
After Multiple Denials, CIA Admits to Snooping on Noam Chomsky - choult
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/08/13/after_multiple_denials_cia_admits_to_snooping_on_noam_chomsky
======
spankalee
After killing that annoying overlay in the web inspector, I got to read a
terrible, shallow article.

As a layman reader, the assumptions made by the author and Athan Theoharis
seem pretty big, unless they have something else to back it up.

The arguments seem to go like this:

1\. CIA denies having a file on Chomsky

2\. Someone find a memo that _mentions_ Chomsky

3\. Assumption 1: Therefore the CIA had a file on him

4\. Assumption 2: Since the CIA had a file at some point, the denial is a lie,
but we'll also take it as truth and conclude that they destroyed the file

5\. Assumption 3: Destroying CIA files clearly falls under the Federal Records
Act.

I mean, at least give me a little more reason to believe those conclusions.
Historically or by policy does it really follow that mentioning Chomsky means
he has a file? I find it hard to believe that, like Wikipedia, just mentioning
someone (in the 70's at least) creates their file. Have CIA files already been
determined to have "historical value", is there a case? Otherwise I just have
to trust this guys opinion.

~~~
Tloewald
As a lay reader who has worked in Government, this isn't about assumptions,
it's about how bureaucracies work.

Theoharis is interviewed because he is a lifelong expert on FBI-CIA
cooperation. Presumably this is worth _something_. His argument is that if a
letter goes from CIA to FBI or vice versa regarding "NOAM CHOMSKY" then this
means that at minimum there is a file labelled "NOAM CHOMSKY" containing this
memo at both the CIA and the FBI. Therefore when the CIA said nothing was
found under FOIA requests for a file on Noam Chomsky either (a) this was a lie
or (b) the file was illegally destroyed.

Based on my own experience working in government offices, this is a pretty
sound argument. If a letter is sent from X to Y about Z, then there has to be
a file on Z to put the letter into (both at the sender's and receiver's ends).
If the file doesn't exist, it will be created just to hold that letter.

~~~
spankalee
Even if what you claim is true, it still backs my point that some more
explanation is needed on why those conclusions can be drawn.

Regarding the argument itself, was the memo really "regarding" Noam Chomsky?
It reads to me like it's about some other people traveling to Vietnam, and the
"with the endorsement of Noam Chomsky and Cora Weiss" is the only mention of
him. Is it your claim that the mere mentioning of a person by name in a CIA
memo means that there's a file on that person? Is there a copy of that memo in
the files of all 8 people mentioned by name? If so, this expert should say
that because it's relevant and interesting.

~~~
Tloewald
This is "large bureaucracy 101" and shouldn't need explaining:

1) The letter means the files existed. 2) The government said the files didn't
exist. 3) The government lied (illegal) OR destroyed the files (illegal).

QED.

~~~
spankalee
(1) is the part that I don't just assume is always true.

The "there's are names in a memo" => "there's a file on every person named"
logic is something that, if true, would be nice to back up just a little, at
least state why that's true for the CIA beyond saying it's true of all
bureaucracies. (And I too have I've worked in large bureaucracies, including
the government/military and with classified material)

Your argument seems to be that since the CIA is a large bureaucracy, that they
have this hypertext-like system of filing copies of all documents in every
file associated with terms in the document. I don't doubt that they _now_ have
a system like this - they'd be silly not to. But in the 70's? That's, like I
said, interesting and relevant if true. And it'd be nice to at least have the
expert say "Yes, this is how the CIA managed documents in the 70's based on
(CIA statements | my investigations | interviews | etc)."

