FBI

The man with the naked piano

Eric Rosser hit the charts twice -- as a member of John Mellencamp's band and as one of the FBI's Ten Most Wanted Fugitives, sought on sex crime charges.

  • more
    • All Share Services

The man with the naked piano

A few days after being arrested, Eric Rosser sits in his luxury condominium in Bangkok composing an e-mail to the city’s leading newspapers. “My name is Eric Rosser,” he writes. “Until last Wednesday I have been known as a gifted pianist and teacher, a ten-year resident of Bangkok with a large circle of friends and colleagues and a wonderful wife and family. I believe my friends would have characterized me as an exceptionally kind, gentle and artistic person. Now, since my arrest on Wednesday, I have been exposed as a pedophile.”

“Yes, I am a pedophile,” Rosser types. “As far as I can tell I was born this way, or became so even before the age of 5. I know normal sex play of children was an obsession with me. Even when I became an adult, I felt a child within. I still feel this way, a child masquerading in an adult body. I have never been able to believe in a God who could have perversely created me this way.”

Headlined “The confession of a reluctant pedophile,” the letter dominates the front page of Bangkok’s the Nation newspaper on February 12, 2000, a remarkable testimony to both Rosser’s prominence in the city and his hubris. Renowned for helping rock star John Mellencamp hit the charts and as the long-time house pianist for Bangkok’s posh Oriental Hotel, Rosser also ran a music school for the city’s upper-class children. In the letter Rosser dissembles he only had sex with 4 or 5 children and never molested any of his young music students — he was not “a monster of depravity.” He assures his readers, “I am a wonderful teacher,” and he contends that society should tolerate pedophiles, invoking the “child-like approach to the world” of Charlie Chaplin and Lewis Carroll. “We are your friends and neighbors,” he writes.

Three days before, 10 Royal Thai Police and FBI agents — including police Col. Chachvan Bunmee and FBI agent Tony Siedl, both of whom I interviewed for this story — climbed the broad marble steps of Rosser’s condo. They knocked on his door and showed a search warrant to Rosser’s Thai wife, Muay. Rosser and the couple’s curly-headed toddler, Max, were sleeping inside. Tham, their 10-year-old niece, who lived with them, was already at school.

After the officers woke Rosser, he sat slumped at a table, a 48-year-old man with a high domed head and brooding eyes behind gold wire rims, wearing a freshly pressed plaid shirt and casual pants. Repeatedly, he raged at the police for daring to impose this on him, a gifted artist and teacher.

Rosser told the police the child pornography they sought was at his nearby Rosser Music Studio. In a back room full of video equipment, he showed them a concealed chest containing hundreds of photographs and videotapes of child molestations. “These tapes are terrible and very explicit,” the police spokesman told Bangkok’s the Nation.

The police also found two hidden cameras. Rosser hid one in the school’s toilet, and aimed the other to shoot under his students’ dresses as they played the piano. In one photo Rosser sat on a piano bench pulling down a small Thai girl’s panties. The Thai authorities booked Rosser into prison for child sex crimes and marijuana.

In Rosser’s videotapes and photos, the police identified 19 molested children, including his 10-year-old niece, Tham. One videotape shows Rosser naked on a bed, having sex with his nude niece who is on his belly.

Tham told authorities the molestations dated back five years to the time when she came to live with the Rossers. She spoke of sharing the couple’s bed and being introduced to sex by Rosser and, the girl claimed, his wife. (Due to Thailand’s strict evidence laws, Muay was not arrested; there was no direct evidence linking her to the molestation of the niece.)

On March 21, the U.S. Attorney’s office in Indianapolis announced federal indictments against Rosser on six counts of producing, transporting, distributing and receiving child pornography with maximum possible sentences of 90 years incarceration and $1.5 million in fines. Noting Rosser had a co-conspirator in his old home of Bloomington, Ind., the indictments suggested a pedophile ring that connected Bangkok to the Midwestern university town. Pedophiles passed Rosser’s pornography around via the Internet — rapes and molestations eternally recreated in cyberspace.

On April 4, Rosser’s father posted bail of 1 million Thai baht (about $25,000). The Thai court released Rosser to await an April 18 court date, but he never showed. He e-mailed friends in Bloomington, explaining that he fled because he couldn’t get “a fair trial in either country.” He concluded by writing, “But I have plans — I am not gone forever!”

Eight months later Rosser hit the charts for the second time in his life. The FBI named him as the first child sex crimes fugitive on its Ten Most Wanted Fugitives list, where he joined Osama bin Laden. In one fell swoop, Rosser became the world’s most notorious piano player.

Eric Rosser was an odd man for the FBI list. The son of a college president, he graduated from prestigious music conservatories. He was an international musician with an immense repertoire. Erudite, sophisticated and wealthy, he was a respected member of society in both Bangkok and Bloomington.

“Shocked” was the word that sprung to most people’s lips when the news broke in Bloomington. Rosser was a local celebrity who frequently visited. In the easy familiarity of a small town, I had an acquaintance with him from the late ’70s when he was just another scrabbling Bloomington musician. I sat beside him at local bars and cafes, had mutual friends, attended his concerts with my wife and kids. Like many people, I was horrified when I heard of his arrest. All over town, there were nervous inquiring conversations with children, young and grown.

John Mellencamp refused interviews about his former bandmate. Mellencamp’s one sentence press release apparently misstated that Rosser played with his band “for a short period in 1979″ and he hadn’t seen him since. According to a former band member who asked not to be identified, Rosser didn’t leave the group until the summer of 1981. Mellencamp’s “just trying to protect his playlist,” one former entourage member says. “He’s got a nice income from replays on soft-rock stations.”

Rosser was close with local video producer Jim Krause’s family, often staying with them when visiting Bloomington. “A lot of people will never forgive him,” Krause says. “My oldest daughter is angry. They used to idolize him.” Another close friend confides, “We’re heartbroken. He was our very, very best friend,” before abruptly snapping, “What is the point of talking about this?”

In a town of old radicals, there were dark mutterings of an FBI witch hunt. Bloomington Herald-Times columnist Mike Leonard spoke for many when he questioned Rosser’s placement on the FBI list. “What he was charged with in the great scheme of things — he went out and bought a 7-year-old prostitute off the street like anyone else would do, something like that, whatever the girl was. So not that it makes it right, but there is that trait there,” Leonard says. “Did he really victimize innocent children, or to what extent? All they can do with all their investigation is document that he traded in kiddie porn, and so on. Which again is damnable, but to be locked in a dank prison in Thailand and be subjected to what he would be subjected to, I don’t know if he’s not being punished enough already.”

One man in his 20s exploded when he learned about Rosser’s indictments; Rosser, the man claimed, molested him at a hippie party when he was a young boy. After it happened, his parents told him to keep quiet. This time he didn’t, providing the FBI and Bloomington Herald-Times reporter Bethany Swaby with long wrenching recollections. The revelations created a hubbub among some of Bloomington’s now graying hipsters before the man dropped out of contact, urged by family friends, some said.

“There are people in this town who want to protect Rosser,” Bloomington artist Ned Shaw says. “It’s human nature to cover their own asses, given the attitudes back then — ‘no bad vibes,’ stuff like that. Some people are uncomfortable with it. It’s too grown-up a topic. They just want to put their headphones back on.”

