Reblogged this on <a href="/http://moorbey.wordpress.com/2012/08/27/4575/" rel="nofollow">Moorbey&#039;s Blog</a>.

Interesting how people didn't pick up on Aoki's sarcasm and chuckling. Sometimes I wonder why people on the left seem to take everything literally or can't pick up on little things like this.

I've listened to this a few times, and no, this is no admission.

What it is, is the incredulousness of someone who cannot believe he's listening to such bullshit. I, myself, often leave things unsaid that are so ridiculous that I cannot believe anyone would give them credence. Sometimes I might even agree with something said like that, if it's clearly ridiculous, as a way of mocking someone. For example, I recently wrote something like: Yup, I'm a racist. That must be why I oppose Obama. It can't have anything to do with...[extended list]. (Note to self: don't do this when talking w/ a reporter).

I never knew of Aoki before this controversy was created, and I've no axe to grind. Give me evidence, and I'd be willing to say Aoki was an informant or provocateur. This doesn't prove Rosenfeld's claim.

So all we really have is the FBI document. To my layman's eyes, that's pretty damning. But I'm not versed in FBI documentation. I find the counter-claim about the middle name being wrong silly. Government documents often have inaccuracies like that. But it's only the one document, so far. If there's more, show it to us. Until then, this is akin to slander.

As I pointed out, I'm no expert in reading these documents. From a standpoint of English grammar, the name in parentheses should be referring to the name blanked out before it.

Of course, as to the rest, I could be suffering from confirmation bias. I was told what to see, and so that's what I saw. Reading the document more closely, it appears simply be a document describing surveillance of Aoki.

Thank you Kasama for posting this. IMO, there are several lessons to be learned from the rather flimsy attacks on Richard Aoki’s revolutionary role and record.

One thing that has occurred to me is how some on the Left have rushed to judgment and not put much emphasis on the source for discrediting Aoki; the media aren’t the only liars…can we start with the FBI?

Am probably going to sound like a super old fart, but in the age of Twitter, texting, things going viral instantaneously without a whole lot of investigation, rumor (and perceptual knowledge) becomes accepted as truth and in turn has real impact on public opinion. Maybe Marshall McLuhan wasn’t all that far off almost 50 years ago—“The medium is the message.”

And while, like I stated before, the threat of informants, snitches, reactionaries ingratiating themselves is very real and something people should be cognizant of and alert to, one has to question timing, intention and motivation of various outings. We need to dig deeper for some real truths.

At the same time, I maintain (and am in agreement with Fred Ho) that the main motivation behind very serious charges and trying to discredit Richard Aoki was to discredit not just the Black Panther Party—who was one of the most militant and politically/revolutionary conscious organizations to emerge in the 20th century—but to try and discredit the potential (and past) militancy of not only the liberation struggles of many oppressed nationalities, but currently the Occupy movement.

The FBI and their ilk work their magic in different ways. For a lot of people, who maybe having a knee jerk reaction, or are ambivalent about Richard Aoki based on scanty "proof", the effect (which I think is the intended one) can be a morale buster. The assassination of Fred Hampton (and Mark Clark) provides another example of morale busting:

Fred Hampton was murdered in 1969. When I lived in Chicago from the late 70s thru the mid-80s, Panther headquarters—Fred Hampton living above the “office”-- was left untouched the whole time, in disrepair, and deteriorating every year. Symbolically, the sleekly painted black panther fading, letters over the Black Panther Party headquarters disappearing, etc. The message: see what happens if you really try and fight the racist system. Don’t even try…as, not only might you be assassinated, but your logos, symbols, and more so politics will become a vague memory and disappear. You can't win...

And as far as the FBI goes—here’s what they had to say right after they murdered Fred Hampton and Mark Clark:

"We expected about twenty Panthers to be in the apartment when the police raided the place. Only two of those black niggers were killed, Fred Hampton and Mark Clark."
—FBI Special Agent Gregg York”

Without political investigation (from a revolutionary perspective) are we supposed to take and accept the “testimony” of a few (even former) FBI operatives, at face value? Or if not outright accept, vacillate about Richard Aoki or other revolutionary leaders before more reliable summations can be done? And what is Seth R. and his ilk really saying about the Panthers (and others)? That they must have been really stupid (and simply posturing) to allow Richard Aoki to be a revolutionary activist in their midst, and a spokesperson for that organization over 20 years…

Think I prefer Fred Hampton's mantra--"You can kill a revolutionary but you can't kill the revolution."

