The article's title is clickbait - the CIA database didn't "lead" to the Pentagon Riot.
As claimed by the article, the Pentagon Riot was an event precipitated by a protest which the CIA database had logged. The article alleges that this information could have been used to de-escalate the protest or tailor the response to it, but there's no causal link between the CIA database's existence and the protest happening.
The link is that they gave one of their agents authorization for the levitation... but then stocked an entire military unit there from Fort Bragg to escalate the situation into a riot for further study.
> the National Mobilization Committee to End the War in Vietnam ... attempted to levitate the Pentagon.
In what part did they actually mean to literally mean to "levitiate" the pentagon - to raise it into the air by magical means.
And how much of it was to cause levity i.e. "treat a serious thing in a light way with humour or lack of due respect", and raise consciousness, poke fun at the military and generally stir things up?
This seems highly likely to me. Having interacted with a fair few people like this, it's easy to underestimate how much they see such occult practices in terms of irony and poetic language. They are most assuredly not making a naive attempt at doing what physicists do, which is the tempting assumption. (Sometimes it's correct of course.)
The emphasis in "magic words" is usually more on the words than the magic.
There's definitely a sense of humor to efforts like this - a realization that the whole thing is so absurd that it's worth going all the way to impossibility.
When you're setting out to oppose bureaucracy and militarism, poetry and magical techniques make a satisfying thematic counter; you can adopt them for that purpose without any real belief that they work.
For a decent overview of this, watch Steal This Movie, or look into the life and work of Abbie Hoffman.
The stated goal was to levitate the Pentagon, meaning to lift it in the air, and Hoffman claims that they actually did and many saw the Pentagon rise... but you're not supposed to take that seriously.
Hoffman was a prankster, and a self-admitted fadist. He went from straight laced voter registration in the racist South, to being a leader of the New Left and anti-war movement in the late 60's and early 70's.
He felt that the old and new left were both boring and their methods were outdated. He had a better understanding of the new media environment of television, and importantly that America was a post-literate society.
He adopted a lot of the ideas of the diggers from SF. He captured the attention of the media with his outlandish claims and antics, on purpose.
He was a pioneer in street theater. Some of his actions include:
Running a pig for president
Throwing money from the gallery in the NY stock exchange so that the traders on the floor could be photographed greedily picking it up, to illustrate the complicity and greed of wall street (through the investment in defense companies that profited from napalm) in what he saw as genocide in Vietnam
A free speech activist, he was arrested for writing the word Fuck on his forehead and for wearing an American flag motif shirt.
He was also tried for incitement of riot in the Chicago 7 trial. He turned the trial in a circus through things like coming into the trial dressed in judges robes and other antics.
He did all of this in an attempt to politicize youth and drug culture of the 60's and mobilize it against the war.
An anarchist, he published steal this book, a book chock full of practical advice for avoiding corporate employment and living free through cooperation and petty scams like methods of placing free phone calls. All of this was based on the idea that American middle class values were fundamentally morally bankrupt and hypocritical, due to it's support of what he saw as an active genocide in progress.
He was brilliant, charismatic and somewhere between brave and crazy. Women loved him, and he loved them. And he loved drugs.
A rare specimen, of the same stock as the founders of this country. A person motivated by extreme empathy and a sense of justice, and someone not afraid to die for his beliefs.
He was a man with the same kind of creativity and media insight of someone like David Ogilvy, he could have easily made a fortune on Madison Avenue.
Instead his got his head beat in and his nose broken registering black voters. All the money he made from sales of his book and his fleeting celebrity were donated to civil rights groups.
The FBI and COINTELPRO had him under near constant surveillance and eventually caught him in a drug deal.
He skipped bail and went underground, and eventually emerged in the 80's and started working on environmental campaigns and against the Reagan administrations support of the Contras in Nicaragua (which was expressly illegal due to the Boland Amendment).
He was found dead due to an overdose of sleeping pills, but many think he was murdered.
My attempt at humor aside, how do you tell if someone is "just" a publicity-seeker, vs. someone who employs publicity for other purposes? If his goal was to use theatrics to persuade others to get involved in the anti-war movement, then it was a success.
His activism continued when he was underground and living under an assumed name, with the Save the River campaign. Was that also publicity seeking?
Oh my stars, was the CIA doing something questionable again. How shocking. The US govt so rarely overreacts to imaginary threats by spying on its citizens.
Out of curiosity, what's the official perspective anyway? Is the CIA legally entitled to conduct such activities within US borders?
In some countries like Germany the foreign intelligence agency is not allowed to gather intelligence in their own country, only a separate counter-intelligence agency may, so I'm wondering whether this is the same in the US or not. Theoretically speaking, of course.
The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 added the exception for Americans who are hard of hearing and watch American-made movies subtitled in English.
Thanks for the info. So it's the same system as in Germany, which makes sense given that the German system was essentially built by the US. (The BND was essentially founded by the CIA, which was also very new at that time, in cooperation with West German authorities.)
It is only your opinion that those actions are illegal. They would only be ACTUALLY illegal if a court ruled them to be illegal, but litigating these activities would be a threat to national security so a court must not review them. Since they cannot be ruled illegal, the activities are therefore fully legal. Besides, some official once wrote up a highly twisted set of definitions that claimed it was legal, and that is sufficient justification. Now shut up and quit griping about this obsolete document called "the constitution".
The CIA is nominally restricted to foreign intelligence, but edge cases reliably go in the broad-purview direction. US citizens abroad and foreign citizens at home are both fair game, as are US citizens at home who deal with suspicious foreigners, and US citizens at home who are caught up inadvertently in foreign-targeting efforts.
There really is a division of agencies; when it was time to catch the Unabomber, the FBI did all the work on that. But if it deals with anti-government activities or any international connection, foreign surveillance can usually find a legal justification to get involved.
You don't think they give out documents that look like they went through the wash in the back pocket of somebody's spoiled trousers, then photocopied 10x on antique equipment, not to mention mislabeled, stamped-over, etc, in response to FOIA requests without a reason?
As claimed by the article, the Pentagon Riot was an event precipitated by a protest which the CIA database had logged. The article alleges that this information could have been used to de-escalate the protest or tailor the response to it, but there's no causal link between the CIA database's existence and the protest happening.