It was a strange dark path that took Rosser from his coddled childhood to his place among America’s most hunted fugitives. He was never shy about his musical talent, or his father’s position. Richard Rosser was a career Air Force officer, joining in 1952, the same year Eric was born in Syracuse, N.Y. Rosser’s father became a colonel and a Ph.D., teaching at the Air Force Academy where his son was a cosseted student on the grounds.

Rosser’s musical career started with a toy xylophone when he was 5 years old. A piano, mandatory lessons and practice came a year later. Rosser was a slight child, physically immature until he was 17. Music became his mitier to attract attention and get his way in the world.

Col. Rosser’s appointment as Air Force attachi to the American Embassy in London in the late 1960s introduced his teenage son to the last years of the Swinging London scene. The English airwaves pulsed with a wild melange of Jimi Hendrix, the Beatles, David Bowie, Fairport Convention, Monty Python and English music hall traditions, showing Rosser that a great slurry of musical styles could capture the masses.

Rosser attended London Central, a high school for children of members of the U.S. Air Force. A 1970 yearbook photo shows him confident and mop-haired with wire rim glasses and a knowing smile, sitting in a female classmate’s lap. The headline reads, “Most Likely to Succeed.”

Getting into Oberlin College’s highly selective Conservatory of Music was a coup for Rosser, who graduated in 1974. It gave him entrie into Indiana University’s top-ranked School of Music master’s program in Bloomington. Tucked into the rugged hills of southern Indiana, the small leafy city is often remembered for the 1979 movie, “Breaking Away,” which preserved Bloomington’s image in a golden aspic where youth is in eternal glow. Bloomington’s enduring fame, however, came from basketball, classical music and the Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender and Reproduction.

When Rosser arrived in 1976, Bloomington was still a bastion of the counterculture. He joined a vibrant music scene that ranged from the classics to wild hippie jams. A year after Rosser arrived, his father assumed the presidency of Depauw University, a small Indiana college. With former Vice-president Dan Quayle as a bellwether alumni, Depauw caters to the progeny of the conservative Midwestern well-to-do.

By 1979, Rosser had reinvented himself. He graduated from Indiana University, replacing his ’70s hippie persona with an image as a suave cosmopolitan. Resisting parental pressure to pursue a doctorate, he stayed in Bloomington as just another eccentric resident, albeit one with the cachet of conservatory training, broad musical tastes and a healthy ambition. He honed his chops in bars like Bear’s Place, a near-windowless warren of small rooms across from I.U. where he gave weekly performances. “Hello, everyone. I’m Eric Rosser and I am a piano player,” he told a Bear’s crowd, “and by that I mean I don’t just play classical music, or I don’t just play jazz, or rock ‘n’ roll, or ragtime. I like to play it all.”

“He went from the mundane to the magnificent and everything in between and he took pleasure in it,” Bear’s employee Abbie Sutton says. “A lot of people came to see him.” Rosser’s ego was well known — “the elite few of us,” he would say. One musician wrote, “Eric really marches to his own beat. He is self important, opportunistic, self-aggrandizing and smug. Everything one needs to be successful in the biz.” Michael White, director of the local community access TV station, says, “He felt he was way above everyone. He felt he was so far beyond, it isolated him.”

After graduation, Rosser jumped at national exposure with fellow Bloomingtonian John Mellencamp’s band. Rosser soon became “Doc,” the professor of the piano who added a refined musicality to the rock ‘n’ rollers. On stage, Mellencamp would prance and strut in sneakers and jeans and then whirl with a pointed finger to introduce, “Doctor Eric Rosser!” Rosser sat conservatory-straight at his Yamaha CS-80 synthesizer and poured out elaborate melodies.

But his cerebral sophistication and big ego didn’t meld well with Mellencamp’s domineering redneck nature. However uncomfortable the relationship, Mellencamp’s music began to climb the charts. It was the cusp of the 1980s, when groupies were media figures and rock stars were rutting dogs on the loose. “We were all trying to get laid,” a former band member says. Entourage members recall Dionysian road scenes, kept secret by “the code of the road” from spouses and girlfriends back home. One says, “I don’t think they were carding for underage.”

By late 1980, Rosser was thoroughly disenchanted with the rock ‘n’ roll lifestyle, Mellencamp’s volatility and the lack of musical challenge, often disappearing into the night after gigs. “By then, he was like, ‘I’m not going to play that, I hate it.’ He hated ‘Jack and Diane,’” singer-songwriter Ted Kubiniec says. Rosser quit the next summer during another Mellencamp tirade.

After leaving Mellencamp’s band, Rosser recorded an album of piano bar music. In the liner notes, he thanked an old friend, Bill Platz, who photographed him “at a moment of mutual inspiration.” A skinny man with a big mustache that hid bad teeth, Platz was a Bloomington photographer some called “Stoney.”

Rosser began performing for regional children’s groups, including “Kid’s Alive,” a local TV show. In the opening scene, he explained the piano to a clutch of toddlers and young children sitting around a battered old upright. “Just to show you how the piano works, how it makes sound,” Rosser told them, “I’m going to take the clothes off of the piano. I’m going to take the pants down on this piano so you can see a naked piano. Don’t make fun of it or you might get embarrassed.”

In the mid-1980s, Rosser took a gig on the Delta Queen riverboat, churning the river between New Orleans and St. Paul. “I obviously have some sort of attraction to romantic lifestyles,” he said. As one acquaintance recalls, Rosser was, “no stranger to hashish.” His former agent saw him in St. Paul, and remembers, “He looked impaired. He looked really stoned. It wasn’t like he was doing a little marijuana. He was on something.”

When in Bloomington, Rosser lived in various bohemian digs. While some conjectured he was gay or bisexual, he had many girlfriends, most with small children. He intimated to one petite live-in girlfriend that he didn’t like her body type, and he had some urges that might overtake him. Increasingly, he hung out in the rustic hills west of town where Bill Platz lived with his wife and two daughters. There was a large hippie-owned commune nearby, the perfect setting for Rosser to work on his Musicruiser.

The Musicruiser, or “Wanda Lust” as he nicknamed it, was a 1967 Dodge church bus. Rosser transformed it into a peppermint-green and pink proscenium on wheels he piloted around the Midwest. Once parked, Rosser wrestled his polished black 1926 Steinway grand piano out onto the cantilevered stage. Like a musical Walt Whitman, Rosser then entertained and enlightened the gathered citizens. I took my family to Rosser’s summer concerts on Bloomington’s vintage courthouse square. His abrupt segues from Chopin to Scott Joplin to down-and-out blues sometimes left me feeling both uncultured and slightly risqui, as though the mix was just a touch naughty.

Both People magazine and the Chicago Tribune ran articles about the Musicruiser in 1987. “Traveling gives you a real opportunity to meet an awful lot of people,” Rosser told a filmmaker about his music. “People want to know you and with just a little work you can get them to open up and maybe get to know them much faster than anyone else.”

For years, he brought the Musicruiser to the hill country commune’s May Day party. The remnants of the local hippie horde toked and drank with hundreds of neighbors, lawyers, teachers, social workers and university folk, celebrating spring with abandon. Naked swimmers of all ages filled the pond, nude parents smiling as their bare children cavorted.

