Remembering the CIA on Trial Project

Thom Sen — Sat, 28 Jul 2007 21:42:17 GMT

Though it is to a terrifying degree that the current state of political affairs in the United States resembles those of 1986, the two situations lie, it is safe to say, in distinct historical epochs. The New World Order is now an unhappy teen with the memory of a hijacking catastrophe that obliterated a good portion of its civil liberties. While much of Latin America still pays a high price for the part it plays in the American Empire, the seventies and eighties were of an era where the unrestrained brutality of imperial control throughout the region was in constant evidence. Fortunately by 1986 at least one of the more audacious dictatorships, Somoza’s puppet regime in Nicaragua, had been overthrown. However, to the extent that Reagan’s Washington saw this popular revolution, led by the Sandinistas, as a potential infringement on the rights of U.S. corporations, it was having nothing to do with it.
The Iran-Contra affair was in the news in November of 1986 when I was one of more than a hundred people that occupied Munson Hall, a University of Massachusetts administration building, to protest CIA recruitment on the campus. After being arrested for trespassing along with 60 other demonstrators I had the privilege of spending several hours in a jail cell with Abbie Hoffman and a few other demonstrators, where Abbie talked incessantly about his recent trip to Nicaragua. It was the first time I had heard a first hand account of both the accomplishments of the Sandinistas and the atrocities of the CIA-backed Contras, and it was coming from a man who was somewhat of a hero in my eyes.
Over the coming months I would witness Abbie lead a parade of historians, former CIA agents, a former U.S. Attorney General, an ex-President’s daughter, a team of world class lawyers, and a committed group of student activists into the Northampton Court House to participate in what may be the greatest of all American traditions: the jury trial. My case was tied to the verdict of 15 fellow demonstrators acquitted in April 1987 by a jury that was convinced that it was an appropriately civil choice to trespass and disturb the peace in order to stop the greater crimes of the CIA. Personally, the trial and the events surrounding it would prove to be both an eye-opening confirmation of the tragedy of U.S. imperialism and an intensive introduction to the Sandinista revolution.
Unfortunately, what seemed like a pretty big deal to me, that the CIA had been proven a criminal organization in a court of law, did not get the national attention it deserved. Although there were demonstrations protesting CIA recruitment on several campuses in the spring of 1987 and there was undoubtedly a temporary slowdown in the CIA’s on-campus activities in the months following the not-guilty verdict, the agency eventually resumed on-campus recruitment across the country with hardly any resistance or limitations.
The CIA on Trial Project, as the whole affair came to be known, has since fallen into the dustbin of history. It was mentioned in the many articles surrounding Abbie Hoffman’s death in 1999, and takes up 3 pages of a book written by Tony Vellela in 1988 entitled New Voices: Student Political Activism in the ‘80s and ‘90s (South End Press), but it has not become the precedent setting milestone in the history of American activism that it might have been. It is a story where the devil is most certainly in the details of the trial, where those present witnessed the uncovering of the bloody trail that is the history of CIA involvement in Nicaragua and other countries that have become targets of U.S. aggression.