I'm unconvinced either way with respect to Aoki. But, the interpretation above is utterly unconvincing. However you cut it, Aoki's responses to Rosenfeld were ambiguous. And Aoki, as a seasoned activist, not to say revolutionary, should have known that you MUST be unambiguous when talking to journalists. Especially when it comes to allegations of disruptive police activities. And the need for unambiguous statements is not because the media will twist you into anything they want, but because they will use ambiguity against your movement.

I was already convinced that the charges against Richard Aoki were bullshit after reading Fred Ho's commentary. Nonetheless, I listened to the audio tape from above. I only needed to listen to it once — quite clearly Richard Aoki flatly denies the charges, and, as others have noted, was chuckling at what he considered to be an absurdity. So that leaves us with the uncorroborated word of an FBI agent. Are you kidding me? Is really so outlandish to think that the agent is providing a final service in his retirement?

I am reading the Fujino/Aoki memoir now and am highly doubtful that Aoki functioned as an agent during his membership in the SWP or afterward. It may be possible that he was an informant when he was in high school. In fact, you discover that he voted for Nixon in 1960. But the real story begins after he begins reading leftwing literature in earnest, just a year or so later. He had a girlfriend in the SWP who gave him a copy of Art Preis's "Labor's Giant Step" that opened his eyes, along with a collection of Eugene V. Debs's speeches. I also took a quick look at the chapter on the Berkeley strike and it differs drastically from Rosenfeld's account. Aoki comes across as fairly level-headed and nowhere says anything about raiding armories. Aoki is seeming like less and less of a mystery at this point but Rosenfeld--I don't know...

Here's another fabrication from Rosenfeld in his article:
http://cironline.org/reports/man-who-armed-black-panthers-was-fbi-informant-records-show-3753

"In a tape-recorded interview for the book in 2007, two years before he committed suicide, Aoki was asked if he had been an FBI informant. Aoki’s first response was a long silence. He then replied, “ ‘Oh,’ is all I can say.”
Later during the same interview, Aoki contended the information wasn’t true."



But in the taped interview, Aoki did not say " 'Oh' is all I can say." Here's what Aoki said when he said "oh":

Rosenfeld: When I .... I was told in my research that during this period of time, you actually worked for the FBI.

Aoki: They tell you that?

Rosenfeld: Uh... Burney told me that.

Aoki: He did? (slight laugh)

Rosenfeld: He did.

Aoki: Oh (slight pause) that's interesting. (laugh)

Rosenfeld: Am I wrong?

Aoki: I think you are.

What a hatchet job, so this is what passes for investigative journalism these days. Of course he's dead now and cannot defend himself, how convenient for the author.

Worth thinking about in terms of misinformation for sure! There are lessons here as was mentioned about talking to the media. It isn't something to go at half cocked and he didn't. He was very clear in my opinion.

http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2012/08/28/richard-aoki-on-his-swp-experience/

There are obviously different interpretations, but what I guard against is interpreting something on the basis of what I want to be true. I'd love to accept the above interpretation, but my radical sense of trying to look at something objective to seek the truth based on the evidence lends me not to make any strong verdicts either way. I remain open minded. I accept fully the possibility that Aoki could have at one point been an FBI informant. I think some can't see this as a possibility, and are convinced it just can't be so. And I wonder how much of this speaks to a certain outlook that fails to understand the complexities of human beings, or perhaps a humanism which lies at the center of Marx's philosophical foundations.

But I also believe, based on his conduct of his life, that if he was an early informant, he stopped being so, and joined the cause of the liberation of humanity, after awaking politically. We can uphold that, even IF at one point he did inform and was paid by the FBI. This is because I don't see anything in his actions anything that points to him acting as an agent. And just because I or we can't see it, doesn't mean he things didn't exist, yet his conduct that can be seen--his actions-- these are in my view are consistent with who he claimed to be.

