Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FBI Ordered to Turn Over Lennon Files

Posted by CowboyNeal on from the helter-skelter dept.

CatDogLordOfTheRoot writes "CNN is reporting that a U.S. District Judge rejected the governments arguements to keep the secret records of John Lennon sealed. The FBI argued that releasing the last ten pages would pose a risk to national security as a foreign government (not identified) secretly gave information to the US Government. Looks like another big step in the Freedom of Information Act."

98 of 396 comments (clear)

  1. Good news by PrvtBurrito · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There should be a law making all records public after a certain period of time (like copyright expiration). (fp?)

    --
    Laboratree - Scientific collaboration based on OpenSocial.
    1. Re:Good news by BlackEyedSceva · · Score: 5, Funny

      Most of the time information becomes public anyway. There is no need for a LAW to do this.

    2. Re:Good news by The-Bus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "after a certain period of time (like copyright expiration"

      From the way copyright law is going, that's going to be about 435 years.

      --

      Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.

    3. Re:Good news by PrvtBurrito · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Not true. Piles of secret information is buried constantly. Of course, there is public info, but there is very little civil war, mexican-american war or wwi info that is available.

      --
      Laboratree - Scientific collaboration based on OpenSocial.
    4. Re:Good news by DAldredge · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yes there is. Our goverment should not keep secrets from the public any longer than necessary. Except for the case of REAL national security matters, and the penalty for classifying something too high should be 1-5 years in prison per page.

    5. Re:Good news by NakedGoat · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There are in fact declassification procedures for all U.S. classified documents that state specific declassification timeframes. The declassification time is specified for the specific document or information. 50 years is very common.
      The government often has very legitimate reasons for keeping documents under wraps. For instance if Yoko Ono were passing information from North Korea with the knowledge of the local government China may not look favorably upon it and it could cause more than a little tension.

      --
      Four plus four equals 2,137.
    6. Re:Good news by Molina+the+Bofh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So you mean the person would sue himself ? Because if someone classified a record too high, this record would be... well, classified. And nobody else would know about it.

      --

      -
      Roses are #FF0000, Violets are #0000FF, find / -name '*base*' |xargs chown -R us && mv zig greatjustice
    7. Re:Good news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny
      So what? 435 years is NOT unreasonable.

      What is my incentive to create if my great-great-great-great-great grand children can't sit on their asses living off my royalties? That's the new lazy american dream!

    8. Re:Good news by Lobsang · · Score: 2, Insightful


      The government often has very legitimate reasons for keeping documents under wraps. For instance if Yoko Ono were passing information from North Korea with the knowledge of the local government China may not look favorably upon it and it could cause more than a little tension.

      Good 'n old Security by Obscurity, aka "National Security". It leaves us all with that warm feeling that nothing is going to happen. Unfortunately, it rarely works, as malfeasants usually have other means of gaining access to the information.

      It does, however, protect infantile and incompetent politicians from equally infantile voters.

    9. Re:Good news by jfengel · · Score: 4, Informative

      Clinton's Executive Order 12958 reduced that to 25 years in most cases. (The more recent version is Bush's Executive Order 13292).

      But there are many ways to get around that in the latest EO. It won't be released if it will (to quote the EO):

      (1) reveal the identity of a confidential human source, or a human intelligence source, or reveal information about the application of an intelligence source or method;

      (2) reveal information that would assist in the development or use of weapons of mass destruction;

      (3) reveal information that would impair U.S. cryptologic systems or activities;

      (4) reveal information that would impair the application of state of the art technology within a U.S. weapon system;

      (5) reveal actual U.S. military war plans that remain in effect;

      (6) reveal information, including foreign government information, that would seriously and demonstrably impair relations between the United States and a foreign government, or seriously and demonstrably undermine ongoing diplomatic activities of the United States;

      (7) reveal information that would clearly and demonstrably impair the current ability of United States Government officials to protect the President, Vice President, and other protectees for whom protection services, in the interest of the national security, are authorized;

      (8) reveal information that would seriously and demonstrably impair current national security emergency preparedness plans or reveal current vulnerabilities of systems, installations, infrastructures, or projects relating to the national security; or

      (9) violate a statute, treaty, or international agreement.

      That determination is made by the agency head (e.g. CIA, NSA), not by an outside panel, and there's no appeal. So it's automatically declassified unless they care enough to stop it.

    10. Re:Good news by tm2b · · Score: 2, Interesting
      There should be a law making all records public after a certain period of time
      I think we need more than that. I think we need a federal version of many states' Open Government laws - see Florida's Government-In-The-Sunshine, for example, which is in the Florida Constitution.

      The government should have a priority of making most of its operations transparent.
      --
      "It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us." - Zelazny
    11. Re:Good news by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 2, Funny

      Good 'n old Security by Obscurity, aka "National Security". It leaves us all with that warm feeling that nothing is going to happen. Unfortunately, it rarely works, as malfeasants usually have other means of gaining access to the information.