The Accidental Activist
I called the boss of the painting company that I was working for and told him I was having car problems and wouldn’t be able to make it to work until the afternoon. Fortunately he was hung over, so he decided to buy my excuse. I met James in Amherst and we headed to the University to go see Abbie. I remember being curious what he was going to talk about and bewildered as to why the event was happening so early in the day. As we crowded into a large meeting room in the basement of the Campus Center it was obvious that things were already under way. I felt disoriented; it wasn’t like an ordinary college talk. It was a very open debate that felt more like a strategy session than a lecture. Clearly the focus of the discussion was the CIA and its illegal activities, but I also got the sense there were certain demands being discussed. I figured out from some of the signs and banners around the room that the students sharing the lectern with Abbie were members of the UMASS Radical Student Union. I was immediately impressed with their sense of practicality, when suddenly it became clear that people were talking about a definite plan of action.
Something was declared about Whitmore Hall at such and such a time and everybody started to stir. James and I looked at each other in utter amazement. He was very nervous and excited, and looking back, I’m thankful I was there with such a rowdy and rebellious soul.
“I think they’re planning to take over a building,” James whispered.
“What do you think?” I asked. He was so excited now that he seemed to be jumping up and down.
“I don’t know.”
We flowed with the people out of the room, upstairs and out of the Campus Center. We had about an hour to figure out what we were going to do. Even if we weren’t going to join in the demonstration, I figured I had to see what this whole thing was about. I found a pay phone and left a message with my boss apologizing for not making it in. I said something about a mechanic who was going to take care of all my problems.
James’ car was parked on campus so we decided to go there to get prepared. If we were going to get arrested there were things we didn’t want to have on us, so I decided to leave my too-thick-to-carry copy of Remembrance of Things Past in his car. James was in a little bit of a quandary regarding an unresolved legal issue. I was trying to figure out the right thing to do.
The logic behind the demonstration made a lot of sense to me. My studies at Hampshire had been concentrated in philosophy and political science, particularly Latin American development, so I was thoroughly aware of the criminal history of the CIA. Having studied the American civil rights movement and the popular protests against the U.S. invasion of Vietnam, I realized the importance of civil disobedience in affecting progressive change throughout this country’s history. Fortunately, I had been raised to act based on my conscience and to speak up when I saw something that I knew was wrong. Unfortunately, I had about fifty dollars to my name, so I was concerned about the possibility of extensive fines and fees if I got arrested. Also, I had been planning on going to see my parents in Upstate New York for Thanksgiving in a few days, and I was afraid I might mess up those plans.
We decided at least to go check out the situation. Joining a parade of students around the campus pond, we marched along toward Whitmore Hall, trying to figure out what we were doing as we went. Eventually a couple hundred people formed a large mob in front of the administration building where James and I tried to find a good spot to see what was going on. It appeared that the entrances to the building were all being blocked. Suddenly everybody started running away from the front of Whitmore towards another building. Everything seemed completely necessary and spontaneous. Next thing you know we were running up the stairs into Munson Hall, a building adjacent to Whitmore. It felt similar to when I had been swept by the crowd into Buffalo’s Rich Stadium to see The Who in 1982, three years after thirteen Who fans had been killed in Cincinnati in a similar rush.

I was on leave from Hampshire College in the fall of 1986, living on-campus in a friend’s room when I got a call from my former housemate James wondering if I wanted to go see Abbie Hoffman speak at the University. I was a pretty big fan of Hoffman, having stolen a copy of Steal This Book from a bookstore in Boulder on a road trip out west in the summer of 1985. That whole trip could have been summed up as Intro to Hippie 101, what with the quality time spent exploring the Haight Ashbury district in San Francisco, sleeping in my car outside the gates of the Berkeley campus, journeying to Grateful Dead shows, and camping out wherever my companions and I could.  Around that time I read much of the essential hippie literature: Marcuse’s One Dimensional Man and An Essay on Liberation, Reich’s Greening of America, Wolfe’s The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Tests, Cleaver’s Soul on Ice, Rubin’s Do It, and the poetry of Allen Ginsburg. I had searched for the roots of the movement in Thoreau’s Walden and Civil Disobedience, and Karouac’s On the Road.  And although I only had Steal this Book for about a week before someone swiped it, it did inspire me to check out some of Hoffman’s other books.

