|
CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS FOUNDATION
Bill of Right in Action Fall
1995 (11:4) This special edition of Bill of Rights in Action
focuses U.S. Government: The Aftermath of Terror World History: Terrorism: How Have Other Countries Handled It? How Should We? U.S. History: Conspiracy Theories: Attacks on Jefferson Set the Pattern U.S. Government: Talk Radio: Playground for Free Speech or a Forum for Hate? On April 19, 1995, a large bomb exploded in front of the nine-story Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City. The explosion claimed the lives of 168 people, 19 of them children. News of the tragedy spread quickly. Based on early media reports, rumors flew speculating that foreign terrorists had set off the bomb. Representatives of Arab and Muslim Americans reported threats and feared retaliation. Rescue workers performed heroically until all hope for trapped survivors was lost. On television vast numbers of Americans watched as the people of Oklahoma City grieved and buried the victims of the most deadly example of terrorism in U.S. history. As the grim business of recovering bodies continued, the FBI and other law enforcement agencies launched a massive investigation to bring the killers to justice. Domestic terror had scarred the heart of America. An Early Breakthrough Within an hour of the bombing, the FBI sent teams of investigators to Oklahoma City to crack the case. One important clue came when an agent, searching the streets near the federal building, found a scrap of metal, twisted by the blast. It turned out to be a piece of a truck axle with a vehicle identification number etched upon it. These numbers are placed on auto parts to help identify stolen vehicles. A second important clue came from a bank videotape camera across the street from the federal building. Its tape showed a Ryder rental truck parked in front of the building just before the blast. The FBI traced the truck to a rental company in Junction City, Kansas, some 270 miles from the bombing site. The truck had been rented two days before the bombing, but the two men who had rented it had used phony identification. Still, the FBI got descriptions and turned them into composite sketches, which they broadcast nationwide. Armed with the drawings, the FBI spread out around Junction City asking questions. At a local motel, the owner identified one of the sketches as Tim McVeigh, a man who had stayed at her motel and checked out the day before the bombing. Tips from the public also started coming in. A former co-worker of McVeigh's recognized him from the composite sketch. He told the FBI that McVeigh had been in the army and hated the government. McVeigh, according to the informer, was especially angry about the federal raid on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas. During the siege of the compound, 86 men, and children died, mostly in a fire started by cult members during the final assault. Four federal agents also died. The date of the final assault was especially important. It took place on April 19, two years to the day of the Oklahoma bombing. Investigators began to realize that the bomb had not been set off by foreign fanatics, but by Americans. Unknown to the FBI at the time, McVeigh was already in custody. A state trooper, spotting no license plates on McVeigh's car, had pulled him over some 60 miles north of Oklahoma City less than 90 minutes after the bombing. Noticing a bulge under McVeigh's jacket, the officer seized a 9-mm pistol hidden there and arrested him. By searching its national database, the FBI discovered McVeigh's whereabouts and took him into custody, just 30 minutes before he was scheduled to be released. McVeigh's real driver's license offered the FBI another important clue. He gave as his address a farm in Decker, Michigan, owned by James Nichols. FBI agents raided the farm and interviewed neighbors, who claimed Nichols built small bombs and had some connection to extremist groups. Nichols' brother, Terry, an army friend of McVeigh, soon gave himself up to authorities as well. The two brothers were held as material witnesses. With the arrests, federal prosecutors began building what has been called a "strong circumstantial" case against McVeigh and Terry Nichols. The Federal Prosecution On August 10, 1995, some four months after the bombing, federal prosecutors obtained grand jury indictments against McVeigh, Terry Nichols, and a friend who served in the army with them, Michael Fortier. McVeigh and Nichols were charged with one count of conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction to kill people and destroy property and one count of using such a device that caused death and injury. They were also charged with malicious destruction of federal property and eight counts of murdering federal law enforcement officers. Fortier was charged with conspiracy to transport and the transportation of stolen firearms. He was also charged with concealing evidence, making false statements to the FBI, and failing to report the bomb plot to authorities. Fortier pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 12 years and a $200,000 fine. He also became the star witness for the prosecution in the MacVeigh case. Charges were dismissed against James Nichols. According to prosecutors, all three defendants hated the federal government, and the conspiracy to bomb the federal building began as early as September 13, 1994, when McVeigh and others met in Fortier's trailer in Kingman, Arizona. The prosecutors claimed that McVeigh and Nichols planned the bombing and selected the target and that McVeigh delivered the bomb to the site. Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols pleaded not guilty to all charges. The defense characterized the prosecutor's proof as a "thin circumstantial case." The defense also argued that the prosecution had the wrong defendants. For example, it pointed to evidence found at the bombing site that it alleged demonstrated that the real bombers died in the blast. The defense also sought to discredit the testimony of Fortier, who claimed no knowledge of the events when first questioned by the FBI. Finally, the defense argued that a fair trial would be impossible in Oklahoma, and as a consequence, the trial was moved to Colorado. For their part, federal authorities continued investigating to determine if more people were involved. The Militia Connection The bombing in Oklahoma and its investigation brought to national attention the existence of the so-called militia movement. Allegations arose that McVeigh had contact with the Michigan Militia Corps, a group that claims 12,000 members. Group representatives say that McVeigh was not a member, and McVeigh denies having attended meetings. For their part, the Michigan militia and other groups deny any connection to the bombing. Still, the defendants and the militia seem to share many similar ideas. Experts claim that militia groups can be found in more than 30 states and may involve up to 100,000 Americans. Many of the groups hold paramilitary exercises and practice with firearms. Some groups, like the Aryan Nations, the Order, and the Ku Klux Klan, believe in white supremacy and sow hatred against minorities. Others, like the Michigan militia and a larger group called the Unorganized Militia of the United States, disavow racism and anti-semitism. While it is difficult to characterize such diverse groups, they seem to have certain things in common. All of the groups seem to hate and deeply distrust the federal government. Most of the groups seem to believe the government is involved in some kind of conspiracy to deprive Americans of their liberties. Some believe that the federal government is controlled by Jews who are trying to destroy white Christians. Others believe that the government is part of a multinational conspiracy called The New World Order, which plans to take away American sovereignty. They worry that the United Nations is using foreign military forces to spy on Americans and is plotting to take control. Almost all of the groups strongly believe that the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment gives Americans the right to own any kind of firearm. They view recent federal gun control legislation, especially the assault weapons ban, as an attack on basic liberty. For this reason, many hate and distrust the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), which is charged with enforcing federal gun laws. Of particular concern to many militia members, as it was with McVeigh, was the tragic raid at Waco against David Koresh and his followers. Many viewed the raid as mass murder by the U.S. government and a demonstration of how ruthless the ATF had become. Federal authorities, while acknowledging mistakes, argued that the actions were legal and the deaths resulted from the actions of the Davidians. Another rallying cry of the militias concerned the case of white supremacist Randy Weaver in 1992. During a standoff with authorities, Weaver's wife and teen-aged son were killed as was one FBI agent. Weaver was later acquitted of murder-conspiracy charges, but federal authorities denied any wrongdoing. Still, the government settled a wrongful death case with the family for $3.1 million. The revelations about the militia movement divided American opinion. Some believe that the militia members are basically law-abiding people who like firearms and maneuvers and are just exercising their constitutional rights. Others view the groups with alarm as armed and dangerous right-wing fanatics who advocate violence and the overthrow of our democratically elected government. The Political Fall-Out While virtually all Americans condemned those who bombed the Oklahoma City federal building, opinions differ about what to do about terrorism or the growing militia movement. Within days of the bombing, President Clinton proposed a bi-partisan effort to strengthen national anti-terrorist laws. In 1995, both Clinton and Dole signed a bill enabling 1,000 more federal anti-terrorist agents and tougher anti-terrorist legislation. This legislation made planning a terrorist act a federal crime, eased restrictions on information gathering by the FBI against suspected terrorist groups, and provided more money for counterterrorism efforts. While the anti-terrorism bill enjoyed bi-partisan support, the issues raised by the bombing continued to excite controversy. President Clinton made a speech criticizing voices in America that promoted hatred of government and violence against authority. He also argued that such voices encouraged actions like the Oklahoma bombing. His remarks were interpreted as an attack on a number of conservative talk radio shows. Republicans reacted angrily claiming that the president was playing politics with the Oklahoma tragedy and trying to chill free speech. Soon the Democrats would make similar charges. The Republican-controlled Congress held hearings on the events in Waco. Democrats charged that the hearings were unnecessary and designed only to embarrass the Clinton administration. They also charged that the National Rifle Association had helped Republicans re-open the case. Republicans countered that the hearings' purpose was only to get to the truth and determine whether there had been any government wrongdoing. The Trials Continue Only two months after the commencement of his federal trial, the jury sentenced 29 year old Timothy MacVeigh to death by lethal injection. In 1997, Terry Nichols was sentenced to life imprisonment. Both men continue to maintain that they are not guilty of the bombing and have appealed the federal decisions. Recently, the federal appeals court ruled to release the evidence used in the federal trial to the Oklahoma court. However, the release of this evidence has been delayed in order to give the defense a chance to appeal. As of now, MacVeigh and Nichols are scheduled to be tried in Oklahoma state court for mass murder in August of 2000. No matter what the results of the various trials, the impact of the Oklahoma City bombing on America will be long lasting. It remains to be seen how it will affect our sense of security or what additional measures will be taken to counter terrorism. It also remains to be seen whether the tragedy that brought Americans together in grief and concern will ultimately drive us apart as we debate the issues it raised. Only one thing is certain. For those who lost loved ones and friends on that terrible April day, life has been changed forever. As the people of Oklahoma City try to heal and rebuild, the rest of us must strive to eliminate violence, hatred, and extremism from the American political scene. For Discussion
A C T I V I T Y A Written Debate In this activity, class members will prepare brief written position statements on various issues raised in the aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing and hold a debate on the issues. 1. Have class members select one of the following topics to debate and choose a pro or con position.