      I notice you don't have your email address listed. Is there a reason for that?

    12. Re:Good news by CodeBuster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not necessarily. For example, would you like to have the original documents from the Manhattan project (weapon designs) made public simply because they are over 60 years old? No, it is better that certain records remain classified, even at the expense of the right of the public to know and especially when the documents in question are important to the national security of the United States.

    13. Re:Good news by bob+beta · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I posted some strong opinions once on a Slashdot account where I had my email address exposed.

      That email account is pretty much worthless now. Nothing of the kind has EVER happened due to all the USENET posts I have made with a public email address.

      There are some some really nasty and hostile elements involved in the threads on this site. It's a serious mistake to reveal an email address if you have any strongly held opinions.

      --
      "What's the frequency Kenneth?"
    14. Re:Good news by mpmansell · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, considering that observed communication is enough to attract attention, security via obscurity is often the primary protection for intelligence assets.

      If you were to be sending emails to known 'enemies of the state', do you really think that encryption would stop all kinds of crap landing on you from a very high place? Guilt by association would be enough to condemn you to a miserable future and in some places, maybe, a prematurely terminal future. In fact, the act of hiding the info via encryption is more likely to confirm suspicions against you.

      Any successful operative will know this and use skilled field craft to make themselves unobtrusive and uninteresting. If they've done job well, if caught out, the first comment made by many will be along the lines of "I never suspected a thing". Of course, if really well done with luck to match, there will be no comments since they wouldn't be caught:)

      The fact that spies are caught, despite precautions shows SbO is flawed. However, the success of many indicatess that unless under the spotlight, SbO can be very successful.

      I would never consider SbO as my only security measure in any data system. I would still select the most secure practical crypto allied to a secure methodology in order to reduce security risks (they can never be eliminated). However, Security by Obscurity allows info to go unnoticed and reduces exposing it to scrutiny. This is often a good idea, if not always practical.

    15. Re:Good news by slashjames · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The Manhattan Project is not a very good example. Given the information currently available on the internet, it's relatively easy to design a 1st generation nuclear bomb (such as Fat Man or Little Boy). Even the information on how to refine Uranium and Plutonium isn't hard to find. The difficulty for anyone wanting to make a nuke is in getting ahold of the Uranium or Plutonium in the first place. After that, in under a year they'll have a bomb ready for use.

  2. Yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Looks like another big step in the Freedom of Information Act

    Imagine!

  3. I, for one, am intrigued by the information by Chairboy · · Score: 5, Funny

    I look forward to reading the released documents. I believe a 'Sargeant Pepper' may be the foreign national in question, and I think it's high time he produce answers.

    1. Re:I, for one, am intrigued by the information by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 4, Funny

      ObSimpsons reference:

      Well we all know that the Beatles were subliminally recruiting for the U.S. military.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
  4. And no prizes for guessing who by ewe2 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    because my bet is on the British government who were so obliging. I imagine Special Branch were leaping at the chance.

    --
    insecurity asks the wrong question irritation gives the wrong answer
    1. Re:And no prizes for guessing who by Oddly_Drac · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "I imagine Special Branch were leaping at the chance."

      MI5 are the agency in question, and yes, during that time the UK was very accomodating because of a little thing called the 'Cold War' and the 'European Theatre' that had most of the member states of NATO within a short tank drive of the Warsaw pact.

      --
      Oddly Draconis
      Too cynical to live, too stubborn to die.
  5. One of many revelations in the FBI files.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    the walrus was Paul.

  6. Beatles? by BenSpinSpace · · Score: 4, Funny

    Hey Judge Don't let me down Take a security threat And make it better Remember, for all the harm that you do Screw the FBI, and be a trendsetter

    1. Re:Beatles? by robbyjo · · Score: 4, Funny

      It's more like "Let It Be"

      When I find myself in times of trouble
      The FBI comes to me
      Speaking terrorism, let it be...

      --

      --
      Error 500: Internal sig error
  7. Finally... by Lu+Xun · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...we'll learn what that last song on the White Album means.

    --
    That's not a soda... it's a caffeine delivery device!
    1. Re:Finally... by kerincosford · · Score: 2, Informative

      I think you'll find that's Ringo, singing to John's children.

  8. I can see it now. by Artie_Effim · · Score: 4, Funny

    Yoko, instead of being a super-royal-bitch who is single handedly responsiable for breaking up the greatest band of that era, was in fact a defected spy master, living in annomity amounget the illuminati.

    1. Re:I can see it now. by rco3 · · Score: 2, Informative

      1) Greatest band ever. Sadly, White Zombie didn't make the final cut.
      2) responsible.
      3) anonymity.
      3) amongst
      Sorry to be such a pedant. One or two errors, I could overlook. Four became too egregious to ignore. After that, I kinda stopped counting...

