8 ms·
John Raines, 84, Who Evaded Capture in an FBI Break-In, Dies
- vanderZwan 9y ago> The burglary, on March 8, 1971, at the F.B.I. office in an apartment building across from the county courthouse in Media, Pa., prompted a debate over whether the perpetrators were traitors who wantonly exposed official secrets or heroic whistle-blowers who preserved civil liberties. I do hope that this debate is considered thoroughly settled in favour of the whistle-blowers by now?
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- pwinnski 9y agoIt's impossible to look at 46 years ago without seeing through the lens of four years ago, so I imagine people's opinions on Raines closely mirror their opinions on Snowden. Which is fine by me, as I think both Raines and Snowden should be viewed closer to the "heroic whistle-blowers" end of the spectrum. But I suspect there are many who see both Raines and Snowden as traitors. I'd be very interested in hearing the reasoning of someone who had different opinions on the two.
- Bartweiss 9y agoIt seems likely that anyone with split opinions would support Raines over Snowden; the obvious difference between the two cases is J. Edgar Hoover. Snowden exposed a mass surveillance program, some of which appears to have been illegal. Raines did likewise, but also exposed a serious campaign of harassment against activists - one prosecuted by an FBI director who was apparently viewed as beyond the control of even the President. I think some of the more technocratic types I know might say Snowden's leaks were about "agencies doing what they should", while Raines' was a necessary reaction to an out-of-control administrator. If there are people who support Snowden but oppose Raines, I'd be fascinated to hear what rationale that uses - nothing comes to mind.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- ikeboy 9y agoThe first thing that would come to mind is that people may feel threatened by what Snowden revealed, but not by Raines
- gtcode 9y ago-
- opportune 9y agoBy damage do you mean indirect political damage stemming from the controversy surrounding Snowden, or direct damage to the US intel programs caused by the actual information that he released? To my knowledge there wasn't really any direct damage at all as a result of Snowden's actions (which is not always true of leakers, see Chelsea Manning)
- gtcode 9y ago-
- opportune 9y agoPGP was publicly accessible long before Snowden so I'm not really sure what you're trying to say
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- obmelvin 9y agoPersonally, I don't doubt that Snowden caused some damage to the IC community. However, I would argue that the benefit to people who would like to live in a modern democracy far outweighs that damage. I truly believe that the only reason more people are not be outraged by the IC's actions is by not understanding their capabilities. I'm a graduate student in CS and am still amazed at what they could do. There's no way in heck I expect my mother to appreciate the gravity of the danger of such a surveillance state because she can't even begin to comprehend what is possible. EDIT: why delete your comments? You should stand by your views even if others disagree. Well, not to the point of being stubborn, but in this case I don't get it.
- wyldfire 9y agoHow do Snowden and Greenwald feel about having collaborated with Wikileaks given that they seem totally discredited by the revelation of their correspondence w/the Trump campaign?
- maneesh 9y agoWhy are they discredited?
- timthelion 9y agoIt appears that wikileaks did work directly with Trump Jr. to coordinate pro Trump leaks and campaigning [1]. Whether wikileaks was actually pro-Trump, or merely playing the part with the hope of developing a relationship which could lead to their acquisition of confidential information is unclear. "“Hey Don. We have an unusual idea,” WikiLeaks wrote on October 21, 2016. “Leak us one or more of your father’s tax returns.” WikiLeaks then laid out three reasons why this would benefit both the Trumps and WikiLeaks. One, The New York Times had already published a fragment of Trump’s tax returns on October 1; two, the rest could come out any time “through the most biased source (e.g. NYT/MSNBC).”" [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/11/the-secret-correspondence-between-donald-trump-jr-and-wikileaks/545738/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/11/the-sec...
- wyldfire 9y agoYou left out the part that I find horrifying: > It is the third reason, though, WikiLeaks wrote, that “is the real kicker.” “If we publish them it will dramatically improve the perception of our impartiality,” WikiLeaks explained. “That means that the vast amount of stuff that we are publishing on Clinton will have much higher impact, because it won’t be perceived as coming from a ‘pro-Trump’ ‘pro-Russia’ source.” It then provided an email address and link where the Trump campaign could send the tax returns, and adds, “The same for any other negative stuff (documents, recordings) that you think has a decent chance of coming out. Let us put it out.” > Trump Jr. did not respond to this message. "improve the perception of our impartiality" sounds as if "we're not impartial, and the world is figuring that out. If you have nothing to lose otherwise, please make it seem as if we were impartial."
- pvg 9y agoThe people who broke into the FBI office uncovered, as they suspected, a massive illegal FBI program to surveil and disrupt entirely legitimate political opposition (among others). This was a direct and real threat to democracy. Snowden collected gigabytes classified documents the vast majority of which had nothing to do with anything questionable. The program he revealed was not obviously illegal and, however distasteful, compared to NSA programs that came to light just a few years before that, small potatoes. His trove then ended up in the hands of unfriendly intelligence services. It doesn't take mental contortions to view them quite differently.
- literallycancer 9y agoGreat. As a European, I don't care at all whether the Congress thinks its legal to spy on me or not. I'll applaud anyone who takes a stand against mass surveillance. And it's not like anyone really asked the Congress either, is it? http://www.hasjamesclapperbeenindictedyet.com/ http://www.hasjamesclapperbeenindictedyet.com/ >ended up in the hands of unfriendly intelligence services Sucks to be the NSA, I guess?
