Fox News transcript, yesterday morning
Following up the previous post: For anyone who missed Chris Wallace and Representatives Chris van Hollen (D-Md.) and Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) talking about the tax bill yesterday on Fox News Sunday, portions of the transcript are below.
Wallace
First, here is Wallace’s idea of a lead-in:
Nixon and the Shah of Iran
Shah of Iran
Diplomatic cables released via wikileaks reinforce the perception that the Nixon administration was too cozy with the Shah of Iran. While few cablegrams dating from the 1970s are included in ‘cablegate,’ three released so far originate from the U.S. embassy in Tehran, Iran, including a strongly worded message in February 1972 favoring shipment of F-4E fighter planes for the Shah.
The cable is highlighted on wikileaks here.
Shah Reza Pahlavi had been placed back on the ‘Persian’ peacock throne in 1953 by the CIA, after his people ousted him in favor of a better-qualified political opponent, Mohammad Mossadeq. The head of a repressive regime widely credited with looting the country and enriching his own family, supported in power by the fearsome SAVAK, secret police, Pahlavi re-styled himself ‘shah’ after ancient (undemocratic) tradition.
By the early 1970s, the secret police in combination with other forces had entrenched a dictatorship criticized by international human rights organizations. Within a few years, the Shah, increasingly unpopular, was ousted by revolution rather than by peaceful process, bringing down allies and supporters with him. Everyone knows what happened when the Shah was allowed entry into the U.S. for medical treatment by President Jimmy Carter, fueling Iranian suspicions of another U.S.-backed takeover in the offing. Incidentally, the minimal actual spycraft going on in the U.S. embassy in Iran was later reported as “routine, prudent espionage conducted at diplomatic missions everywhere.”
Carter
The hostage crisis is associated with Carter as Watergate is associated with Nixon; news outlets do not always remind readers and viewers of longer causes. (I had to send evidence, documents, to readers unaware that presidents Reagan and George H. W. Bush had supplied Saddam Hussein with money and weapons, when I wrote about the issue during the lead-up to invading Iraq.) Anyway, Nixon became yesterday’s news when he resigned rather than face impeachment, and the Watergate scandal used up all the oxygen for reporting on Nixon.
Instant amnesia about the mistakes and misdeeds of a previous administration did not begin yesterday. The fact remains that Nixon and Jerry Ford, his Vice President who became president, gave aid and comfort to the Shah in a degree not emphasized in Peoria. “SUBJECT: ACCELERATION OF F-4ES FOR IRAN”:
“GENERAL AZIMI, MINISTER OF WAR, ON INSTRUCTION OF SHAH ASKS THAT WE TAKE ANOTHER HARD LOOK AT F-4E PRODUCTION LINE IN ORDER ACCELERATE DELIVERY OF ONE SQUADRON OF F-4ES TO IRAN IN 1972. REQUEST REFLECTS SHAH’S INCREASING CONCERN OVER SOVIET AMBITIONS IN AREA AND ESPECIALLY THREAT SHAH SEES TO IRAN OF FRIENDSHIP TREATY UNDER CONSIDERATION BY IRAQ AND USSR. SHAH RECOGNIZES PROBLEMS THIS POSES FOR US BUT IS TURNING TO USG WITH THIS REQUEST TO GIVE IRAN HIGHER PRIORITY ON FA-4E PRODUCTION SCHEDULE BECAUSE HE REGARDS US AS MOST DEPENDABLE FRIEND. END SUMMARY
ACTION REQUESTED: COUNTRY TEAM RECOMMENDS US REVIEW F-4E PRODUCTION LINE AND RESPOND FAVORABLY TO SHAH’S REQUEST FOR 16 F-4ES IN 1972 FROM WHATEVER SOURCE MAY BE AVAILABLE.”
As with the Reagan and Bush administrations, the short story here is that a repressive regime shopping for advanced aerospace and military technology did not want long for wares. Like Saudi Arabia later, and with the same fatal potential for blowback against American interests, the Shah got what he wanted and more.
The longer saga dating from the Nixon administration, and the flip side of the same coin, is Nixon and National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger’s continuing inability, or unwillingness, to understand what domestic unrest in Iran actually meant. On Aug. 22, 1972, they received what might be called adequate warning. The cable from the U.S. embassy in Iran begins,
“SUMMARY: FOLLOWING ASSASSINATION OF GENERAL SAID TAHERI, BOMBING AND OTHER TERRORIST ACTIVITIES HAVE CONTINUED TO INCREASE. SAVAK MAINTAINING ITS POLICY OF WIDESPREAD PREVENTIVE ARRESTS AND, WHILE THIS RUNS RISK OF HEIGHTENING RESENTMENT AMONG POPULACE, OFFICIALS SEEM CONFIDENT THAT GUERRILLAS ARE ON THE RUN. WE ARE SKEPTICAL ABOUT THE OFFICIAL OPTIMISM AND FEEL THAT SANGUINE PUBLIC STATEMENTS AND THE GUERRILLA REACTION THEY USUALLY PROVOKE MAY FURTHER ERODE CREDIBILITY OF SECURITY ORGANS IN MIND OF PUBLIC.
END SUMMARY.”
Gen. Said Taheri was the head of prisons. The embassy clearly saw the downside of ongoing repressive tactics and a government crackdown:
“SAVAK AND OTHER SECURITY ORGANS ARE PROCEEDING WITH A WIDESPREAD AND, WE HEAR, NOT VERY WELL TARGETED ROUND-UP OF SUSPECTS, AIDED BY LISTS OF NAMES AND OTHER DOCUMENTS FOUND IN DWELLING OF A RECENTLY SLAIN TERRORIST LEADER. POLICE NETS, WHICH ARE REPORTEDLY HAULING IN THE INNOCENT WITH THE GUILTY, HAVE EXTENDED AS FAR AFIELD AS ISFAHAN WHERE A NUMBER OF SUSPECTS WERE ARRESTED TWO WEEKS AGO.”
The telegram, signed by Ambassador Joseph S. Farland, goes on,
“COMMENT: WE CONSIDER IT MORE LIKELY THAT TAHERI WAS PERSONALLY TARGETED DUE TO HIS DIRECT INVOLVEMENT IN ANTI-GUERRILLA ACTIVITIES. MOREOVER, SKILLFUL MANNER IN WHICH ASSASSINATION CARRIED OUT, REQUIRING CAREFUL PLANNING AND RECONNAISSANCE AS WELL AS DEFT EXECUTION, APPEARS TO INDICATE THAT THOSE INVOLVED WERE MUCH BETTER TRAINED THAN AVERAGE TERRORISTS, SOME OF WHOM HAVE BEEN BLOWN UP BY THEIR OWN BOMBS.
