ŷ������

Hello Everyone,

For the week of June 4th - June 10th, we are reading the first four chapters of Enemies: A History of the FBI.

The first week's reading assignment is:

Week One - June 4th - June 10th ::

Author's Note and Chapters ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR p. xv - 32
Author's Note, ONE - Anarchy, TWO - Revolution, THREE - Traitors, and FOUR - Communists

We will open up a thread for each week's reading. Please make sure to post in the particular thread dedicated to those specific chapters and page numbers to avoid spoilers. We will also open up supplemental threads as we did for other spotlighted books.

This book is being kicked off on June 4th. We look forward to your participation. Amazon, Barnes and Noble, Borders and other noted on line booksellers do have copies of the book and shipment can be expedited. The book can also be obtained easily at your local library, or on your Kindle. This weekly thread will be opened up today June 4th. We offer a special thank you to Random House for their generosity.

There is no rush and we are thrilled to have you join us. It is never too late to get started and/or to post.

Bryan will be leading this discussion.

Welcome,

~Bentley


TO ALWAYS SEE ALL WEEKS' THREADS SELECT VIEW ALL


by Tim Weiner

REMEMBER NO SPOILERS ON THE WEEKLY NON SPOILER THREADS

Notes:

It is always a tremendous help when you quote specifically from the book itself and reference the chapter and page numbers when responding. The text itself helps folks know what you are referencing and makes things clear.

Citations:

If an author or book is mentioned other than the book and author being discussed, citations must be included according to our guidelines. Also, when citing other sources, please provide credit where credit is due and/or the link. There is no need to re-cite the author and the book we are discussing however.

If you need help - here is a thread called the Mechanics of the Board which will show you how:

http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/2...

Glossary

Remember there is a glossary thread where ancillary information is placed by the moderator. This is also a thread where additional information can be placed by the group members regarding the subject matter being discussed.

http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/8...

Bibliography

There is a Bibliography where books cited in the text are posted with proper citations and reviews. We also post the books that the author used in her research or in her notes. Please also feel free to add to the Bibliography thread any related books, etc with proper citations. No self promotion, please.

http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/8...

Q&A with Tim

Please as you are reading post questions to the author's Q&A thread because Tim Weiner will be looking in periodically and will be posting answers to your questions and will be available for a chat. We are very fortunate that he is making time to spend with us.

http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/8...

by Tim Weiner

Chapter Overview and Summary

Author's Note

Weiner plans to focus on the FBI's activities related to intelligence services, not crime investigation. A major theme is the "tug of war" between civil liberties and national security.

Chapter One: Anarchy

During the First World War, Americans feared sabotage by German secret agents. The biggest event was the 1916 Black Island Explosion near New York City. In 1917, a young J. Edgar Hoover joins the Department of Justice's War Emergency Division. Due to his diligent work, Hoover was promoted to the Alien Enemy Bureau. When America joined the war effort in April 1917, President Wilson signed an executive order to arrest and imprison any disloyal foreigner. The German Embassy and its officials were under close surveillance, as well. There were efforts led by Captain Franz Von Papen to build a pro-German propaganda machine, but after the Lusitania was sunk, this failed. Captain Franz von Rintelen tried to sabotage the country's war industry, but he was arrested, and his trial hit the front page news.

Chapter Two: Revolution

We go back in history where in the turn of the century, corporate power was growing and immigrants were flooding into the country, including radical elements like anarchists. The Department of Justice was created in 1870 to detect and prosecute crimes against the U.S. government. They used the Pinkerton National Detective Agency to do intelligence work, but by the Homestead Strike (1892), Pinkerton's men were banned. President McKinley was killed by a self-proclaimed anarchist, and laws were passed to ban anarchists from living in the U.S. When Teddy Roosevelt became president, he was using the Justice Department more often to investigate crimes. In 1908, Attorney General Charles Bonaparte needed manpower and created the FBI. Congress at first opposed the FBI, thinking it might be used as a secret police.