One former commune member who asked not to be named says, “I remember Bill Platz taking pictures down by the pond. He must have been loving it.” Rosser and Platz found another “mutual inspiration,” and began exchanging child pornography. Platz photographed young girls in sexual poses, genitals sometimes exposed. Platz encouraged the girls to “dress-up” for his photography sessions, which included provocative negligee and boudoir shots. One girl’s parents complained to the children’s alternative school. The school dismissed the issue.

As Rosser played a delirious array of dance music, May-Dayers came by to admire the Musicruiser, including a young boy whose father was a friend of Rosser. The boy later said that Rosser plied him with alcohol and marijuana. As night fell, he took the boy for a walk in the woods. And, as the boy remembered years later with unrelenting anger, “He hurt me.”

By the early 1990s, Rosser wrote he was “Musicruisered out.” When the Delta Queen docked for repairs, he left on a round-the-world trip. He ended up settling in his second stop, Bangkok, known to the Thais as Krung Thep — “City of Angels.” “Just Eric on another one of his crazy adventures,” he wrote his friend Jim Krause, “a couple of years, I give it.”

But Rosser found Bangkok’s hedonistic lifestyle and access to high society too beguiling. He marveled at the low cost of living. Recreational drugs were readily available. Quickly, he found gigs in Bangkok’s clubs. Through his university credentials, he taught piano at the respected Robinson Piano School where he rubbed shoulders with the upper crust.

He soon began playing at the century-old Oriental Hotel’s Bamboo Bar. The Oriental is a storied stopping point in Asia. Over the decades the hotel buffed itself into a lush and comforting haven for an international who’s who. The Bamboo Bar recreated a halcyon colonial past with faux animal-skin fabrics and plantation shutters leading to non-existent verandahs. Gracious Thai women in fitted silk gowns served impeccable drinks as Rosser’s tuxedoed jazz quartet entertained the well-heeled crowd with the soothing sounds of Gershwin and Cole Porter. He crowed to friends that he’d nabbed Bangkok’s best gig.

Ironically, the Vietnam War that shaped Bloomington’s counterculture made Bangkok one of Asia’s sex capitals. Prostitution has long been part of Thailand, a mixture of India’s concubine tradition and 19th century Chinese brothel districts. During the 1960s, Thailand served as a massive R&R destination for GIs in Vietnam. American soldiers flooded Bangkok and the beach towns of Pattaya and Phuket. At any one time there were 70,000 American soldiers in Bangkok on R&R. Bangkok’s commercial sex industry exploded. In the infamous Patpong and Soi Cowboy sex districts, thousands of young women and transvestites labored away in go-go bars pulsing with rock ‘n’ roll.

Rosser joined the mass sex tourism that replaced the GIs when the war ended. By 1987 over 70 percent of the tourists who arrived in the “Land of Smiles” were single males. Each year hundreds of thousands of foreigners like Rosser (farangs as the Thais call them) still throng Bangkok’s booming sex districts. Pattaya remains a thriving entreptt of sex, with children a specialty.

There are 15,000 Caucasian residents in Bangkok. A sizable contingent are single foreign men drawn to Thailand’s cheap easy sex — they’re known as sexpatriates. Watered by affordable female attention, many blossom into a cartoonish macho flamboyance of waxed mustaches, safari hats and cowboy boots. As with Rosser, exaggerated self-importance is a common characteristic. “It’s a sexual paradise for the socially bankrupt,” says Laurena Cahill, who covered child sexual exploitation for Bangkok’s the Nation at the time Rosser lived in the city, and is now a journalist in Europe. “It’s a center for a lot of sexual deviance.”

Today Patpong is a frenetic night market about a 10-minute walk from the Oriental Hotel. An anthropologist counted 69 go-go bars on Patpong, including “skull shops” where trios of workers perform oral sex on bald and corpulent farangs lounging at the tables. The scholar also found three shave-and-sex barber shops, and three massage parlors where a hundred or so women wearing numbers sit behind plate glass awaiting clients. Touts snag men cruising the bars where dozens of near-naked young Thai women bump-and-grind listlessly on stages picketed with firepoles. “Hey! Pussy shoot banana! Pussy smoke cigarette! You see? Hey! Fuck show! 69! You see?” touts yells over the music.

Rosser found one of his victims on nearby Soi Cowboy. Bee was a 9-year-old girl from the Klong Toey slum who sold flowers on the street. She appeared in one of Rosser’s videos, a small dark-haired prepubescent girl masturbating him as he rubbed her bare genitals; giving him oral sex on a short-time hotel’s round bed, the headboard’s bank of mirrors reflecting her immature body and Rosser’s thickened graying one.

“Thailand has been facing this for the last 10-15 years,” says Father Joe Maier, the children’s rights activist who has run the Human Development Foundation in Klong Toey for three decades. “You’ve got all these tourists — people like Eric Rosser. They think, ‘You fuck ‘em when they’re 18 or you fuck ‘em when they’re 12. What’s the difference?’ Thailand is in agony.”

Victims like the two Thai girls and the boy in Bloomington often suffer outbursts, insomnia, depression, anxieties, disassociative disorders, and sexual dysfunction, either withdrawing from contact, or becoming prematurely sexualized 7-year-olds who come on to any man. Drug and alcohol addiction are common. Beyond the high risk of premature pregnancies and increased maternal deaths, the young have a much higher risk of contracting STDs, particularly HIV. Half of the 30,000 to 35,000 Thai children coerced or lured into prostitution are HIV positive. The International Labour Office in Geneva wrote, “Case studies and testimonies of child victims speak of a trauma so deep that many are unable to enter or return to a normal way of life.”

A few years after his arrival in Bangkok, Rosser married a young Thai woman, Muay, from a comfortable peasant family in Isan, the poverty-ridden northeastern homeland for many of Bangkok’s commercial sex workers. Rosser told Bloomington friends that Muay came from a leading Thai family, though she didn’t. In time, the Rossers became a well-recognized couple in Bangkok.

Rosser was one of Bangkok’s top musicians, the accompanist wanted by touring international stars. Calling himself an “entrepreneurial virtuoso,” Rosser organized classical concerts in the city’s finest halls. (In August 1999 the Nation announced, “Music lovers are in for a special experience this Saturday, when Bangkok’s Eric Rosser performs a solo recital of piano sonatas at 8 p.m. at the Thai-German Cultural Centre Auditorium. Rosser is playing Johann Sebastian Bach’s ‘Partita in D Major.’”) Capitalizing on his reputation, he began the Rosser Music Studio in 1997, soon employing half a dozen teachers for a hundred elite children.

Rosser was riding high. He had a big income from his various gigs. He finally had the position he always craved. With access to young girls and international pedophile contacts, he was living out his greatest sexual fantasies. “This is a fulfilling life,” Rosser told the Bloomington Herald Times during a 1999 visit. “I’m doing all the things I love to do.”

“He thought he was better than the average person,” says an American singer who worked with Rosser in Bangkok and requested anonymity. “He was up there with the society people. He would walk with his nose in the air, walk into a restaurant carrying his briefcase, sit down and put his newspaper up. It gets to you,” she says. “I watched him change in the two years I was there. By the time I left in 1999, he was just too damned arrogant.”

Rosser swapped his pornography with British and Japanese pedophiles in Bangkok, and with Bill Platz in Bloomington. In turn, Platz passed the materials to other Bloomington pedophiles. Like most porn rings, it was more a chain than a club, the pornography moving from man to man, each knowing the others only by shadowy reference. Rosser was “a musician in Bangkok.” Soon Platz’ and Rosser’s pornography was on virtually every kiddie porn site on the Web.