      On the bright side, you spelled the plural of Illuminatus correctly. However, you forgot to capitalize it. Technically, you shouldn't have hyphenated super-royal-bitch the second time; super-royal bitch would have been correct. You should have hyphenated single-handedly, though. Oh, and unless there's a lot more about Yoko we don't know, she is more likely a defected spy mistress.

      No offense, I hope. :-)

      --

      Ce n'est pas un vrai mouvement de robot!
    2. Re:I can see it now. by Pfhorrest · · Score: 2, Funny

      1) Greatest band ever. Sadly, White Zombie didn't make the final cut.
      2) responsible.
      3) anonymity.
      3) amongst
      Sorry to be such a pedant. One or two errors, I could overlook. Four became too egregious to ignore. After that, I kinda stopped counting...

      Were you trying to be funny there, or it it just the irony?
      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
  9. Say What? by AsnFkr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Am I the only one that was unaware there was any sort of scandal or cover up or anything fishy about his death? I thought it was a pretty straightforward murder. This is indeed curious information.

    --


    adventure-today.com
    1. Re:Say What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This had nothing to do with his death. The FBI followed John Lennon because he had his own opinion of the war in Vietnam. So President Nixon had the FBI treat him like a national security risk.

      Sounds just like the current Administration.

    2. Re:Say What? by ggvaidya · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's not about his death (which was pretty straightforward, yeah). In the early 1970s, the FBI were investigating Lennon and other rock-n-rollers with political interests. You can get more information here and here.

    3. Re:Say What? by iamdrscience · · Score: 4, Informative

      The files in question are the files the FBI kept on Lennon while he was alive. He was watched by the FBI because of his antiwar stance and he was not a U.S. citizen. There is no controversy about his death.

    4. Re: Say What? by Black+Parrot · · Score: 3, Funny


      > I never got into them more then listening to thier music a couple of times.

      I presume that disclaimer was for the FBI's benefit...

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    5. Re:Say What? by linzeal · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I was investigated along with many other pro-life groups. It had little to do with the fact that I was and still am an anarchist. They do not investigate anarchist groups like the IWW. The operation is called VAAPCON and I am one of many people that have been investigated by it. Even PLAGAL (pro-life alliance of gays and lesbians) was investigated.

      --
      An Education is the Font of All Liberty
    6. Re:Say What? by Artifakt · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, there IS some controversy, including a weird conspiracy theory, about Lennon's death, but for once, the standard weird conspiracy theory doesn't involve the FBI, or the U.S. Government in general.
      This one runs approximately as follows.

      1 Charles Manson based his Helter-Skelter massacree scheme on the Beatles song from the White album

      2. Sharon Tate gets killed by the Manson family as part of that scheme.

      3. Sharon Tate was married to director Roman Polanski.

      4. Polanski directed the film 'Rosemary's Baby'.

      5. Rosemary's Baby was filmed (in part) in the Dakota Building (The rest was shot in the studio).

      6. Lennon lived in the Dakota Building, and was shot just outside it.

      7. Supposedly, the first report of Lennon's being shot came from the then current occupants of the appartment where Rosmary's Baby was filmed. (This last claim is the only one in the chain that looks iffy).

      It all adds up to a chain of strange coincidences, that don't even point to a particular bunch of conspiritors, or suggest a motive. People have looked to see if the little weasel who killed John Lennon could be tied to the Mansonites, to organized Satanism, or to anything else, and found basically nothing, but that doesn't keep people from trying to put it together into a controversy. It's a fair bet that the FBI files will have nothing that sheds any light on this, and that people will keep looking anyway.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    7. Re:Say What? by rlwhite · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I wonder why? Maybe partially because Bush's grandfather was also Nixon's political mentor? People tend to forget that the Bush political and defense industry connections date back to WWI.

    8. Re:Say What? by JonToycrafter · · Score: 2, Interesting

      OK, I'm being trolled, but...

      People get arrested ONLY for speaking their mind more often than you think. Police will make up a crime - I've seen it done many times, and had it happen to me once - you can read about it here if you feel like it.

      Of course, you're breaking a law at almost any time. It's more common to arrest someone for breaking a law that many other people are breaking, the only difference being that the arrested person spoke their mind against the current Administration.

      I step off the sidewalk to walk around people every time I walk down Canal Street in Manhattan, as do the cops. However, people who have more of a history of speaking their mind get arrested for the same act - I read an article here about this just today.

      So I don't find your criticism credible. I wouldn't bother posting, except you seem like someone logical who's drawn a conclusion based on incomplete information, and I wouldn't want others to do the same.

    9. Re:Say What? by glesga_kiss · · Score: 2, Insightful
      It's that attitude that turned me off from the anti-Iraq War movement almost immediately

      WTF? It's not a movement!! If you disagree, you disagree. You don't need to jump on a bandwagon!! You don't have to like people that share your opinion!!

      Jeez, I feel like Brian shouting "you are all indivudual!" here...

