« AnteriorContinuar »
active, “must be aroused to a high emotional stage in order to trigger a crowd to violent action.” Mr. Jones gave “dissident groups with real or imaginary grievances” as the number one basic component element in a riot situation. He added that dissident groups may be subversive or nonsubversive. Another essential element for a riot is a physiological crowd. These crowds may be “spontaneous, casual, or planned and intentional.” Other important components essential to riots are: the agitator, who may or may not intend to trigger a riot; the precipitating incident, either accidental, spontaneous, natural, or developed; internal Security forces brought in to try to control civil disturbances; and the general population of the community. In determining the “character of a riot” it must be considered that “the subversive is interested in a riot for a political purpose.” Normally, subversives do not hope to overthrow a government through one riot, “but they do see in a riot a means of weakening the existing power structure and of turning people against it.” The witness spoke of the evidence which indicates a riot is subversively manipulated and noted that an analytical device or system had been developed in order to eliminate speculation. The riot must be broken down into four phases and each phase analyzed separately. The four riot phases are: (1) the precrowd phase, (2) the crowd phase, (3) the civil disturbance phase, and (4) the post-civil disturbance phase. The precrowd phase is defined as a “preparatory period which is characterized by the development of antagonisms within a community between groups which have a different position on some economic, social, political, or other issue.” In a subversively manipulated riot, the precrowd phase is marked by: (a) the existence of a subversive organization used to create conflict: (h) selection of target groups “on the basis of the conflict potential in the community”; (c) preconditioning measures to influence the attitudes of target groups: (d) the acquisition and storage of weapons and explosives and the planning of escape routes for key individual leaders. In the crowd phase, the crowd is “turned into a mob which throws aside all restraint and engages in collective social violence.” Subversive elements bent on starting a riot “may themselves insure that a crowd will be present” by planning a meeting or rally or “staging an incident” which will draw a crowd. “Once the crowd is assembled, the subversives deploy their personnel in the crowd to agitate and excite it” by shouting slogans, circulating rumors, or making speeches. The most vulnerable crowd is one which has been preconditioned in the aforementioned precrowd stage to react emotionally to certain slogans, phrases, and accusations. In the civil disturbance, or actual riot phase, the witness noted, the highly excited crowd becomes a “mob which through a kind of emotional contagion engages in large-scale, collective social violence.” In a riot which is manipulated by subversives, a “booster incident will be initiated—rocks will be thrown, windows broken, a fire or fight started” and “sniping or looting” may also occur. “A martyr will be exploited or perhaps even created—someone who has been arrested, wounded, or killed by the riot-control forces or intentionally injured or killed by the subversives.” Mr. Jones, in answer to a question at this point in the testimony, stated “that there is a formal organization that attempts to protect the very important subversive manipulators in order to preclude their being arrested.” The witness then went into the fourth stage or “post-civil disturbance phase” of the riot which is characterized as that “period when the violence is ended and social order has been restored.” If subversives are involved, evidence of efforts to further violence will be noted in a continuance of propaganda and agitation. “I)emands which the Government cannot possibly meet will be made.” The witness then directed his testimony to the question of countermeasures to the rioting and said: The basic objective of internal security forces is to restore order, the corrollary is to reestablish respect for law and order and public safety. * * * One of the techniques of controlling crowds is very solidly based upon the specific panic response which is expressed by individuals in the desire to escape or take flight from an immediate threatening area. * * * He noted that chemical munitions (i.e., tear gas) or streams of water cause individuals to start thinking of themselves. Usually this has the effect of dispersing the crowd. Clues which signify the plotting of a riot may include: “the observation of known subversives moving into an area, the discovery of arms caches, the circulation of propaganda, attempts to hire demontrators, attempts to train and orient agitators, arrangements for safe houses and escape routes.” Countermeasures suggested by the witness to an apparent plot to create a riot include “either to disperse the crowd or to bring the crowd under control, to maintain contact with the leaders, and possibly to give the dissidents some sort of outlet.” Mr. Jones commented on countermeasures in the actual riot or civil disturbance phase and said: The procedure of the United States Army is to first use a show of force; then to use riot-control formation: then to consider the use of streams of water; then the use of chemical agents: then fire by selected marksmen; and finally, under very extreme conditions, full fire power. In the postdisturbance period, countermeasures include the use of intelligence in identifying the subversive agitators. During this period the authorities involved should listen to the complaints of members of dissident groups. It is equally important “to get information to the public to undercut the lies, half-truths, and rumors of subversives.” The witness was appraised of current investigation and research of the committee which indicated that certain groups in the United States were actually advocating guerrilla warfare and insurgency in this country. He was asked if he saw a relationship between subversively manipulated riots and insurgency or guerrilla warfare. He answered that he felt that subversively manipulated riots are definitely a part of the political weapon system of the international Communist movement. At the close of his testimony, Mr. Jones indicated that his research spanned a length of time dating prior to the rash of riots in the summer of 1964.
