After killing that annoying overlay in the web inspector, I got to read a terrible, shallow article.
As a layman reader, the assumptions made by the author and Athan Theoharis seem pretty big, unless they have something else to back it up.
The arguments seem to go like this:
1. CIA denies having a file on Chomsky
2. Someone find a memo that _mentions_ Chomsky
3. Assumption 1: Therefore the CIA had a file on him
4. Assumption 2: Since the CIA had a file at some point, the denial is a lie, but we'll also take it as truth and conclude that they destroyed the file
5. Assumption 3: Destroying CIA files clearly falls under the Federal Records Act.
I mean, at least give me a little more reason to believe those conclusions. Historically or by policy does it really follow that mentioning Chomsky means he has a file? I find it hard to believe that, like Wikipedia, just mentioning someone (in the 70's at least) creates their file. Have CIA files already been determined to have "historical value", is there a case? Otherwise I just have to trust this guys opinion.
As a lay reader who has worked in Government, this isn't about assumptions, it's about how bureaucracies work.
Theoharis is interviewed because he is a lifelong expert on FBI-CIA cooperation. Presumably this is worth something. His argument is that if a letter goes from CIA to FBI or vice versa regarding "NOAM CHOMSKY" then this means that at minimum there is a file labelled "NOAM CHOMSKY" containing this memo at both the CIA and the FBI. Therefore when the CIA said nothing was found under FOIA requests for a file on Noam Chomsky either (a) this was a lie or (b) the file was illegally destroyed.
Based on my own experience working in government offices, this is a pretty sound argument. If a letter is sent from X to Y about Z, then there has to be a file on Z to put the letter into (both at the sender's and receiver's ends). If the file doesn't exist, it will be created just to hold that letter.
Even if what you claim is true, it still backs my point that some more explanation is needed on why those conclusions can be drawn.
Regarding the argument itself, was the memo really "regarding" Noam Chomsky? It reads to me like it's about some other people traveling to Vietnam, and the "with the endorsement of Noam Chomsky and Cora Weiss" is the only mention of him. Is it your claim that the mere mentioning of a person by name in a CIA memo means that there's a file on that person? Is there a copy of that memo in the files of all 8 people mentioned by name? If so, this expert should say that because it's relevant and interesting.
This is "large bureaucracy 101" and shouldn't need explaining:
1) The letter means the files existed.
2) The government said the files didn't exist.
3) The government lied (illegal) OR destroyed the files (illegal).
(1) is the part that I don't just assume is always true.
The "there's are names in a memo" => "there's a file on every person named" logic is something that, if true, would be nice to back up just a little, at least state why that's true for the CIA beyond saying it's true of all bureaucracies. (And I too have I've worked in large bureaucracies, including the government/military and with classified material)
Your argument seems to be that since the CIA is a large bureaucracy, that they have this hypertext-like system of filing copies of all documents in every file associated with terms in the document. I don't doubt that they _now_ have a system like this - they'd be silly not to. But in the 70's? That's, like I said, interesting and relevant if true. And it'd be nice to at least have the expert say "Yes, this is how the CIA managed documents in the 70's based on (CIA statements | my investigations | interviews | etc)."
I'm not saying that the CIA didn't have a file on Chomsky, it would surprise me if they didn't, but that jump from mention to file deserves a little more treatment.
My experience of bureaucracies dates back to the mid 80s when nothing much was (in Australia) computerized. I'm not talking about a "hypertext-like system of filing" but a physical room full of hanging folders with unique numbers and index cards. (You've seen images of the -- newly added! -- file compactuses* at the Department of Veterans' Affairs -- like that.)
* Not a typo: compactus is a specific piece of furniture.
If a letter primarily concerning X gets sent, a copy of it is retained in the file on X, and the receiver puts the item in another file on X. If necessary, multiple copies are retained and placed in multiple files (e.g. the letter also concerns Y so photocopy it and insert it in files on Y).
Each page in a file is numbered (this is called a "folio number") and the file's folder is amended to show the new inserts and increased folio count. It's hard in such a system to lose a page and very hard to erase evidence of its prior existence.
Typically, multiple index cards (e.g. "Chomsky, Noam -- file 12345") will get created for each file, and inventory will be taken of all files, folios, and index cards on a regular basis. Destroying a file or folio creates visible gaps and broken references, so it's actually a pretty robust system. Yes indeed, this is how this crap worked before computers.
They didn't find some random memo that merely mentioned Chomsky.
They found a memo from CIA to the FBI, requesting to provide more information on people and actions related to an event, with the justification that the event was "endorsed by Chomsky" (as if he was someone dangerous whom you should watch carefully the groups and events he endorses).
I'd rather trust the "expert on CIA/FBI" that a random comment that mis-represents the article so badly.
(Well, beside the obvious that of course they had a file on Chomsky, that's what they do, and people like Chomsky is who they target. If not the CIA, the FBI sure did, and CIA had them do work for them and took peeks. Heck, they had huge files on people like John Lennon and MLK).
As a layman reader, the assumptions made by the author and Athan Theoharis seem pretty big, unless they have something else to back it up.
The arguments seem to go like this:
1. CIA denies having a file on Chomsky
2. Someone find a memo that _mentions_ Chomsky
3. Assumption 1: Therefore the CIA had a file on him
4. Assumption 2: Since the CIA had a file at some point, the denial is a lie, but we'll also take it as truth and conclude that they destroyed the file
5. Assumption 3: Destroying CIA files clearly falls under the Federal Records Act.
I mean, at least give me a little more reason to believe those conclusions. Historically or by policy does it really follow that mentioning Chomsky means he has a file? I find it hard to believe that, like Wikipedia, just mentioning someone (in the 70's at least) creates their file. Have CIA files already been determined to have "historical value", is there a case? Otherwise I just have to trust this guys opinion.