceived ideas of the author; however, I'm afraid I'll lose all credibility if I mention the author of this quote, so I'll leave it to you to research google if you're interested.

The point? We don't live in a perfect representative republic; the founders of our republic realized that a perfect representative republic would be disasterous. We have limits on what we can vote on (for a more in-depth analysis, I would recommend Tocqueville's Democracy in America). Whether or not these limits have been respected is another debate, but I believe they were added for good reason.

In defense of the Black Panthers

[alienmole]

Erm, the Black Panthers should not be put in the same cattegory as Martin Luther King or the Gay Activists... That's just wrong, do you know what the Panthers really stood for?

Yes, the freedom of themselves and their people from oppression by the racist American government and people of the time. For an alternative to the propaganda you've been exposed to, you might try reading this, or this (the latter with a good and honest summary of pros and cons). Search Google for plenty more.

Are you saying that in similar circumstances, you would just suck it up? When a people's pride, dignity and survival is at stake, in an unjust society and under unjust laws, conventions and law enforcement, some may claim that they would not choose violence as a solution - and a few might follow through, like King and Gandhi. Others may choose the coward's path, and suffer in silence.

But in these circumstances, violent rhetoric and violence is a very understandable and natural (as in human nature) course of action, and if you condemn the Black Panthers for that, it's only because you've never remotely been in a similar position.

You're probably a white male (as am I), and you probably grew up in an environment in which the closest you ever came to "oppression" was being grounded for not doing your homework.

The Black Panthers originated partly in response to police brutality in Oakland, CA. Police brutality against blacks in American cities is hardly a solved problem, but today, it gets dealt with much more effectively by society and the government. That wasn't the case in 1966. You can thank the Black Panthers directly for the relatively peaceful society you enjoy today, because they clearly demonstrated what can happen if you don't deal with issues such as police brutality and discrimination in a fair and open manner.

Re:Fifties flashbacks...

[bankman]

Some points:

We are the budget of the Unitied Nations

No, you are not. To be precise the other AC was talking about the US, the country (well, initially). Not you as a person. To be even more precise, the US accounts for 25% of the budget (let me explain this a little: that's one quarter of the budget). That is a lot. According to this page, the "U.S. owes $1.952 billion In past, current obligations." This effectively makes the US one of the largest debtors of the UN as well.

You then go on:
We litterly rebuilt Japan after bombing it in to the stone age.

The people of Nagasaki and Hiroshima are probably extremely thankful to this very day. The nicest thing one could say about this, is probably that it ended the war in the Pacific.

The US funding for Germany and Japan wasn't exactly altruistic, but (rightfully) politically motivated.

lets keep our own technology.. hell.. lets stop the internet

And if that were possible, we would all happily call it USnet and praise Al Gore as our saviour. There is a reason why it's called "Internet" (hint: because it's international and the US can't stop it, it can just shut down a part of it.).

Why not we just step back during WW1.. and maybe there wouldn't have been a Europe.. Hell.. WW2 .. same case.. Funny.. comments like this just freaking make me laugh.

Your English is so bad that I can hardly believe you are US American. Actually, I think when referring to the US, it's very important to do just that: REFER TO THE USA, NOT AMERICA. There are a hell of a lot Americans who aren't US citizens, and quite happily so.

By the way, in case you are interested: America was discovered by Europeans (not counting native Americans, who didn't call themselves Americans back then).

Every Single Country in this world OWES money to the US.

And the US owes money to every single country in the world as well. It's called economics. Just in case you were wondering.

If we was to stop trade with other nations.. Growth would litterly stop..

Again, your grasp of the English language is astonishing, but never mind. Yes, you are right, growth in the US would become virtually non-existent if that were to happen.

I had the privi to be in another nation, Germany.. when we where doing our Interist rates in the US.. funny how that was aired on TV news more than the local game shows.

Aaaargh, that English again. This statement clearly indicates that you are an idiot AND a liar: Nothing gets more air time in Germany than game shows.

All in all, you are a disgrace to so many US citizens (if you are one, if not, you are a plain idiot) I have met.