2. After selecting a topic, write a position statement of no more than one page, pro or con. Provide reasons for your position using examples from the reading, your own ideas, and additional research. 3. Group class members in pro and con groups for each topic. Have members of each group review and critique one another's position statements. Then develop a consensus argument drawing the best ideas from each paper. 4. Hold a class debate on each of the three topics using the consensus positions. Decide which group made the best arguments. Terrorism:
How Have Other Countries The bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995, did more than end the lives of 168 persons. It also brought terrorism to the heartland of America. For the past 25 years, terrorists have operated in many countries. Except for a few small violent leftist groups during the Vietnam War years, the United States has been relatively free of this plague. A sign of things to come, however, occurred in 1993 when a massive explosion destroyed the underground garage of the World Trade Center in New York City killing six. Those responsible belonged to a group of Arab extremists who viewed America as an evil force in the world. But the Oklahoma City bombing was apparently the work of one or more Americans angry at their own government. If this is true, the sort of home-grown violent groups other countries have been combating for years may be finally taking root in the United States. What is terrorism? The British government, which has been fighting terrorism in Northern Ireland since the late 1960s, defines it as "the use of violence for political ends." This includes "any use of violence for the purpose of putting the public . . . in fear." Terrorist groups typically reject democratic means of change, like elections, and believe that only violence can bring about their political goals. Terrorists often strike out at ordinary, innocent people—even children. They want to show that the government cannot protect its own citizens. When the government tries to increase public safety by restricting certain freedoms, the terrorists are likely to charge that it has become a dictatorship not worthy of public support. The aim of terrorists is to turn people against the government. While most Americans may not know much about terrorists and how they behave, other nations have had a great deal of experience. Especially in Europe, democracies have shown that terrorism can be eliminated or at least greatly reduced. How have other countries fought terrorism within their borders? What should we do about it here? West Germany: Red Army Faction Since 1970, the most dangerous terrorists in Europe have been associated with Marxist and other left-wing revolutionary groups. One of the first of these violent groups to form was the Red Army Faction (RAF), also known as the Baader-Meinhof Gang. Operating mostly in West Germany throughout the 1970s, the RAF directed its terrorist acts at "American imperialism." Targets included the U.S. military as well as German political and business leaders. The Red Army Faction carried out bombings, shootings, kidnappings, and bank robberies. From 1970 to 1979, the RAF killed 31 persons, injured about 100, took 163 hostages, and was responsible for 25 bombings. Among those killed was the attorney general of West Germany, the head of a national employer association, and several American soldiers stationed in West Germany. One of the early anti-terrorist measures taken by the West German government was to require all government employees to take a loyalty oath. But this measure was soon criticized as a pointless intrusion into people's lives and was virtually abandoned. In 1976, West Germany made it a crime to establish a terrorist organization. Other changes in the law increased police powers. With court approval, the police could search entire apartment buildings for suspected terrorists. The police could also establish checkpoints on roadways to stop and inspect the identification of travelers. The West Germans expanded their intelligence gathering agencies. They also organized a crack anti-terrorist reaction unit. This unit could reportedly assemble in 15 minutes and deploy anywhere in the country within an hour with high-speed helicopters, special land vehicles, and high-tech weapons. At first, the West Germans granted concessions to the Red Army Faction terrorists in hostage situations. But this only prompted the RAF to take more hostages and demand that the government release RAF leaders in prison. In 1975, West German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt reversed the policy of granting concessions to terrorists. When he refused to give in to RAF demands after it took over the West German embassy in Stockholm, Sweden, two diplomats died before the hostage-takers were killed or captured. But hostage-taking by the RAF dropped off after this incident. Most governments today say they do not negotiate or grant concessions to terrorists. But experts caution never to say never. By the early 1980s, most Red Army Faction members were either dead or in prison. The success of this West German anti-terrorist effort was due mainly to good intelligence and police work that did not seriously threaten the civil liberties of the people. Italy: Red Brigades The Red Brigades began forming in Milan auto factories around 1970. These revolutionary groups were led by Marxist university students who believed that the workers were ready to rise up against their capitalist masters. Soon the Red Brigades started committing major terrorist acts throughout Italy. They participated in kidnappings, bombings, political assassinations, and shootings. A favorite tactic was "kneecapping," shooting victims in the legs to permanently cripple them. During the 1970s and early 1980s, Red Brigade terrorists committed more than 10,000 acts of political violence and took the lives of over 400 persons. This group's most notorious act was the kidnapping and murder of Aldo Moro, the former leader of Italy. His brutal killing ended whatever sympathy Italians had for the Red Brigades. Nearly four years later, Red Brigade terrorists kidnapped General James Lee Dozier, the American NATO commander. But, by this time, Italian anti-terrorist intelligence units were closing in and Dozier was rescued. As Red Brigade violence grew during the 1970s, the Italian government increased the authority of police to stop, search, and detain terrorist suspects. Individuals who refused to identify themselves could be held and questioned for up to 24 hours without having a lawyer present. Restrictions on telephone wiretaps were eased. It became a crime to join, organize, or promote any group seeking to overthrow the democratic system through violence. One of the most successful tactics used by the Italian government was to reduce the sentences