I don't understand, though, how he was not black mailed into continuing to work for the FBI later when he became prominently involved and influential within the radical movements. You would think that they would pressure him at the threat of exposure to continuing to use him as an informant, yet his actions don't betray such behaviors. Please note I'm not arguing for anyone taking a liberal view of allowing or accepting actual known past informants into trusted working relationships. That is too risky. But if Aoki is past tense. He is no longer around. If he was an informant at some point, and stopped being so, we lucked out, and dodged a bullet. In a sense we can have a certain amount of respect for the pressure he must have had while working for the people, with these skeletons in his closet.

The big problem I have, and why I found the claims to be persuasive is not just the FBI documents or the testimony of his alleged retired handler, but the ambiguity of Aoki's responses himself, which leaves it open to having several possible meanings or interpretations. "I think you are" is a very weak denial. The pause, silence, and "Oh" and then saying its complex, all is a terrible response. His personality being like that is not an excuse. No one should leave that kind of question open to wondering about that allegation, esp. not if you are politically sophisticated as Aoki's was. There is no nuance to the answer, there is no complexity to the question: did you ever got paid by the FBI? And I didn't hear any sarcasm in his answer (which also is a terrible way to answer a question with a professional mainstream journalist), since they will use that against you as a literal answer, and Aoki knew that or should have known that. That is why it comes off as almost a cathartic confession, but a sad one, and one of regret, and one that he can't quite come to grips in terms of coming clean with that terrible past mistake of his youth. Is this possible? I think we have to say it is. Is it the truth? We may never know. I take professor Fujino’s stance on what the evidence shows: its inconclusive. But I also add that it doesn't look good, and that we have to accept that it COULD be true, and if so, what does that mean for how we view Aoiki--if he did change? I'd say we can still uphold him as a people's hero, unless its shown that he continued (if he ever was) working for the FBI.

Regarding the critique made against Seth Rosenfeld, I find it convincing, and typical of mainstream journalism these days. Everything that is said about him appears to be true. However, I don't find it detracts, or distracts from the actual evidence that he does produce. It doesn't matter if Rosenfeld has his own axe to grind, his own agenda promoting his own political liberal verdicts on arming the BBP, and his opportunism, and apparent sloppy, or inaccurate way he tries to further his own interpretation. This comes with the nature of mainstream media reporting. I've seen it over and over, after going to protests, events, staying the entire time so I can see what is happening, and then reading about it from the mainstream press the next day: its full of lies and twisted to fit their own narrative. But that is a separate issue, to the issue of what evidence we do have, and the ramifications for our speculation about the meaning behind the possibility that it is true.

@Gio, it is sloppy, to even consider on this "evidence" is crazy. But I guess the disinformation is working. I do not accept the possibility that it may be true on "evidence" presented. To take the word of Federal Agents and this recording is beyond ridiculous. There is no smoking gun, no proof. The Feds photo and record everything, where is the evidence? The fact that this is even being debated on what has been presented is ludicrous as it casts a shadow of doubt which is sad.

So you are saying Jfsp,that it's just impossible for this to be true? That means no evidence in the world will convince you because you already ruled out of hand it is not even a possibility. That is a religious mind set, and pure dogmatism. There is evidence, enough to make us think and wonder, and debate the issue. Kasama is right to take a cautious stand, and indicate that this is not definitive, and we may never really know the truth (and certainly not based on the current evidence)--but also to insist that it should take a lot more evidence, a higher standard in order to for us to conclude that Aoki was an informant, or be rejected by the left.

gio, i don't see jfsp as dogmatically saying it is totally impossible, but that the current "evidence" is barely even worthy of the word.

Yes X Y, that is what I was saying. To make an accusation of this magnitude you better have more than what has been presented. I understand it's discussion but to even consider it on the "evidence" presented is a disservice to the mans legacy. Yes I will hold someone to a high standard of proof when his subject is dead and cannot answer the charges.

Equally important, we need to be careful not to allow the authorities to set us against each other through the use of rumors, innuendo, and fabricated evidence.The "evidence" in this case seems extremely thin, yet look at the reaction it provoked in our ranks. The feds did a lot of this crap in the 60s and early 70s and, in many cases, their tactics were far more sophisticated (e.g. forged letters and case files, for example). Somehow or other, we must learn to balance informed skepticism with a proper regard for security. Not an easy thing to do.