  10. Re:crap by just_von · · Score: 3, Insightful

    restate that: Now we'll know where he got all those good drugs from!!

  11. Won't Be Long by geomon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    And you will have to fight for the information that US security and intelligence agencies have accumulated on you.

    The problem with the USA Patriot Act is that it has an unintended consequence: While working under the guise of gathering information on terrorists (a good thing) a great deal more information is gathered on innocent individuals (a bad thing).

    Now before people start waving their arms around with "You've got nothing to worry about unless you've got something to hide", keep in mind that information can always be used for purposes other than stopping terrorism. Information can be used for political reasons as well.

    That is the problem with the USA Patriot Act. You will never know what information has been gathered on you, and you will never know if some *legal* activity, such as belonging to a political organization, will become a problem for you or your family in the future.

    Lennon may not have been right, he may have created political problems for the Nixon Administration, but he did everything in the open and legally.

    Look where it got him.

    --
    "Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
    1. Re:Won't Be Long by tm2b · · Score: 4, Insightful
      The problem with the USA Patriot Act is that it has an unintended consequence: While working under the guise of gathering information on terrorists (a good thing) a great deal more information is gathered on innocent individuals (a bad thing).
      Jim Pinkerton, a FOX News (bear with me, he's one of the ones who does more than repeat the RNC talking points) commentator, makes an excellent point against the Patriot Act that conservatives would be wise to attend.

      When they read the Patriot Act, they imagine it being used against people that this administration deems as enemies. They are comfortable with this: they see it as to be used against terrorists, illegal immigrants and other potential dangers.

      Pinkerton makes the point that they must now picture the same powers in the hand of an administration that they would not be some comfortable with: for example, in the hands of a liberal President, let's say for the sake of argument a President Hillary Clinton.

      Most neocons should think long and hard about that kind of mix, and why the United States has the strong tradition of limiting the power of the executive and subjecting everything to the possibility of judicial review. They're not there to protect the terrorists, they're there to protect us against an administration with whom we do not agree.
      --
      "It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us." - Zelazny
    2. Re: Won't Be Long by Black+Parrot · · Score: 3, Interesting


      > and why the United States has the strong tradition of limiting the power of the executive and subjecting everything to the possibility of judicial review.

      And unfortunately, we also have a strong tradition of spying on people who don't do what the powers that be want them to do. A few years back news came out that that the FBI had a 70 page file on a former president of the University of California, simply because he wouldn't fire a couple of professors that certain people thought were too liberal.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    3. Re: Won't Be Long by tm2b · · Score: 4, Insightful
      And unfortunately, we also have a strong tradition of spying on people who don't do what the powers that be want them to do. A few years back news came out that that the FBI had a 70 page file on a former president of the University of California, simply because he wouldn't fire a couple of professors that certain people thought were too liberal.
      Indeed. And you can find much stronger examples, in the student, civil rights, and religious groups that J. Edgar Hoover's FBI spied on, and further back to the efforts that Senators Joe McCarthy and Richard Nixon made to support spying upon suspected communists and the later President Richard Nixon's "enemies list" that helped direct Hoover's excesses.

      There's nothing that bothers me more about neocons than their contempt for checks and balances on the executive and legislative branches. I miss the days in the 80s when neocons were commonly referred to as "cryptofascists." I'd like to see that term return.
      --
      "It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us." - Zelazny
    4. Re:Won't Be Long by xs650 · · Score: 5, Funny

      "The problem with the USA Patriot Act is that it has an unintended consequence: While working under the guise of gathering information on terrorists (a good thing) a great deal more information is gathered on innocent individuals (a bad thing)."

      If you believe that was a fully unintended consequence, I own a long suspension bridge north of San Francisco to sell you.

    5. Re:Won't Be Long by nightfire-unique · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Now before people start waving their arms around with "You've got nothing to worry about unless you've got something to hide", keep in mind that information can always be used for purposes other than stopping terrorism. Information can be used for political reasons as well.

      Forget political reasons. What if you do have something to hide?

      No, I'm serious. You're a criminal. I'm a criminal. We're all criminals. You've downloaded copyrighted movies/mp3s, he's smoked some drugs, she sat at the front of the bus, and I've driven 19mph over the speed limit.

      There are so many laws in America, it's simply a matter of whether someone gets caught.

      I for one am not interested in giving the "powers that be" any more control/surveillance capacity than they already have.

      --
      A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
    6. Re:Won't Be Long by dbIII · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Forget political reasons. What if you do have something to hide?
      A good example was the former president of Pakistan being forced out of Office after being filmed by intelligence agents having sex in her own bedroom with her own husband - and not doing anything forbidden by her religeon. The moral failure was seen in allowing herself to be filmed, which she didn't know was happening. Even when you do nothing wrong you can be screwed over by uncontrolled intelligence agencies - so they need some form of check and balance. Secrecy is often used as an excuse to avoid regulation, and often to hide the mistakes of individuals. It can be argued that national security is at stake every time an inept loser is exposed in the intelligence community, but that sort of argument should just be laughed at along with the dissappearing Niger Uranium and the Chinese getting the sum total of the US nuclear research in a spectacular stuff up.
  12. Confidential: by Sophrosyne · · Score: 4, Funny

    Yoko Ono is really an alien... do not look her directly in the eyes.

