[Marxism] Fwd: Aoki
whdgm66 at gmail.com
Sat Aug 25 16:16:50 MDT 2012
On Sat, 25 Aug 2012 22:59 Jeff wrote:
> Oh please! There IS NO legal issue involved under US law in him saying such
things which we all agree are not true (or at least not known to be true).
Otherwise I could sue a number of people on this list who have said much
more outrageous things.....
Since I am not a lawyer, I meant this more in the rhetorical sense
that Rosenfeld can plausibly deny making the explicit accusation. You
apparently take personal offense at actual legal ramifications (or
lack thereof), judging by your bombastic indignation. Nothing I can
do about that.
> Geez, you are the only one who accepts that insinuation. Naming Aoki as the
one "who armed the panthers" was clearly for the purpose of pointing out
that this was an important figure. Just saying that they found some guy who
had been an informer among the Panthers would otherwise have hardly raised
an eyebrow (there surely were many!).
No sir, I am obviously not the only one. It is all over the internet
now, but perhaps you have been hiding under a rock. As I stated
before, the well has been poisoned.
The allegation of Aoki being an FBI informant is still just an
ALLEGATION. It is based entirely on the claims of a now-deceased FBI
agent, who was commenting on heavily-redacted documents that DO NOT
SPECIFICALLY STATE AOKI AS AN ASSET, at least in their redacted form.
This was then extrapolated via Rosenfeld's interpretation of Aoki's
militancy (or ultraleft adventurism, however one desires to view it),
and further "reinforced" by the SPECULATIONS of Swearingen, based on
the same ambiguously redacted documents, who in turn also put forward
the CRACKPOT theory that a high-ranking Japanese-American in a Black
organization was somehow a perfect cover identity.
> But since you called the evidence insufficient, I'd be interested if you could
give me an example of an informer that was uncovered where there was
demonstrably stronger evidence. Thanks in advance, I'm waiting...
What should be required is documentary evidence that specifically
names a person as an informant. This is not the case with Aoki. In
fact, as Louis pointed out, Swearingen has provided much helpful
documentation and research on FBI activities in political groups. But
in the case of Aoki, Swearingen is merely speculating.
> Otherwise I don't understand why Aoki answering the charge by saying
that "It is complex. Layer upon layer" doesn't count as an admission.
An alternative explanation has been offered by Fred Ho and Diane
Fujino, of humored condenscension towards Rosenfeld. I offer this not
necessarily because it is more valid (although it arguably should be,
since unlike Rosenfeld or Swearingen, both Ho and Fujino knew and
worked with Aoki personally for years), but because it is equally
speculative/interpretive, just as you are doing right now. Aoki does
in fact explicitly deny the charge (with a solid "No") in the
interview, but since those of you (including Rosenfeld and Swearingen)
who never knew Aoki have already formed your own conclusions, decide
to interpret it as a lie.
PS - As an aside to Erik Toren, yes, Fujino had access to the same
files as Rosenfeld for her biography. In her judgement, as stated in
the Democracy Now interview, the very same "T-2" document was too
ambiguous to reach any conclusion about whether it names Aoki as an
asset or as a target.
More information about the Marxism