IT IS POSSIBLE THAT NUMBER OF GUERRILLA INCIDENTS WILL BEGIN TO TAPER OFF, BUT WE DO NOT SHARE SADRI’S CONFIDENCE THAT HIS TACTICS AND THOSE OF SAVAK CAN COMPLETELY HALT TERRORIST ACTIVITY. IN FACT OVER REACTION AND TOO ZEALOUS A REPRESSION BY SECURITY ORGANIZATIONS SEEM AT LEAST AS LIKELY TO RECRUIT NEW GUERRILLAS AS TO STAMP OUT OLD ONES. IN ADDITION WISDOM SEEMS QUESTIONABLE OF SECURITY OFFICIALS MAKING PUBLIC PRONOUNCEMENTS ABOUT BREAKUP OF GUERRILLA GROUPS AND PREDICTIONS OF THEIR DEMISE. WE RECALL THAT THE LAST SUCH ANNOUNCEMENT LAST JANUARY WAS FOLLOWED BY SERIES OF EXPLOSIONS ON US-PROPERTIES AND OTHER SITES IN TEHRAN. IN OUR VIEW SUCH PUBLIC DECLARATIONS RUN RISK OF INCREASING CREDIBILITY GAP AND RESENTMENT ON PART OF PUBLIC WHO LIKELY BE INCREASINGLY APPREHENSIVE OF INDISCRIMINATE ARRESTS THAT DO NOT SEEM TO BE STAMPING OUT TERRORISTS.”
Unlike the situation addressed by the previous cablegram, this one includes no quick fix. It is to the ambassador’s credit that he is not ginning up U.S. shipments of more weaponry to the Shah at this point. But it is hardly likely that a major course correction would be requested in such a message, and major course correction was the only way to salvage American interests in Iran in the 1970s.
The next cablegram from our man in Iran is yet more pessimistic. On March 4, 1975, Ambassador Richard Helms—who went to Iran from CIA–sent a devastating assessment by cable to Washington:
“SUBJECT: IRANIAN RESURGENCE PARTY CREATED BY SHAH:
SUMMARY: CREATION OF IRANIAN RESURGENCE PARTY ANNOUNCED BY SHAH MARCH 2 IS MOVE TO SEEK BROADER SUPPORT FOR MONARCHY AND THE SHAHPEOPLE REVOLUTION. ALL IRANIANS OF VOTING AGE ARE EXPECTED TO EXPRESS ALLEGIANCE TO NEW PARTY OR RISK BEING VIEWED AS OPPONENTS OF SHAH AND EVEN TRAITORS WHO SHOULD LEAVE IRAN OR GO TO PRISON. SHAH EXPLAINED IRAN’S RETURN TO SINGLE PARTY SYSTEM AS NECESSARY BECAUSE QTE SHAMEFUL UTTERANCES UNQTE BY SOME IRANIANS SHOWED NEED FOR IRANIANS TO CLOSE RANKS IN EFFORTS TO ACHIEVE QTE GREAT CIVILIZATION, UNQTE AND BECAUSE OPPOSITION PARTIES HAD FAILED. ELECTIONS SCHEDULED FOR SUMMER WILL APPARENTLY BE HELD, BUT IT IS NOT CLEAR HOW THEY WILL BE ORGANIZED. NET RESULT IS TO MAKE IRANIAN POLITICAL SYSTEM LESS FLEXIBLE. INTERNATIONAL REACTION WILL PROBABLY RANGE FROM INDIFFERENCE TO CHARGES OF INCREASED TOTALITARIANISM. SHAH APPARENTLY PLANS TO CONTINUE ACTIVE INVOLVEMENT IN DAILY POLITICAL AFFAIRS. THIS IS CONTRARY TO EARLIER SUGGESTIONS
THAT HE MIGHT BE MOVING GRADUALLY TO CONFINE HIMSELF TO BROAD POLICY GUIDANCE AND LEAVE IMPLEMENTATION TO GOVERNMENT.
END SUMMARY.”
To be continued
December 7, day of sad news
I opened the newspaper I subscribe to here in the Washington, D.C., area, this morning, and it contains nothing about Pearl Harbor–no graceful remembrance, no visit to an old sailor, no iconic photograph.* Today, of course, is the anniversary of Dec. 7, 1941, the “day of infamy” as FDR called it, the dawn air attack at Pearl Harbor that sank American battleships, crippled the navy, and killed more than two thousand U.S. personnel. The bombing raid could have virtually wiped out U.S. naval forces had the Japanese admiralty known enough to fly a second assault.
I lost a loved uncle yesterday, a World War II veteran himself, although he had the other kind of WWII story: immediately after joining up, he became deathly ill, spent months in a military hospital, and was honorably discharged. It happened fairly often; young guys (usually) were barracked together from entirely different parts of the country and were consequently exposed to germs for which they had no immunity. Everybody shared alike. The story is typical; I have heard it before. Same anecdote, different diseases. No Anzio, no Iwo Jima, same degree of danger.
There is no lack of sad news today. Elizabeth Edwards has issued a graceful statement that she is forgoing further cancer treatment.
Elizabeth Edwards
Republicans in Congress are waging relentless war against the best interest of the overwhelming majority of the American population and seem to be getting away with it. More precisely, their efforts are being dignified in corporate media outlets as ‘budget-cutting’ or ‘conservative’ or sometimes even ‘fiscally conservative.’
Speaking of media outlets, my own paper, The Washington Post, is continuing its relentless campaign against President Obama. As during the nightmarish Bush years, I still oppose policies that harm my country and the world. Those policies that are still in place–most are not, in the new administration–I continue to oppose. But the Post has adopted an almost fiendishly effective tactic against Obama and against the best interest of the majority. Employing public-interest or non-profit entities, the paper now runs long investigative pieces to air concerns about, for example, where the stimulus money went–i.e. ONLY problems dating back to 2009. Be it noted that the Post did not equally emphasize transparency on the same issues during the Bush administration blitz to achieve the Wall Street bailout in the first place. There was no call in my paper for stringent conditions that lenders be required to lend, that large banks be required to capitalize small businesses, that homeowners or students or automobile customers get required access to funding to keep them in their houses, their schools or their cars, when the Post was hysterically demanding that Congress yield on the Bush bailout of the financial sector.