    1. Re:Confidential: by DAldredge · · Score: 5, Funny

      Screw that! Do NOT under any circumstance listen to the Audio Weapon she calls 'singings'.

      Death, or worse a love of techno, may result.

  13. Exemptions by acceber · · Score: 5, Informative
    The FOI Act applies explicitly to government agencies, such as the FBI. The FBI challenged the act because they felt that the information was a threat to national security. There are nine exemptions to the FOI Act in which an agency can refuse to disclose information.

    Here are the exemptionsexemptions.

    1. Re:Exemptions by Oddly_Drac · · Score: 3, Funny

      "There are nine exemptions to the FOI Act in which an agency can refuse to disclose information."

      Are any 'embarrassment'?

      --
      Oddly Draconis
      Too cynical to live, too stubborn to die.
  14. You're right, by empaler · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm reading up on the FBI files on the JFK assassination atm... oh, wait.

    1. Re:You're right, by Thomas+Miconi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm reading up on the FBI files on the JFK assassination atm

      The JFK assassination is one case where the public was exposed to lots of information, which is not a problem - the problem is that, in remarkable accordance with Sturgeon's law, 90% of this information was absolute crap.

      A majority of americans today believe that there has been some kind of conspiracy around Kennedy's murder. Oliver Stone's film is probably the number 1 culprit for this. The ever helpful BBC made a documentary which simply blasted the conspiracy theory (in particular, the "magic bullet" thing was shown to be quintessential BS). See this page for a summary of the main points.

      Thomas Miconi

  15. Good news? Bad news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Wow, I can't believe people are so selfish that they'd risk the U.S.'s relations with another country just so they, and _possibly_ others, can see what happened. If the FBI wants documents classified, the FBI has a good reason. I don't want another 9/11 in the U.S. or a foreign country just because people want to see some documents.

    1. Re:Good news? Bad news by wHartHog(69) · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You've got to be kidding. The whole reason we have these problems is because of secrecy. We must hold our government accountable for its actions. The only way to ensure that is to know what, when, where, why, and how it takes action. There is no "them" and "us". The government is an extention of "the people", and should act on our behalf. We must ensure that it does. Freedom requires dilegence. And action

    2. Re:Good news? Bad news by einhverfr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Wow, I can't believe people are so selfish that they'd risk the U.S.'s relations with another country just so they, and _possibly_ others, can see what happened. If the FBI wants documents classified, the FBI has a good reason. I don't want another 9/11 in the U.S. or a foreign country just because people want to see some documents.

      Right, and by that logic, let's just suspend Habeus because it might make us safer too....

      No, judicial and legal principles, and the framework of liberty is more important than any single action that the government does purportedly in the interest of the people. Otherwise we lose *all* our liberty.

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    3. Re:Good news? Bad news by empaler · · Score: 2, Informative

      Freedom requires dilegence. And action

      Some dead guy once said something similar, to some extent:

      The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either.

    4. Re:Good news? Bad news by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What slashdotters don't get is that the government isn't out to get us.

      It's not that the government is out to get "us" per se, especially if by us you mean everyone in the U.S. The government is out to get anyone who interferes with its nefarious fucking schemes to grow into this cthulhuesque horror which consumes the whole nation. The federal government is the ultimate bureaucracy because you're not even allowed to sue it without permission! The government is not a single entity either but it is united in certain pursuits.

      What are those pursuits? For one, the poverty industry. Different parts of the government are more or less involved in different parts of the stratification of society for the purpose of employing more people in the government - which costs us all money. First there's the welfare system, which penalizes success by taking away help from the people who need it most - if you can't make the jump from poor to not poor in one step, the government will cut back your aid so that you stay poor. Next there's the War on Drugs - it employs thousands in law enforcement, corrections, and the judicial system, but ultimately it's harming the populace. It's modern-day prohibition, but the masses are happy enough with their alcohol and cigarettes that they won't (for the most part) do anything about it, so the system continues in its lovely little circles, helped along by our own Cocaine Import Agency.

      If you're one of the people who does anything the goverment doesn't like you to do, then it's not unreasonable to be paranoid.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:Good news? Bad news by TrancePhreak · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There is another problem that arises when there is no secrecy. That problem is that everybody else knows your every move and everything you are doing. It's the same problem with people in gangs and stuff who give information for better treatment. As soon as the people who you gave info about find out you have to go into hiding. I don't know about you, but it's pretty hard to hide a whole country. Or imagine someone from another country gives us information, we would be unable to guarantee their safety. This makes it less likely that we would get that information in the first place. As usual, the problem with Slashdot and politics is that people try to simplify the problems without keeping all the important issues in mind.