Chapter Three: Traitors

During the war, there was a full scale operation to hunt down spies and political dissidents. With the Espionage Act of 1917, mass arrests and detentions were conducted with the biggest occurring on September 3, 1918. The FBI also arrested people who failed to register for the draft. Once the war was over, the Communists became the next big concern. While President Wilson was in Europe, industrial strikes were occurring all over the U.S. and many blamed the Communists. There were two major bombings, the second was in front of the house of the new attorney general, A. Mitchell Palmer. Soon after, Hoover was promoted chief of the Radical Division within the Bureau. With the Anarchist Exclusion Act, Hoover had the power to deport people after only a summary hearing.

Chapter Four: Communists

Hoover was diligent against what he saw as a rising tide of Russian Communist influences. He investigated many members of the U.S. Communist Party, the Socialist Party, and the Union of Russian Workers. Worker unrest continued as there was the Boston police strike and a national strike by iron and steel workers. Palmer was getting pressure from Wilson and Congress to do something, and Palmer began mass arrests of Union of Russian workers members. Also, Hoover deports the well-known anarchist, Emma Goldman, along with her husband, Alexander Berkman.

Here we go everyone! Be sure to look at the introductory remarks on this thread (message 1). Above all, civility is the rule here on these threads.

Also, if you have a question for Tim, our author, be sure to post it. He will be dropping in to answer your questions!

Tim brought up this quote, which opens the book:

"Safety from external danger is the most powerful director of national conduct. Even the ardent love of liberty will, after a time, give way to its dictates. The violent destruction of life and property incident to war, the continual effort and alarm attendant on a state of continual danger, will compel nations the most attached to liberty to resort for repose and security to institutions which have a tendency to destroy their civil and political rights. To be more safe, they at length become willing to run the risk of being less free."

-- Alexander Hamilton, the Federalist Papers

This sets up the theme of the book: a "tug of war" between civil liberties and national security.

What are your initial thoughts on Hamilton's quote?

Just finished the selected reading this morning. Very interesting. Don't want to comment too much until more have read. I did find it surprising that the tensions between the United States and Communism started much sooner than I realized.

No problem, David, take your time.

It is interesting about our hatred toward Communism right from the start. It makes sense on an intellectual level, I suppose, if you compare capitalism vs. communism, but I think you add a lot of public paranoia to it, and it gets worse. Or the civility goes out the window.

In Chapter One, page 7 Author Tim Weiner says “Anarchy was among the great dumb forces loosed upon the world�� and lists the assassinations of the French President in 1894, the prime minister of Spain in 1897, the empress of Austria in 1989, the king of Italy in 1900, and US President McKinley in 1901.

I did some browsing on anarchists and assassinations and was surprised at what I found. From 1894 through 1914 I found these 20 assassinations:

1894 President- France
1896 Shah- Persia
1896 President- Uruguay
1897 Prime Minister- Spain
1898 President- Guatemala
1898 Empress- Austria
1899 Pres- Dominican Republic
1900 King- Italy
1901 President McKinley US
1903 King and Queen- Serbia
1905 Prime Minister- Greece
1907 Prime Minister- Bulgaria
1907 Prime Minister- Persia
1908 King- Portugal
1910 Prime Minister- Egypt
1911 Prime Minister- Russia
1912 Prime Minister- Spain
1913 President- Mexico
1913 King- the Hellenes
1914 Archduke Franz Joseph

Indeed, Brian, it is quite a list. I think this book reminds us what a volatile time it was, even before WWI.

There are a lot of changes going on in society, all over the world.

Bryan, volatile is well chosen. I'm also reading
The Proud Tower: A Portrait of the World Before the War 1890-1914
Barbara W. Tuchman
In her Foreward she discusses that the so called "Golden Age" or "Belle Epoque" was perhaps only Golden in retrospect, after the horrors of World War I. Puts a nice perspective on the fears of the anarchists and revolutionaries (trying to keep on topic,,,)

No doubt, Brian, a classic, thanks for sharing. I appreciate your efforts to keep on topic. This kind of environment lends itself to "heightened national security," and from this book, we understand it isn't just about monarchies.

Regarding citations, don't forget to add a author photo (when available) and you can cite the book at the end of the post, as well. It reads cleaner.

Barbara W. Tuchman

Bryan wrote: "No problem, David, take your time.

It is interesting about our hatred toward Communism right from the start. It makes sense on an intellectual level, I suppose, if you compare capitalism vs. co..."