Certainly the loud voice of the Washington Post expressed absolutely no concern about the environmental policies or labor policies of firms about to receive the biggest bailout ever provided by U.S. taxpayers–bigger than bailing out Europe in World War II.
Thus the Center for Public Integrity finds itself getting ink on these concerns in the Washington Post when the same thing did not happen in fall 2008. ProPublica, launched in spring 2009, seems regrettably to be treating the disasters of the Bush administration as ancient history rather than as ongoing problems. So some of our nonprofits are being used as weapons to divide progressives, by a small group of people most intent on defeating Obama and promoting the GOP to major-party status by any means possible. The Post has been trumpeting The Great Recession like nobody’s business, ever since Obama took office–far more emphatically, and with a far more strident editorial voice, than it took to task Bush, who created both the deficit we (now) hear so much about and the recession. This has the effect, of course, of putting the president in an impossible position; only a fiscal illiterate would believe that the White House should sloganize about ‘jobs’ amid the disasters created by Bush; we will have a stronger labor market only when we start trying to address our needs rather than an artificial and reified target of ‘growth.’
Speaking of transparency, on the arrest of the wikileaks founder only Think Progress gets it right: “Wikileaks founder Julian Assange voluntarily turned himself into
British police today. Assange is facing
allegations of consensual but unprotected sex in Sweden, known in
the country as
Heckuva job brownie, November 1963
In what would now be called a ‘heckuva job, Brownie’ moment, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover is on record as scattering praise and commendations freely in the days following the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
Ironically, given the course of events and the unavailability of key personnel when they were most needed, Hoover was moved on Dec. 4, 1963, to issue grateful thanks to all FBI people involved in responding to the assassination. In a memorandum for top personnel headed “RE: COMMENDATION, NOVEMBER 25, 1963,” Hoover wrote,
“I want you to convey my sincere appreciation to the personnel in your division who so graciously volunteered to work on November 25, 1963, in connection with the emergency occasioned by the assassination of the President.
Their devotion to duty and obvious desire to be of assistance and to protect the best interests of the Bureau during this trying time were of the highest caliber and a credit to them. Please extend to all my sincere and heartfelt thanks.
Very truly yours,
John Edgar Hoover
Director”
It was Hoover’s wont to express praise and blame at frequent intervals, and even highly praised and promoted officers like Courtney Evans received their share of censure as well as praise. By the same token, Bureau divisions and members sometimes got a pat on the back from Hoover at junctures when they might be seen as less than successful, as in the memo quoted here.
There are oddities in the memo aside from characterizing the assassination of a president as “this trying time.” Nov. 25, 1963, was a Monday, and it is puzzling that FBI personnel are being thanked for showing up for work as they would have had to do on any other weekday. Presumably the underlying reference is that President Kennedy was being laid to rest in Arlington Cemetery that day, with full military honors, and the funeral ceremonies were accompanied by a holiday for government workers. Still, the memo jibes oddly with the events; most Americans would have assumed–taken for granted–that FBI investigators and staff were working around the clock on the assassination. The general public would probably have assumed also that the Bureau was working to protect more than its own “best interests.”
In this latter assumption, the public looks to have been mistaken.
The Dec. 4 memo was no impulse; the Director followed it up with another on Dec. 9, 1963, headed “COMMENDATION, NOVEMBER 25, 1963.” This one was directed specifically to the Special Investigative Division handling the investigation of the assassination:
“By memorandum dated December 4, 1963, the Director requested that his sincere appreciation be conveyed to the personnel who so graciously volunteered to work on November 25, 1963, in connection with the emergency occasioned by the assassination of the President. He stated their devotion to duty and obvious desire to be of assistance and to protect the best interests of the Bureau during this trying time were of the highest caliber and a credit to them.
The following employees voluntarily reported for duty in the Special Investigative Division on November 25, 1963, and it is recommended that a copy of this memorandum be placed in the personnel file of each of these individuals.”
A list of about 35 names, some redacted in the Evans file, follows.
Funeral procession
Reading this memo is chilling, especially for anyone alive at the time of JFK’s funeral. The sound of that somber drum and the sight of the riderless horse tend to stick in the memory.
That J. Edgar Hoover could delicately convey surprise that personnel in the Special Investigative Division did not seize the opportunity to take the day off suggests that, even now, historians still have not come to grips with the actual character of the FBI under Hoover.*
To be continued
*There is a faint analogy here, and maybe more than faint, with current revelations from wikileaks. Some news reports on the wikileaks material suggest surprise that diplomats spy on each other, as the hostage-taking at the U.S. embassy in Iran in the 1970s surprised any member of the general public who assumed that diplomats engage solely in diplomacy. However, the infiltration of pure and disinterested diplomacy by intelligence agencies, mainly CIA, while not exonerating the kidnappers, was known especially in the Washington, D.C., region.
Material on how much spying among nations is protected by diplomatic immunity is available, although some of it is in books where the pertinent information has to be linked up by painstaking re-organizing.
For the moment, it looks as though the chief impact of the wikileaks material has been on people who were saying one thing in public and another in private. This is obviously a penchant not to be over-indulged; equally obviously, all fallible human beings can slip into it. But a big problem is immature personalities in responsible positions, who get a sense of power—whoa!—from deliberately being as two-faced as they can get away with.
Courtney Evans and J. Edgar Hoover, before and after Nov. 22, 1963
Following up the previous post—
In March 1963, longtime FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover rated the job performance of one of his Assistant FBI Directors, Courtney Allen Evans, “Outstanding” for the fifth year in a row. Hoover summarized Evans’ position thus:
Mr. Evans is the Assistant Director in charge of the Special Investigative Division and as such is responsible for the direction and coordination of the Bureau’s investigative activities in organized crime, fugitives and employee security matters.
Hoover praised Evans in a one-page summary for “the highest qualities of leadership, planning ability and a comprehensive knowledge of Bureau operations,” noting that “Mr. Evans’s responsibilities cover some of the most vital and involved phases of the Bureau’s work, such as keeping the Director currently apprised of matters of the utmost importance in organized crime.”
Whatever Hoover’s boilerplate language signified for Hoover, Evans himself took a serious interest in his job obligations. Evans certainly knew how to play the Bureau game; he dropped more than one laudatory thank-you note to the Director over the course of his career, including one, after a promotion, in which he requested an autographed photo of Hoover. But a meaty submission from Evans in August 1963 suggests that it was he who was largely responsible for a Top Echelon Criminal Informant Conference of the FBI Aug. 15-16, 1963. Evans’s lengthy memo to superiors about the conference conveys serious purpose.