of convicted terrorists if they volunteered information about Red Brigade leaders and activities. Many youthful Brigade members, facing decades behind bars, chose to cooperate with the authorities. Consequently, the Red Brigade movement began to collapse. Over 800 members were arrested following the rescue of Gen. Dozier in January 1982. By the mid-1980s, the Red Brigades were nearly extinct. As in Germany, the Italian government managed to wipe out a dangerous terrorist threat with minimal disruption to the rights of ordinary citizens. Northern Ireland: Protestants vs. Catholics In the 1920s, the British Parliament divided Ireland into two parts. It granted independence to most of the island, whose inhabitants are over 90 percent Catholic. It retained, however, the northern six counties as part of Great Britain. Northern Ireland, also called Ulster, is about 60 percent Protestant and 40 percent Catholic. Since the partition of Ireland, the Protestants and Catholics in Ulster have had different political goals. The Protestant majority, which dominate the Ulster government, want Northern Ireland to remain a part of Great Britain. The Catholic minority, which fears discrimination by the Protestants, wants Northern Ireland to unify with the independent nation of Ireland. If this were to happen, the Protestants would become an instant minority. They fear they would then be subject to Catholic discrimination. Because of these fears, religious and political hatreds fueled by terrorist violence have divided the Protestant and Catholic communities in Northern Ireland for more than half a century. In 1969, rioting reached such a dangerous state that the British Army was sent to Northern Ireland to restore order. The army remains to this day due to continued violence by both Protestant and Catholic terrorist groups. Over the past 25 years, terrorists have killed more than 3,000 persons in Northern Ireland. About 800 bombings have taken place. While most of the terrorism has occurred in Northern Ireland, bombings and other violent acts have also been carried out on the British mainland. The Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act, passed by the British Parliament in 1978, granted significant powers to the army, police, and prosecutors. Under certain circumstances, police may conduct searches and arrests without warrants. Police may detain "suspected terrorists" for up to 72 hours before bringing them before a judge. Jury trials in criminal cases have been abolished because terrorist groups have intimidated jurors. During trial, prosecutors may submit evidence by affidavit instead of calling witnesses to testify in person. The burden of proof in illegal firearms possession cases is placed on the defendant. Britain also has a Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act, which has been renewed annually since 1974. This act outlaws certain groups that have advocated violence, such as the Irish Republican Army (IRA). The act also authorizes the detention of suspects without charge for up to seven days. Unlike West Germany and Italy, Great Britain has not put terrorist organizations out of action. One major reason for this is the widespread support and protection terrorists get from the Protestant and Catholic communities in Northern Ireland. In 1994, the Irish Republican Army, long banned as a terrorist organization by the British government, announced a cease fire. This led the British to agree to talk with the IRA and others about a permanent political settlement for Northern Ireland. Disagreements at the peace talks led to a renewal of IRA’s military operations in 1996, although the organization claimed that it remained ready to develop a meaningful negotiations process. A year later, the peace talks resumed and the number of murders by the IRA as well as unionist terrorist organizations skyrocketed. As a result, the Ulster Democratic Party and Sinn Féin were expelled from the peace talks because of their affiliation with terrorist organizations. The remaining representatives from Great Britain and the Irish Republic produced a settlement called the Good Friday Agreement, which created the Northern Ireland Assembly. In spite of this agreement, dissention and violence continue in Northern Ireland. Days after voters in Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic approved the Good Friday Agreement, a splinter group from the IRA bombed Omagh. The bomb killed 29 people and wounded over 200, constituting the most deadly parliamentary attack in Northern Irish history. The peace accords set May of 2000 as the deadline for the complete disarmament of Northern Irish terrorist groups, and many groups have complied. While the IRA has agreed to put their weapons "beyond use" in storage sites supervised by third parties, those who distrust the IRA are not comfortable with this compromise. Indeed, many members of the Northern Ireland Assembly continue to express doubts about the IRA enjoying any access to their weapons, however limited. They oppose the idea of seating Sinn Féin in the Northern Ireland Assembly until the IRA completely disarms. United States: Security vs. Freedom The United States undoubtedly needs to take steps to prevent terrorism at home, something other countries have done for decades. But should traditional American rights and freedoms be sacrificed in order to crack down on terrorist groups and suspects? Yale law professor Stephen Carter warns, "If terrorists can cause us to become a closed and fearful society, they win." Since the World Trade Center bombing, owners of the New York City office complex are spending $25 million annually for security guards, surveillance cameras, and other anti-terrorist measures. Should the same sort of thing be done in government buildings? Should the police be given special powers to search and interrogate terrorist suspects? Should potentially violent organizations be outlawed? James Q. Wilson, professor of public policy at UCLA, thinks that the best way to control terrorists within the United States is to make use of informants and FBI undercover agents. In any case, Americans can no longer assume that the threat of terrorism is only a problem for other countries. For Discussion and Writing
For Further Information Compton’s Encyclopedia Online: Terrorism: An encyclopedia article focusing on the terrorist organizations that have emerged since the late 1960s around the world. PBS Frontline: The IRA and Sinn Féin: This site provides press coverage and historical background about Northern Ireland. A C T I V I T Y Terrorism Prevention Act Listed below are six hypothetical measures similar to those used by other countries to combat terrorism within their borders. In this activity, students will imagine that they are members of Congress considering whether or not the United States should adopt any of these measures.