The witness made a passing reference to the October 21, 1967, demonstrations at the Pentagon, stating: I think there is certainly some evidence based upon my analytical scheme to support the contention that someone was trying to incite riotous violence in this particular instance,
TESTIMONY OF HERMAN D. LERNER
On Thursday, October 26, 1967, the subcommittee convened at 10:25 a.m., and the next witness, Herman D. Lerner, was sworn in. Mr. Lerner, who resides at 6825 Laverock Court, Bethesda, Md., stated that he was born in Baltimore, Md., in 1923. He attended public schools in Baltimore and studied the physical and social sciences at the University of Maryland. His studies were interrupted in 1943–46 for a term of military service, after which he resumed college and graduated with an A.B. degree in 1948.
Mr. Lerner did graduate work at Harvard University, where he was a teaching fellow in social change. Since that period he has done additional periodic graduate work at the American University.
For the past 14 years, the witness had been conducting many studies of military systems, research planning and utilization, social and economic issues, and political trends.
Mr. Lerner is a member of various professional associations in operations research, sociology, management, and general science.
Concerning fields of study related to organized rioting, the witness stated that over the past 10 years he had studied "national cohesion, military strategy, general and limited warfare, political rioting, crime, and internal security, with special reference to military-civilian relations, force, propaganda, and strategy."
Commenting particularly on an Office of Naval Research study into riots, during his tenure with them, the witness said:
As for the possibility of rioting as a tactic in general warfare, this was a problem which the study team looked into since it was believed that there would be enormous destruction during a thermonuclear war and that military units might be required to cope with many emergencies, including threats to naval installations and internal security which might arise from political rioting and insurgencies.
The witness listed five headings under which an analysis of recent urban rioting in the United States could be classified: (1). "urban disorganization and poverty"; (2) "community conflict (social, religious, economic, ethnic, racial, et cetera)”; (3) "criminality and delinquency”; (4) "domestic subversion”; (5) "foreign subversion."
The witness defines subversion as “any activity which has as its objective the illegal displacement of power from one group to another; * * * the weakening or destruction of national cohesion through propaganda, military and industrial sabotage, or other economic or political measures."
He added :“Subversion is political criminality.” Drawing a distinction between domestic and foreign subversives, Mr. Lerner said:
A domestic, or "benign” subversive is a person whose disloyalty, alienation, and illegal activity are directed against our national institutions, including our political structure and the incumbents of power, but whose loyalty and allegiance to the Nation—as a people are still intact.
A foreign or "malignant" subversive, on the other hand, is a person who is uncommitted to the Nation and who may in fact be an agent of a foreign power with primary allegiance to that power.
Turning to the circumstances under which political rioting occurs, the witness explained that three subjects must be considered here: (1) "the functions of government”; (2) "how those functions are defined or interpreted by the persons governed”; and (3) “organized exploitation of real or alleged governmental inadequacies and injustices."
In answer to the query of how “people react to organized exploitation of the failure of governmental authority and power, either real or alleged,” the witness replied :
The most important determinant of this reaction is the set of basic attitudes and sentiments which people already have concerning the Government.
An urban Negro in a low income group in the U.S. is unlikely to compare himself with an urban Russian or an urban Chinese or * * * a man in Harlem ordinarily will not compare himself with one in Watts, and vice versa.
