|
Richard Jernigan -> RE: Vive la France (Dec. 6 2015 23:51:49)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Paul Magnussen
quote:
Are you suggesting that there was a U.S. Government attempt to ban them?
Yes: if I remember correctly, I read that the CIA bought up the entire first run of their next book and destroyed it, and made it clear to the publishers that any attempt at a reprint would be received with extreme disfavour.
But I don’t immediately recall the reference, this was some time ago; it may have been one of the Project Censored books. I’ll have a quick look and see what I can find.
In the meantime:
http://www.salon.com/2011/08/31/censored_by_cia/
Very interesting Paul. I was unaware of any such effort by the CIA to suppress Lederer and Burdick. I would very much like to know more about it. Apparently they were unsuccessful in their attempt to suppress the book. You can get a copy here:
http://www.amazon.com/Nation-Sheep-William-J-Lederer/dp/0393052885
The book would not seem to be very rare at present, $2.59 for a used hardback, $30.00 for a new paperback.
Perhaps it is a case similar in some respects to that of Wilhelm Reich. Reich published numerous works, many of them at odds with mainstream science and psychiatry. But in some English editions of works previously published in German, he broke the law.
Reich believed he had discovered at least two new forms of energy. He built and sold specially designed boxes for people to sit in, called "orgone accumulators." So far, so good. Where he fell afoul of the law was to claim publicly and in pamphlets he distribured that the "orgone accumulator" would cure cancer, the common cold and impotence, among other ills. He was charged with practicing medicine without a license. I'm no lawyer, but I assume he also violated laws against making specific medical claims not vetted by the Food and Drug Administration.
In the English versions of works previously published in German, Reich inserted specific claims of cures by the "orgone accumulators" he was selling. This violated a court injunction against such claims, and Reich's organization was forced to burn a large number of unsold books.
The American Civil Liberties Union objected to the book burnings, but gained little traction. In 1960 the publisher Farrar, Straus & Giroux began re-publishing Reich's English books.
So did the U.S. Government have the power to suppress Reich's "scholarly" publications?
As to the Salon article, part of the security briefing for new employees or contractors of both the CIA and the NSA is the warning that by accepting employment with either agency, the employee agrees that any publication of information gained through such employment is subject to review and approval by the Agency. It's been quite a while, but my recollection was that the new employee was required to sign a specific contract agreeing to this.
Furthermore, in every one of the numerous security agreements I signed, it was specifically stated that although classified information might become public knowledge, the employee was still bound by his or her oath of secrecy.
So it was no surprise to the author in the Salon article that his book would be reviewed, and subject to redaction by the CIA. Nor is it surprising that he would be outraged at the CIA's actions, which he saw as aimed at preventing the release of important and damaging information.
What is particularly troubling, however is the otherwise well documented transgression of the CIA into torture. The Senate report on its investigation, despite attempts by the Republicans to block the publication of its executive summary, revealed much of the wrong doing in this area, though people responsible for these activities have escaped legal consequences, as far as I know.
Two of my friends, one of them the highest ranking non-political appointee in a Department of Defense sub-Cabinet department, were charged with revealing classified information in articles in Aviation Week and Space Technology. The charge was a political ploy by opponents of my friends' objectives, to promote a more vigorous response to Soviet strategic moves. The political attempt failed, since it could not be proved that my friends ever had access to the information in the first place, through official channels.
My friends' attempt to promote a more vigorous response to the Soviets failed as well.
Of the projects I was involved with throughout a long career in the defense business, there is only one of which I have seen no public discussion, despite some of them being conducted at the highest possible levels of secrecy. I am unaware of any malfeasance in that one project (nor of any particularly important consequences), so it doesn't especially concern me that it seems not to be public knowledge.
As has been pointed out, the U.S. Government is not some monolithic force. At times efforts to cover up by one branch of the Government have been foiled by a different branch.
Do parts of the U.S. Government try to cover up inconvenient facts? Yes, no doubt. Is it very successful at it? Not in my experience.
RNJ
|
|
|
|