Occupation and Arrest

Munson Hall seemed to be immediately transformed into a giant party.  A couple people started strumming on acoustic guitars right away.  I recognized some people from Hampshire College and together we formed a loose contingent. James ran off to explore the building with some friends from Amherst.  After a while a group of people asked for attention in order to make some announcements. There was going to be a civil disobedience training on the third floor in 10 minutes. We were informed that it might be some time before we would be threatened with arrest. Before then people would probably have an opportunity to leave the building. It was stressed that this was a non-violent demonstration.  Abbie asked if there was anyone qualified to take over the building’s computer network, but other leaders of the demonstration argued convincingly that was not a good idea
   The announcements ended and the festivities resumed. This is when I found out that Amy Carter, the ex-president’s daughter, was taking part in the occupation.  The excitement level escalated with the speculation that this could be big news. I attended the civil disobedience training, which essentially presented two options. Either you let them cuff you and walk out with them, or you let them carry you out. The latter is obviously a more dramatic approach, and the prospect of having to make a choice drew me emotionally into the engagement. 
   Before long the sun went down and there was another set of announcements. There was the emerging threat that the University administration was going to try and wait it out in hopes that a large portion of the demonstrators would walk away from the cause.  Abbie suggested that we start throwing furniture out the window in order to provoke a mass arrest, but his suggestion was seen as being too destructive and immediately shot down.  Once we were informed there were bagels and oranges for the eating, waiting it out didn’t seem so bad.  When the group at large was asked if there were any questions or comments about the options at that point, the Hampshire contingent started chanting, “Party! Party! Party!”  So that’s what we did.  
   There was a lot of activity going on outside the building.  A huge crowd was there to support us, mixed with a small group of counter-demonstrators.  Police were erecting barriers and generally making their presence known.  Inside the word started circulating that we had made the local news.  Abbie assured us that by tomorrow we would be on the front pages of the New York Times and Washington Post.  
   Eventually we got the word that the police were going to act that night.  Only people who planned on getting arrested should remain in the building.  I had hours to think about what I was going to do, but the idea of leaving the building never entered my mind.  Outside we could see a line of buses forming, along with rows of cops, many of them in full riot gear.  I remember seeing Abbie look out the window and say  “It looks like the sixties out there,” and me thinking cynically, sorry Abbie, it’s still just the eighties. 
   When they pulled us out of the building I felt a sense of solidarity and support rather than oppression and fear. James had surprised me and made the wise move not to get arrested, but there were enough of us that I didn’t feel afraid. I remember being cheered on by my friends Cecelia and Emily, and actually feeling bad for the cops, as so many of us opted for the more dramatic approach to leaving the building. Next thing I was in a school bus, dazzled by the spinning lights and the obvious tension between the crowd outside and the police. I had time to try and remember the last time I had been in a good old-fashioned school bus, realizing that it had been a couple years.  I can’t deny that I thought about Ken Kesey’s idea of being on the bus, and got a little more excited. 
   It took a long time to get moving, and it seemed like the police were having trouble keeping the crowd out of the way. After several delays we finally pulled out onto the roads. Abbie was on another bus, so I had no idea what kind of shenanigans he was up to.   Almost immediately the sound of people singing protest songs was coming from the back of the bus, and I was amazed at how naturally people were singing given the circumstances, as if they had spent years around kitchen tables and campfires rehearsing for that very moment. 
   We were delivered to the Hampshire County Jail and House of Correction where we were checked in over the course of a couple hours.  What I had was taken from me and I was escorted to the jail’s gymnasium along with what eventually turned out to be most of the guys arrested.  We spent a good portion of the night there before being led in small groups to various cells.  I was dripping with serendipity when I ended up in a cell with not only Abbie, but also a couple fellow Hampshire students who I had gotten to know that afternoon in Munson Hall. Abbie talked a mile a minute about his recent trip to Nicaragua and how kindly the people there had treated him. He talked about Bluefields and other areas of the country that were taking the brunt of the Contra War. The Sandinistas had tremendous popular support, he said, making it clear that the war would not exist if it was not for the CIA and its recruitment of a sleazy assortment of thugs that longed for the naked plunder of the Somoza years. 
Looking back I realize that while Abbie talked about the hard facts of life in Nicaragua, it didn’t occur to me that he was already rehearsing for his part in a courtroom drama he had concocted and was guiding to fruition.  I was satisfied that I had taken a bold, if haphazard, stand against an agency as out of control as Kurtz was up the river, and as far as I was concerned the fact that I was locked in a cell was sufficient proof of protest.  I had no idea that Abbie and others were not complacent with merely taking a stand, but planned on making a case for the legitimacy of their actions.  I certainly had no idea to what extent they would go to make sure all the proof they needed was presented.