“The Internet has really revolutionized trafficking in child pornography and what it represents,” says Ken Lanning, former FBI special agent and an expert on the sexual victimization of children. “The Internet may be acting as a catalyst, both in molestation and pornography traffic,” he says. “Pedophiles can convince themselves they are not evil, just politically incorrect.”

With the indictments in the United States, Rosser ran. The publicity from the Ten Most Wanted Fugitives list generated hundreds of leads. The FBI received photos and videos placing Rosser in Germany, Austria, Monaco, France and Spain. Not all the tips were helpful. The Danish Pedophile Association urged their members to send false leads. In July a former Bloomingtonian saw Rosser playing a cobbled-together piano-cum-moped beside a canal in Amsterdam. He wore a goatee and a beret, still playing his old repertoire. Another informant said Rosser tried to persuade a young blond girl to come closer. “She was clearly uncomfortable with his attention,” the woman told “America’s Most Wanted” television show, “but he continued to coax and to entice her to get closer to him.”

Last January, he performed in Barcelona, still rolling his red Apollo moped-piano around Europe. An American expatriate in Barcelona sent a picture of Rosser playing under the name of Neil Biker with a jazz quartet, the Crooked Wheel, at the city’s Harlem Jazz Club. The police almost nabbed Rosser, missing him only by a week or two.

In August a viewer of “America’s Most Wanted” spotted Rosser back in Bangkok. And on Aug. 21 Thai police arrested him carrying a false British passport under the name of Peter Alexander Hill and sporting a beard and surgically altered features; liposuction slimmed his face and plastic surgery changed his chin. In his nearby Chatuchak District apartment, police found additional counterfeit Norwegian and Netherlands passports, marijuana and a large cache of child pornography.

The Thai authorities quickly convicted Rosser for the counterfeit documents while they prepared their other cases for drugs and child sex crimes against him. U.S. Department of Justice and Department of State officials immediately began the extradition process with the cooperating Thai government. While there are currently a number of scenarios, most likely Rosser will serve time in Thailand for the false documents, two counts of marijuana possession (one dating back to his first arrest) and the child sex crimes before being extradited to the States to face trial on U.S. charges. When asked how much prison time Rosser faces, a U.S. legal official speaking off the record says, “Oh, he could get quite a lot.”

Today, Rosser’s friend Bill Platz is serving an 11-year sentence in federal prison in Lisbon, Ohio, for his conviction on charges relating to the child porn sex ring. Tham is living with her bar-worker mother in the beach town of Pattaya, as she has since her mother and Rosser’s wife Muay snatched her from the Bangkok children’s shelter. No one is quite certain where Muay and Rosser’s son Max are living. Father Joe Maier says Muay divorced Rosser to marry a man from Australia, where she now lives. A newspaper story indicated Muay is staying with Rosser’s family in America and son Max is living in Bangkok. Former Rosser friends in Bloomington say they think the boy might be with Rosser’s mother in Ohio.

Throughout his arrest and sentencing in Bangkok, Eric Rosser was unrepentant, claiming he had “obviously lost his obsession.” As he was led to a police car, he told reporters, “I am not the evil man everyone thinks I am. I love Thailand, that’s why I’m back here.” When the police captured him, he was walking to a school that would certify him to teach English. He hoped to get a job tutoring children in northern Thailand.

Douglas Wissing is a writer in Bloomington, Indiana. He is writing "Dr. Albert Shelton: Pioneering in Tibet, 1904-1922," a biography of the renowned explorer-collector.

Who gets to be an FBI threat?

A recent Rolling Stone article raises troubling questions about FBI entrapment schemes and their targets

  • more
    • All Share Services

Who gets to be an FBI threat?The five men arrested on April 30 for plotting to blow up a bridge near Cleveland, Ohio. (Credit: AP/FBI)

Writing in Rolling Stone this week, Rick Perlstein looks at how the FBI regularly entraps and creates “terrorists” out of anarchists and activists, while comparatively ignoring violent white supremacist groups.

Using some recent examples, Perlstein paints a startling picture. He notes the arrest this month of a small group of self-identified anarchists, participating in Occupy Cleveland, who — strung along in an FBI sting — planned to blow up a large Ohio bridge. The target was suggested and (fake) C-4 explosives were provided by an FBI infiltrator. As Perlstein put it, the episode was one among numerous law enforcement schemes since 2001 in which “the alleged terrorist masterminds end up seeming, when the full story comes out, unable to terrorize their way out of a paper bag without law enforcement tutelage.”

Perlstein contrasts the Ohio arrestees with another recently arrested group: The American Front, a “known terrorist group” of Florida-based white supremacists who — without FBI encouragement — “took a break from training with machine guns for a race war in order to fashion weapons out of fake ‘Occupy’ signs which they planned to use to assault May Day protesters in Melbourne, Florida.” While anarchists, animal rights activists and Muslims pass muster as federal targets, organized hate groups do not.

The distinction between entrapment (which is illegal) and a sting (which is legal) now appears to be a much eroded line in the sand. As Perlstein’s piece points out, it is up to a jury once arrests have been made whether law enforcement set up a trap or a sting. In previous decades, defendants have been acquitted in cases of entrapment; but not in recent years:

Not a single “terrorism” indictment has been thrown out for entrapment since 9/11 – not the Liberty City goofballs supposedly planning to blow up the Sears Tower who had no weapons and refused them when offered; not the Newburgh, New York outfit whose numbers included a schizophrenic who saved his own urine in bottles. (Even the judge who sentenced them said “the government made them terrorists.”)

One of the most famous recent cases of FBI infiltration — which is not mentioned in the Rolling Stone article — hangs over anarchist networks worldwide. Brandon Darby, the once trusted activist and organizer-turned-FBI-informant and now writer for Andrew Breitbart’s Big Government, is the dirtiest name to utter in anarchist circles. Darby infiltrated groups organizing protests around the 2008 Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minn. Darby fed the FBI information, which helped them seize riot shields made by a group from Texas. Enraged by the seizure (but still viewing Darby as a comrade) two young men from Austin, David McKay and Bradley Crowder, bought the materials for and constructed Molotov cocktails with the thought of using them against state vehicles. The two, however, decided overnight that this was a bad idea — and left the devices at home, with no intention of using them.

Darby passed information about the Molotov cocktail plans on to the FBI, and McKay and Crowder were arrested and charged with domestic terrorism. While Crowder accepted a plea deal without trial for a two-year prison sentence for making the devices, McKay went to trial, arguing Darby entrapped him. The trial ended with a hung jury. Before the retrial, however, McKay retracted claims of entrapment and agreed to accept a plea deal (and serve a four-year prison sentence, for making the Molotovs and perjury).

Perlstein notes that “the State is singling out ideological enemies” – and if federal sting targets are much to go by, the State’s position is clear: anti-capitalists, environmentalists and Muslims are threats; racists are not. We can respond by decrying FBI activity, and by arguing that their targets are not real threats. Or, we can take patterns of FBI activity more seriously and ask why anti-capitalists are more threatening than white supremacists. This line of questioning can likely be reduced to two questions, chanted again and again up and down the country when protest front lines are faced with lines of police: “Who do you protect? Who do you serve?”