Recommending a letter of commendation for a Special Agent, Evans attests that
SA [name redacted] handled all the details concerning the administration of the conference, and in addition, led the discussions on the techniques utilized in the development of the 60 individuals who to date have been approved as top echelon criminal informants. He demonstrated a most comprehensive knowledge of the factors which gave rise to the development of these informants, the techniques utilized, and the basis for selection of these individuals as targets for development. SA [redacted] clearly demonstrated . . . that a great deal of the success achieved during the past two years in developing this type informant is attributable to his knowledge of informant matters generally plus his consistent direction of field efforts in this regard.
Historians have established by now that Hoover was a latecomer to the battle against organized crime, denying the existence of the Mafia for years and, when forced to acknowledge it, designating it by the previously unknown (and ridiculed) name ‘La Cosa Nostra.’ When the FBI shifted gears and joined the anti-organized crime cause, the work was largely the inspiration of subordinates rather than of the Director, as the papers even of FBI personnel protective of the Bureau corroborate.
Evans is a case in point. Deferring to Bureau usage on nomenclature for the Mob, he nonetheless uses language that shows a mind on the job:
“SA Emery handled the discussions concerning La Cosa Nostra and brought to the conference detailed and specific information on the aims and purposes of this underworld organization. His specific knowledge of the organization is such that as a result weaknesses in our informant coverage of the organization were revealed. His extensive knowledge of the individuals who compose this organization enabled the conference to select what appeared to be excellent targets . . .”
Evans writes as a supervisor supporting a project he believes useful:
“SA Staffeld brought to the conference a complete knowledge of the Criminal Intelligence Program gained by supervision of this program over the years. He consistently drove home to those in attendance at the conference the pitfalls which must be avoided to properly discharge our responsibilities and drew upon his experience to make numerous positive suggestions for the improvement of our Top Echelon Informant Program. SA Staffeld was able to alert those in attendance at the conference to developments in the underworld in various sections of the country which will have a bearing on the techniques to be utilized . . . He consistently drove home the theme that the publicity concerning the revelations of Joseph Valachi, while not recommended by the Bureau, must be turned to our advantage and the attendant unrest caused by these revelations must be completely exploited so that our coverage of the underworld on a high level can be enhanced.”
Generally the 1,150 pages of Evans’s FBI dossier indicate Evans as a supervisor with some concept of the difference between being effective and not being effective, and he preferred effective to ineffective. While that may not sound like much to ask, it is not a given for all managers, in either public or private entities.
Evans versus Hoover
Contrast the concerns shared by his boss, Director Hoover. Hoover replied to Evans’s lengthy and detailed memorandum on the Top Echelon Criminal Informant Conference in a terse two-paragraph note commending the conference, “through [Evans].” In contrast, Hoover’s Nov. 20, 1963, letter following up the inspection report on Evans’s division, marked “PERSONAL ATTENTION,” demonstrates Hoover’s much-vaunted attention to detail:
“Space occupied by your Division was found to be neat, efficiently organized, businesslike in appearance, well maintained, and fully utilized. A number of the rooms need repainting, and requests are outstanding to have this done. You should closely follow this matter to insure that the repainting is completed at an early date. Individual responsibility for the proper maintenance of your space should be emphasized to all employees in order that the minor housekeeping delinquencies found can be eliminated.”
Inevitably it will be recalled that this letter is dated two days before the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and is about the division tasked with investigating the assassination, but even aside from ironies of timing the letter shows some lack of proportion. While Hoover commends “progress shown in the Criminal Intelligence field by deeper penetration of underworld activities,” his heart doesn’t really seem to be in undercover investigations of the underworld. Hoover spends more ink on office space—repainting, etc.—and on the delinquencies of typists:
“The field should continue to be closely followed to reduce delinquency in the six classifications that have exceeded seven percent during three or more of the last six months. Production of stenographers and typists assigned to your Division pool is below the average of all stenographic employees at the Seat of Government [Washington, D.C.]. You should continue your training programs for the employees with less experience and closely supervise their progress to increase the over-all production average.”
Hoover goes into further detail on “minor housekeeping delinquencies” and “Production in stenographic pool” in his lengthy follow-up memo on the inspection report to Clyde Tolson.
As written in the previous post on this topic, one reason several of the Special Investigative Division’s top men were unavailable Nov. 22, 1963, is that they were on inspection trips. While the president was traveling to Texas, Number One Man (Deputy Assistant Director) H. L. Edwards was on an inspection in Miami, Fla., along with Inspector William B. Soyars, Jr., and another Inspection Division officer, H. J. Edgerton. Inspector R. M. Murphy was conducting an inspection in Baltimore, Md., with division officer Victor Turyn.
Turyn was the officer later assigned to evaluate James P. Hosty’s pre-assassination contacts with Lee Harvey Oswald, and went on to become SAC in New York City. At the crucial time of the assassination, he like other key personnel was away from headquarters evaluating, among other things, local FBI field offices’ paint condition and stenographic underproduction.
The assassination of President Kennedy has with some validity been called a quagmire for historians, but not every aspect of this tragic chapter in twentieth-century U.S. history is uniformly complex or opaque. One simple conclusion is inescapable: if a watchful eye from the FBI was necessary, the president never had a chance.
To be continued
November 20, 1963, and November 26, 1963
On November 22, 1963, Courtney A. Evans, Assistant Director of the Special Investigative Division in the Federal Bureau of Investigation, was in Seattle, Wash., to give a speech for the FBI when he heard the news that President John F. Kennedy had been shot. Evans, a friend of Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, rushed back across the country to FBI headquarters in Washington, D.C. The Special Investigative Division was assigned the investigation into the assassination.
FBI documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act reveal that at the time of the assassination, almost every top official of the Special Investigative Division was, like Evans, unavailable.
A memorandum dated Nov. 26, 1963, from Bureau Supervisor Nicholas P. Callahan, presents the “Location of Officials” to longtime FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover. The memo also presented Hoover, already stung by criticism of his Bureau, plenty of challenges from a PR standpoint. Assistant Director of the Special Investigative Division Alexander Rosen was at home ill, taking annual leave. The third Assistant Director of the division, William C. Sullivan, had to return to Washington from his home town of Hudson, Mass.