I was surprised by how much chaos seemed to reign in those years, and the mass arrests were shocking! Wow, how could they round up so many people, and on what basis? Geesh!

On what basis, indeed? It is probably a mix of things: simple name on a party list, locals like the American Protective League just turn in names by watching them, Hoover's team investigations, etc. It looks like it is not very much evidence needed...So, I wonder if anyone just turned in a name out of spite.

I very much like how the author is linking the events described to the books thesis. The push/pull of civil liberties is evident. It has been shown through history that those who felt the Soviets were trying to spark a revolution in the United States were correct. There were people openly saying the system should be overthrown. Under these provocations, it would be more than reasonable to assume law enforcement would take notice of the groups.

What happened from there is the push/pull. Clearly, the answer to the situation for the US was to forget due process and just arrest everyone and sort them out later on. Not to mention in some cases, the agents and informants working the groups may have been the only ones actually present. As Bryan stated, the evidence of arrest was so arbitrary that abuse and score settling probably got most people taken in.

The rise of Hoover was also interesting. I always fear a person who is so ensure of their own superiority. I believe it was Churchill who stated a radical is someone who can't change their mind or the conversation. It is also of some concern on how quickly Hoover could rise up in his agency. It looks like from the reading he was not yet 25 and had the responsibility of mass arrests and deportations.

I'm curious to see if anyone else felt some of these early law enforcement actions versus the communists were actually warranted. I don't know where you would draw the line of investigation versus the protection of rights.

Bryan wrote: "Tim brought up this quote, which opens the book:

"Safety from external danger is the most powerful director of national conduct. Even the ardent love of liberty will, after a time, give way to its..."

I wasn’t previously aware of the Hamilton quote but I have been thinking about this a lot since 2001. I live in the US. “To be more safe, they at length run the risk of being less free.��

This assumes awareness. I use credit and debit cards to make purchases of tickets, foods, gasoline, monthly commuting, etc. I use an EZ Pass device to go through bridges and tunnels. In other words, anyone who wanted to do so, could track my every move. Being safe has nothing to do with this behavior. We have opened ourselves up to being watched, but not for fear of our safety, but because it is convenient for our daily lives. The government did not need to pass surveillance laws. We have opened that door ourselves. Yes, they’d need access to bank statements and bills. But that’s not hard.

I know people who refuse to use cards. They use cash for everything. These people are mostly untraceable.

So what is the question here? Where is the dichotomy between privacy/liberty and safety when we have taken away privacy all on our own? Does government have a sort of 'in loco parentis' responsibility for its citizens because we seem not to care?

I am looking forward to seeing how "Enemies" addresses this.

Rodney wrote: "I very much like how the author is linking the events described to the books thesis. The push/pull of civil liberties is evident. It has been shown through history that those who felt the Soviet..."

Thanks, Rodney. I wonder if Hoover rose so fast because the upper level of the bureau was small. It is only part of it since you still have to be noticed.

G wrote: "Bryan wrote: "Tim brought up this quote, which opens the book:

"Safety from external danger is the most powerful director of national conduct. Even the ardent love of liberty will, after a time, g..."

G, you make an interesting point. It is much easier to be tracked but nowadays I would think it would be hard to go off the grid. It seems privacy laws are behind technology

My favorite quote in the book so far comes from the Author's note (p.xvi).

'The Constitution has never greatly bothered any wartime president,' Franklin D. Roosevelt's attorney general once wrote -- and every president since has seen himself at war.

That seems so true to me. If we have not been in a hot war, we have been in a cold one or a war on drugs or terrorism or something else. And so often these "wars" swept up people trying to air legitimate grievances in their net. I'm thinking particularly of the FBI's "attack" on the IWW in 1918.

What struck me when I was reading was how distant President Wilson was: he seemed much more interested in building the League of Nations than he was on issues of the home front. (Can you imagine a modern president spending 5 months out of the country?!)

Had Wilson been in the U.S., would the BoI had taken so much liberty from the people right under the nose of Congress? It seems as if he said, "we have a problem with foreign agitators, do something about it" but then failed to really pay attention to what was actually being done about it.