I guess one of my points is that to not even consider it is a way to block out an admittedly uncomfortable possibility and thus avoid the fact that it raises some issues worth discussing and thinking about. Personally the more uncomfortable an area is the more I'm eager to discuss it. Nothing is off the table for me to consider as a possibility. This is not about disrespecting the mans legacy either. I agree this accusation does not hold up to the level of evidence required for it, but we should keep an open mind. And it is worth discuussing even if as a hypothetical.

giovanni, nobody's "blocking out" anything. stop constructing a false narrative..

Hi XY. You may not be blocking it out, but don't kid yourself that no one is doing so. Dogmatism, and the cult of personality is alive and well within the left, hero worship, creating icons, and the cult of the individual, and a certain level of blind devotion that goes along with that. People don't like or want their leaders challenged, or toppled--and not even questioned, or have someone consider that they may not be all they had hoped they were. I quote, "even consider it on the “evidence” presented is a disservice to the mans legacy.' In my view, this line does indeed block out something important that should not be blocked out EVER: consideration. I don't care if the evidence is very weak. We should be open minded to talk about and consider the evidence. I think its correct to make an evaluation based on the evidence or lack thereof, but to even not consider it? People seem emotionally tied to not wanting to believe something is possible, because that raises some uncomfortable things that we must deal with and think about, in terms of the complexities of humans and our practical needs to protect radical movements.

Well, I have no idea whether these charges are fabricated or real, but even if real, that does not necessarily negate all actions taken while doubling as an informant. Take the example of Parvus. As an admirer of Trotskii and his theory of "permanent revolution," I find Parvus' help in formulating that theory. Plus, without Parvus, Lenin would have never made it to the Finland Station.

Gio, This has nothing to do with a cult of personality. It's a fact that what Rosenfeld claims Aoki said was never actually said. It's a fact that Rosenfeld took his own words out to construct a false statement by Aoki. It's a fact that Aoki had several little laughs which demonstrate Aoki's feelings about a false accusation. Little laughs that Rosenfeld leaves out of his transcript.

As an award winning journalist, how can be that sloppy? Rosenfeld was either sloppy or inserted words in Aoki's mouth on purpose.

Rosenfeld's article and video has already been "considered". The burden of proof lies with Rosenfeld to which he has failed to meet that burden as Fujino has already stated.

We go on forever with these arguments but the fact remains that the radical left is under attack by the government. Mo and Gloves in Chicago, raids across the country especially in the Midwest and west. These are dangerous times, the NLG in Chicago are giving out there number if anyone is approached by the FBI. Best to focus on current events now.

ShawnT, I don't disagree with anything you said, above.

All those appear to be facts about the way this story was reported by Rosenfeld. That is quite shameful, but quite common.

However, the problem I have it that some have indeed not wanted to consider the evidence that is there, however, inconclusive that evidence is. It is worth considering and thinking about, and its an important issue to discuss.

It is a fact that we do make icons out of our leaders, and we don't want to see that the people we look up to turn out not to possibly be who we thought they were, or have some shady or troubling things in the background or history. We want them to be pure.

Well reality is often not so pure, and I prefer to embrace this possibility, instead of clinging to romantic notions.

Reality as a materialist means no religiosity towards ideas or people: all are subjected to critical scrutiny and nothing is too difficult for me to consider with an open mind.

You say this is not happening but in this very thread we have language like "I do not accept that possibility that it may be true...' and " to even consider it on the “evidence” presented is a disservice to the mans legacy," etc.

This is not a tenable position and does not even conform to reality. Of course, as you admit, the evidence has been considered, and rightfully so. But how many people will admit to not even "considering' something? That is blatant dogmatism.

So, what happens is that people 'consider it" pro forma, and then just dismiss it. This is what I call a soft consideration, only because not to would be too obviously wrong as a method. But not far behind that are a whole series of gradations that stem from the same place: loyalty, devotion to a leader and not wanting to accept the possibility of an uncomfortable truth. This reality then colors the interpretation, and all

Personally, I’m unconvinced either way with respect to Aoki.