The sole division official available, James R. Malley, Number One Man or assistant to Rosen in charge of the General Investigative Division, was sitting in Rosen’s office. The president was shot about 12:30 p.m.; Malley learned of the assassination when, after returning from lunch, he happened to turn on Rosen’s desk radio and caught the news.
Malley later testified to the House Select Committee on Assassinations that it was mid-afternoon before he was informed that the Special Investigative Division would be handling the assassination.
House committee on assassinations
The other three Number One Men, as the next tier of officials was known, were also away from headquarters. W. (William) Mark Felt, later to become famous as ‘Deep Throat’ in the Watergate scandal, was at Quantico, Va., where as Felt later put it he had become “a kind of Dean of the Faculty” for training programs. Number One Man Frank W. Waikart was on annual leave. Number One Man H. L. Edwards was in Miami, Fla., doing an inspection.
Like their immediate superiors, the five division Inspectors next down the ladder were also out, one on sick leave and the others on trips to Baltimore, Miami and Chicago. The closest to hand was Charles H. DeFord, Special Agent in Charge in Columbia, S.C., who was in the Identification Division (fingerprint) building that day. Two officials on the Inspection Division Staff were also away on inspections in Miami and Baltimore. None were with President Kennedy on his trip to Dallas, Texas.
Thus the most sensitive investigation with which the FBI had ever been trusted, in what was instantly called the crime of the century, was to be spearheaded and coordinated by a unit scattered among several cities and remote from the crime scene, its members largely out of touch with each other. Malley’s HSCA testimony presents a disturbing picture:
“Later in the day, and I presume it must have been close to 3 o’clock, I was either told [by] telephone or asked to come down to [Assistant FBI Director Alan H.] Belmont’s office, I cannot recall which, at which time he informed me that the General Investigative Division would be handling the assassination case of President Kennedy.
Following that, and still not having many details to go on, I started lining up personnel that would be available on a round-the clock basis to handle whatever might develop.
Mr. McDONALD. Were you given any specific instructions as to what your role would be?
Mr. MALLEY. Not at that time.
Mr. McDONALD. And your immediate supervisor was Mr. Rosen?
Mr. MALLEY. That is correct.
Mr. McDONALD. Was he present that day?
Mr. MALLEY. He was not. He was scheduled to go on annual leave that morning and instead of taking off as he had planned to leave the city, he was ill and did not leave the city at all. He eventually came back to the office sometime the following week.
Mr. MCDONALD. Did you have any meetings with Mr. Hoover on that day?
Mr. MALLEY. I did not.
Mr. McDONALD. What were the next set of instructions you received on Friday afternoon?
Mr. MALLEY. I don’t recall that I received any instructions on that particular afternoon . . . there was a lot of confusion . . . Because up until around 7 o’clock, if my memory is correct, there was a definite uncertainty as to what jurisdiction the Bureau had.”
History and irony
Just six days earlier, the Special Investigative Division had received high marks from the FBI director, as had Assistant Director Courtney Evans, a twenty-year veteran at the Bureau. A Nov. 20, 1963, inspection report from FBI Associate Director Clyde Tolson, Hoover’s self-described “alter ego,” to Asst. Director James H. Gale, rated the Division “Very Good” in four categories—Physical Condition and Maintenance; Specific Division Operations; Administrative Operations; and Personnel Matters. The division received an “Excellent” rating in the fifth category, Contacts. Director Hoover was acutely aware that Courtney Evans had ties with the Kennedy administration through his closeness to Robert Kennedy, and a large part of Evans’ job was to serve as liaison between the FBI and the Kennedys.
The report concludes approvingly,
“Assistant Director Evans continues to maintain excellent contacts in Bureau’s behalf with Attorney General, Cabinet officers, White House staff, members of Congress, and other highly placed Government officials. Legislative matters pertaining to work of Special Investigative Division closely followed and coordinated with other Bureau Divisions. Effective liaison maintained with Department and other Government agencies to further Bureau’s work and protect its interests.”
The inspection reports, followed up by letters from Hoover, remorselessly disclose where FBI resources went and where they did not go.
Evans, who had been rated Outstanding in his previous five annual performance reports, received a special commendation from Hoover in a letter Apr. 25, 1963:
“I want to commend, through you, the clerical tour leaders in your division who assisted in such an effective fashion in handling tours for the extremely heavy influx of visitors to the Bureau during the 1963 Easter Season.”
Evans was also praised the same month for a speech he had given at the Founders Day Banquet of the Augustinian Academy in St. Louis, Mo. Speeches and other appearances for the FBI were frequent gigs for Evans, who was consistently rated favorably for personal appearance and clothing style.
History is always 20-20. For perspective, it was in April 1963 that Lee Harvey Oswald moved to New Orleans, where he had been born and where he maintained the complicated ties that ultimately connected him to the shooting of a president.
Voter Fraud hoax redux—
They’re at it again, predictably. Some groups and other entities legitimized as ‘conservative’ are cranking up the time-honored tactic of ‘vote fraud.’ This, for anyone not up to speed on the topic, is the false allegation spread by C of C types that individual voters are casting more than one vote in a single race.
Looks as though some of our friends on the right are not entirely confident about the outcome of Midterms 2010.
If they had the complacency that ought theoretically to be generated by some helpful political reporting this election season, they would surely be less frantic to aver that individual voters are going to turn over the election.
Come to think of it, that’s exactly what they fear; the deep structure in these ludicrous allegations is a valid proposition–individual voters can make a difference.
But back to the bogus accusation: Put simply, once again, the charge is that individual voters are voting or will vote in more than one race at the same time. They do not usually put it that simply–for obvious reasons–but that is the basic accusation: individual voters could cast more than one vote. Generally the wild propagandists do not specify how an individual voter might do so, whether by showing up using someone else’s name, or by voting in more than one precinct in the same election. Both of these options are so difficult to implement that the accusation of either is ridiculous.
A couple of facts are in order here:
1) Within the state of Maryland, for example, voting more than once is impossible. A voter registered in Maryland cannot vote in more than one precinct. When we vote, in Maryland, our vote is tabulated in the precinct where we vote. If I were to show up at another polling place attempting to vote, it would be impossible for me to vote via the voting technology in which my vote would already be recorded. Note: It is possible to vote in a new precinct, within Maryland, if you moved without changing your registration–but in those special cases you have to vote by provisional ballot. The provisional ballots are checked and tabulated later, separately from the vote machine totals.