CIA Proven Guilty of Atrocious Crimes
Attorney Leonard Weinglass summed up the issue in the spring of 1987, “Trespass is not a rigid doctrine.” Weinglass was the Lead Defense Attorney in what came to be known as the “CIA on Trial” case. Abbie Hoffman’s participation in the takeover of Munson Hall made possible the advocacy of Weinglass, who had defended Hoffman in the Chicago Seven trial in 1968. Weinglass, who had in the past defended Patty Hearst, Angela Davis, and had worked for the defense team that defended Daniel Ellsberg in the Pentagon Papers case, worked with Northampton Attorneys Elizabeth Tomlinson, Steven Schlang, and Tom Lesser, to orchestrate the necessity defense that led to the acquittal of those on trial for protesting against CIA recruitment on the University of Massachusetts campus on November 24th, 1986.
By the time of the trial, which took place from April 6th through April 15th, 1987, I was back as a full-time student at Hampshire College, and although the outcome of my case was tied to the verdict I was not able to attend the trial, for the most part because seats in the courtroom were in such high demand. I did, however, pay close attention to the defense strategy and tried to remain informed about what expert witnesses were providing what testimony. The overall strategy revolved around proving three main points: (1) The CIA violates U.S. and international law; (2) The demonstrators had no other option but to trespass and be disorderly in order to stop these crimes; (3) There was ample precedent for the demonstrators to think that civil disobedience was a viable approach.
The trial itself, which took place at the Northampton Courthouse, was quite an affair. The scope of the case and the amount of publicity it inspired turned the jury selection into an agonizing process where over 200 prospective jurors were eliminated. Hampshire County Sheriff Robert Garvey provided deputies to patrol the hallways for the trial itself, which was presided over by District Court Judge Richard Connon. The prosecution and defense came to an agreement allowing 15 cases to be tried at once; 12 of those arrested for trespassing, included Hoffman, and 3 for disorderly conduct. Amy Carter was one of those arrested for disorderly conduct when she and a group of fellow demonstrators tried to block a bus filled with arrested protesters from leaving the UMASS campus. 31 other demonstrators had already concluded their cases, most with no penalty. 14 other demonstrators, myself included, had not yet settled their cases and were not part of the jury trial. The attorneys aiding the defense had told me that my case would be tied to the verdict of the jury trial, so I decided to wait and see how the necessity defense played out.
The trial began with opening statements where both sides proposed diametrically opposed missions for the jurors to abide by. Hampshire County Assistant District Court Attorney Diane Fernaid, the prosecutor, instructed the jury to focus on whether or not the defendants were guilty of trespassing and disorderly conduct. Weinglass told the jury, “You will be making a statement against the CIA and restoring the values of law, the values of democracy.” The straightforward approach of the prosecution became evident when it presented the whole of its case in a few hours on the first day of the trial. The defense would take the next three and half days of the trial presenting their side of the story, bringing in expert witnesses to back up every aspect of their case.
The major role of the expert witnesses was to prove that the CIA is a criminal organization. On the first day of defense testimony, former CIA agent Ralph McGehee presented evidence culled from his 25-year history with the agency. His testimony focused on CIA operations in Indonesia, Iran, and Guatemala that had overthrown governments and killed millions in the process. He pointed out that the CIA was responsible for killing between 500,000 and a million Indonesians in the process of overthrowing the government there in 1965. McGehee provided an insider account of the role that the CIA played in dragging the U.S. into the military conflict in Vietnam. He also testified that once entrenched in Vietnam the agency’s atrocities continued through a program of assassination called Operation Phoenix, which was responsible for the deaths of 20,000 Vietnamese, according to McGehee.