I'm not saying that the CIA didn't have a file on Chomsky, it would surprise
me if they didn't, but that jump from mention to file deserves a little more
treatment.

~~~
Tloewald
My experience of bureaucracies dates back to the mid 80s when nothing much was
(in Australia) computerized. I'm not talking about a "hypertext-like system of
filing" but a physical room full of hanging folders with unique numbers and
index cards. (You've seen images of the -- newly added! -- file compactuses*
at the Department of Veterans' Affairs -- like that.)

* Not a typo: compactus is a specific piece of furniture.

If a letter primarily concerning X gets sent, a copy of it is retained in the
file on X, and the receiver puts the item in another file on X. If necessary,
multiple copies are retained and placed in multiple files (e.g. the letter
also concerns Y so photocopy it and insert it in files on Y).

Each page in a file is numbered (this is called a "folio number") and the
file's folder is amended to show the new inserts and increased folio count.
It's hard in such a system to lose a page and very hard to erase evidence of
its prior existence.

Typically, multiple index cards (e.g. "Chomsky, Noam -- file 12345") will get
created for each file, and inventory will be taken of all files, folios, and
index cards on a regular basis. Destroying a file or folio creates visible
gaps and broken references, so it's actually a pretty robust system. Yes
indeed, this is how this crap worked before computers.

------
robomartin
I think everyone interested in American politics needs to read some of
Chomsky's work. I don't agree with everything he says. It is important to hear
and consider all sides of every argument. In general terms, yes, I believe
we've made a mess out of foreign relations for a long time. Not sure I'd go as
far as calling us terrorists. I can absolutely see how big brother would want
to keep him and other under watch.

EDII: My problem with such figures is that universities put them up on
pedestals and don't necessarily go out of their way to present contrasting
viewpoints on the same stage, at the same time and to the same audience. The
young and the impressionable swallow this stuff up without much thought and
observation because they are led to idolize such figures. This results in
intransigence and extreme positions without thought later in life. In other
words, they are handing people fish rather than teaching them to fish.

~~~
andy_ppp
I don't see how America isn't a terrorist state at this point - they are
murdering people in cold blood in Pakistan without trial because
Obama/NSA/CIA/etc. say it's a good thing. This is the definition of a
terrorist in my book - thinking you operate outside the law and taking actions
into your own hands like some mad vigilante, as opposed to working with the
Pakistani government to resolve issues you have by handing over evidence.

~~~
rayiner
There is no Pakistani government control over those regions. Osama was hiding
under their nose for how long?

~~~
meepmorp
> There is no Pakistani government control over those regions. Osama was
> hiding under their nose for how long?

I find it somewhat implausible that at least some people in the Pakistani
power structure (intelligence or military) were unaware of his presence. He'd
been at the mansion for about 5 years and was located under a mile from the
Pakistani military academy in a town lousy with retired military officers.

------
ceautery
The CIA gave up snooping on him because they couldn't understand a damned
thing he said... his works are also the reason Watson learned to cry.

But seriously, it's no surprise that titling books like "Hegemony or Survival"
(I recommend the audiobook, great commute-musing material) and talking about
the US being on borrowed time if it keeps acting like 18th century England,
will get you examined a little closer by the spooks.

~~~
coldtea
> _The CIA gave up snooping on him because they couldn 't understand a damned
> thing he said..._

Hmm, the joke reflects poorly on your reading comprehension skills, since
Chomsky's writing is as dry as they come, and very simplistic and analytic.
It's the classic analytic american style, no more complicated than reading the
newspaper.

If you have issues with Chomsky what would you say if you tried to read, say,
Steven Pinker, Hofstadter, or, god forbid, french theorists...

~~~
NegativeK
I believe the jibe was more to say that the CIA is dumb rather than Chomsky
being unintelligible.

------
chrismonsanto
That has to be the most invasive modal I've ever seen.

Here's the text of the article:

\-------------------------------------

For years, the Central Intelligence Agency denied it had a secret file on MIT
professor and famed dissident Noam Chomsky. But a new government disclosure
obtained by The Cable reveals for the first time that the agency did in fact
gather records on the anti-war iconoclast during his heyday in the 1970s.

The disclosure also reveals that Chomsky's entire CIA file was scrubbed from
Langley's archives, raising questions as to when the file was destroyed and
under what authority.

The breakthrough in the search for Chomsky's CIA file comes in the form of a
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the Federal Bureau of
Investigation. For years, FOIA requests to the CIA garnered the same denial:
"We did not locate any records responsive to your request." The denials were
never entirely credible, given Chomsky's brazen anti-war activism in the 60s
and 70s -- and the CIA's well-documented track record of domestic espionage in
the Vietnam era. But the CIA kept denying, and many took the agency at its
word.

Now, a public records request by FOIA attorney Kel McClanahan reveals a memo
between the CIA and the FBI that confirms the existence of a CIA file on
Chomsky.

Dated June 8, 1970, the memo discusses Chomsky's anti-war activities and asks
the FBI for more information about an upcoming trip by anti-war activists to
North Vietnam. The memo's author, a CIA official, says the trip has the
"ENDORSEMENT OF NOAM CHOMSKY" and requests "ANY INFORMATION" about the people
associated with the trip.

After receiving the document, The Cable sent it to Athan Theoharis, a
professor emeritus at Marquette University and an expert on FBI-CIA
cooperation and information-gathering.