But, then again, we do have historical precedent in the Alien and Sedition Acts. Hrm. Food for thought.

Hi all,

I just started reading tonight and already I'm loving this book!The introduction alone had me hooked. Then he started to mention history that I had previously not know about like the blast at . I love it when authors do that.

Bea, I agree about the quote you mentioned:

'The Constitution has never greatly bothered any wartime president,' Franklin D. Roosevelt's attorney general once wrote -- and every president since has seen himself at war.

When I read that I went back to read it again. Amazing.

Also, wanted to say that I like the way the author is covering Hoover's young life as well as telling to story at the same time. I'm especially jealous of Hoover being able to work at the Library of Congress. How cool is that? Can you imagine how differently, your life would have turned out if that was your summer job!

I'm also enjoying the short chapters. It makes it easy to read for someone like me who is always, getting my reading interrupted. Lots of nice places to stop (and post at goodreads).

I'm very excited about this read and can't wait to read all the groups interesting takes on this book!

Thanks,
Jason

Bryan wrote: "Tim brought up this quote, which opens the book:

"Safety from external danger is the most powerful director of national conduct. Even the ardent love of liberty will, after a time, give way to its..."

When I read this Hamilton quote, I also thought of this quote, by Benjamin Franklin:

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Together these two quotes summarize one of the oldest questions plaguing American culture, and one that has become more prominent than ever the in wake of 9/11: where do we draw that line between safety and freedom? It seems to me that the line has moved several times over the course of our history.

I have also been struck, as have most of the folks who have already commented, at how different the times were 100 years ago in our country. Not just in innovations and development, but in the whole emotional and mental atmosphere of those days. Seems there was more fear, paranoia, and uncertainty. Though we have experienced some hard times and loss in our recent lifetimes, we haven't experienced the grip of national fear or paranoia as seems to have been the case in the early 1900s.

It is also interesting how the times can sometimes shape or make the man. Hoover's personality, drive, and intensity catapulted him into prominence as his attention was also gripped by the fears of the day, and he focused his energies and purpose against these perceived dangers. Perhaps if he had come along at another time, he might have been an unremarkable bank president or some other such character.

It surprised me that (page 14) Rose Stokes was sentenced to 10 years in prison for making a statement that was perceived as being against the government. The strong sentence suggests the paranoia of the times. Would someone go to prison for that long today for saying a similar remark?

Then, toward the bottom of page 14, Senator Lee Overman is quoted as warning that 100,000 foreign espionage agents stalked the land. That sounds to me like a very inflammatory statement...one that a dictator today might use (Syria?, Zimbabwe?) to excuse some harsh action.

One gets the feel that there was much more of a "Wild West" feeling running across the country 100 years ago, and that fear among the populace could quickly be whipped up as a way to rationalize some action. J. Edgar Hoover was a master at using that tactic. Makes one wonder how dangerous he might have been...or was...

"Wild West"? An interesting analogy.

I found the first four chapters of the book utterly fascinating. There seems to be the foreshadowing of a whole lot of history that would repeat itself later.

The sinking of the Lusitania is something my grandparents told me about. The author quotes President Wilson "America never witnessed anything like this before. A little while ago, such a thing would have seemed incredible. Because it was incredible we made no preparation for it." This statement reminded me of the attack on Pearl Harbor in my parent's generation, and even more so the attack on the civilian population on 9/11 in my generation.

The jailing and surveillance of German-Americans in WWI foreshadows the even worse treatment of Japanese-Americans in WWII. The surveillance and routing out of Communist radicals foreshadowed the McCarthy era (as the author also pointed out in his notes).

What struck me was that despite the fact that the secret police of other nations was distasteful to America, when those in power wanted to thwart people whom they saw as a threat to the American way of life a secret police force was formed. Of course, politically correct terminology - "Intelligence" - was used. As the author describes the events around its formation, you can see that the FBI was born out of fear of unknown people who might be plotting further physical attacks on America, and the fear of radicals who through persuasion might try to subvert American norms. Fear is a weak foundation for any organization - it leads to questionable tactics. We can see this played out in the author's description of the bureau's activities right from the very start.

