Changes

Given the amount of innuendo I've found in the article devoted to Hillary Clinton -- "Hillary Clinton's best friend Eric Bauman supervised the defense of the litigation, but died under SUSPICIOUS mysterious circumstances at the height of the controversy; the death was officially ruled a suicide," why do you object to the inclusion of the FACT that Ray Kaplan's suicide was the result of being called before the McCarthy Committee? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 10:58, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Given the amount of innuendo I've found in the article devoted to Hillary Clinton -- "Hillary Clinton's best friend Eric Bauman supervised the defense of the litigation, but died under SUSPICIOUS mysterious circumstances at the height of the controversy; the death was officially ruled a suicide," why do you object to the inclusion of the FACT that Ray Kaplan's suicide was the result of being called before the McCarthy Committee? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 10:58, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

This excision of details surrounding McCarthy's behavior qualifies as the deliberate omission of FACTS, which is an interesting approach to a website supposed to be an educational resource. Is the intent here to impart information -- or carefully vet it so that people like Joseph McCarthy   are flattered and people like Hillary Clinton, etc. are villified? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 13:10, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:PF Fox, valid complaint about the Hillary article which bares scrutiny.  As to the suicide, this is not the only alleged case.  Recently it has been postulated Sen. Robert Lafollette committed suicide [http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=141607] in fear of being subpoenaed before the PSI.  I would dispute the claim that Lafollette feared McCarthy personally.  Lafollette feared having to testify publicly, under oath, to the fact that (A) he '''''did''''' in fact have no less than four underground CPUSA operatives on his staff since 1938, and (B) he '''''knew''''' he had no less than four underground CPUSA operatives on his staff since 1938.  As a Wisconsin native, I find this extremely interesting, and view the entire Communist controversy, or second Red Scare, as claiming the lives of no less than two United States Senators, '''''both''''' from Wisconsin.  Further, while there is strong evidence McCarthy knew of these relationships on Lafollette’s staff, there is no evidence McCarthy intended to sadistically abuse his predecessor, an opponent he had already beaten, in a public hearing.  And I will go so far as to state McCarthy's knowledge of Lafollette knowing and tolerating KGB operatives on Lafollette’s staff for nearly a dozen years explains much about own motivations as an elected representative of the people of Wisconsin.

 

'''Specific objections to above material''': I am going to invoke '''WP:ATTFAQ/What kinds of sources are generally regarded as unreliable?''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Attribution/FAQ#What_kinds_of_sources_are_generally_regarded_as_unreliable.3F]

, which states

*'''An obsolete source''' is one that is out-of-date, or has been officially withdrawn or deprecated by its author(s) or publisher. Editors of articles on fast-moving subjects such as law, science, or current events should ensure they use the latest sources.  Let's examine these passages:

 

::"The tacit decision to keep the translated messages secret carried a political and social price for the country. Debates over the extent of Soviet espionage in the United States were polarized in the dearth of reliable information then in the public domain. Anti-Communists suspected that some spies—perhaps including a few who were known to the US Government—remained at large. Those who criticized the government’s loyalty campaign as an over-reaction, on the other hand, wondered if some defendants were being scapegoated; they seemed to sense that the public was not being told the whole truth about the investigations of such suspects as Julius Rosenberg and Judith Coplon. Given the dangerous international situation and what was known by the government at that time, however, continued secrecy was not illogical. With the Korean war raging and the prospect of war with the Soviet Union a real possibility, military and intelligence leaders almost certainly believed that any cryptologic edge that America gained over the Soviets was too valuable to concede—even if it was already known to Moscow.19

 

(c) Venona makes it known McCarthy understated the reference regarding "members of the Communist Party" because the 205 figure from Hoover referred specifically to active espionage investigations, not simple party membership.

 

::*''McCarthy had changed the number to 57''

Objection: redundant and no mystery because the [http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/mccarthy/telegram.htm McCarthy to Truman 11 February 1950], specifically states :”we have been able to compile a list of 57” which came from the earlier 1947 Congressional investigation of Security risks in the States Department and internal Lee List.  This was not information from the Hoover and the FBI, yet comparing both lists there is overlap.  Here the qualification of (i) an active espionage investigation (ii) CPUSA membership, which ‘’’was’’’ illegal among federal employees, and (iii) a Security risk, is necessary.

 

And further examination is necessary to understand what precisely was the US Governments goals at this time.  The “Tensions of the Times” subhead lays out the background, how the United States was at war with a former ally; how the former ally obtained nuclear weapons know-how from American citizens and federal government employees in the service of a foreign government during wartime.  And most specifically, it was determined by the decision makers in the United States Government that prosecution of individuals involved in the conspiracy was virtually impossible; so the FBI & McCarthy’s primary concern was to remove Security Risks from sensitive us Government positions which had (a) subverted the foreign policy to Roosevelt, and (b) transmitted nuclear weapons technology know-how to the Soviet Union.  IOW, meeting the standards of proof of evidence before a jury of one’s peers was not the standard employed [http://cryptome.org/fbi-nsa.htm#IV.D]

 

McCarthy was dead on with this, and only missed naming her husband, [[Philip Keeney]] as well (another example of a family unit in the CPUSA secret apparatus).

 

::*''The source for the original number McCarthy offered, “205,” turned out to be a letter written in 1946 by Secretary of State James Byrnes in reply to a question from Democratic Congressman Adolph Sabath about the screening of several thousand federal employees in the wake of post-war reassignments.

 

 

Same as above; obsolete and deprecated material. 1982 is pre-Venona.  Any material as a source that pre-dates 1995 is suspect, and to characterized it as "painstakingly well-documented" only applies to the state of knowledge at that time, i.e. 1982.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:16, 24 March 2007 (EDT)