Anti-Terrorist Measures
Conspiracy
Theories: Attacks on Patriots Awake! Before It's Too Late! After most American disasters in this century—the stock market crash of 1929, the bombing of Pearl Harbor, the assassination of President John F. Kennedy—strange conspiracy theories have surfaced. The theories often sound the same: A small, evil elite group, with unbelievable power to coordinate a vast, secret conspiracy, is responsible for the disaster. So in the wake of the terrorist bombing at Oklahoma City, it should come as no surprise that conspiracy theories are floating about. Conspiracy theories did not start in this century. Some date back to the founding of the republic. One of the first even linked Thomas Jefferson to an evil web of conspirators. During the presidential election campaign in 1800, Jefferson's Federalist opponents set out to inflame public opinion against him. The Federalists warned that Jefferson would lead the new nation into terror and tyranny. Jefferson was also accused of being anti-religion and making blasphemous remarks about Jesus. Rumors spread that Jefferson was part of a world-wide conspiracy to destroy governments, private property, and Christianity. According to those believing in this conspiracy, Jefferson was in league with an elitist group of Europeans known as the Illuminati. The Illuminati supposedly infiltrated the government of King Louis XVI and brought about the bloody French Revolution. Jefferson's enemies pointed out that he was the American ambassador to France in the years before the revolution. From this they leaped to the conclusion that he must have joined the Illuminati conspiracy at that time and was now plotting against democracy and religion in the United States. While Jefferson believed in the ideals of equality and freedom of religion, he certainly was no terrorist or even an atheist. But the campaign to smear him as an Illuminati conspirator set the pattern for American conspiracy theories. Conspiracy theories claim that some evil group is plotting to destroy our way of life. Most have remarkably similar characteristics. What are they, and how can we tell the difference between a real conspiracy and an imagined one? The Mother of Conspiracy Theories There really was an organization known as the Illuminati, and its members practiced secret rituals. It was founded in what is now Germany in 1776 by Adam Weishaupt, a professor of religion. Weishaupt's followers were called the Illuminati because they considered themselves to be illuminated by the light of truth. The 18th century in Europe has been called the Enlightenment or Age of Reason. Many thinkers at this time believed that the old social order should be replaced by new forms of government and religion based on human reason. The Illuminati fit into this way of thinking. They advocated that all monarchies, private property, established religions, and even the institution of marriage should be abolished to bring about true equality and goodness. In 1780, the Illuminati began to merge their ideas with those of another society, the Masons (also known as the Freemasons). Masonic lodges had been around since the Middle Ages and were established throughout Europe and America. Benjamin Franklin and George Washington but not Jefferson) were Masons. Despite their influence on Freemasonry, the Illuminati as a group fell apart in 1785 due to both internal conflicts and government repression. When the French Revolution began a few years later, however, some people saw it as the evil handiwork of the Illuminati and their Masonic brothers. The fact that a former Illuminati leader visited Paris shortly after the outbreak of the revolution fed the belief that the secret organization was still in business conspiring to turn the world upside down. In 1797, a Scottish professor of philosophy, John Robison, wrote a book titled, Proofs of a Conspiracy against All the Religions and Governments of Europe, Carried on in Secret Meetings of Freemasons and Reading Societies. Robison argued that an evil conspiracy fueled by Illuminati ideas and put into action by Freemasons brought France to her knees and now threatened the world. He warned, "the enemy is working among us." Although Robison assembled numerous "proofs," he still had to depend on his readers to make a leap of faith that all his facts added up to a massive world-wide conspiracy. In reality, several conspiratorial groups did exist, which had been driven underground by repressive European governments. But Robinson's single-minded conspiracy, which wormed its way into all parts of society, existed only in his imagination. Robison's book spread word of the supposed Illuminati conspiracy to America. In 1798, New England ministers preached that the godless Illuminati elite already controlled Europe and were planning to take over the United States next. Two years later, during the presidential campaign of 1800, Federalists tried to tie Jefferson to the conspiracy. But he was elected anyway and went on to serve two terms without delivering the republic into the clutches of imaginary world conspirators. Common Characteristics The Illuminati conspiracy theory of Jefferson's time set the pattern for others that followed in American history. While the groups accused of plotting against America changed over the years, the characteristics of the theories claiming to expose them remained much the same. During the 1820s, the Masons became the target of conspiracy theories. Long associated in the minds of some people with the Illuminati, the Masons were accused of disloyalty and secretly planning to destroy American democracy. Shortly afterward, large numbers of American protestants became convinced that the Catholics were