Continue Reading Close

Natasha Lennard covers the Occupy movement for Salon. A British-born, Brooklyn-based journalist, she has been covering Occupy Wall Street since before the first sleeping bag was unrolled in Zuccotti Park. One of the first journalists arrested at an Occupy action, she has managed to enrage Andrew Breitbart, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. You can follow her on Twitter (@natashalennard), and email her any Occupy updates/videos/ideas to natasha.lennard@gmail.com

FBI heroically locks up ridiculous anarchists on May Day

Feds stop inept radicals from carrying out a plot feds helped them conceive and carry out

  • more
    • All Share Services

FBI heroically locks up ridiculous anarchists on May DayU.S. Attorney Steven Dettelbach, left, and FBI special agent in charge Stephen Anthony walk past a map showing the location of a bridge on Ohio Rt. 82. Five men, pictured on the wall behind the map, have been arrested for conspiring to blow up the bridge. (Credit: AP/Mark Duncan)

Happy May Day, fellow travelers! If you’re not currently disrupting capitalism and/or having your wrists zip-tied for exercising your right to freely assemble, you probably read about the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s latest, not-at-all suspiciously timed terror sting. The Bureau, in an inspired bit of early-20th century nostalgia, has railroaded a bunch of dangerous anarchists. (Or “dangerous” “anarchists.”) America will not waver in the face of the Galleanist threat!

Five young men from Cleveland are now in jail, accused of plotting to “blow up a bridge in the Cleveland area,” according to the FBI’s triumphant press release/criminal complaint. As is always the case with FBI terror stings, the “sting” part involved the bureau’s informant/agent provocateur mostly inventing the plot the accused have now been arrested for. In this case, the five planned to detonate smoke bombs as a distraction as they “topple[d] financial institution signs atop high rise buildings in downtown Cleveland.” But the informant (as usual, a sketchy unnamed character with a checkered past) strongly pushed the group to seriously consider different, more extreme plots. At the end, some or all of them were going to plant C-4 on the Route 82 Brecksville-Northfield High Level Bridge over the Cuyahoga Valley National Park.

So what was initially a political action aimed at financial institutions somehow morphed into a supposed attempt to destroy or damage a piece of publicly owned infrastructure in a national park. Anarchists sure do hate bridges, and parks, I guess. (No parliament of men has the authority to designate which spaces are “national parks”! The whole world is the worker’s national park!)

The FBI’s affadavit suggests that there was never actually a serious “plot.” The gang tossed around the idea of “taking out” a bridge in order to stop people from getting to work, but they also thought maybe they could use their (pretend) C4 on a Klan rally, or a neo-Nazi organization, or an oil well, or the Federal Reserve Bank. They eventually decided to maybe sink a ship. All of their many plans were super serious and well-thought out. (“To prevent capture, he suggested getting tacks that they could throw out of the back of a car if they get in a chase.”) Eventually they settled on the bridge thing, sort of, and bought fake IEDs from the guy they already suspected was a cop.

In other words, these are a bunch of dumbasses even by the standards of amateur “black bloc” dumbasses. Do you know how I know these morons weren’t serious? They planned to download the Anarchist Cookbook and follow its notoriously awful instructions. Every experienced anarchist knows that the Feds have a mole in your group house, but these guys were mainly concerned with having someone’s “hacker friend” explain to them how bitcoins work. Without the FBI’s intervention the most damage these idiots would’ve ever caused is a broken Starbucks window. So thank god they’re off the streets, and congrats to the FBI for getting this tale of dangerous, bomb-planting anarchists onto the news broadcasts on the day of Occupy’s big May Day action.

(At least the Feds are branching out from only targeting Muslims in these ridiculous “stings.” Some day all Americans, regardless of creed or color, will have their circle of friends secretly infiltrated by a paid informant.)

Continue Reading Close
Alex Pareene

Alex Pareene writes about politics for Salon and is the author of "The Rude Guide to Mitt." Email him at apareene@salon.com and follow him on Twitter @pareene

U.S. intelligence unmasked

The author of a new FBI book talks about what being a spy is really like and ways to balance liberty and security

  • more
    • All Share Services

U.S. intelligence unmasked
This interview first appeared in The Browser, as part of the FiveBooks series. Previous contributors include Paul Krugman, Woody Allen and Ian McEwan. For a daily selection of new article suggestions and FiveBooks interviews, check out The Browser or follow @TheBrowser on Twitter

The job of the intelligence services is to understand others and help leaders act more wisely, says Tim Weiner, the author of a new history of the FBI. There’s also, he tells us, a balance to be struck between liberty and security.

The BrowserYou have spent decades studying the inner workings of America’s intelligence system, and the past few years looking at newly released files from the FBI. What will we learn by reading your new history of the FBI, “Enemies”?

You will learn that the Bureau has served first and foremost as a secret intelligence service reporting to the president of the United States. In its first incarnation under J. Edgar Hoover, who ruled the Bureau for 48 years, the FBI was the president’s secret intelligence service. Today, 40 years after Hoover’s death, we still live in the shadow of his legacy. How do you run a secret intelligence agency in an open and democratic society? How do you balance national security and civil liberty? How can we be both safe and free? These are questions that Hoover struggled with, and that we struggle with still.

Your prize-winning book about the CIA, “Legacy of Ashes,” was called “a credible and damning indictment of U.S. intelligence policy” by Publishers Weekly. What are the counts in your indictment, if you agree with that assessment?

I certainly agree that “Legacy of Ashes” is credible, because every assertion is documented. There are about 200 pages of endnotes, and about 80 pages of endnotes in “Enemies.” When I say something, I back it up. But “Legacy of Ashes” is not an indictment of the CIA. The CIA and FBI are reflections of who we are as Americans. We are the most powerful nation on earth. We project our power across the globe, and in order to do that we need good intelligence. When intelligence fails, war happens and people die. When intelligence succeeds, war can be prevented and lives can be saved.

America is not very good at gathering intelligence, but we’re getting better. It’s understandable, because Americans have only been at it in a serious and concerted way since World War II. The British have been at it since Queen Elizabeth I, over five centuries. The Russians have been at it since Peter the Great. And the Chinese have been at it ever since Sun Tzu wrote “The Art of War,” so 26 centuries.

I want my books to serve not as an indictment but as a warning. If the U.S. doesn’t strike the balance correctly between security and countervailing concerns, we may lose our rights and our liberties, and we may not survive as a free republic. We have made many mistakes, the consequences of which can be measured in blood and treasure, but we are improving – particularly over the last three years.

Let’s turn to the books you’ve chosen, beginning with Sun Tzu. Tell us about “The Art of War,” and what an ancient Chinese military treatise has to do with contemporary U.S. intelligence.

Sun Tzu, a Chinese general 26 centuries ago, tells us: “If you know your enemies and know yourself, you can win a hundred battles without a single loss.” That is the mission of intelligence. We can build all the billion dollar spy satellites we want – and we do – but to know your enemy is to talk to him in his own language. That is the job of spies, and that is what “The Art of War” teaches.

Chapter seven focuses on the dangers of direct conflict. How do U.S. intelligence agencies, as Sun Tzu says, “subdue the enemy without fighting”?

Through intelligence. Intelligence is the art of war without weapons.

How about black ops?