2) Every other state in the union has some similar or parallel safeguards. The best safeguards are still the old-fashioned paper ballots, counted publicly–vote privately, count publicly, as another writer said. But the barriers to voting in more than one race, within the same state, are impossibly high.
3) Theoretically it would be possible to pose as someone else and steal that person’s vote. If you had all the necessary data about someone whose vote you wanted to steal–address, date of birth, etc.–and you were willing to go to that person’s precinct, risking the obvious possibility that someone there would actually know the other person, you might, underscore might, get away with it. Unlikely, but theoretically possible if every conceivable aspect of luck and snakiness went your way. Of course, if the other person–the rightful voter–later showed up trying to vote, you would still be found out. It should also be noted that this kind of snakiness could be attempted by members of any party, or of no party. Attributing it to Democrats, or to any other single group, is propaganda rather than statistics. Historically the genuine and exceptional examples of voter fraud, over the centuries, have occurred within all ranks.
4) That leaves only the theoretical possibility of voting across state lines. Now here I have an anecdote, shared with me by one of my Republican neighbors. According to what she told me, a relative of hers is still registered to vote in Maryland after having moved to another state–where he is now registered to vote. He is (or was until recently) thus registered to vote, as a Republican, in two states. There is not an automated system in either state to erase a registered voter from one voter roll because s/he is registered more recently on another. So the grain of truth, as my candid GOPer points out–her relative, who of course would never do this, could conceivably either fly back to Maryland on election day to vote in his former precinct, having voted at his new home, or could cast an absentee ballot in Maryland while also voting at home.
Once again–and this should be self-evident–if this individual voter took either of these wildly exceptional actions, it would be as a GOP voter. This particular anecdote is about a Republican. Genuine, and highly exceptional, vote fraud occurs across partisan lines.
Let us take it as a given that flying across state lines to cast more than one vote in an election would be, by far, the exception rather than the general rule. Let us further point out the obvious, that doing so would be more feasible for some of the better-paid wingnuts than for most other people. Glenn Beck could do it; I could not.
By the same token, absentee ballots cast by voters living in another state would be limited to the people who could afford to move to another state. If those people registered to vote in their new homes–this being the year of that ‘voter enthusiasm gap’ we hear so much about–and then went to the lengths described here, odds are that they are not among the voters being caged, monitored, intimidated and otherwise targeted by the C of C legions.
N.b.: If any of the propagandists so ardent about ‘vote fraud’ were serious, they would at least check the data. For a broad beginning or thumbnail, one could look in census data for the total number of people, all ages, who moved from one state to another in the U.S. between the last election and this one. Then one could consult the data or do the actuarial work to compute the number, out of those who moved, who are of voting age. Then one could check to see, or could project, how many of those who moved and are 18+ are also registered to vote.
That would be your maximum number of conceivable instances of ‘vote fraud,’ if everything fell right, if all those people either traveled across state lines or voted absentee across state lines.
That would also be the number of people subject to federal prosecution for vote fraud.
What is Jamestown Associates doing in Arizona?
View the folksy ad on YouTube . . .
As most of West Virginia knows by now, Jamestown Associates is the Republican consultantship responsible for that infamous ‘hicky’ ad boosting the GOP candidate for senate in West Virginia. Like most populist appeals from the GOP, the image of two shirt-sleeved guys boosting the party of corporate conglomeration and secrecy in WV turned out to be fake.
Hicksville (WV) ad
Statements by Jamestown Associates—which touts its efforts on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce and Republican candidates around the nation—to distance itself from the ad by blaming the casting agency for the language were also false. The original email from Jamestown Associates calls explicitly for actors with a ‘Hicky’ blue collar look. The H-word is capitalized like the name of a sect.
Attorney Charles Graber says on behalf of Kathy Wickline’s casting agency only that “we are still considering our options, going forward”; Jamestown Associates and the National Republican Senatorial Committee, which eagerly disavowed the ad, have apologized to Wickline. Jamestown Associates has not responded to questions.
One obvious question is whether Jamestown Associates employs that hicky attitude elsewhere in the United States, and if so, where. The company’s website lists four locations: “With offices in Washington, DC, Princeton, NJ, Baton Rouge, LA, and Dallas, TX, our clients benefit from the combination of a national firm’s experience and a regional firm’s knowledge of local issues and techniques.”
Jamestown illustrates its Baton Rouge website with a photograph of the Louisiana state capitol building; the office, however, is located on Jones Creek Road in Baton Rouge. Local and Internet directories do not turn up the name Jamestown Associates—which is registered as active and in good standing with the Louisiana Secretary of State—at that or any address. The Jones Creek Road office offers instead a few names of attorneys and an entity called ‘Capitol Consulting Inc,’ not in good standing in Louisiana.
Jamestown Associates also has company locations not referred to on its website, including at least one listed in public record in Arizona. Both the Dun corporation database in LexisNexis and the Arizona secretary of state’s office give the address as 6670 E. Edgemont Street, Tucson 85710. Listed personnel dovetail with the list of persons given on the main Jamestown Associates website, starting with Lawrence or Larry Weitzner as president, owner and CEO. No current phone number is accessible; the real estate website Zillow indicates that the property was foreclosed and sold. Calls placed to the house at the street address or to persons listed at that address have returned no information on the company. Dun and Bradstreet lists sales for the Arizona location of Jamestown Associates at $52,000. There is no mention of the AZ office on Jamestown Associates; the man listed as Vice President of Jamestown’s Arizona company, George M. Gobble, is not available for comment.
Jamestown Associates advertisement
The Capitol Consulting entity is also found in Arizona, although the only address given is a post office box, with no telephone number and no personnel listed. “Business type”: “providing political solutions.” “Owner”: same name, Capitol Consulting, but as an LLC rather than a corporation.
Back in Louisiana, Laura B. Lancaster, listed at LinkedIn as Media Director for Jamestown Associates in Baton Rouge, is also President of Magnolia Media LLC (not connected with a company of the same name in Mobile, Ala.) listed as inactive by the Louisiana Secretary of State. Its Registered Agent (RA) is attorney Frank D. Blackburn, whose office is the Jones Bridge Road address.
The Democratic Party in New Hampshire has filed a complaint that Magnolia Media LLC, in Baton Rouge, is a shell company. Laura Lancaster of Magnolia Media LLC, of the Jones Bridge Road address in Baton Rouge, is also listed among personnel at the Arizona Jamestown Associates in Dun and Bradstreet.
