I'm skipping over several things I have in my file that are sort of interesting but only tangentially applicable, maybe. So now I'm down to 2 books that I'm not sure about - whether to proceed with them or not here. But I'll touch a little on the first one now (and decide on the other one later).
This one is actually a special issue of the Journal of Social Issues (v. 43, no. 3, 1987) on "Covert Facilitation of Crime" with the issue editor being George Levinger.
The topic at hand here is really about issues around the use of "covert facilitation" of law enforcement agencies in the apprehension of crime in the USA. In the editor's introduction he gives this definition:
"As defined by Braithwaite, Fisse, and Geis in this issue, covert facilitation, is 'the practice of law enforcement officials who seek through the conscious use of deception to encourage criminal acts under circumstances where they can be observed by undercover operatives.' (p.6); the goal is to catch potential offenders." (p. 2)
The only way that I can think of for that to apply to my situation exactly, would be if a U.S. law enforcement agency / officer(s) tried to see if I had any intentions getting involved in espionage (via my dad, for example). I can't say that I experienced anything like that. But sometimes I did feel like I was being intimidated indirectly by (to me what seemed to be) unusual events, so that I would forsake my interest in Eastern Europe/USSR. This is really something different and it's probable that completely different laws, at least, would be involved, if not also different possible agencies.
So the one thing this book does give me, though, is some indication of what law enforcers do/can do by way of covert facilitation that may at least let me know if any of the things I experienced had been used in this covert facilitation context, and if so, maybe such means could be used to protect my dad and his work by means of trying to hinder me.
I know this is rather circuitous thinking, but, believe me, if you'd been through some of the things I had been through, you'd understand that any sort of glimmer that such things might happen even if in a somewhat different context, then it possibly could have happened to you to. That's a lot of hedging, but it's hard living with a lot of questions unanswered about some really awful things.
So that's why I even have this journal issue in this file, and I'll proceed with it from that standpoint.
***
From the lead article:
Covert facilitatation and crime: restoring balance to the entrapment debate, by John Brathwaite, Brent Fisse & Gilbert Geis, p. 5-41.
***
The referenced articles (which I omit as noted by the ...) are dated from 1977 to 1986.
"Criminal justice practices have become increasingly subversive of privacy... There has been expanded use of undercover agents and informers, and increased emphasis on campaigns to have citizens report drug users to the police (including instances of children turning in their parents), phone tapping, electronic eavesdropping, hidden cameras, periscopic prisms, electronic bracelets for tracking persons under house arrest, lie detector tests, 'spy dust,' computerized data banks, satellite surveillance, and similar procedures... Gary T. Marx... has been the leading figure in documenting what Michel Foucault ... called the modern state's 'subtle calculated technology of subjection.'" (p. 7)
Some of these things, like "computerized data banks", seem pretty routine today, but others, such as the eavesdropping and hidden cameras might raise a few hackles. If law enforcers are doing these kind of things in an effort to apprehend (potential) criminals, it seems likely that it would be easy for them to use these things in a case like mine, depending on the laws and other possible restrictions different from the covert facilitation context discussed here. And this was roughly the time frame too, that it might have applied in my case.
***
"Covert facilitation guidelines cannot be written to provide much practical protection against abuse. Nor can the prior approval of a judge bring in substantial practical control over any unfairness by the police in carrying out the undercover operation as it unfolds." (p. 12)
If protection in covert facilitation is difficult, I think it would be even more so in a case involving protecting a high-profile military project such as SDI.
***
"Covert facilitation is an appealing law enforcement tactic to nab drug addicts, dissidents, or prostitutes, but a less attractive strategy when it comes to white-collar criminals." (p. 25-26)
This is only interesting because of my social movement research in which agents did infiltrate cell groups preparing for major protests.
***
"Milgram's... renowned work indicated that experimental subjects are prone to obey authority figures when commanded to perform hurtful and, by general standards, immoral acts." (p. 34)
If you are unfamiliar with this experiment check out what Wikipedia has to say about it, or BBC's re-enactment of it.
Using this kind of psychology, what would it have taken for people to turn against me if told to do so? (But who would tell them to do so if they did?) I don't know, but I also do not know how some of the things happened to me that did during my Vienna tenure.
***
Restoring realism and logic to the covert facilitation debate, by Gary T. Marx, p. 43-55.