Well, you need to define what that is. Is it disinformation, lying, cheating or stealing? Black ops can mean all of those things. It can mean propaganda. It can mean putting a spy in the enemy’s camp. It can mean putting a bomb under the hood of the car of an Iranian nuclear scientist. The phrase “black operations” encompasses a multitude of sins.

All of them committed by U.S. intelligence?

The last one I listed was the work of the Israelis.

Let’s turn to a 1964 book that brought to light the role that intelligence services played in U.S. foreign policy.

“The Invisible Government” was the first reported book that actually described what the CIA did. It was written almost 50 years ago, and was a landmark. It explained that the CIA was not James Bond, which was just then becoming popular – that intelligence was not a matter of flying into a foreign capital in a trench coat, overthrowing a government, having a martini, making love and then catching the next plane. It showed that intelligence was a difficult, dirty, dangerous and at times tedious business which was about information, and how information meant power.

So it’s a very good book that is still vital today. And David Wise is still writing great books about intelligence.

In the introduction, the author defines the invisible government as the “interlocking, hidden machinery that carries out the policies of the United States… a loose, amorphous grouping of individuals and agencies drawn from many parts of the visible government”, with the CIA “at its heart”. Is that 50-year-old description of America’s intelligence apparatus still accurate? How did 9/11 change the structure of U.S. intelligence?

Things got much more complex. There are now 17 different American intelligence services, with a bureaucracy of interlocking directorates above them overseen by the Director of National Intelligence. All of them are required to report to the secretary of defense, who in turn reports to the president. In the last three years things have gotten better, largely due to the author of our next book.

That author is former CIA director and U.S. secretary of defense, Robert Michael Gates.

Robert Gates was the head of the CIA under the first President Bush. Under the second President Bush, at the end of 2006, he succeeded the irascible Donald Rumsfeld as secretary of defense. He stayed on under Obama until just a few months ago.

Gates, as you can see in “From the Shadows,” really understands how intelligence can serve and do disservice to the president of the United States. He probably had more experience in intelligence than anyone who has ever been secretary of defense. The secretary of defense basically runs the show when it comes to intelligence. We spend somewhere just south of $100 billion a year – the precise amount is classified – on intelligence, and the secretary of defense controls 85 to 90 percent of that.

Tell us more about this book.

Bob Gates basically got off the bus from Wichita, Kan. in 1966 and went to work for the U.S. government. He went from the air force to the CIA. After learning Russian, he became an expert – as we defined it – on Russia during the Cold War. He himself never went to Russia until the Cold War was ending, even though he was considered to be among the leading experts on the USSR. He got off the plane and Gorbachev said to him: “How does it look from the ground?” Because the U.S. had been staring down at the Soviet Union from spy satellites and planes, but we didn’t understand what was going on on the ground. We could count the missiles, but we didn’t see the potatoes rotting in the field because there wasn’t enough fuel to take them to market.

Gates learned through bitter experience, over the course of half a century, how intelligence works. It’s an amazing book. And as secretary of defense he used that knowledge to improve our intelligence services.

What precisely is the relationship between the Department of Defense and the U.S. intelligence apparatus?

Ultimately, intelligence should serve the national security of the United States. When you get up in the morning and open the paper or turn on your computer, you want to know: Is the world safe? Is my country safe? Is my city safe? Is my family safe? That is what the president wants to know too, and that is the job of intelligence.

Can any flow chart explain the relationship between the 17 agencies that are part of the U.S. intelligence service and Department of Defense?

In theory, it’s a bunch of boxes that connect and send intelligence up through the director of national intelligence and the secretary of defense to the president. In the past, it has worked more like 17 different musicians with 17 different scores playing a cacophonous tune with the conductor flailing his arms madly. But we’re getting better at it.

Next you cite one of Barbara Tuchman’s lesser-known works of history, “The March of Folly.” Tell us about it.

In short, this is one of the greatest books ever written. Why did the Trojans take in the wooden horse? Why was America in Vietnam? Barbara Tuchman explores those questions, and the answer is folly – leaders acting against the interests of their constituents.

Folly explains so much of the history of world events. People believe that the world is run by conspiracies because that is what they read in novels and see on cheap TV series. But the course of world events is determined less by conspiracies than it is by stupidity. Why did the British lose the United States? How did the Renaissance popes bring on the Protestant reformation? Folly. Lack of intelligence.

Please connect the dots to our topic of intelligence.

Consider the three meanings of the word intelligence. It is the power of your mind; it is secret information; and it is secret action taken in the name of a nation. If we had more intelligence we would know our enemies, have fewer wars and there would be less folly throughout history.

If the Trojans knew the Greeks were in the horse, they wouldn’t have opened the gates.

Exactly. Why did they let the horse in? Folly.

“The March of Folly” is used to teach blind spot analysis in business schools, a method for uncovering faulty or obsolete assumptions. How do intelligence agencies perform blind spot analysis to prevent the sort of folly that Tuchman described?

“The March of Folly” explains how not to make decisions. Leaders must learn to act only out of enlightened self-interest. To use power wisely, they must make intelligent use of information. If they blunder on based on faulty assumptions, then the Greeks end up inside of Troy and Americans wind up mired in Vietnam for a decade.

Let’s end with George Orwell’s “1984.” Most of us know it, but please explain why you chose it.

None of us love Big Brother, but we all know he is part of the family. Big Brother is like the uncle we don’t like who has to be invited for Christmas. The question is: How do we live with Big Brother without him ruining our lives?

“1984″ described, in 1948, what the modern surveillance state was going to look like. At the time, J. Edgar Hoover was creating that surveillance state. He is the man who invented the fingerprint file. Every camera that stares down on us in Washington, New York and London, and every bit of biometric data collected on us, is a tribute to Hoover. The greatness of Orwell’s book is that he saw it coming and described it in terms we could understand. What Orwell foretold in “1984″ was already happening as the book was being published. And that is what my history of the FBI, “Enemies,” is about.

But you suggest that America’s Big Brother is a bit of a bumbling uncle.

Like I say, we’re relatively new at this. We’ve only been at this in a serious way since World War II. The lessons of Sun Tzu are 26 centuries old and we’re only just internalising them. So give us a chance.

Also, to know your enemy you must talk to him in his own language. Nowadays that might be Arabic or Pashto or Chinese or Urdu. We don’t speak those languages very well. We want everyone to speak English. We want everyone to look like us, think like us and be like us. That isn’t a very good cultural climate for producing successful intelligence, nor for the enduring projection of power.

During a visit to the FBI, as you point out, President Obama proclaimed “we must always reject as false the choice between our security and our ideals.” But you suggest that liberty and security are opposing forces. How has the pendulum swung between liberty and security? And which way is it swinging now?

In the introduction to “Enemies” I point out that Alexander Hamilton, writing in 1787, said almost exactly the same thing. We have to have liberty and security. They are opposing forces and there is a constant tug of war between them. We strive to strike the right balance.

I would argue that over the last three years we’ve been getting it less wrong than we once did. Have we been attacked in a serious way? No. Have we created any new secret prisons? No. It was the FBI who reported the abuses in Abu Ghraib. It was the FBI director, Robert Mueller, who stared down George W Bush and told him to scale back electronic eavesdropping. Robert Mueller is an ex-Marine and also a great respecter of civil liberties. He has said that he is not going to go down in history as the guy who won the war on terror but took away our civil liberties – because that would be a pyrrhic victory.