So what if anything is Jamestown Associates or Capitol Consulting doing in Arizona? The Arizona state campaign finance database lists no monetary donations from Jamestown Associates, and only one from Capitol Consulting: Capitol Consulting gave $1K Sept 29 2010 to push Proposition 302, billed as “Kids First” by interest groups. As The Arizona Republic reports, “Proposition 302 seeks the repeal of First Things First, an early-childhood health-and-development program that voters approved in 2006.
If voters approve Proposition 302, the program’s $345 million fund balance would be funneled into the state general fund for lawmakers to use as they want. Legislators already have earmarked that money for deficit relief.” The “Kids First” campaign spins its campaign to destroy the early childhood program as a way to save kids’ programs. However, as AZCentral points out, some programs named by the Prop 302 boosters have already been cut, frozen or capped. “And it’s not certain the passage of Prop. 302 would protect the programs from cuts or reverse the freezes,” since Proposition 302 does not compel the state legislature to save specific programs.
As noted above, Gobble, of or formerly of Jamestown Associates, is also on the Board of Advisors of the Aidchild Foundation, along with Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-Ariz.). Jamestown Associates has handled reelection campaigns for Kolbe, and Gobble was a congressional aide to Kolbe before joining Jamestown Associates in Arizona.
Capitol Consulting also gave $1K to the AZ Republican Party in 2008—a modest amount suggesting that it may not have been among Sen. John McCain’s strongest supporters. No in-kind contributions are listed for either election cycle, either from Capitol Consulting or from Jamestown Associates. The Tucson Weekly published some good articles a few years ago on action pertaining to Jamestown Associates in Arizona. This piece from 2003 and this from 2002 are particularly illuminating. Kolbe is entrenched, if his former aide is not, and the one-hand-washes-the-other culture in higher-up GOP circles in Arizona demonstrates the effectiveness of cooperation between candidates, consultants and ‘nonprofits’.
N.b. As of now the top GOP money recipient in AZ, for U.S. House races, is Ben Quayle, son of former Vice President Dan Quayle.
More on Jamestown Associates and other states to follow.
New York State–Carl Paladino, the World Trade Center, and eminent domain
Paladino
First, from the transcripts:
CARL PALADINO (R), NEW YORK GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATE: “This is Carl Paladino. As governor, I will use the power of eminent domain to stop this mosque and make the site a war memorial instead of a monument to those who attacked our country.”
(video clip, Rachel Maddow Show, MSNBC, July 29, 2010)
CNN INTERVIEW WITH CARL PALADINO, REPUBLICAN NEW YORK GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATE INTERVIEWER: RICK SANCHEZ SUBJECT: NEW YORK GUBERNATORIAL RACE; PROPOSAL TO BUILD MOSQUE NEAR WTC SITE TIME: 3:00 P.M. EDT DATE: WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 2010:
“MR. SANCHEZ: You say that you will use–here, let me read from your letter once again. You’re right. This is the point that you’re making and you’re correct, you’ve been very consistent on this.
“The governor”, you write, “has a legal power to use the state’s right of eminent domain to seize this site and make it a memorial of which we can be proud. That is exactly what I will do if I’m elected governor.”
So, as governor, you will go in there and take this property away from this people and turn it into a memorial because they want to use it as an Islamic cultural center.
MR. PALADINO: No. Let me correct on that, okay. That was a partial misstatement on my part. We will go in there and we will put a restrictive covenant on the property and all of the property in the Ground Zero site. Ground Zero for me is the extended site over which the dust cloud containing human remains traveled. That Ground Zero site will be protected in the memory of those who fell at the World Trade Center, as well as the memory of the thousands and thousands of soldiers, of American and allied soldiers, that fell in the ensuing wars, and 150,000 troops we still have over there defending our right to speak like this today.”
[continued]
“MR. SANCHEZ: Okay. But you just said the property for which the dust cloud–
MR. PALADINO: I’m sorry. I missed the point. Yeah, let me explain that. Eminent domain is a very broad term. You can actually take property or you can just put a restriction on property. In this case it would be the restriction on the use of a property that a zoning board would consider the issue when proposed use is introduced for any property within the district. And if the zoning board determines that it is an affront in any way to the American people to those memories, then it would be rejected, the use would be rejected.”
For more than one reason, New York Republican gubernatorial candidate Carl Paladino was sagacious to amend his initial campaign promise to ‘seize’ the World Trade Center site under eminent domain. For one, the Islamic Center to include the mosque and ecumenical chapel for religious use is not planned for the World Trade Center site itself but for a site two blocks away. As one attorney expert in eminent domain cases comments, seizing ‘Ground Zero’ would hardly prevent a mosque from being built blocks away. Widening the terrain to that hit by ‘dust’ from the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, parries this point—although it also includes all of Lower Manhattan.
For another, hearing a GOP candidate for governor of the nation’s third-largest state aggressively proclaim the use of eminent domain to seize property—“we do it every day in zoning”—would hardly sit well with Paladino’s ‘tea party’ constituency.
Telephone and emailed questions and requests for comment placed with the Paladino campaign, whose slogan is “Paladino for the people,” have not yet been answered. Paladino’s campaign website further emphasizes, as Paladino said in the Rick Sanchez interview, that Paladino’s use of eminent domain around the World Trade Center site would be restricted–“but not by taking the property.”
Still, Paladino’s track record includes some aggressive threats to use eminent domain:
[transcript:]
“MR. SANCHEZ: So you believe that a government–a government has a right to make a decision, a property rights decision, based on its own sensibilities, how its affected. How would that stop, in the future, someone from–
MR. PALADINO: We do it every day in zoning–we do it every day in zoning law.
MR. SANCHEZ: But how–but in this case you’re–
MR. PALADINO: Zoning laws–
MR. SANCHEZ: But this case it’s a First Amendment argument that you’re deciding.
MR. PALADINO: No, we’re not.
MR. SANCHEZ: Aside from sensibilities, if the Constitution says we have a right to worship as we please, where we please, how can you go in and say I don’t want you worshiping that way there because it affects my sensibilities?
MR. PALADINO: I’ve clearly said to you that it’s my opinion that this is not a question of freedom of religion.”
Even after widening the geography to that covered by the “dust” from the attacks of September 11, 2001, and restricting the use of eminent domain to “covenant” rather than seizure, Paladino’s rhetoric raises issues that should concern his ‘base.’