"The June 1970 CIA communication confirms that the CIA created a file on
Chomsky," said Theoharis. "That file, at a minimum, contained a copy of their
communication to the FBI and the report on Chomsky that the FBI prepared in
response to this request."

The evidence also substantiates the fact that Chomsky's file was tampered
with, says Theoharis. "The CIA's response to the FOIA requests that it has no
file on Chomsky confirms that its Chomsky file was destroyed at an unknown
time," he said.

It's worth noting that the destruction of records is a legally treacherous
activity. Under the Federal Records Act of 1950, all federal agencies are
required to obtain advance approval from the national Archives for any
proposed record disposition plans. The Archives is tasked with preserving
records with "historical value."

"Clearly, the CIA's file, or files, on Chomsky fall within these provisions,"
said Theoharis.

It's unclear if the agency complied with protocols in the deletion of
Chomsky's file. The CIA declined to comment for this story.

What does Chomsky think? When The Cable presented him with evidence of his CIA
file, the famous linguist responded with his trademark cynicism.

"Some day it will be realized that systems of power typically try to extend
their power in any way they can think of," he said. When asked if he was more
disturbed by intelligence overreach today (given the latest NSA leaks) or
intelligence overreach in the 70s, he dismissed the question as an apples-to-
oranges comparison.

"What was frightening in the ‘60s into early ‘70s was not so much spying as
the domestic terror operations, COINTELPRO," he said, referring to the FBI's
program to discredit and infiltrate domestic political organizations. "And
also the lack of interest when they were exposed."

Regardless,, the destruction of Chomsky's CIA file raises an even more
disturbing question: Who else's file has evaporated from Langley's archives?
What other chapters of CIA history will go untold?

"It is important to learn when the CIA decided to destroy the Chomsky file and
why they decided that it should be destroyed,'" said Theoharis. "Undeniably,
Chomsky's was not the sole CIA file destroyed. How many other files were
destroyed?"

~~~
mmatants
Would it be more ethical to not read the article, warn others of the modal and
refuse the site further traffic instead of copy-pasting copyrighted fruit of
someone's labour?

~~~
coldtea
Only if freeing information is less ethical than respecting copyright.

Considering this site is called "Hacker News" I doubt how many feel similarly,
though it does have a huge business bend too.

~~~
freyr
> _Only if freeing information is less ethical than respecting copyright_

More reductionist arguments and false dichotomies.

This is not work funded by the public. It was created through the time and
effort an author put into creating the work, presumably as his livelihood. He
choose the channel of distribution, as is his right. To circumvent the chosen
distribution model and circulate the work for free is not an ethical
imperative. And it doesn't simply boil down to "copyright vs. free
information, choose your side, go!"

That said, after putting their content (which by its nature is extremely easy
to reproduce and redistribute) behind a very annoying modal, they should
probably expect this sort of thing. Maybe that factored it in, and decided it
was still worth it.

~~~
coldtea
> _To circumvent the chosen distribution model and circulate the work for free
> is not an ethical imperative._

Not an ethical imperative for you, because, as you justify it, somebody put
effort into creating this and it's his livelihood.

But that's not a justification in itself. Earning your livelihood from
something does not automatically translate that it's not an ethical imperative
some someone else to stomp on your business.

Notions of legality aside, it depends on how people value the way you're
making your livelihood, and if they consider the counter action more ethical.

To give an extreme example, very few would say: "Hey, why did you closed this
guy's meth dealing business, he made his livelihood that way" (even if said
business was legal).

So, it boils down to if someone believes spreading information is more
important than the creator of the information making his livelihood off of it.

Here's another example of this: is it more ethical to disclose the ingredients
of a drug so that millions in Africa can have it made cheaply and be treated,
or to respect the copyright of the company that created it and sells it for a
huge amount?

~~~
freyr
> _it depends on how people value the way you 're making your livelihood_

So if someone doesn't value how you make your livelihood, he's free to stomp
on you?

You do realize, writing/music/film/art and other such forms of information do
not spontaneously spring into existence? This article didn't just fall into
the author's lap.

Here is an alternative: you go and do all the legwork that the author did,
arrange the interviews, spend days or weeks writing the piece, and then
release it for free to the world. That's a perfectly viable option.

But you don't work for free, do you? No, you prefer to let other people do the
work, and then you shit on them from behind your computer screen.

 _" Here's another example of this: is it more ethical to disclose the
ingredients of a drug so that millions in Africa can have it made cheaply and
be treated"_

That's definitely not an example of "this", it's an example of something
that's very different in a lot of ways.

Again, do you think clinically-tested drug formulas just fall out of the sky?
On average, it costs between $500M - $2B to develop a new drug. Whether you
choose to ignore this or not, these are huge costs that companies need to
recoup in order to stay in business and _develop new drugs_. If the formulas
were given away, the companies would have to eat the costs of development and
this would not be sustainable.

That doesn't mean we should be happy with the way things are. Our medical
system is a mess. We should look for new ways to reduce the costs of drug
development. Perhaps we should restrict drug developers from charging
exorbitant amounts far in excess of the development costs. But, in my opinion,
subverting the people who put in the effort to create is not the answer.

------
raganwald
After the second hurdle between me and the article, I gave up.