The evidence needs to be stronger before I make up my mind, and until then its only a matter of accepting that the evidence that we do have makes me quite suspicions. As I've stated before (and has others have) this has a lot to do with Aoki’s responses to Rosenfeld--what we can hear on the tape, not the added stuff that make it less ambiguous. The problem is that it is ambiguous. You interpret his little laugh as meaning he felt contemptuous about how absurd the charge is, etc. If so that is not clear. People have that laugh for other reasons too, such as a nervous laugh, when someone catches them, and they don't know how to respond at that moment. The reason I don't cut Aoki slack with a generous interpretation, as you do, is because I know him to be a sophisticated, very experienced activist, and we know better that we can NEVER ambiguous when talking to journalists, esp. when it comes to allegations of this sort. Aoki knows or should know, as we all do that clear unambiguous statements are required not just because media will twist what you say into what they want you to say (they will try to do that anyway) but because they will use ambiguity and it will have the effect of dividing people on what the truth is. The only explanation I've heard for his answer that 'It is complex" is that he was being sarcastic, and that its not really what he meant, that its not complex, you are just an idiot, etc. But its NOT clear and leaves this quite open to interpretation. Not what you want to do if you are not trying to actually say something without saying it, i.e because there is guilt there, or shame. Anyway, this is my reasoning for not dismissing this allegation out of hand.

A video segment with just the info about Burney Threadgill, the alleged FBI agent who "developed" Aoki.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pAnNdppp28 />

Transcript of "Burney Threadgill".........


Threadgill: Oh yeah, he was a character. He said, "I don't have any interest in communism." and uh... I said, "Well why don't you just go to some of the meetings and tell me who's there and and what they talked about?"

Threadgill: So one thing led to another and he became a real good informant.


Threadgill does not mention Aoki by name. Who is "he" referring to? And is that voice really Threadgill? Why didn't Rosenfeld include Threadgill talking about how he developed Aoki instead of Rosenfeld giving the narrative? That person who is alleged to be Threadgill might as well be talking about anyone. The video says that the "conversation" was in 2002, but there was no conversation played. The recording was just with Threadgill.

Here is The Chronicle of Higher Education. Includes statements from historians Donna Jean Murch and Yohuru R. Williams, in addition to Diane C. Fujino and Scott Kurashige. The full article is behind the Chronicle's paywall.

&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;

http://chronicle.com/article/Scholars-Challenge-Authors/134040/

August 31, 2012

Scholars Challenge Author's Assertion That 1960s Activist Worked for FBI

By Peter Monaghan

[clip]"If you're going to make that a central claim of a book, you're going to be held to a high standard of proof," says Donna Jean Murch, author of Living for the City: Migration, Education, and the Rise of the Black Panther Party in Oakland, California (University of North Carolina Press, 2010).

Historians like Ms. Murch, an associate professor of history at Rutgers University, say Mr. Rosenfeld's claim is unsubstantiated and warrants a more rigorous investigation than he gave it.

His allegation came to public attention in August when the San Francisco Chronicle published his article on the subject, timed to the release of his book; Mr. Rosenfeld also released a video report on the Web site of the Center for Investigative Reporting. The charges against Mr. Aoki account for only about 10 pages of the more than 700 in his book, which examines FBI activities concerning the University of California at Berkeley during the cold war. The evidence it relies on includes some 300,000 pages of FBI records released as a result of Mr. Rosenfeld's Freedom of Information Act lawsuits.

But Mr. Rosenfeld's critics say that his accusations against Mr. Aoki rely on one former FBI agent, now deceased, who said he was Mr. Aoki's handler in the years before his political activism, and one FBI document, redacted and, critics say, ambiguous.

[clip]

While Mr. Aoki might conceivably have had entanglements with law-enforcement figures early in his adult life, and been singled out as a possible informant by FBI agents, his actions, over all, hardly seem consistent with expectations of how an FBI informant would behave, says Diane C. Fujino, a scholar of Asian-American studies at the University of California at Santa Barbara. Her biography of Mr. Aoki, Samurai Among Panthers: Richard Aoki on Race, Resistance, and a Paradoxical Life has just been published by the University of Minnesota Press. "Anything is possible, and so I'm open to the truth," she says. "But I'd need to see substantial evidence."

