DIY History | Transcribe | Campus Culture | University of Iowa anti-war protests, 1970 | 1970-12-03 Daily Iowa Editorial: ""The 'evidence' of repression""

Transcribe
Translate

University of Iowa anti-war protests, 1970

1970-12-03 Daily Iowa Editorial: ""The 'evidence' of repression""

The Daily Iowan 
OPINIONS
PAGE 2 THURSDAY, DECEMBER 3, 1970 IOWA CITY , IOWA

Editor Leona Durham, Managing Editor Amy Chapman, News Editor Lowell May, Copy Editor John Camp, City-University Editor Willard Rawn, Editorial Page Editor Cheryl Miller, Photography Editor Diane Hypes, Fine Arts Editor Michael Ryan, Sports Editor Jay Ewaldt, Associate News Editor Mike McGravey, Assoc. City-University Editor Debbie Romine, Assoc. City-University Editor Richard Ter Maat
Assoc. Sports Editor John Richards, Assoc. Photo Editor Jan Williams. 

The 'evidence' of repression. 

The City Council approved unanimously Tuesday a recommendation to dissolve the injunction against anti-war demonstrators that was issued last May. 
Jay Honohan City Attorney, said in his report to the council that he did not anticipate "any trouble" this year. 
Howard Sokol, Assistant to the Provost, also said that there is no indication that there will be future campus disturbances. " We have no reason to expect any disturbances," he said. " We see no need to have an injunction if no one is breaking the law,"
Last August, however Police Chief Patrick McCarney and Detective Ronald Evans were among those who predicted a different future. They testified, at a hearing on the injunction, that the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Bureau of Criminal Investigation had infiltrated radical organizations on campus, and knew of student plans to close down the school by the second week of the fall semester. Not only that, but the disruption was going to be "fifty times worse than last spring."
Because of the nature of an injunction hearing, where no one is actually accused of anything. McCarney and Evans were not required to give any evidence to support their statements. They did not have to give the names of their informers. There was no way for the people named on the injunction to refute the testimony against them, except to say that they had no knowledge of any such plans. 
And yet, largely based on this testimony, the injunction was granted. 
This same tactic of disclosing bits of unsubstantiated secret information to frighten people into doing what you want was used last week by FBI director J.Edgar Hoover, in front of a Senate appropriations subcommittee. 
He revealed FBI knowledge of a plot by the East Coast Conspiracy to Save Lives, a pacifistic anti-war organization to kidnap a White House official and bomb the Capitol building. The story was carried by banner headlines across the nation. 
The organization, composed of Catholic priests, nuns and laymen, whose actions in the past have been taken against property, not people, denied Hoover's story, calling it scar propaganda, intended to pave the way for repression. Philip and Daniel Berrigan also implicated in the plot, issued a statement demanding Hoover to "either prosecute us or publicly retract the charges."
In a criminal trial however, you have to give evidence backing up your statements. 
As it turned out, there was no attempt to close down school this fall. If things are fifty times worse than last spring, maybe it is because there has been no student response to the continued war in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laod, the continued presence of ROTC on campus, and the newly resumed bombing of North Vietnam.
Sokol is right. There is no need for an injunction. There was never a need for an injunction. From the beginning its only purpose was to scare people out of their right to dissent. ( Highway Patrol Capt. Lyle Dickinson addressing the hundreds of students sitting in on the Pentacrest last May warned that under the injunction they were committing a felony is they didn't move). 
Police Chief McCarney, when asked about the legitimacy of his unsubstantiated last summer, in the light of an exceptionally quiet fall, said " Absolutely no comment."
He doesn't have to comment. He got his injunction when he wanted it, just like Hoover will probably get his money. - Debbie Bayer

Saving...

The Daily Iowan OPINIONS PAGE 2 THURSDAY, DECEMBER 3, 1970 IOWA CITY , IOWA Editor Leona Durham, Managing Editor Amy Chapman, News Editor Lowell May, Copy Editor John Camp, City-University Editor Willard Rawn, Editorial Page Editor Cheryl Miller, Photography Editor Diane Hypes, Fine Arts Editor Michael Ryan, Sports Editor Jay Ewaldt, Associate News Editor Mike McGravey, Assoc. City-University Editor Debbie Romine, Assoc. City-University Editor Richard Ter Maat Assoc. Sports Editor John Richards, Assoc. Photo Editor Jan Williams. The 'evidence' of repression. The City Council approved unanimously Tuesday a recommendation to dissolve the injunction against anti-war demonstrators that was issued last May. Jay Honohan City Attorney, said in his report to the council that he did not anticipate "any trouble" this year. Howard Sokol, Assistant to the Provost, also said that there is no indication that there will be future campus disturbances. " We have no reason to expect any disturbances," he said. " We see no need to have an injunction if no one is breaking the law," Last August, however Police Chief Patrick McCarney and Detective Ronald Evans were among those who predicted a different future. They testified, at a hearing on the injunction, that the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Bureau of Criminal Investigation had infiltrated radical organizations on campus, and knew of student plans to close down the school by the second week of the fall semester. Not only that, but the disruption was going to be "fifty times worse than last spring." Because of the nature of an injunction hearing, where no one is actually accused of anything. McCarney and Evans were not required to give any evidence to support their statements. They did not have to give the names of their informers. There was no way for the people named on the injunction to refute the testimony against them, except to say that they had no knowledge of any such plans. And yet, largely based on this testimony, the injunction was granted. This same tactic of disclosing bits of unsubstantiated secret information to frighten people into doing what you want was used last week by FBI director J.Edgar Hoover, in front of a Senate appropriations subcommittee. He revealed FBI knowledge of a plot by the East Coast Conspiracy to Save Lives, a pacifistic anti-war organization to kidnap a White House official and bomb the Capitol building. The story was carried by banner headlines across the nation. The organization, composed of Catholic priests, nuns and laymen, whose actions in the past have been taken against property, not people, denied Hoover's story, calling it scar propaganda, intended to pave the way for repression. Philip and Daniel Berrigan also implicated in the plot, issued a statement demanding Hoover to "either prosecute us or publicly retract the charges." In a criminal trial however, you have to give evidence backing up your statements. As it turned out, there was no attempt to close down school this fall. If things are fifty times worse than last spring, maybe it is because there has been no student response to the continued war in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laod, the continued presence of ROTC on campus, and the newly resumed bombing of North Vietnam. Sokol is right. There is no need for an injunction. There was never a need for an injunction. From the beginning its only purpose was to scare people out of their right to dissent. ( Highway Patrol Capt. Lyle Dickinson addressing the hundreds of students sitting in on the Pentacrest last May warned that under the injunction they were committing a felony is they didn't move). Police Chief McCarney, when asked about the legitimacy of his unsubstantiated last summer, in the light of an exceptionally quiet fall, said " Absolutely no comment." He doesn't have to comment. He got his injunction when he wanted it, just like Hoover will probably get his money. - Debbie Bayer