Just a side note that I'm on a vacation and expected to be totally unplugged this week. BUT due to rainy weather I find myself at a Wi-Fi coffee house. Was glad to have a chance to check-in, but likely won't be able to add to the discussion again until next week. Enjoyed reading all the comments so far!

Bea wrote: "My favorite quote in the book so far comes from the Author's note (p.xvi).

'The Constitution has never greatly bothered any wartime president,' Franklin D. Roosevelt's attorney general once wrote ..."

Good quote, Bea, thanks for sharing it. Wars change a country, good and bad. We will be watching this theme throughout the book.

Misty wrote: "What struck me when I was reading was how distant President Wilson was: he seemed much more interested in building the League of Nations than he was on issues of the home front. (Can you imagine a ..."

Indeed, Misty, Wilson is interesting. He is known to say that the government had to be careful in applying these laws, and he even called the American Protective League "dangerous." However, he never reigned his cabinet in. Why? There was no Pearl Harbor or 9/11, so there was dissent to go into war. So, if he was going to drum up support, maybe he put civil liberties on the back-burner.; it is much easier to wage war this way. Also, it could be a personality/management issue. Then by late 1918 with his travels, then his stroke, the Cabinet had free reign.

Lewis wrote: "I have also been struck, as have most of the folks who have already commented, at how different the times were 100 years ago in our country. Not just in innovations and development, but in the whol..."

Great comments, Lewis and Kay. Fear is a huge factor in developing an agenda.

I think we also have to mix in patriotism in this recipe. Do you get a sense that many of these folks believed they were doing these actions to keep the nation safe?

Bea wrote: "My favorite quote in the book so far comes from the Author's note (p.xvi).

'The Constitution has never greatly bothered any wartime president,' Franklin D. Roosevelt's attorney general once wrote ..."

Thanks Bea. I second your notation as it's all very interesting.

Bryan your comment about patriotism raises a good point. Did people truly believe they were doing the right thing to protect the country or is it power blinded by patriotic rhetoric? Fear and policy make strange bedfellows.

I’m enjoying the books revelations noting the chaos and turmoil at home in America around WWI. During this time period all four of my grandparents were in their mid-twenties (both grandfathers fighting in France) and I know they all desired to be appraised of the fast moving current events that seemed to change with the blink of an eye. Newspapers with up-to-date daily editions were a force of media. As a parent of two young twenty year olds my perception is that this new American generation, as a lot, is not paying nearly as much attention to national and world events or issues concerning personal freedom, as the citizens of roughly 100 years ago.

Interesting, Mark, do you think because they were soldiers, they were more attuned to what was going on news-wise?

I wonder how deep the Red Scare affected the society. Although the hysteria left, it left a mark on the Justice Department.

Bryan wrote: ""Safety from external danger is the most powerful director of national conduct. Even the ardent love of liberty will, after a time, give way to its..."

Virtually every country in the world has witnessed political power shift from legislative bodies to executives in the 20th century. The industrialization of warfare, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and the fear of surprise attack eroded public confidence in representative bodies, permitting an increase in the authority—often unchecked—and power of national security bureaucracies.

The United States was no exception to this trend and indeed paved the way for other countries. Beginning with the Budget Act of 1926 and the Reciprocal Trade Agreement Act of 1934, the U.S. Congress willingly delegated its Constitutional responsibilities over fiscal and trade policy. The 1939 Executive Reorganization Act gave the president wide-ranging powers over the federal bureaucracy. The capstone of Congressional delegation, however, was the 1947 National Security Act, which restructured the nation’s military and intelligence functions and gave the president almost unlimited authority to take whatever actions he deemed necessary for “national security.��

Tim Weiner’s book dates the origins of America’s “national security state�� to World War I and the first “Red Scare.�� Executive demands for extra-constitutional authority (read “illegal��) were evident even before the war, but Weiner provides some evidence that these aspirations were often rebuked by responsible officers in Congress and the Department of Justice. The Great Depression, the Second World War, and more important, the hydrogen bomb and intercontinental missiles dissolved whatever residual legal bindings remained on executive discretion with respect to military and economic power. As subsequently revealed by the Church Committee, the responsible officials in the Congress and courts simply threw up their hands and surrendered the civil liberties of American citizens to one president after another during the Cold War.