hard at work trying to hand over control of the U.S. government to the pope in Rome. In the 1920s, Jews came under the spotlight of conspiracy theorists when automaker Henry Ford and others publicized the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion." This wholly fictional work was supposed to be the blueprint for the Jewish takeover of the world. During the early years of the Cold War, communists were viewed as a sinister force infiltrating every part of society from the movie industry to the U.S. State Department. While communists were certainly active in America, those who supported conspiracy theories exaggerated their importance. Take, for example, Senator Joseph McCarthy, a leader of the hunt to find communists in the government. He said at the time: How can we account for our present situation, unless we believe that men high in this government are concerting to deliver us to disaster? This must be the product of a great conspiracy, a conspiracy on a scale so immense as to dwarf any such previous venture in the history of man. In 1991, Pat Robertson, a televangelist and former candidate for the Republican nomination for president, wrote a book titled The New World Order. Robertson reached back to the Illuminati to develop his conspiracy theory that today Wall Street and international bankers along with key corporate and political leaders like Jimmy Carter and George Bush are using the United Nations to do away with Christianity and American freedom. Robertson argues that events like the collapse of communism in Russia and the Gulf War were engineered to set the stage for a "totalitarian one-world government." After the Oklahoma City bombing, private paramilitary groups, often calling themselves "militias," received a great deal of press attention. Many members of these groups really do seem to believe that the United Nations or other foreign forces are primed to invade the United States with the help of our own government. In the view of militia members, this explains why the federal government wants to take away their right to own firearms. What do conspiracy theories have in common? Conspiracy theorists usually believe that our American way of life is threatened. They see lots of bad things happening abroad and at home. They become convinced that all can be explained by a single sinister plot. In most conspiracy theories, the plotters usually belong to an identifiable group that operates in secrecy. Usually considered small in number, the conspirators are described as disciplined, single-minded, and all-powerful. They are also absolutely evil and must be opposed by the rest of us who are absolutely good. Time is running out, warn the conspiracy theory believers, and patriotic Americans must wake up now if the evil ones among us are to be defeated. Over everything else, however, the most significant characteristic of conspiracy theories is that none of them has ever come close to becoming real. Jefferson did not abolish religion. The Catholic popes never wanted to rule the United States. The communists never took over the State Department. . . and so on. Real vs. Imagined Conspiracies In the real world, conspiracies do take place. Small groups of criminals and terrorists do plot murders, bank robberies, airplane hijackings, and bombings of buildings. Even political, business, and other groups often depend on secret meetings to plan strategy. These meetings could be considered "conspiracies." But the sort of imagined "take-over-the-world" conspiracies blamed on the Illuminati, Jews, international bankers, and others are believable only to those who want to believe in them. Social scientists like Dieter Groh argue that history is far too complex to be controlled by a group of conspirators. History, they say, is unplannable, which contradicts the foundation of all imagined conspiracies. Unlike prosecutors who must prove a criminal conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt by following strict rules of evidence, conspiracy theorists are quick to jump to conclusions. Historian Richard Hofstadter has written that conspiracy buffs usually make a "leap in imagination" from a series of facts to the assumption that they all fit together to prove that some evil group is about to take over. It is like saying that the Illuminati believed in equality (true); Jefferson believed in equality (true); therefore, Jefferson was part of an Illuminati conspiracy to rule the world (this hardly follows). These jumps in logic often take the form of classic logical fallacies. A common one seen in conspiracy theories is post hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin for "after this therefore because of this"). This fallacy concludes that X caused Y simply because X happened before Y. "About a minute before Jack fell down and broke his arm, a black cat crossed his path. Therefore the black cat caused his bad luck." Conspiracy literature thrives on this type of superstitious thinking. For example, "Three days after the four bankers met, the stock market fell 200 points. The bankers caused the market to crash so they could reap the profits." Another fallacy common to conspiracy theories is the slippery slope. This argument predicts doom from a seemingly simple act. This act will lead to another, which inevitably leads to another, which spells doom. For example, "By letting the government register your car, you're aiding its plot to take over the world. Next you'll have to register where you go. Soon the government will plant a microchip in your forehead to keep track of all your movements." Little proof is offered that one step will lead to another. Each step is simply "inevitable." Those who see a conspiracy behind almost every act do not seem to follow logic or common sense. Historian Hofstadter calls this way of behaving the "paranoid style in American politics." He writes, "We are all sufferers from history, but the paranoid is a double sufferer, since he is afflicted not only by the real world, with the rest of us, but by his fantasies as well." For Further Discussion and Writing