Edgar Chamorro was brought in by the defense to specifically address the CIA’s recent activities in Nicaragua. It’s important to remember that the grisly details of the Iran-Contra affair were in the news and pretty much public knowledge at the time of the trial. Even the mainstream press had been pushed to admit that the Reagan administration, through clandestine acts to a great extent coordinated by the CIA, had acted outside its authority and broken national and international law. Charmorro, a former leader of the Contras in Nicaragua, who had been recruited directly by the CIA, was the perfect witness to elucidate the lawless nature of the CIA. Charmorro explained how the CIA brought in military thugs from Argentina to train the Contras on how to best terrorize the civilian population in Nicaragua. The goal was to disrupt civilian life by assassinating judges, doctors, construction workers, teachers, and other respected citizens. According to Charmorro, the CIA-backed Contras planted land mines designed specifically to maim civilians and overburden the Sandinista health care system. A manual that the CIA had hired Charmorro to translate entitled Psychological Operations in Guerilla Warfare was entered as evidence. The manual advised the Contras how to carry out these violent and disruptive acts against society while making it appear that the Sandinistas were responsible. He testified that Contra policy was to kill all prisoners.
Hoffman, no stranger to the courtroom (this was the forty-second time he had been arrested), defended himself. He questioned Paul R. Epstein, MD, a Harvard Medical School instructor who had visited Nicaragua twice, in 1983 and 1987. Epstein said that in the interceding years the Contras had destroyed at least 15 community health centers run by the Sandinistas. He confirmed that the CIA training Charmorro had testified about had paid off for the Contras, and that doctors had been assassinated.
A number of other witnesses gave both first hand and well-documented accounts of Contra attacks on civilians and civil institutions. The defense then set out to demonstrate that the actions of the CIA and CIA-backed Contras were clearly in violation of both national and international law. University of Illinois Law Professor and international law scholar, Francis Boyle testified that CIA covert actions violated statutes in the Geneva Convention, the Nuremberg laws, and rulings by the World Court. William Schapp, an attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights and editor of Covert Action Information Bulletin, cited United States law prohibiting the training and financing of mercenaries to fight against governments that the country was at peace with. Schapp also testified that he had represented four members of congress in suits against the CIA for its violations of the Neutrality Act, but the courts had consistently dismissed the cases because of their political nature.
Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Morton Halperin made clear that the U.S. was in fact officially at peace with Nicaragua, citing the Boland Amendment of 1984, in which congress specifically banned CIA operations in Nicaragua. Halperin, author of a book called The Lawless State documenting the illegal activities of the CIA, also pointed out that the CIA regularly violates the Congressional Oversight Act of 1980 by misinforming congress of the agency’s activities.
In order to justify fully the necessity defense, the demonstrators had to prove that their trespassing and disorderly conduct were acts of last resort; there was no other alternative but mass demonstration in order to stop the illegal activities of the CIA. Testimony previously mentioned had worked to demonstrate the inefficacy of both congress and the courts in terms of controlling the agency. Student demonstrator Jennifer Johnston spoke in her own defense regarding efforts students had made in the year previous to the takeover of Munson Hall to get the University of Massachusetts to ban the CIA, all to no avail. She pointed out that the school was violating its own rule stating that groups that use campus facilities must be law abiding.
The defense pulled out all the stops by bringing former Attorney General Ramsey Clark to the stand. Supposedly, District Attorney Michael Ryan had agreed to the necessity defense because he was excited by the prospect of Clark testifying. Clark bought home the point that the CIA was “uninhibited by law,” basing his testimony on his experience dealing with the agency as Attorney General. He claimed that it is impossible for congress, and therefore the constitutional government, to monitor and restrain the CIA’s activities. He also added his professional opinion that the recent activities of the CIA were a threat to the security of the country, giving a sense of urgency to the actions of the demonstrators.
The defense also hoped to demonstrate that it had reason to believe that their actions could potentially lessen the threat posed by the CIA. Amy Carter, who at the time was a student at Brown University, took the stand in her own defense to point out that the CIA had been restricted from recruiting at Brown after a demonstration there in 1985. She added that she was concerned about the similarities between current U.S. activities in Nicaragua and the country’s initial involvement in Vietnam.