"Looking at the history of U.S. law enforcement, the key question is: How over the last century (and particularly the last decade), has the United States gone from being among the Western nations most opposed to domestic secret police practices to being their leading practitioner (and even exporter) for criminal cases...?" (p. 46)
It seems to me that even though the immediate topic is covert facilitation in this whole journal issue, that this question is broader than that, and refers to all sorts of "domestic secret police practices." Without any other details to go on, it doesn't tell us much, but is sort of enlightening if researchers of the field note this broad trend. It could provide a context wherein some of my experiences might have been more plausibly explained. I hope I'm not too far out in left field or grasping at straws in my hopes for some clarity regarding my life experiences.
***
"The recent expansion of undercover tactics does not stand alone; it must be seen as part of gradual changes that are making social control more intrusive, manipulative, hidden, intensive, and extensive. Covert facilitation must be considered alongside enhanced dossier, electronic, biological, and chemical means of surveillance and control." (p. 54)
Well, now we at least have a blatant extension of the trend to other areas. But what are biological and chemical means of surveillance?
***
The risks of covert facilitation, by Jerome H. Skolnick, p. 79-85.
"The requirements for issuing a warrant to wiretap are stringent. Title III of 18 U.S.C. #2510-20 prescribes a careful procedure for obtaining a warrant, and federal law preempts state law." (p. 82)
I never felt like the U.S. was eavesdropping on me. But in the USSR/Russia yes, and maybe also in Austria, but I'd need to check my notes about that time period, since so much has happened since.
***
"That covert facilitation will not be used indiscriminately - against politically dangerous persons - seems naive. Once we institutionalize a practice to control one set of dangerous criminals, we are scarcely in a position to protest its use against another 'dangerous' category." (p. 83)
I think the author means by "politically dangerous" someone who could be harmful to one's (a politician's) political aims - maybe Watergate-like targets.
But still, the point here is that the use of something like covert facilitation wouldn't just end where it was supposed, with the legal uses of it.
That's the whole trouble with covert things, if I may take a moment to go into a tirade (that's one of the benefits of this being my blog), once you enter a world of secrecy than everything is possible... well, almost. But you know what I mean.
Here's my understanding of the Scriptural stance on these kinds of things:
John 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.
Ephesians 5:11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.
12 For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret.
And instead of trusting in our own wisdom and strength, here's another way that doesn't involve secrecy and hiding and doing things in the dark, behind closed doors:
For we would not, brethren, have you ignorant of our trouble which came to us in Asia, that we were pressed out of measure, above strength, so that we despaired even of life: But we had the sentence of death in ourselves, that we should not trust in ourselves, but in God who raiseth the dead (II Cor. 1:8-9)
Of course, missions and Christians in general should particularly consider these things, but it also shows in general what I think of this whole secrecy thing.
***
Here's another excellent quote that reaches far beyond the specific subject matter it addresses:
"But it seems just as reasonable to focus on the psychology of the investigator. Can psychologists help answer the question of whether we should be skeptical of the testimony of an investigator who has spent much of his career covert facilitating? Put more abstractly, to what extent do deceptive practices - especially those encouraging wrongdoing - generalize to become absorbed throughout one's personality, thus impairing the moral character of the wrongdoer? Put more colloquially, can an accomplished conman - with or without badge - ever be trusted?" (p. 85)
Let me rephrase this a bit:
Can an accomplished missionary to 'closed' countries, considering s/he's spent much of his/her career being deceptive in his/her ministry ever be trusted? If such a missionary is deceptive with border patrol, others asking about the work ("we do publishing"), other missionaries, where does the deception end?
I really hope someone, and NOT a mission itself, write an honest history of what really went/goes on in 'closed' country missions, and specifically those who worked in the former East Bloc countries.
But I also feel that my dad may have been guilty here to a certain extent. Overall I think he had a lot of integrity, but I think regarding things of his work, and even sometimes as related to me, he may have had to live a bit in this underworld. I do know that after he retired he was able to focus more on his spiritual life and I think he really grew in that realm, so I wonder if not just having more time as a retired person, but the constraints of his work freed him inside to have a deeper spiritual life. I'm not sure, but maybe.
***
That's all for that book. There wasn't a lot of substance to help me unravel my experiences, but it might help with some of the broader framework issues.
~ Meg