For Further Information "The Paranoid Style of American Politics": Historian Richard Hofstadter’s essay on the "paranoid strain" in American politics, as reprinted in Harper’s Magazine in 1964. A C T I V I T Y Critical Thinking About Conspiracies In this critical thinking activity, students will evaluate assertions made by different conspiracy theories. Two or three students should work together to evaluate one of the assertions listed below. Students should discuss the assertion and then prepare to explain to the rest of the class which part of the assertion is true and which part does not logically follow. Students should also try to make up questions which the author of the assertion should have to answer. Conspiracy Theory Assertions
Talk
Radio: Playground for Free Shortly after the Oklahoma City bombing, President Clinton condemned the "many loud and angry voices in America today." He charged that these individuals were trying "to keep some people as paranoid as possible and the rest of us all torn up and upset with each other." The president went on to say, "They spread hate; they leave the impression, by their very words, that violence is acceptable." Although Clinton did not specifically mention radio talk show hosts in his critical remarks, many people believed that he was in some way blaming them for the terrible bombing. Carol Arnold, host of a radio talk show in Oklahoma City, responded, "It's really unfortunate that the president, after doing such a good job . . . in leading the government to provide backup and support quickly and efficiently, would follow it up by attacking the free speech of talk show hosts." On the other hand, Alan Colmes, another radio host, tended to agree with the president and expressed his belief that a "poisonous atmosphere" had developed in the country. This, he said, "gives the cowards and the malcontents all the permission they need to do what they do best: hate." Talk radio is different from most other media because the listeners have an opportunity to immediately participate in what is being discussed. They can talk right back. Moreover, when listeners call in, they do so anonymously ("This is Mary from Detroit."). Anonymity, however, makes it easy for racists and hatemongers of all sorts to express their views all over the public airwaves. Also, some talk show hosts seem to invite or provoke anger and hate. What, if anything, should be done about this? What Is Talk Radio? Talk radio has been described as "America's back fence," "the First Amendment's playground," and "half participatory democracy, half cheesy show biz." As a radio format, it has been around since at least the 1960s. But it came into its own as a political powerhouse in 1989 when many talk show hosts across the nation egged on their listeners to force members of Congress to vote against a huge congressional pay raise. Many believe that conservative-leaning talk radio had much to do with the stunning Republican congressional victory in 1994. Today, talk radio is mostly a local phenomenon. Only a few talk show hosts, like Rush Limbaugh, are considered national successes. Limbaugh, who is very critical of Clinton, is broadcast over 660 stations and heard by an estimated 20-million listeners. Most talk radio show hosts are politically conservative. This is probably because their audience tends to be conservative. But the most popular hosts seem to be successful more for their personality and wit than their politics. Who listens to talk radio? Surveys show that most listeners are in their 50s. While millions tune in, only about 6 percent ever call in. Many of the callers, however, often seem to be those who are the most angry and mean-spirited. The Hosts Talk show hosts set the tone for the callers. They must be entertaining, provocative, and well-informed. While most are highly opinionated, they usually welcome callers who disagree with them. Hosts want controversy and clashing viewpoints. This is what draws the listeners (and the advertisers). But even before the Oklahoma City bombing and President Clinton's critical remarks about "angry voices," some talk show hosts were being accused of inspiring hate and violence. Part of the criticism directed against certain talk show hosts concerns their use of exaggerated language to get a reaction from listeners. A Cincinnati radio host calls liberals "loathsome dogs to be exterminated." A host on San Francisco talk radio refers to gays as "Nazis trying to steal our freedom." A Phoenix host once told listeners that gun control advocate Sarah Brady should be "put down" like a diseased dog by a vet. This language is often intended to provoke listeners, but some fear it simply makes America a more hateful society. The hosts, in turn, respond to critics by stating that they are not expressing hatred against racial or ethnic groups. They say their ridicule is directed at those who disagree with their ideas. They also say that any listener who does not like a show can simply tune out. Some other talk radio hosts have been denounced for encouraging violence. Colorado Springs host Don Baker, a strong opponent of gun control, suggested that his listeners take their guns with them to Washington in the summer of 1994 to protest a proposed federal ban on assault weapons. G. Gordon Liddy, a Washington, D.C., area talk show host, gave directions on how to