- pvg 9y agoGreat. As a European I suspect as a branch of the US Government, the Congress of the US doesn't care much what you think about the extent of its powers either. I'm not sure how Snowden has helped you resolve this monumental impasse at all. I'll applaud anyone who takes a stand against mass surveillance. Yes, that's what makes Snowden and Manning interesting, they're a new kind of hero - heroes for people who don't read the news (or perhaps much at all). There was very little in their revelations that was new and things dramatically worse were reported previously without gigantic data dumps of completely unfiltered and unrelated data. None of these things set the internet ablaze, despite being far more serious. I don't wish either of them ill, don't think they're traitors or anything overwrought like that, have no trouble believing they were motivated by idealism, however naive and misguided. I'm happy Chelsea Manning got her sentence commuted. But heroes? Not really seeing it.
- 9y ago
- ythn 9y ago> I do hope that this debate is considered thoroughly settled in favour of the whistle-blowers by now? I think the answer is "it depends". I mean, you could leak information that gets people killed but as long as you invent a reason the metaphorical whistle needed to be blown, you are automatically a hero? There's responsible whistleblowing, irresponsible whistleblowing, and straight-up treason. Sometimes I feel like we pretend the second two never happen and it's always the first one happening.
- zhengyi13 9y agoYou'd hope so, but I distinctly remember when Deep Throat died in 2008, there were a lot of people who came out of the woodwork to re-eulogize Nixon, and specifically re-condemn Deep Throat as either someone who should have worked within the system, or even an outright traitor. It's pretty clear from more recent history that whistleblowers are not treated well.
- oh_sigh 9y agoNot really. Many consider Snowden a whistle blower but Manning a traitor
- vanderZwan 9y agoI was specifically referring to John Raines and company, given what they unveiled. Like others noted, the revelations are a lot more black-and-white in favour of them than with Snowden and Manning.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- math_and_stuff 9y agoIt's worth noting that the leader of the break in, William Davidon [1], was an Argonne researcher who invented the precursor to BFGS (though it took the community a long time to publish his quasi-Newton method). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_C._Davidon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_C._Davidon
- yuchi 9y agoCan someone explain this in simple-english? It’s pretty difficult to understand good-doers from evil-doers here… Edit/clarification: non native english speaker here…
- nindalf 9y ago* America fought a war in Vietnam * This war was deeply unpopular. Many people protested these in groups * The head of the FBI at the time, J Edgar Hoover, was immensely powerful. He decided to crush the dissident groups by ordering FBI agents to infiltrate them. According to the article, he is the bad guy (I personally agree with this) * John Raines and a few friends (the good guys) broke into the FBI office, stole the documents and sent it to newspapers. * A serious investigation into the FBI's practices was the result of this publication. * The good guys were never caught.
- yuchi 9y agoThank you so much
- ImSkeptical 9y agoSeems like in the 70's this guy, his wife, and six other people pulled off a daring robbery of an FBI office. They broke in by picking the lock, then stole a bunch of files. They relied on the people in the office being distracted by a boxing match, and they were. The burglars then went over their files, and found what seem to me to be pretty silly things, like FBI agents being instructed to create the perception that the organizations they were investigating had many FBI informers and agents in them. They passed on the files to a reporter anonymously. Reporters and later investigations by Congress revealed more details about the FBI's cointelpro project, wherein the FBI committed illegal sabotage against groups they were investigating. Who are the good and bad people? Well, the FBI is bad for committing illegal sabotage. The burglars are good for getting important information, but bad for doing it by stealing random boxes of files - which might've hindered legitimate investigations. The reporter is good for publishing her story. Congress is good for investigating further but bad for doing nothing effective to curtail abuses by American federal intelligence agencies.
- njharman 9y ago> He excused himself to shower. Who gets to go take a shower while FBI agents wait for you downstairs!?
- chrischen 9y agoSomeone who doesn't give a f* about the FBI?
- wavefunction 9y agoIt might be your last nice hot shower for a while, though find it more remarkable that the FBI agents acceded to the request.
- ryanlol 9y agoAnyone I guess, it doesn't sound like they had a warrant.
- oh_sigh 9y agoAgents probably thought they could poke around while he was occupied.
- gnu8 9y agoA guy with balls of solid brass, cold to the touch.
- cdubb 9y agoThe stolen documents served to illustrate that there's a big difference between what the public thinks the FBI does and what they actually do: "According to its analysis of the documents in this FBI office, 1 percent were devoted to organized crime, mostly gambling; 30 percent were "manuals, routine forms, and similar procedural matter"; 40 percent were devoted to political surveillance and the like, including two cases involving right-wing groups, ten concerning immigrants, and over 200 on left or liberal groups. Another 14 percent of the documents concerned draft resistance and "leaving the military without government permission." The remainder concerned bank robberies, murder, rape, and interstate theft."
- harry8 9y agoFriendly reminder the FBI still have their HQ named "The J. Edgar Hoover Building" They still celebrate their proven criminality. How about renaming it the "John Raines" building to show they don't think being criminal was or is a good idea? How about just having the building nameless rather than celebrating their own evil?