[clip]

In response, Mr. Rosenfeld says he makes no assertion that Mr. Aoki helped the FBI disrupt political movements. (In an e-mail to The Chronicle, he said would not have time before this article went to print to respond to the specific criticisms that researchers have made about his allegations.) But his book does include such statements as: "Did Aoki help the Panthers fight for justice, or did he set them up? During the same period Aoki was arming the Panthers, he was informing for the FBI," and "he had given the Black Panthers some of their first guns and weapons training, encouraging them on a course that would contribute to shootouts with police and the organization's demise."

The evidence Mr. Rosenfeld presents dates from the period in which Mr. Aoki attended activists' meetings but before the Black Panther Party was even formed. A key consideration, says Yohuru R. Williams, an associate professor of African-American history at Fairfield University, would be to assess what kind of information he might have provided authorities, and under what circumstances. Mr. Williams, who has written extensively about the Black Panthers, says that Mr. Rosenfeld appears to draw a conclusion based on slight evidence, then projects it forward as a surmise about Mr. Aoki's role in key events in Panther history.

Mr. Williams, like Scott Kurashige, a professor of American culture and history at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor who specializes in the history of Asian-American political and social activism, criticizes Mr. Rosenfeld for apparently relying on one FBI document, and on his interviews with one former FBI agent, Burney Threadgill Jr., who died in 2005. While Mr. Rosenfeld writes that the FBI document—which has recently circulated among scholars, including Mr. Williams and Mr. Kurashige—identifies Mr. Aoki as an informant, it is in reality far more ambiguous, say the critics.

[clip]

critics say Mr. Rosenfeld's sourcing is irresponsible. In his San Francisco Chronicle account, Mr. Rosenfeld writes in reference to a taped 2007 interview between himself and Mr. Aoki: "Asked if this reporter was mistaken that Aoki had been an informant, Aoki said, 'I think you are,' but added: 'People change. It is complex. Layer upon layer.'" But in Mr. Rosenfeld's video feature, the words "people change" are not heard on the tape and appear not to have been in that part of the interview.

As other evidence for his case, he cites a second former FBI agent, M. Wesley Swearingen, who made a sworn declaration as part of one of Mr. Rosenfeld's lawsuits against the FBI, saying he "concluded ... that Aoki had been an informant." In the video feature, Mr. Swearingen explains that part of his reasoning was that Mr. Aoki could have spied unsuspected in Black Panther ranks because he was "Japanese"—reasoning that Mr. Rosenfeld's critics disparage as absurd.

What also bothers the critics is that Mr. Rosenfeld does not cite recent books by historians and other scholars—people like them—on topics like surveillance and the role of state "subversion" during the Panther era.

"If this were a scholarly work, it would not survive academic peer review," says Mr. Kurashige. "I dare say that it would likely fail even a dissertation defense."

[end clips]

This is from a statement by Elbert "Big Man" Howard on Richard Aoki.

I am going to print the first paragraphs and give a link for the rest. I agree with "Big Man" and Fred Ho and others who have spoken out against the accusation that Richard Aoki was an informant. Some have asked the question "how do we know for sure?" Well , we don't know for sure. But I would rather agree with Fred Ho and Big Man than Rosenfeld and the government or the SF Chronicle.

I also think we need to build the kind of revolutionary movement where people do not snitch and I agree with Mike that there is no excuse for snitching. I would like Kasama and others to have online "Don't Snitch" stickers. As Mike said the oppressed do not like snitches. And the streets would look better decoated with "Don'.t Snitch" stickers.

Here are the first paragraphs from Big Man's article. The rest of the article is on http://moorbey.wordpress.com/2012/08/26/my-comrade-richard-aoki/

"At almost 75 years of age, there are very few things that surprise me anymore. However, I can say I was not only surprised by the allegations made against my comrade Richard Aoki, I was sickened. I should not have been surprised because I know this government still has unfinished business with us, we Panthers, and being dead doesn't free us from their need to persecute us and create chaos and mistrust among those of us who remain..

The San Francisco Chronicle, like most mainstream press, loves this shit. It was not long ago when this administration found a way to destroy my comrades, the San Francisco 8, decades after several of them had been tortured and the case thrown out.
The brothers were amazingly strong and eventually most of them have been able to go on with their lives, but at a great cost to all of them."

Read the rest of the article online.

Thanks Kasama.

Thank you Land for posting the article and link from Big Man—someone who continues to be well respected, even revered, by many to this day.