The big one, of course, is the First Amendment. [ O’Donnell]
Even with the limitations or after-the-fact qualifiers, Paladino’s barn-burning rhetoric basically boils down to saying that as New York governor he would use “any means”—his words—to prevent the ‘mosque’s’ being built, including the power of eminent domain.
Setting aside any other questions, a key legal question for a lay person is, could he really do that?
Any exercise of the power of eminent domain must be based on a legitimate public purpose of the condemning authority, in this instance the State of New York. That fundamental principle raises the immediate question whether preventing a ‘mosque’ at or near the WTC site could be a legitimate public purpose.
Most lawyers would argue, to the contrary, that the expressed purpose of preventing a ‘mosque’ is a direct violation of the First Amendment.
Attorney Thomas M. Olson, of the firm of McKirdy & Riskin in Morristown, N.J., interviewed by telephone, has represented clients in numerous cases confirming that indeed First Amendment issues can arise in relation to eminent domain. Whether the First Amendment issues outweigh other concerns varies from case to case, Olson says, but the First Amendment does not automatically go down to defeat just because the state—at the federal or state level—advances other interests. Boiling it down to lay terms, sometimes the church or cemetery wins.
Side note: Purely anecdotally, it used to be a truism that Constitutional Law was the law school course that law school students took least interest in, the one on which they typically placed least priority. The constitution being the terrain only of future constitutional law profs or a smaller handful of future Supreme Court Justices, the conventional wisdom went, Con Law was perceived as offering little payback to the prospective lawyer who wanted to go out and land a well-paying job at one of the big burnout law firms. Indeed, in this (surely) over-cynical and oversimplified view, a well-grounded regard for the constitution was something of a handicap to be reticent about, not a selling point in a job interview with Gordon Gekko.
Back to the phone interview–Olson clarifies that the government does have power to use eminent domain in regard to private property—but not for free: when a property is condemned, for example, the property owner still has to be compensated. The government does have power to seize land for public use—a freeway, a school. But whether the government has the right in a particular case depends on what purpose they would seize it for. An unquestioned public use such as a school is much more solid ground for eminent domain; a quasi-private use such as redevelopment is more of a gray area.
Olson’s firm, McKirdy & Riskin, generally represents property owners in eminent domain matters in New Jersey. The religious issue, “a very interesting issue,” Olson comments, “has never been finally resolved by the courts” in an across-the-board way.
When you want to run a road through a church, it can be difficult. There are rights on both sides. A church versus a cemetery might be even tougher.
To deal with the First Amendment issue, Paladino’s rebuttal is simply to deny it:
“MR. SANCHEZ: They may very well be, sir, and I understand your perspective. But what you can’t get away from, and I guess what I’d like to ask you because we’ve got to get a break in and we’ll continue but maybe it gives us a chance to think about this a little bit. How do you get away from the fact that there is a constitutional argument here that seems to say that you can’t deny someone–
MR. PALADINO: There is no constitutional argument because it’s not freedom of religion.
MR. SANCHEZ: It’s not? Okay–
MR. PALADINO: If it was freedom of religion they’d put their mosque someplace else.
MR. SANCHEZ: Okay. Let’s continue that part–
MR. PALADINO: And enjoy their religious experience.”
According to Paladino, the building is “ideological,” not religious. Set aside the point that ideology might be protected by the First Amendment and that religious denominations have their ideological components. Set aside that the building is being called ‘ideological’ and is being opposed because some people do not like it. Set aside the point that people could be prevented from enjoying their religious experience anywhere other people were minded to prevent it, on whatever grounds. Set aside even the sad possibility that Paladino may not consider Islam a religion to begin with. Even giving him all these set-asides, his argument pretty much boils down to a statement that the building is not religious because he (speaking ex officio as hypothetical governor) says it’s not.
It is a given that media attention to Paladino’s statements will dwindle because nobody foresees that he poses much threat to Andrew Cuomo. But his is a worrisome train of thought for a chief executive, and should be seen as such by tea partiers as well as others.
Cuomo, Ackerman
A better argument for Paladino to have made as gubernatorial candidate would have been the common-sense reminder that the First Amendment is not absolute and government can abridge constitutional freedoms, within reasonable limits, to serve other legitimate purposes such as curing blight to foster the health, safety and welfare of a community.
Back when he was talking about ‘seizing’ the property, he could also have reminded the audience that any property seized would have to be paid for. So the taxpayers would be on the hook for any property abruptly picked up by the State of New York, including the footprint of the twin towers.
Back—again—to when Paladino was talking about seizing the World Trade Center site, it is intriguing to note that he was talking about using eminent domain in order to create a “public memorial.” This would be his concept of the public use under which eminent domain could be used—a memorial, rather than a road or bridge, etc. A memorial park might indeed be such a public use, or public purpose, but once again it would have to be paid for. It would be interesting to run this one by the deficit hawks among the tea partiers. Fair market value for the property, as paid by the State . . .?
Another legal issue, perhaps a future project for legal research, is whether New York State has power to seize property owned by the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey for any purpose.
btw a memorial on the 9/11 site is already under construction. Paladino’s proposal to exercise eminent domain ‘restriction’ or ‘covenant’ could overlap significantly with—i.e. come into conflict with—the memorial underway. Thus the argument of a legitimate public purpose would have to be weighed against, again, fiscal costs–the large public maintenance obligation and presumably the loss of tax revenue.
But the fundamental concern is that eminent domain must have a legitimate public purpose. The purposes of government are defined by the constitution and by statute. A governor cannot simply declare that something is a public use in order to justify taking private property. This is a Tea Party candidate?
Final note: The Corpus Juris Secundum, the encyclopedia of American law, devotes 752 pages to eminent domain, plus suppl., give or take, which is what eminent domain is all about. See vol. 29A.
Pages 167 and 168 of the CJS deal with cemeteries as public use of land. Page 189 deals with cemeteries as property appropriate for the exercise of eminent domain.
The CJS makes clear that land, including private property, may be taken by the government—federal or state—for public use, with two conditions: 1) the use has to be public, i.e. open to all, as for example roads and bridges; and 2) the property owner has to be fairly compensated (paid).
Any land taken for use as a cemetery or, presumably, as a memorial, must be for public use. It cannot be an exclusionary private cemetery.
[This article, deleted by the system among hundreds of articles and blog posts in summer 2011, is re-posted using archives and Word files.]
First, from the transcripts:
CARL PALADINO
(R), NEW YORK GUBERNAT