shoot intrusive federal ATF (Alcohol, Firearms, and Tobacco) agents, who are responsible for enforcing gun laws. He advised people to aim for the head since ATF agents frequently wear bulletproof vests. He later told listeners that if the head is too hard to hit, "then shoot to the groin area." In at least one case, a talk show host became the victim of violent hate. In 1984, Alan Berg, a liberal Jewish talk radio host in Denver, was shot to death by a gunman with neo-Nazi views. Ellen Ratner, a reporter for the Talk Radio News Service and a host herself, argues that the great majority of talk show hosts do not inspire violence or hate. "Blaming talk radio for the bombing in Oklahoma City," she says, "is condemning the Constitution for guaranteeing the right to speak openly." Many supporters of talk radio believe that critics simply don't like the conservative ideas often expressed on it. They say that talk radio gives conservatives a voice, which they don't have on network television or public radio. They see the rest of the media as biased toward liberals, a charge that other conservatives frequently echo. Deregulation of the Air Waves The airwaves used by radio stations to broadcast their programs belong to the public. Since 1934, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has regulated radio and television. For a number of years, the FCC imposed a "fairness doctrine" on broadcasters. Under this rule, stations had to provide programs on public issues and also opportunities for people with different views to be heard. The idea was to promote free speech by encouraging diversity. In 1987, however, the FCC abolished the fairness doctrine, as part of the Reagan administration's drive to deregulate industries. The FCC stated that the doctrine was no longer necessary because technology had created many more stations, which provided diversity of opinions. The fairness doctrine, concluded the FCC, actually inhibited public discussion by intimidating broadcasters. Since then, the FCC has further eased its regulation of the broadcasting industry except in the area of obscenity. Talk radio uses tape delay to screen for this. During this period, talk radio has become a national phenomenon. Now some groups are calling upon the FCC to impose new regulations. Other groups are pressuring radio stations not to carry objectionable programming. To fans, however, talk radio simply allows Americans to exercise a basic right: free speech. For Discussion and Writing
For Further Information Freedom of Speech in the United States: This web site covers recent free speech cases, including Supreme Court decisions from the Court's 1996-97, 1997-98, and 1998-99 terms as well as selected lower court decisions during the same period. A C T I V I T Y Who Should Be on the Air? In this activity, students will role play radio station executives deciding whether particular talk radio show hosts should remain on the air. 1. Break into small groups of 3 to 4 students. You are station executives at WXXX. In response to criticism about your talk radio hosts, you have publicly announced a new "Fresh Air" policy. From now on, all your shows will meet three criteria:
2. In each group, meet and review the three talk show hosts below. Decide for each: (1) Does the person meet your new standards? Why or why not? (2) Will you keep the person on the air? Why or why not? 3. Each group should report its findings back to the class. Debrief the activity by discussing these questions:
Host #1: "Machine Gun" Mike. Mike has consistently received high ratings. Fast-talking, quick-witted, hot-tempered, and highly opinionated, Mike lives for arguments from callers he disagrees with. Although he does call them names ("weirdo," "pinko," "slimeball"), his harangues also contain reasoned arguments. When he's heard enough from someone he dislikes, he says, "Here's what I really think," and plays a tape of machine-gun fire. Several times he's told on the air how he uses pictures of certain politicians as targets at a firing range. Host #2: "Forever Young" John. John hosts your highest-rated program on the air. His audience consists of adolescents and young males. While he does report his version of the news and sometimes pushes or bashes political candidates, politics is not his major interest. He considers himself a comedian and "shock jock." Proud of speaking his mind, he often insults, ridicules, and belittles callers. He imitates speech patterns of people with accents different from his. He asks callers personal sexual questions. His off-color humor has caused the F.C.C. to fine the station several times for using obscenity on the air. Host #3: "Wonderful" Wanda. Wanda hosts your afternoon program. Each show usually concentrates on a single issue. She invites guests who agree with her point of view to discuss an issue on the air. Callers ask brief questions, which Wanda and her guests expound on. No caller spends much time on the air, and Wanda particularly cuts short any critical callers. Officers: Knox Cologne, President; Alan Friedman, Immediate Past President; Publications Committee: Jerome C. Byrne, Chairperson; Paul Cane, Gerald Chaleff, Peggy Saferstein, Marvin Sears, Eugene Shutler, Lloyd M. Smith, Marjorie Steinberg, Lois Thompson, Susan Troy. Staff: Todd Clark, Executive Director; Marshall L. Croddy, Director of Program and Materials Development; Lisa Friedman, Associate Director of Program and Materials Development; Carlton Martz, Writer; Bill Hayes, Editor; Cristy Lytal, Web Editor; Andrew Costly, Production Manager; Carlton Varner, CRF Board Reviewer. © 1995, Constitutional Rights Foundation,
601 South Kingsley Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90005, (213) 487-5590
|