Boston University History Professor Howard Zinn, author of A People’s History of the United States and Disobedience and Democracy, explained to the jury the role that student protests had played in major social movements throughout the course of U.S. history. He talked about how in 1960 four black students in Greensboro, North Carolina, provided a major impetus to the civil rights movement by staging lunch counter sit-ins in protest of segregation, eventually leading to dramatic changes in U.S. law and society. Student protests also played a crucial role in forcing the U.S. to scale down the number of troops in Vietnam in the late 60’s, according to Zinn. He told the jury that it was fear of domestic unrest that kept the Johnson administration from sending another 300,000 soldiers to Vietnam.
After Zinn’s testimony, the defense called on Daniel Ellsberg, who had had a direct affect on inspiring opposition to the war in Vietnam. In 1971, Ellsberg, then a consultant for the Defense Department, released to both congress and the press 43 volumes of secret documents concerning atrocities committed by the U.S. military in Vietnam. These documents came to be called The Pentagon Papers. Ellsberg told the jury that he turned over the documents as an act of conscience, knowing very well that he could go to prison for doing so.
Weinglass summed things up in his final statement by claiming that stopping recruitment on campus was the most direct way for the protesters to stop the crimes of the CIA. He told the jury, “By ending recruitment, they helped to take a step to ending illegal activity.” It was Judge Connon though who had the last words for the jury before they were sent to deliberate. After days of testimony, the judge told the jury that he had heard sufficient evidence to allow them to consider the necessity defense.
After three hours of deliberation the jury returned and proclaimed a not-guilty verdict. The courthouse erupted into pandemonium, forcing Judge Connon to clear the room before the jury could go on to acquit all defendants on all counts. Later on, members of the jury told reporters what was behind their decision to acquit. One juror commented on the integrity of the expert witnesses. She went on to say, concerning the protesters, “These young people are doing what perhaps most of us should be doing, but don’t have the time to.” Another juror proclaimed, “It’s not up the CIA to start wars and murder.” Once again though Judge Connon had the last word, stating during a post-trial interview, ``This is not a courtroom of last resort. So they haven’t set precedence.”
Despite the lack of precedence setting, the defendants obviously had much to celebrate. However, as one acquitted protester commented, “We didn’t do this action just to get acquitted in court. We want to see CIA recruitment ended because it’s illegal.” Unfortunately, this goal was ultimately not accomplished. In the years following the trial, UMASS Chancellor Joseph Duffy remained steadfast in his opposition to barring the CIA from recruiting on campus. A couple years later, when over 100 people were arrested at the campus in 1989 in a series of protests against the University’s participation in Department of Defense research, a number of protesters sought to utilize the necessity defense, but were prohibited by the district court judge.
Personally, the whole affair had a dramatic effect on both my life and my worldview. I would go on to participate in other demonstrations, including the aforementioned protests against Defense research at the University, as well as protests against the Gulf War at Westover Air Force base and a demonstration in Washington, D.C. in support of women’s right to abortion. Looking back over the past twenty years of my life, it is possible to trace a direct line from the events of November 24th, 1986 to the present. Initially inspired by the first-hand account of the Sandinista revolution that Abbie Hoffman presented in the jail cell that night, I would go on to study the revolution in great detail, becoming particularly fascinated with the national literacy campaign that the Sandinistas orchestrated in the years immediately following their coming to power. In 1989 I would go to Nicaragua to research the literacy campaign as part of my college thesis project, and become so inspired by the pedagogical approaches utilized there that I committed myself to a career in the field of adult education. I have worked in the field since graduating from Hampshire in 1990 and currently work as a teacher (please note the slight irony) at the Hampshire County Jail and House of Correction.

The logical core of the “necessity defense” is relatively simple to explain. While it may be illegal to trespass on your neighbor’s property, would it not be a cowardly choice if you saw your neighbor’s house beginning to catch fire and did not walk across the yard and attempt to put out the fire.  In fact, if you were successful in this task, the legality of your act would not be questioned and you would most likely be applauded for your courageous behavior.

Ideas at The Valley Voice

story idea

Remembering the CIA on Trial Project

What if this was a review of a movie

I'm pushing bounderies.

Valley Voice testing new ideas