There are many ways smear-tactics are deployed to defame revolutionaries (and ultimately revolution), even if some of those tactics are more subtle than others.

While seeming tertiary, something that has bugged me throughout Seth R.’s claims and allegations is a consistent mention of Richard Aoki’s “suicide,” without explanation of his physical status, etc.; this smear is more subliminal.

In a lot of mainstream thinking, suicide carries an onus, often pariah-status, with insinuations that the person must have been weak, etc. In the case of Richard Aoki, I think the insinuation is that Aoki had a guilty conscience (à la informant allegations), and that Seth R.’s numerous mentions of suicide, bordering on sensationalism, is to try and shore-up his case against Aoki (as well as the Panthers and/or the impact of the liberation movements of the oppressed.)

Big Man speaks to this best:

<blockquote>Richard never had us guessing as to where he personally stood politically. He never stopped condemning the real criminals in America, not ever. And he kept us entertained with his wit and intellect until his death – suicide, some call it, but he was barely alive and very tired and did not want to be kept around by means out of his control. Richard, who we loved, admired and who made it clear how much he loved us and, in particular, all disenfranchised, oppressed people. </blockquote>

Reading this is making my stomach turn:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/423064-fbi-files-richard-aoki.html#document/

Lots of info to digest, much of it redacted. But as even Louis Proyect seems to be saying, let's be careful not to confuse being an informant with being an agent provocateur. Informants come in all varieties, and 99% of the actual information (let alone its impact) alleged to be provided by Aoki is redacted and my never be fully known. The records also seem to show that he was targeted by the FBI as early as high school. Also interesting is that in a radio interview today, even Rosenfeld is distancing himself (although not entirely) from his original strong implication that Aoki was more than an informant and in fact a provocateur who "set up" the Panthers and others. In fact, he even seems to admit the belief that Aoki was nonetheless a sincere activist. Very bizarre overall, no matter what the truth is.

After decades of FOIA disclosures, why would anyone rule out CINTELPRO operatives planting false records in their own files?

---

Nothing of course can be ruled out but it seems doubtful that the FBI would have gone through the trouble of creating hundreds of pages of fake documents.

http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2012/09/07/final-thoughts-on-richard-aoki/

mike - there are myriad levels, degrees and types of informants and provocateurs, and indeed there is plenty of overlap in the spectrum. i am not disagreeing with that. so what is to be done for people like aoki (assuming the charges and recent document release are true) who may have been informants - recruited out of high school - but who thereafter became dedicated believers in and contributors to the cause? i believe it's a question that fits in with your general call for discussion and debate on the issue.

What surprises me is the idea that there's even doubt as to whether informants can or should be "rehabilitated."

Someone who has dedicated their lives to destroying the people's prospects for liberation is somehow owed mercy? I mean, we're talking about the worst of worst here.

It's one thing for people to make mistakes. And I'm someone who believes that people deserve to be given the chance to atone for mistakes. But being a snitch is no mistake. It is a conscious act of betrayal. It is the single most counterrevolutionary thing you can do, even worse than being an open fascist.

I have a deep belief human redemption, but certain things are just beyond the the pale. Shooting up a movie theater full of innocent people is one, being a snitch is another.

I have no idea whether or not Aoki is guilty, but if he was a snitch, there's really nothing more to say.

Having said that, there's a lot that's suspicious in the story, especially the timing and the source.

I find the idea that this is a government setup more incredulous than the idea that Aoki was a snitch for decades.

It is <i>possible</i>, but then I'd have to ask why? Was Aoki, at the turn of this century, valuable enough to create such an elaborate smear.

This would have to have been a multiyear operation to smear him, and it would be pursued even after his death. Hundreds of documents are created, using period typewriters, the government then fights the release, delaying the release well beyond Aoki's death. This during a period when almost all of the Fed's resources are being directed towards anti-terrorist investigations.

It's possible, but I think it unlikely.

I <i>do</i> think it's important we have a verdict on Aoki, because it's also a verdict on us. Comrades are having a hard time dealing with the depth to which they were fooled (probably because, at a certain point, Aoki fooled himself). We have to accept that we are fallible, that we can be tricked, and that some in the movement will not be provocateurs, but simply informants, and we will never know, unless we win, or somehow they get outed.