When the FBI makes mistakes under Mueller, it admits and corrects them. He and the people he reports to must strike the balance between liberty and security every day. Lately, we’re doing a pretty good job. There will always be mistakes. Getting the balance precisely right is extremely difficult and, like democracy itself, is a work in progress.

Continue Reading Close

The love J. Edgar Hoover does not deserve

Clint Eastwood's kindly biopic of the FBI director skims over the vicious racist

  • more
    • All Share Services

The love J. Edgar Hoover does not deserveLeonardo DiCaprio in "J. Edgar"

Historic verisimilitude has never been Hollywood’s top priority, and its latest blockbuster, “J. Edgar,” is no exception.

Director Clint Eastwood, who often played the part of a lawman on the big screen, is now serving up what amounts to a brief for the defense of the FBI’s legendary director, J. Edgar Hoover (played by Leonardo DiCaprio).  In the process, Eastwood distorts the historical record, omitting  facts about Hoover’s ruthless abuse of power, and even sanitizing the infamous cross-dressing rumors involving America’s top cop.

The film deservedly gives Hoover credit for establishing the first federal police force that used modern forensics to nab bad guys, especially Prohibition-era gangsters whose grisly kidnappings and murders had captivated the public’s appetite for the lurid underworld of criminals and their molls. Eastwood also provides a plausible rationale for Hoover’s lifelong paranoia about Communism:  Soon after World War I ended, the Washington home of Hoover’s boss, Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer, was bombed by an anarchist.

Fair enough.

But the biopic inaccurately portrays Hoover as a critic of Sen. Joe McCarthy. In fact, the FBI director was a crucial ally of the Red-baiting demagogue.  Indeed, at Hoover’s personal direction, agents spent hundreds of hours perusing FBI files to supply McCarthy with evidence of Communist subversion.   Hoover also coached McCarthy about how to insulate himself from criticism by labeling targets as “loyalty risks” instead of “card-carrying Communists,” which was harder to prove.  A Hoover deputy even instructed McCarthy on manipulating press coverage by releasing his attacks just before news deadlines so that reporters wouldn’t have time to interview the other side.

Nor does the film discuss Hoover’s order to “neutralize” Eastwood’s one-time costar, actress Jean Seberg, by falsely telling journalists that she was pregnant thanks to a leader of the Black Panthers.  Seberg later committed suicide; her family blamed the FBI smear.

The biopic does portray Hoover’s obsession with Martin Luther King Jr., ostensibly because of his ties to Soviet agents, which led to FBI bugs that captured the civil rights leader’s marital infidelity.  But here, too, “J. Edgar” underplays Hoover’s nefariousness.   In fact, the FBI planted listening devices in King’s home, office and hotel rooms, recording more than a dozen large tape reels whose contents Hoover provided to numerous parties: the president and vice president, the attorney general, the secretary of state, the secretary of defense, the CIA, the military, the United Nations, members of Congress, and the press.

What vital intelligence did Hoover disseminate?  That King, according to Hoover, was a “tom cat” with “obsessive degenerate sexual urges.”  The FBI claimed to have recorded King in flagrante during group sex parties in which, according to FBI transcripts, he boasted of his prowess (“I am the best pussy-eater in the world”) and invoked Jesus while in the throes of passion: “I’m fucking for God!”

Ultimately, FBI accounts of King’s sexual antics turned out to be embellished.  Although King committed adultery, a Hoover deputy involved in the smear campaign later admitted that the African-American voices captured on FBI bugs may actually have been those  of King’s associates;  to the white agents who made up Hoover’s force, all black voices evidently sounded the same.  Still, that didn’t stop Hoover’s minions from compiling yet another field report that spread the preposterous story that King, after accepting the Nobel Peace Prize, got drunk and chased prostitutes down the hallway of his Oslo hotel — while stark naked.

Hoover stubbornly believed his incendiary leaks would “destroy the burrhead.”  But they didn’t.  Despite Hoover’s best efforts to spread the dirty details, no member of the press reported on them; in the mid-1960s, such gossip-mongering was anathema to the mainstream media.  Still, no journalists had the courage to reveal the FBI’s witch hunt against King, either; news executives feared crossing Hoover no less than the politicians who were routinely blackmailed by him.  (According to author Curt Gentry, Hoover blocked a critical magazine article by circulating photos of the publisher’s wife performing fellatio on her black chauffeur.)

Even King’s assassination didn’t stop the FBI’s vilification.  Indeed, the worldwide grief over his murder made Hoover more determined than ever to resurrect the salacious stories about the martyr’s sex life.  This time, the FBI found a willing outlet: columnists Drew Pearson and Jack Anderson, who quoted from Hoover’s classified files about King’s “illicit love affair with the wife of a prominent Negro dentist.”  (Anderson later decided that Hoover had used him to implicate King in “a posthumous scandal, to turn even his death into a sordid affair.”  Three years later, Anderson paid him back by becoming the first prominent mainstream journalist to turn on Hoover — rifling through his trash, exposing his financial corruption and blackmailing techniques, even hinting that he was gay.)

And what about such gossip, including that Hoover had a secret double-life as a drag queen?  In Eastwood’s movie, the rumor is transformed from the erotic to the morose: Minutes after the death of Hoover’s mother, he grieves near her body, weeping mournfully as he dons her necklace and a favorite dress.  The lawman is not a sexual pervert, you see, just a faithful and bereaved son.

In truth, the outlandish cross-dressing story was circulated more than three decades after it allegedly occurred, when a witness of dubious credibility told writer Anthony Summers that she saw Hoover at a New York orgy, engaging in sex with young boys while reading a Bible. He was supposedly dressed in a red skirt, lace stockings, high heels and curly wig, a black feather boa around his neck and makeup with false eyelashes on his face.

Perhaps the posthumous vilification of Hoover as a depraved sexual hypocrite is only poetic justice; after all, during his lifetime, he was Washington’s consummate master of sexual slander and political blackmail.  But instead of ignoring the baseless transvestite story, “J. Edgar” attempts to sanitize it and rehabilitate Hoover’s image.

Even Eastwood’s depiction of the FBI director’s relationship with his longtime deputy and confidant — and reputed lover — gives Hoover the heterosexual benefit of the doubt.  Although Clyde Tolson (Armie Hammer) is portrayed as Hoover’s loyally swishy sidekick, Hoover returns the adoration with only a manly love, rebuffing Tolson’s overture to turn the relationship physical.  However tormented, Hoover remains in the end closeted even from himself.

To be sure, cinematic license is to be expected in such movies; feature films are not nonfiction biographies.  But given the known facts of Hoover’s life, Eastwood has painted his subject in the best light possible—better than he deserves and infinitely kinder than Hoover ever treated his many enemies, who included some of the most heroic figures of that tumultuous era.

Somewhere, J. Edgar Hoover is smiling: Clint Eastwood has made his day.

Continue Reading Close

Mark Feldstein, Richard Eaton Professor of Journalism at the University of Maryland, is the author of Poisoning the Press: Richard Nixon, Jack Anderson, and the Rise of Washington’s Scandal Culture, just released in paperback.