      --

      -]Phreak Out[-
    6. Re:Good news? Bad news by rudolfel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Many of the people working for the government are some of the most moral people in the country ... and many of the people working for the goverment are the less moral people in the country. And what's worse is that they are in command

      --
      -- Segmentation fault. Core dumped
    7. Re:Good news? Bad news by javaman235 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Everybody knowing everybodies every move is way less dangerous than a small elite knowing everybody elses moves while the majority of the populous remains in the dark.

      --
      -The art of programming is the pursuit of absolute simplicity.
    8. Re:Good news? Bad news by torpor · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Why do you trust the people at the FBI more than you trust yourself and the other civilians that the people at the FBI are employed as servants of?

      Because he doesn't trust himself? Because he doesn't trust any other civilian members of society?

      Because he has been brain-washed into thinking that "Them" are high and mighty, and because "He" is just a me-me-me consumerican bot, worshipful of none but Self?

      --
      ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    9. Re:Good news? Bad news by dpilot · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's why there is often a delay before the information gets released. Most information is timely - after a few years, it just doesn't matter in any practical terms.

      But it IS important that the information be released in order to become part of our history, and part of our historical learning.

      Obviously things like the Witness Protection Act have a necessarily longer secrecy horizon. I wouldn't advocate that lives be endangered. But I don't want our stupid mistakes to be swept under the rug, so we can't learn not to do that, again.

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
  16. When will "they" stop trying to protect us from by Bob+Bitchen · · Score: 2, Insightful

    the truth? Haven't we matured enough as a civilization to be able to handle the truth? It's as if "they" think we're all scared sheep that will fly into a panic at even the hint of "bad" news. We have come a long way and deserve the truth. Plus it's just not fair that "they" get to know all the juicy details.

    --
    http://tinyurl.com/3t236
  17. Are you now by empaler · · Score: 5, Insightful

    or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?

  18. What I wanna know is... by NeuroManson · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Why oh WHY are records sealed regarding, in essense, a celebrity civilian who's been dead for almost 24 years now?

    I mean I had my own conspiracy theory that it was due to the Reagan administration taking office, or a Manchurian Candidate situation, but hasn't the FBI figured out that hiding documents on cold cases long out of date only adds to the suspicion?

    --
    Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
    1. Re:What I wanna know is... by CosmeticLobotamy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      hasn't the FBI figured out that hiding documents on cold cases long out of date only adds to the suspicion?

      The FBI knows what it's doing. If you only fight when you have something to hide, everyone will know you have something to hide when you're fighting. Every time there's a controversy made about it and it turns out to be nothing, people get less suspicious.

      That, and they just don't like to have we mortals looking over their shoulders. It's a penis thing.

  19. Wrong. by DAldredge · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They are not unintended consequences, they are deliberate. It will make it easier for those in power to stay in power and help keep 'undesirables' out of power.

  20. He he by Basehart · · Score: 2, Funny

    All I know is that you cannot lead if you send mexxed missages.

  21. someone post a link to the files and receive by Savatte · · Score: 5, Funny

    Instant Karma

  22. Come on, it's in the bloody summary by empaler · · Score: 2

    'National Security', 'foreign intelligence'.

    If the US had gotten intel from UK on French citizens, scandal would ensue if the frenchies found out. UK would not be happy to have incident repeated, thus would not share as much intel.

  23. Lots of Data Collected by BisonHoof · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It is certainly true that the FBI were *very* interested in Lennon, especially during his "Marxist" phase, circa "Some Time in New York City". According to John Wiener ("Lennon vs the FBI" in Thomson and Gutman's "Lennon Companion") there is a 288 page file on Lennon in the FBIs "domestic security" section, of which 199 pages are still classfied "in the interests of defence of foregin policy", and thousands of pages in the Immigration and Naturalization Service.

  24. Just like when the CIA by empaler · · Score: 2, Insightful

    had good reasons not to disclose information on how they managed the drug cartels in South America. Yeah, that was in public interest.

  25. Here's the top secret... by simetra · · Score: 4, Funny
    The Walrus Was Paul.

    --

    "Would it kill you to put down the toilet seat?" -- Maya Angelou
  26. I've already seen them... by jcostantino · · Score: 4, Funny

    Saw them already, Greedo shot first.

    --
    Reviews with a twist! http://www.sardonicbastard.com
  27. Is that stuff still around? by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 3, Insightful
    No, I didn't RTFA, but it has been almost 25 years since he was killed. Why would anyone keep stuff that long - doesn't the FBI have a shread-on date?

    Maybe that is what is driving it - release it or lose it? I dunno.

    Then again, folks are still obsessed with Elvis and Marilyn Monroe. Go figure.

    --
    This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
  28. Finally, now we'll know... by The+I+Shing · · Score: 2

    Once these documents are released, we'll actually know how many holes it takes to fill the Albert Hall.

