Slashdot Mirror


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."

6 of 351 comments (clear)

  1. Fifties flashbacks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...yes, it's scary.

    It also sounds like a joke if you didn't live through the fifties. I did, and believe me, it was no joke.

    I'm also scared by a lot of current rhetoric following 9/11. The words "terrorism" and "terrorist" seem to be taking on a lot of the baggage that "communism" and "communist" had in the fifties. If you're harboring terrorists, you're a terrorist... if you're associating with terrorists, you're a terrorist...

    And "terrorist" doesn't seem to have a well-defined meaning, it's anyone the U. S. government wishes to attack.

    And every time things settle down, the government announces some new warning about a possible terrorist attack and urges us to be vigilant and keep an eye on our friends and neighbors for suspicious activities--whatever they might be.

    Does ANYONE seriously believe that NORTH KOREA had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks? Or shares any fundamental views with Al-Quaida? No, yet somehow they're part of the International Terrorist Conspiracy.

    1. Re:Fifties flashbacks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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?

  2. And what about democracy? (Re:No surprising.) by Stephen+Samuel · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Ah, yes.. the Nixon thing. But Nixon was the president of the United States of America. That makes him the next best thing to god ...

    Doesn't it?

    If The United States were a true democracy, then being willing to look at communist principles shouldn't be considered a crime. The people who liked some of the principles of communism should have been allowed to speak those ideas freely. Being able to hear and discuss those ideas, we the people should be able to accept or reject them freely, and based on their true value.

    To reject an idea simply because someone attached the name 'communist' to it is not the pinnacle of democracy. Nor is destroying the lives of people simply because they are friends of such people and possibly shared belief in the value of some of those ideas an expression of the concept of free speech.

    As the bible says, "What good does it do a man to rule the world if he loses his own soul?". What good does it do to have a 'democracy' where the only idea that are allowed to be held are those which are in agreement with those in power? What good is 'free speech' that is only free for the wealthy (or, for that matter, the poor)?

    Some people might (with good cause) consider the principles behind the Open Source and Free Source movements communistic in nature (just listen to the rantings of the RIAA and MS). Should this, by itself, be just cause to persecute and jail people like RMS and Linus?

    I think not.

    --
    Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
    1. Re:And what about democracy? (Re:No surprising.) by Permission+Denied · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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.

  3. More FBI files by Iamthefallen · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Seems like a little?

    • Ku Klux Klan - 588 pages
    • Aryan Brotherhood - 141 pages
    • Adolph Hitler - 734 pages
    • Hell's Angels - 233 pages

    Seems like a lot?

    • Martin Luther King Jr. - 55,896 pages
    • Black Panther Party - 2,895 pages
    • Gay Activists Alliance & GLA - 1,647 pages
    • Abbie Hoffman - 13,262 pages

    Glad an unbiased police is there to protect the citizens huh?

    --
    Wax-Museum Fire Results In Hundreds Of New Danny DeVito Statues
  4. In defense of the Black Panthers by alienmole · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.