~~~
obituary_latte
Another benefit of blocking scripts by default.

[https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/scriptsafe/oiigbmn...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/scriptsafe/oiigbmnaadbkfbmpbfijlflahbdbdgdf)

[http://noscript.net/](http://noscript.net/)

Shame that they're necessary, but they work well if you can handle the
inconvenience of selectively unblocking scripts.

~~~
simonebrunozzi
Did you try: [https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/script-
blocker/edk...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/script-
blocker/edkpojcedjaijmpkagegbjikonnceidm)

How do you compare them?

~~~
obituary_latte
I have not tried it, sorry.

------
openjck
Use Readability to easily bypass these popups.

[https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/addon/readability/](https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/addon/readability/)

~~~
pohl
Thank you for mentioning that. It gave me the idea of trying Safari's Reader
button, which also circumvented the modal div.

~~~
sp332
Safari even uses Readability's codebase for that feature.
[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06/08/safari_reader_based_...](http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06/08/safari_reader_based_on_open_source_project/)

------
pejoculant
Here is a link to the actual CIA document that was released:

[http://www.scribd.com/doc/159950486/CIA-FBI-Referred-
Doc](http://www.scribd.com/doc/159950486/CIA-FBI-Referred-Doc)

------
northwest
> For years, FOIA requests to the CIA garnered the same denial: "We did not
> locate any records responsive to your request."

...because we thought life would be easier for us if we didn't even try.

~~~
icebraining
_Jim: What 's an official reply?

Bernard: Well it just says the Minister has asked me to thank you for your
letter and we say something like, the matter is under consideration, or even
if we feel so inclined, under active consideration.

Jim: What's the difference?

Bernard: Well under consideration means we've lost the file, under active
consideration means we're trying to find it._

------
4ad
Press ESC after the page loads, but before the ad/banner loads, that will stop
the ad from loading and you can read the article.

------
mcescalante
Even though there are ways to get around the popups on this article it would
still be a lot easier to just post a link to another site without an obtrusive
modal window.

------
lifeisstillgood
"CIA fails to understand a damn thing professor talks about"

~~~
jfb
"CIA wishes he'd just stick to math."

------
gigonaut
$('#TB_window, #TB_overlay').hide()

------
nadaviv
You can run this to get rid of the annoying overlay:

    
    
       $('#TB_window,#TB_overlay').remove()

------
marcuspovey
If you have firebug installed, setting display:none on the modal divs works a
treat.

------
angrydev
I highly recommend the readability plugin
([http://www.readability.com/addons](http://www.readability.com/addons)) for
dealing with these terrible overlays.

------
borplk
Wow just wow. Why do you even submit an article from a site like that?

They clearly don't want people to read it.

------
everettForth
Just hit "escape" when the page loads. This is "hacker news", right?

------
jgalt212
If I were the CIA, I'd snoop on Noam Chomsky. The guy has never had a pleasant
word ever to say about the US Govt. And if he were more of a man of action,
than man of letters, I'd suspect him of actual subversive acts.

------
zenocon
set TB_overlay and TB_window to display: none

------
mumbi
Chomsky is one of the most important persons in this day in age when it comes
to political thought. He's the only one that seems to think.

------
mumbi
cache for no signup:
[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?output=search&s...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?output=search&sclient=psy-
ab&q=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fthecable.foreignpolicy.com%2Fposts%2F2013%2F08%2F13%2Fafter_multiple_denials_cia_admits_to_snooping_on_noam_chomsky&oq=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fthecable.foreignpolicy.com%2Fposts%2F2013%2F08%2F13%2Fafter_multiple_denials_cia_admits_to_snooping_on_noam_chomsky&gs_l=hp.3..0l4.326.1387.0.1542.7.7.0.0.0.0.161.656.1j4.5.0....2...1c.1.24.psy-
ab..2.5.637.bhdgQ-Z-oZU&pbx=1)