    --
    You are in error. No-one is screaming. Thank you for your cooperation.
  29. Well... by iamdrscience · · Score: 4, Funny
    a U.S. District Judge rejected the governments arguements to keep the secret records of John Lennon sealed.
    Well, I for one, am looking forward to hearing a new John Lennon album because honestly, Imagine and the Wedding Album are getting a little stale. Still though, I understand the FBI wanting to keep it sealed, I mean, imagine the resale value of something like that, it has to be like 5 times a butcher cover of Yesterday and Today.
  30. Nothing to do with his murder by Average_Joe_Sixpack · · Score: 2, Informative

    Lennon was an outspoken member of the anti-war movement. He had planned several protests for the 72 GOP convention as well as a nationwide tour to register young voters for the McGovern campaign who was an anti-Vietnam war candidate. Nixon had the FBI trail Lennon and tried to build a case to have him deported. The FBI had gone as far as tapping his phone to try and get evidence of any criminal activity. They focused on any donations to Left-wing "terrorist" groups and any narcotic evidence.

  31. Found it by Sloppy · · Score: 4, Funny
    Turns out FBI was using an old version of wu-ftp server. I got in and found what this is all about. It is indeed a threat to national security. Here's an exerpt:
    Imagine there's no countries,
    It isn't hard to do
    If there are no countries, there's no USA. There is also some evidence of a communist plot that Lennon was involved with, which would have us all with no possessions, "sharing" all the world. Defeating the Soviets came at a prodigious price. We can't afford to let this plot reactivate or we'll have to fight it all over again.
    --
    As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
  32. the reason? by Phantom+of+the+Opera · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The simplest reason is that its kind of embarrasing for the government and some beaurocrats are there to cover their asses. John Lennon had some potential political influence and that made him a target, especially because he was a scumbag hippie type.

    1. Re:the reason? by BLAG-blast · · Score: 4, Funny
      John Lennon had some potential political influence and that made him a target, especially because he was a scumbag hippie type.

      That's not why he has a file, it was because John Lennon was a seceret agent for MI6, feeding very unhelpful/false information to American Intellegence departments. This was part of an attempt to stem US world domination by keeping it locked in the cold war and keeping econimy suppressed....

      --
      M0571y H@rml355.
  33. Maybe, just maybe.... STASI by Siriaan · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The US government may be nervous about these documents due to the early Beatles stint in Germany. Could it be possible that the East German secret police, who almost certainly had informers throughout West Germany, may have passed on information at the request of the United States? Just imagine how embarrassing it would be for people to know that the US government were in cahoots at one time with possibly the most notorious policing force ever created.

  34. Conintelpro? by hotspotbloc · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Could there really be anything worse? I mean this is a couple of surveillance reports so it is likely they only deal with Lennon's movements and how he was tracked. It's the "how" part that makes the FBI nervous, especially now with the PATRIOT Act up for permanent renewal. The last thing the DOJ wants is the public being reminded of Hoover's lack of respect to the individual man and the FBI's checkered past.

    This is why the FOIA is such a good thing. While it's easier to forget about our mistakes, analyzing them helps us avoid repeating them. Its so we can see what the Govt has said about us.

    --
    "I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence or insanity but they've always worked for me" - HST
  35. Re:Gee, I wonder WHICH country...? by Yaztromo · · Score: 4, Interesting
    maybe FUCKING ENGLAND? You losers... if there's one country besides the U.S. that had any information on John Lennon it's god damned brits. How sensitive is that really?

    Or possibly Canada. John Lennon spent a good deal of time in Canada doing things he wouldn't so in the US, like his and Yoko's North American bed-in (in Montreal), John and Yoko's "Live Peace in Toronto" concert, and the fact that he stayed with Ronnie Hawkins (IIRC) at a farm here in Ontario for some time.

    During those days the RCMP and Canadian police forces were keeping their eyes on rock stars (or at least so it seems to me). In 1977 Keith Richards (Rolling Stones) was arrested for Heroin possession.

    I wouldn't be too suprised if the RCMP collected some data on Lennon during his time here. What would suprise me is if the FBI would think that anyone here would care if such information were to be made public 24 years later.

    (To be honest though, England does seem to be the more probable source).

    Yaz.

  36. I quote thus by Joe+the+Lesser · · Score: 3, Interesting

    As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last lose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.

    Commissioner Pravin Lal
    "U.N. Declaration of Rights"

    --
    "I only speak the truth"
    Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
  37. Lost Lennon/Cat Stevens collaboration by ic0wb0y · · Score: 5, Funny

    This is linked to the recent Cat Stevens deportation. What nobody picked up on is that he came to the US to meet with an RIAA attorney. According to insiders, FBI agents stole the Cat Stevens-John Lennon tapes in 1980 from Lennons apartment. When the unsuspecting Lennon showed up, he had to be distracted by drugged stoolie Mark Chapman as evasive action. Chapman went 'roidal and agents left out the back door with the material. If these secret documents are released, the RIAA will sue the FBI for millions for illegally obtaining and withholding copyrighted material and easily win. I can see why the Government is being this protective.