“J. Edgar”: Clint Eastwood’s lame and insulting Hoover biopic

Leonardo DiCaprio mumbles through this tepid, soft-focus saga of America's closeted secret policeman

  • more
    • All Share Services

Leonardo DiCaprio as J. Edgar Hoover in "J. Edgar"

We gather today to pay tribute to two genuine American icons, but without saying anything nice about either of them. Clint Eastwood has made a movie — or at least I think that’s what it is; the lighting is often so dim it’s difficult to make out — about longtime FBI director J. Edgar Hoover, who acted as the wacko third rail of American law enforcement for almost half a century. “J. Edgar” is one of those prestige Hollywood pictures that sounds, at first, as if it might be a good idea: a name director, a supposedly big star playing a major historical figure, and a script by young screenwriter Dustin Lance Black, who since “Milk” has become the go-to scribe for what is no doubt described in story meetings as “gay material.” But instead of a good idea, “J. Edgar” turns out to be one of the worst ideas anybody’s ever had, a mendacious, muddled, sub-mediocre mess that turns some of the most explosive episodes of the 20th century into bad domestic melodrama and refuses to take any clear position on one of American history’s most controversial figures.

I’ll get to the historical and political insults of “J. Edgar” shortly, and they are legion. But most of all it’s a boring and silly movie, which features Leonardo DiCaprio bumbling around his dreary, post-Victorian suite of offices, looking worried under a mountain of latex and makeup (when he plays the 1970s-era Hoover) and talking in one of those unplaceable, old-timey Northeast Corridor accents. (Admittedly, Hoover in life had a strange voice; he lived from birth to death in Washington, D.C., but spoke in an affected manner that sounded nothing like today’s mid-Atlantic accent.) It’s like a combination of acting-school exercises and the History Channel, with all the production values and dramatic intensity that suggests. Hoover’s longtime deputy director and presumed lover, Clyde Tolson, is played by Armie Hammer as — how do I put this delicately? — an absolute flaming queen, who uses the term “fashion-forward” during a department-store shopping expedition set in about 1930. For just a minute there, it looks as if “J. Edgar” is about to become “Queer Eye for the FBI,” and I’m profoundly sorry it doesn’t.

Actually, if there’s one area where Black’s lumpy screenplay, with its awkward chronological backing-and forthing, deserves some credit, it’s in the highly plausible account of Hoover’s relationship with Tolson. From early on in Hoover’s FBI career it was widely assumed that he was gay, but the evidence was always circumstantial and the handful of people who knew him personally always denied it. (The allegations that he was a cross-dresser came from only one source, and don’t match anything else we know about this intensely cautious and private individual. Most historians view them as urban myth.) I think the fairest thing to say is that it seems likely Hoover was primarily homosexual, despite his purported romance with actress Dorothy Lamour, but not at all clear whether he acted on those impulses. Black imagines Hoover and Tolson cohabiting as “confirmed bachelors,” in a state of permanently unresolved erotic tension, which would go a long way toward explaining the secret policeman’s massively screwed-up psychology.

But when we get back to the question of how Hoover’s psychology affected his exercise of power, “J. Edgar” goes from being just a minor melodrama about a conflicted and closeted gay man to being simultaneously stupid, offensive and random. Historical characters appear and disappear in shticky little pieces — Jessica Hecht as Emma Goldman, Josh Lucas as Charles Lindbergh, Jeffrey Donovan doing the world’s worst “pahk the cah in Hahvehd Yahd” accent as Robert F. Kennedy, Christopher Shyer as Richard Nixon — without ever seeming to justify their presence on the stage. You get the feeling they’ve all got a problem with Hoover, but you’re never sure why. Maybe they just found him a weird and distasteful little man, which is certainly how he comes across. On the other hand, it might be helpful if this movie made the point that Hoover was as close as we’ve ever come (so far) to having an unelected dictator, and that the only real reason he didn’t become a Stalin-level tyrant was the constraint of a democratic political system he could not entirely subvert, much as he tried.

Eastwood and Black certainly bring up many of the things that made Hoover so noxious, beginning with the Palmer raids of 1919-20, which resulted in the arrests of thousands of communists and anarchists who had committed no crime. At the tender age of 24, Hoover was appointed to head a special Red-hunting branch of what was then called the Bureau of Investigations, which launched his long career as a self-appointed guardian of American political rectitude, devoted to stamping out dissident opinion wherever it cropped up, and whether or not constitutional rights got trampled in the process. “J. Edgar” makes clear that Hoover conducted secret surveillance on suspected Commies in Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal administration, including first lady Eleanor Roosevelt (who purportedly had a lesbian affair with a reporter); perjured himself before Congress; conducted an especially vile counterintelligence program aimed at undermining the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and other civil-rights leaders; and generally turned a blind eye to organized crime in his relentless persecution of left-wingers.

But you get almost no sense of the extent or intensity with which Hoover mobilized the federal government’s police force to crack down on unconventional political opinion. The second Red Scare of the Joe McCarthy 1950s is never mentioned, nor is the word COINTELPRO, and Hoover’s vicious racism is largely ignored. (Intriguingly, the rumors that Hoover was gay were echoed, during his lifetime, by speculation that he might be partly black.) Furthermore, all this stuff is presented as quirky side info in a story about a weird dude who lived with his mom (Judi Dench, giving the only tolerable performance in the whole film) and had a lifelong boyfriend he maybe never slept with. Oh, and he was way ahead of his time when it came to fingerprinting. Did I mention that? Everybody pooh-poohed his interest in bringing forensic science to law enforcement, and now look! Yes, Hoover was a liar, a cheat, a hypocrite, quite likely a paranoid sociopath and incipient fascist, a terrifying incarnation of many of the worst currents of American political opinion in one individual. OK, yeah, that’s all true — but his real legacy is found in “CSI: Miami.”

Just in case you think I have some kind of personal bias when it comes to J. Edgar Hoover, well, I plead 100 percent guilty. He ruined the lives of countless innocent people and was instrumental in spreading the idea that the Constitution doesn’t apply to people who say bad things about the government. He pretty much built the slippery slide that led to the national-security state of the last decade, when civil liberties have been eviscerated and privacy is a sham. (I will further add that he personally supervised the surveillance and harassment of my mother, her then-husband and many of their colleagues in the 1940s labor movement, and I’ve seen the files to prove it.) If there’s a darker figure in American history since the Civil War, I’m really not sure who it is. Nixon? George W. Bush? Not even close. Dick Cheney? Only in his undead dreams. I only wish I believed in hell so I could believe that it wasn’t hot enough for John Edgar Hoover.

But in all honesty, I’d much rather see a vigorous, propagandistic, right-wing defense of Hoover as a bastion of true Americanism than this tepid, long-winded and phony-looking exercise, which sort of implies that, on the one hand, he wasn’t a very nice man but, on the other, he was an actual human being who suffered pain. But honestly, what can we expect from Clint Eastwood at this point? This movie says a great deal more about him, I’m afraid, than it does about J. Edgar Hoover. And what it says is that one of the greatest American screen actors of the 20th century has squandered much of that legacy in the 21st by becoming a director of indifferent Oscar-bait movies that look handsome on the surface but have nothing to say, and that nobody ever wants to watch twice. Even by the dismal recent standards of “Hereafter” and “Invictus” and “Changeling” this movie is a disappointment, because watching it once is bad enough, and because it may leave younger viewers with the impression that J. Edgar Hoover was mostly important to history because he wasn’t gay enough to have decent fashion sense.

Continue Reading Close

Page 1 of 25 in FBI