* * * But he is more likely to view himself with other nearby Negroes who have more than he or with nearby whites * **.
This sense of comparative or relative deprivation which results from consistently unfavorable comparisons causes frustration, which in turn may lead to aggressive tendencies * **.
The witness observed that authorities in the field of crowds, mobs, and riots had denoted certain "features of aggressive group action which are noteworthy for an understanding of recent urban rioting in the United States."
(a) weakening of customary restraints or inhibitions which ordinarily block illegal behavior and overtly aggressive action against authorities;
(b) moral support for aggressive action from other participants in the group;
(c) reinforced or increased power of the individual ;
(d) intensification of the influence of what might be called negative or antisocial norms; and so forth.
The witness reviewed the steps or stages in the development from a psychological point of view. These stages are: the preconditioning or propaganda stage, a feeling of resentment over unjust deprivation stage, the assembly or crowd-forming stage, the “riot-inciting idea or incident,” and finally the riot.
The riot will have several kinds of significance to the participants, including: “physical and symbolic redress, or righting, of injustice" through damage, looting, or burning, which “symbolizes the punishment of the guilty,” the “power holders and others identified with the established order."
Following the riot, the political goal of the rioter-ordinarily an increase in legitimate power (actual or symbolic)-either is achieved or not achieved.
Mr. Lerner then stated:
These stages should be understood as general concepts which help describe much of the recent political rioting. They do not necessarily apply to all cases. * * * Also, guerrilla units--one person or small groups—may take advantage of the riot by sniping and by other specialized acts or theft, destruction, and terror.
Mr. Lerner was asked if he found evidence of subversion in political rioting. He replied, “Yes. There is no question about it.” He cited examples from the testimony of J. Edgar Hoover, FBI Director, regarding subversion in certain riots in the United States. He said it was also announced and documented by congressional committees (that evidence of subversion in riots exists) and added: But even if we were to cast aside the official information such as that which I have just quoted * * * there would be no question about the existence of subversion in recent urban rioting because the acts of many of the rioters— individually and collectively—are themselves subversive. Mr. Lerner stated that there “are definite patterns which are repeated over and over again in subversively manipulated riots and in their development,” and cited as examples the “frequent, systematic repetition of * * * standardized events, styles, and sequences in widely dispersed areas” such as Watts and Harlem. Mr. Lerner pointed out the involvement of teenage gangs in riots
Youths are more suggestible and impressionable * * * are more readily disposed to physical responses to frustration * * * more idealistic, more highly sympathetic to the underdog, and more highly displeased over apparent deficiencies in the social structure than adults. All of these characteristics make youths a good target for propaganda by those who may wish to represent themselves as sincere, legitimate reformers or idealistic revolutionaries. Mr. Lerner presented his suggestions for dealing with riot situations. He divided his recommendations into (a) “emergency steps” and (b) “long-term programs,” stating that: “Emergency steps are those which should be taken immediately at the threat or outbreak of a riot.” - - “Among the long-term recommendations,” he suggested: (1) Make ethnic “hate” activities a Federal offense * * * (2) Impose limited weapons control [on subversives and criminals] * * * (3) Formulate a set of civil duties which corresponds to civil rights * * * (4) * * * selectively and temporarily reducing rights to speech and assembly of sirbversives * * * (5) * * * devise specific, workable programs for bringing the quality of Negro life in this country to an acceptable level “* * (6) Provide a program for rehabilitation of subversives and insurgents * * * (7) Consider the advisability of broadening the mandate of this committee [House Committee on Un-American Activities] * * * to encompass increased constructive action toward dealing with the conditions which create subversives in this country and toward rehabilitation of subversives. Mr. Tuck thanked the witness for his testimony and discussed further the definition and classification of subversives.
TESTIMONY OF HON. SAM YorTY, MAYOR OF Los ANGELEs, CALIF.
On Tuesday, November 28, 1967, the subcommittee of the Committee on Un-American Activities met in the committee hearing room in the continuation of public hearings into “subversive influences in riots, looting, and burning.”
The witness, Hon. Sam Yorty, mayor of Los Angeles, Calif., was sworn in and stated that he was, by profession, an attorney at law.