Vietnam and Watergate provided an opportunity for the Congress to pause and reflect on the abuse of executive power by the president and his unaccountable national security bureaucracy, powers first delegated by the Congress itself. (See The FBI, Cointelpro, and Martin Luther King, JR.: Final Report of the Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence A). Repeal of the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, enactment of the War Powers Act (over the president’s veto), and creation of the intelligence oversight committees in the House and Senate provided little if any relief. The Soviet Union and the “balance of terror�� remained and public confidence in the Congress further deteriorated, even if trust in the president also lagged.

James Madison and other Founders never sought to vest power in an unaccountable national security bureaucracy and an indirectly accountable president. Rather, the Founders delegated almost all federal powers to a directly accountable and more representative Congress (Article I, Section 8). Of course, Madison and the Founders never anticipated thermonuclear annihilation, either. The Founders understood that a strong president would be required in times of crisis, but they could hardly have foreseen the sort of long-term, existential threat that the United States faced after World War II. The Cold War is over, of course, but the United States manages to discover new and more dangerous adversaries each generation. Whether American fears are real or imagined, it may simply be time to acknowledge that the U.S. Constitution and the rights and freedoms it guarantees to citizens are 18th century anachronisms that cannot be sustained in the 21st century.

Bryan wrote: "Interesting, Mark, do you think because they were soldiers, they were more attuned to what was going on news-wise?

I wonder how deep the Red Scare affected the society. Although the hysteria le..."

Yes, but from conversations with my grandmothers they were very sharp too.

Bryan wrote: "It is interesting about our hatred toward Communism right from the start. It makes sense on an intellectual level, I suppose, if you compare capitalism vs. co..."

Larry Ceplair argues that anti-communism existed in several different aspects of American life and was mostly unique to the United States. Britain, Canada, France, Italy, and other U.S. allies with good reason to fear Communists experienced nothing like the "red scares" in the United States.

Anti-Communism in Twentieth-Century America: A Critical History by Larry Ceplair

Vheissu, I do remember that these scares were international.

Thanks for the citation; you don't need to link the book title if you have a book cover:

Larry Ceplair

I thought it was interesting how Congress feared a Bureau of Investigation as a "secret police." Then Bonaparte does an end-run and gets funding out of his own DOJ expense account!

The attorney general is supposed to know or ought to know what these agents are doing. Do you get a sense the attorney general knows what the directors and Hoover are doing?

Until I read these chapters, I didn't realize how focused the FBI was on communists and terrorism, perceived or real. The population was fearful and paranoid, and the early capturing of supposed war mongers and communists reinforced this anxiety. But ignorance along with fear are a bad combination, and the US populace had a heavy dose of both during these early years which the new 'secret police' used for their purposes.
I see capturing and jailing people who spoke out with politically incorrect statements was even more unpopular then. Couldn't people have strikes against unfair labor practices? Did all strikes have to be communist-inspired? I don't think so.

One of the eye-openers for me in the early chapters of the book was the connection between the FBI and the Attorneys General (I believe that's the correct way to pluralize that title?)

I've always connected the FBI Director to the American President who appointed him or who he served under, but in the case of J. Edgar Hoover and even the directors who served before him, it seems like the connection between the AG and the FBI Director was as least as important as the connection between the FBI and the President of the United States.

Craig wrote: "One of the eye-openers for me in the early chapters of the book was the connection between the FBI and the Attorneys General (I believe that's the correct way to pluralize that title?)

I've always..."

The Attorney General is a cabinet-level official. The FBI Director reports to the Attorney General. At least that's the way it is supposed to be in theory.

Lots of excellent discussion, makes me even more excited to get into this book.

As I read the first chapters I kept thinking about how the events described would "play" in today's media. I could certainly see a crafty politico trying to develop a new agency like the FBI by burrying it in an appropriations bill. But, the actions of the Agency in rounding up thousands, the brutality, and the questionable charges would draw attention and harsh criticism. I can't imagine the outrage from the cable news talking heads, and with good reason. Yet, at the time it was justifiable in the face of the communist scare. Certainly a diffrent time.

