***Note***
The following material was written out of the paper, but the difference in how my research question for the project developed is worth noting, as well as the discussion on the Liberal Theory of Internal Security, which I dropped for a bureaucratic politics model.
Research Questions
The
main question of this study is whether or not the affects of political factors
had any affect on difference between the two operations. This question can not be answered fully
without a complete accounting of subordinate questions. It is necessary to determine whether
government agencies acted improperly.
Thus it becomes necessary to answer these underlying questions:
·
Were both groups legitimate domestic
threats?
·
Was there a difference in the ways that
operations were conducted against the two groups?
· Can
any such differences be accounted for by political factors?
Methodology
The
purpose of the methodology is to clarify what this thesis is asking by
explaining how it is asking those questions.
Accordingly, the theory which potentially explain the differences, the
general approach to the study shall be discussed, the frames of reference will
be explained, the rationale for using these methods will be given, and
potential issues in the study will be highlighted.
The
theory which best explains COINTELPRO operations is the base position is that
the Liberal Theory of Internal Security. Political liberals of the 1950s played
a part in formalizing the role of the FBI in domestic intelligence by taking an
"approach to internal security that supported the delegation of authority
to a strong central domestic intelligence agency" (Keller, 1989, p. 29). The theory is contrasted against three models
of domestic intelligence agencies; the domestic intelligence bureau, a
political police, and an independent security state within the overall state (Keller,
1989, p. 13). These models are defined
on a matrix of levels of autonomy within the overall state and insularity (Keller,
1989, p. 19). The domestic intelligence
bureau can be characterized as the weakest in power of the three models, with
strong oversight by the State. The
political police model holds a middle position by taking an aggressive counter
intelligence posture, but lacking full discretionary power over it's
actions. The independent security state
not only conducts domestic security operations aggressively, but maintains
insularity from the State. Keller
maintains there are three "pillars" to this theory: locality, in which “”wide investigative
authority had been conferred on the FBI through delegation of inherent
executive powers” (Keller, 1989, p. 58); prevention; and contingency based on
emergency situations (1989, pp. 58-59).
The
primary method used is comparative historical inquiry. There will also be some use of
phenomenological research, as the
viewpoints of Hoover assistants Sullivan and DeLoach will be examined.
Data
will be obtained from secondary sources.
These will include academic studies, Congressional hearings, government
studies, and biographical sources. The
scope of this data and potential bias will be discussed in the literature
review section of this thesis.
Frames of References
What
is the mission of the FBI? The mission
of the FBI, under the frame of reference for this thesis, is to protect the
country from domestic threats.
How
is the comparison of operations between COINTELPRO: WHITE HATE and COINTELPRO:
NEW LEFT to be made? Comparisons of
operations will be made on three base: longevity of the program, number of
operations conducted, and the severity of operations.
Should
New Left operations be counted as a subset as counter communist operations, or
on its own merits? The term “New Left”
should be interpreted as referring specifically to the New Left in America,
unless otherwise stated. It is within
reasonable interpretation to interpret COINTELPRO: NEW LEFT operations in
aggregate with other anti-Communist/anti-socialist operations, but for the
purposes of this thesis, COINTELPRO: NEW
LEFT is being considered as a discrete set of data.
What
is a legitimate domestic threat? This
distinction is necessary to justify operations.
Issues of violence are fairly clear, but where does a criminal act
become a domestic security threat?
America does not have a legal history of defining political crime;
"Even though the only crime defined in the United States Constitution,
treason, is a political offense, neither this nor the other criminal offenses
erected and used to preserve political order and governmental authority have
ever been so designated" (Kittrie & Wedlock, 1998, p. xxxii). Subversion, although the target of FBI
operations, was never defined in legal terms for the FBI to adhere to. Even Truman's formalization of the FBI's duty
to counter subversion did not specify what subversion consisted of (Keller,
1989, p. 49). For the purposes of this
thesis, then, we will define a legitimate domestic threat as any organized use
of extra-legal means and threat of violence to enforce a political agenda.
Operational
definitions will need to be provided for the following terms; politics,
politics of the personal, and subversion.
These will be provided in the Literature Review.
Keller, W. W. (1989). The liberals and J. Edgar Hoover: Rise and
fall of a domestic intelligence state.
Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press.
Kittrie, N. N., & Wedlock, E.
D. (Eds.). (1998). The tree of liberty: a
documentary history of rebellion and
political crime in America (Rev. ed). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