  38. Delaying tactic by M.+Silver · · Score: 3, Funny

    They're just stalling while they reprint them without the proportional font and superscripts.

    --

    Slashdot's token middle-aged housewife
  39. I got the files! by benjonson · · Score: 4, Funny

    Good news folks: the files were released under the Freedom of Information Act. I just got them. Here they are:

    The ambassador from [blacked out] assured [blacked out] that Mr. Lennon gave [blacked out] to [blacked out].
    Thank God that's all out in the open now.
    --
    =-+
  40. Transparent Government by Tony · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The idea that our government can operate in secret is a scary one. The whole idea of keeping this information around is that, after 25 years, information can and should be released to the public. This is a great step in helping keep our government relatively honest.

    Granted, it is scary to learn 40 years after the fact that the Cuban Missile Crisis almost led to nuclear war. A Russian submarine officer disobeyed a direct order: he did not launch nuclear warhead tipped torpedos at the US fleet.

    This came out via the freedom of information act. Yes, it's a little late to learn about it so long after the fact, but it's great to know we should all thank Vasili Arkhipov for stopping the destruction of the world as we know it.

    --
    Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
    1. Re:Transparent Government by Oddly_Drac · · Score: 4, Informative

      "A Russian submarine officer disobeyed a direct order: he did not launch nuclear warhead tipped torpedos at the US fleet."

      Actually he pointed out that the conditions for the SOP change to fire on other combatants were not met to another officer on the submarine. There were no direct orders to fire from the Supreme Soviet, but they do have discretion under certain circumstances, such as hull damage.

      Valentin Grigoroevich was the officer that ordered the assembly under stressful circumstances (low air, high temperatures, no communications and constant depth charging from American destroyers enforcing the blockade).

      --
      Oddly Draconis
      Too cynical to live, too stubborn to die.
  41. Black markers are still good for something by sweetshot97 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Well, they are ordered to hand over documents, but they do have a discretion to use a black marker and mark out what they don't want to reveal. Little loophole in the Information Act. One theory many have speculated is of course, Manchurian Candidate theory. I remember watching a documentary on Lennon and one reason as to why the governemnt would want him axed is because of Reagan. Don't get me wrong, I loved the man, but word has it, Chapman was trained to kill Lennon because Lennon was the only world renowned figure who could gather masses to rise against opression and the incoming government thought he might pose a threat to Reagan. It's all speculation right?

  42. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Funny

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  43. Nothing to see here... by cliveholloway · · Score: 4, Funny

    These "secret records" were kept hidden to protect the public. Apparently they were titled, "Yoko Ono - unplugged (Vo1. 1 to 10)".

    Imagine the Aural pain that would ensue if these were ever "released".

    cLive ;-)

    --
    -- Trinity in high heels carrying a whip: The donimatrix - there is no spoonerism
  44. No Joke by wwphx · · Score: 2, Interesting

    To get my current job, I had to sign a loyalty oath. One part of it was that I could not be a member of the Communist Party. I couldn't be a subversive or revolutionary.

    The job? 19 hours a week walking through the computer lab at a local community college helping people with Word, Excel, burning CDs on the Mac, etc. for minimum wage.

    Yes, I am one of the 400,000+ who's been out of work for 3.5 years.

    --
    When you sympathize with stupidity, you start thinking like an idiot.
  45. When did Stalinism become respectable on Slashdot? by DesScorp · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "You right-wing assholes should be in prison for your vile distortions."

    This is +4, Informative?

    Yeah, and the left never distorts anything? The right should be imprisoned for what their saying?

    You're actually talking about IMPRISONING your opponents for their speech and ideals, do you realize that?

    --
    Life is hard, and the world is cruel
  46. Re:In context. by fmaxwell · · Score: 2

    I can't count the number of times the left-wing extremists have done it to Bush, so kindly step down from your self-righteous podium.

    I didn't do anything of the kind to Bush, so I'll remain on my self-righteous podium. The actions of others are neither a reflection on me nor a license for you to behave as they did.

  47. Re:In context. by Izago909 · · Score: 2

    The difference in popular culture: If a person, in any way, does't agree with Bush, then he is a "left wing extremist" or "liberal hippie" or "unpatriotic". If someone from the left ran across someone else who didn't like Kerry they wouldn't necesarly assume he is a "conservative, gun lovin, bible burnin nut job" until he gave proper evidence for that assumption.

    This election year, people are so polarized that they forget to see that most of America doesn't like being forced into only 2 different camps. Are we to believe that America is the most diverse society in the world, yet these 2 parties are able to accurately represent the majority of our views? I stand back and laugh at how each side does everything short of picking up arms and declaring each other enemies, rather than opponents. I believe that time will make fools of us all.