Also, it does seem shocking that Hoover had so much responsibility at such a young age. But, Hoover entered the Justice Department straight out of high school. Another sign that times have changed. Now days I suspect you'd need at least a bachelors degree, if not a graduate degree, to get a similar job.

Lewis wrote: "It surprised me that (page 14) Rose Stokes was sentenced to 10 years in prison for making a statement that was perceived as being against the government."

I was struck by that as well. I knew that the Espionage Act had been abused, but was unaware that these abuses had been taken to such extremes.

Bea wrote: "Craig wrote: "One of the eye-openers for me in the early chapters of the book was the connection between the FBI and the Attorneys General (I believe that's the correct way to pluralize that title?..."

But the President appoints the FBI Director and I sort of wonder if the relationship today between FBI Director Mueller and AG Holder is anything close to what it was in the days of Hoover.

Craig wrote: "Bea wrote: "Craig wrote: "One of the eye-openers for me in the early chapters of the book was the connection between the FBI and the Attorneys General (I believe that's the correct way to pluralize..."

FBI directors were not appointed by POTUS and confirmed by the Senate until 1968.

They do report to the AG, but I think, Craig, you are right, I think the relationship between POTUS and the FBI Directors are different today. Hoover had such political cunning that he could duck his AG knowing he had the backing of POTUS. There has been a lot changes such as a term limit of one, 10-year term, you won't stay. Hoover could.

Phil wrote: "Lewis wrote: "It surprised me that (page 14) Rose Stokes was sentenced to 10 years in prison for making a statement that was perceived as being against the government."

I was struck by that as wel..."

Me too, Phil, civil liberties took a back seat during WWI and even after with the Red Scare.

Karolyn wrote: "Lots of excellent discussion, makes me even more excited to get into this book.

As I read the first chapters I kept thinking about how the events described would "play" in today's media. I could ..."

Good points, Karolyn. Yeah, I think it would be harder for these kinds of raids to occur today, but I think Tim will enlighten us that some raids still occur...

Virginia wrote: "Until I read these chapters, I didn't realize how focused the FBI was on communists and terrorism, perceived or real. The population was fearful and paranoid, and the early capturing of supposed w..."

Virginia, I do think many people in the labor strikes were looking for 8 hour days, more pay, this kind of stuff. If you walk into a Communist Party meeting or Socialist Party meeting, it seems you could be watched. This is what is crazy about these raids. Many people get swept into the net that had no radical history or plotting against the industrial system.

So, this American Protective League...Wilson said it was dangerous, but the AG and Bureau used it pretty effectively. What is your reaction to the League? Were they following the law and help get saboteurs? Or did it cross civil liberty boundaries?

(Check out the glossary for more information on the League itself.)

Bryan wrote: "So, this American Protective League...Wilson said it was dangerous, but the AG and Bureau used it pretty effectively. What is your reaction to the League? Were they following the law and help get..."

I believe that the League and its intrusion upon society years ago is not that much different from active professional agents today. As America grew in the early 20th Century local residents made active attempts to get to know others within their community. I relate to the fictitious Bedford Falls, NY community from the WWI era movie “It�� a Wonderful Life��. Rich or poor, a person’s character mattered and workers tended to align themselves with one company for most of their career in life.

Did the League volunteers cross civil liberty boundaries? I’m sure they did in some instances, but in general I’m not so certain.

Not too long ago when the American economy was booming, in general folks tended to switch employment, relocate more and the community atmosphere was lost. Not many knew their neighbors or what they were up to. It appears the modern FBI had a role to fill here. Today with the depressed economy folks are less mobile and taking more time to know their neighbors.

I see where the League was very concerned with teaching especially around the Seattle, Washington area. The concern is just as real today as many American’s question what is being taught in our public schools from preschool to higher education. The late Senator Jesse Helms used to refer to UNC Chapel Hill (where my wife received her journalism degree) as “Communist Hill�� and declared a fence should surround the campus to keep the students in.:-)

Thanks for your thoughts Mark. The Bureau was smaller back then, so maybe today, these groups are less pivotal, I'm not sure. People are more mobile, so I see your point. And you mix technology in there, professionals are needed.

Like the "Communist Hill" reference.

Great discussion folks.