Reader Ad Slot
Reader Ad Slot placeholder
If you would like to support SpookStack without paying out of pocket, please consider allowing advertising cookies. It helps cover hosting costs and keeps the archive free to browse. You can change this choice at any time.
Fred Hampton — Part 3
Page 14
14 / 251
10 Nos. 77-1698, 77-1210 & 77-1370
trial court’s Summary stated that the “purpose of the
counterintelligence program, as it was implemented in
hicago as to the Panthers was to prevent violence.” The
plaintiffs, however, presented considerable evidence to
compel a different conclusion.$ Perhaps the most dam-
ning evidence indicating the COINTELPRO was intend-
ed to do much more than simply “prevent violence” comes
from the files of the FBI itself. An FBI memorandum
from February 1968 described the goals of
COINTELPRO as:
1. Prevent a _ coalition of ‘militant black
nationalist groups... .
2. Prevent the rise of a messiah who could unify
and electrify the militant nationalist movement....
Martin Luther King, Stokely Carmichael and Eli-
jah Muhammad all aspire to this position ....
8. Prevent violence on the part of black
nationalist groups... .
4. Prevent militant black nationalist groups and
leaders from gaining respectability by discrediting
them ....
5. ... prevent the long-range growth of mili-
tant black nationalist organizations, especially
among youth.
Senate Select “Committee to Study Governmental
Operations with respect to Intelligence Activities, The
BI’s Covert Action Program to Destroy the Black Pan-
ther Party, S. Rep. No. 94-755, 94th Cong., 2d Sess., 187
(1976). These goals were incorporated into the various
directives which Marlin Johnson, the special agent-in-
charge of the Chicago FBI office, received instructing
him to establish the program in Chicago.
The national COINTELPRO program adopted a
variety of tactics which Seemingly were aimed not at
preventing violence, but at neutralizing the BPP as a
political entity. These tacties included efforts to dis-
° Further, the trial court’s restrictions on discovery and its
questionable evidentiary rulings hampered the plaintiffs’
ability to marshall evidence to substantiate their contentions.
See infra, pp. 68-73.
Community corrections
No user corrections yet.
Comments
No comments on this document yet.
Bottom Reader Ad Slot
Bottom Reader Ad Slot placeholder
If you would like to support SpookStack without paying out of pocket, please consider allowing advertising cookies. It helps cover hosting costs and keeps the archive free to browse. You can change this choice at any time.
Continue Exploring
Agency Collection
Explore This Archive Cluster
Broad Topic Hub
Topic Hub
letter
bureau
Related subtopics
Subtopic
Subtopic
Subtopic
Subtopic
Subtopic
Subtopic