justice. De Hike provided a background of the LMDC and a description of the military justice system. Following his presentation, a few brief remarks were made by a representative of the "Union of American Exiles in Britain" who described the activities of his group. Following this, two American soldiers, identified as SP4 David Wolter and Sgt. William L. Beall, both of Special Troops, HHC, BLN BDE, Andrews Barracks, presented a description of their misadventures with the Army. Wolter, who had two previous "Art. 15s" stated that he was to go to trial the following Monday for assault. Further, that he was to be to go to trial the following Monday for assault. Further, that he was to be defended by De Hike. During a question-answer period following, in response to a question as to what the civilians could do, the audience was urged to attend the court martial, presumably to influence the court. (The turn out for the trial however, was very poor.) During the question-answer period, an unidentified black male, believed to be John Henry Clemons, a former SP5 assigned to the same company as Wolter and Beall, but recently discharged, took the floor and delivered an emotional monologue concerning his problems in the Army. It is believed that there are contacts with Forward, but to what extent cannot now be ascertained. Those ties are assumed because there was the description in Forward's December issue and there were members of the Forward staff present during the 24 February meeting. Further, an intercept in January implied some contact between Hanfred Hehtschel, the individual usually listed as responsible for Forward, and members of the McGovern group or CAIB. Goals: In the December 1972 issue of the Berlin based "GI Underground Newspaper", the CAIB issued a statement of its goals: 1. CAIB supports the platform of the Democratic Party as adopted 11 July 1972 in Miami, including: A. Immediate and complete withdrawal from Indochina with return of all prisoners. An end to the use of military power as a substitute for economic and diplomatic initiatives. B. First priority for the citizen rather than for big business per se through tax reforms with closing of loopholes for special interest groups. De-emphasis of the property tax. C. Reform and simplification of the welfare system coupled with the right of every American to a job at a fair wage. D. Greater Federal aid to schools, to assure every child an equal educational opportunity. E. Work toward ending all forms of racial and sexual discrimination and upholding the right to privacy. F. A system of national health insurance for all Americans. 2. In addition, CAIB supports: A. Abortion as a right rather than a privilege. B. In the tradition of Abraham Lincoln, amnesty for those whose consciences prohibited them from participating in the Vietnam war. C. Abolition of the Electoral College, substituting a direct Presidential election, and reform of campaign practices. 3. CAIB is working on the following specific problems in Berlin: A. Finding job opportunities for military dependents and civilians. C. Assisting all Americans in Berlin, both military and nonmilitary, with the transition from American to European living. This includes services such as arranging German tutors, a food cooperative, and general orientation. During the meeting of 24 February, the goals as stated by Hillmer appeared to be somewhat vague. He did state that they were interested in working on a program to eliminate housing discrimination in West Berlin and there were some brief remarks concerning seeking official status under the overseas branch of the democratic party. Based on conversation with Mrs. Hillmer, it is possible that the continuation of the group after the election was largely based on "social” rather than "political" reasons. The active members are nearly all non-military or non--U.S. Government sponsored and therefore, cut off from the predominantly military/government community. The CAIB membership, made up of individuals largely on their own in a foreign environment appear to be seeking friends of a common background, interests, and problems. Known names associated with CAIB: According to Mrs. Hillmer, there are only about eight active members. She did not know most of those who attended the 24 February meeting. Personalities identified with CAIB are as follows: 1. Hillmer, Douglas-apparent leader. 2. Brady, James Jay. 3. Spitzel, Chris-(phonetic)-Co-chairman with Hillmer during the 24 February meeting. 4. Hillmer, Fnu-wife of Douglas Hillmer. 5. Rosenblum, Ellen-participant during 24 February meeting. Also attended trial of Wolter. 6. Klakow, Joan-attended trial of Wolter. 10. Wolter, David, Sp4, 568-80-3525, Sp Trops, HHC, Bln Bds, Andrews Barracks. 11. Wolter, Mark, brother of David Wolter, civilian residing in W. Berlin. 12. Beall, William L., Sgt., 285-46-4218, HHC, Bln Bdo, Andrews Barracks. 13. Clemons, John Henry, formerly SP5, 141-36-3813, HHC, Bln Bdo. 14. De Nike, Howard J.-Lawyers Military Defense Committee representative at 24 February meeting and lawyer for Wolter. 15. Wheeler, Roger-a member of the airforce, who according to Mrs. Hillmer is due for discharge after which he plans to remain in Berlin. It was noted that during the meeting of 24 February, there was no particular attempt to meet the GI's or solicit their support. At one point, a sheet was passed around so that a mailing list could be started. Most of the GI's, however, refrained from signing. Subject: Semi-annual update, external factors report (U) Heidelberg (MV 7873), Baden-Wuerttemberg. 1. (U) Unit identification: All US Army units in the vicinity of Heidelberg. 2. (U) General: No change 3. (U) Area of interest: (a) General: No change (b) Specific: Changed to read as follows: This External Factors Report (EFR) specifically pertains to Heidelberg the following cities and towns within a 15 km radius of Heidelberg: (1) Schwetzingen (MV 6870) (2) Oftersheim (MV 6968) Heidelberg is attached as Inclosure 7. (b) Organizations: Changed as follows: 66 (9) Fight Back (FTA): So much as reads "The organizers of Fight Back and those responsible. . ." through using Fight back to convey the communist line to the soldier." is superseded by the following: "Organizers of FighT back are leftist oriented, and most do not hesitate to admit to being Marxist/Leninists." The last sentence which reads "Should any of the persons mentioned above. is deleted. (15) Lawyers Military Defense Committee (LMDC): This subparagraph is deleted. (c) Intelligence: Changed as follows: AEUMI-R-S DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, 527TH MILITARY INTELLIGENCE BATTALION, 66TH MILITARY INTELLIGENCE GROUP, APO 09227, December 10, 1973. Subject: External Factors Report (U) Heidelberg (MV 7873), Baden-Wuerttem berg. 1. (U) Unit Identification: 2. (U) General: This External Factors Report (EFR) lists all known current security threats or possible security threats for use by the commander of the above unit in estimating the threat of the security of his unit and personnel. The fact that security hazards exist within the area in no way indicates a lack of proper security measures by the local commander, but rather, insures that the local commander has a current assessment of the security situation in proximity to his installation. This report is forwarded to various higher headquarters so that those headquarters may insure that adequate counterintelligence coverage of security threats is furnished the local commander. These reports should not be confused with counterintelligence survey and inspection reports which are the management tools provided to insure that the local commander complies with established security policies and procedures. (a) Because of the propensity of individuals and groups to take up causes related to their national or political beliefs which adversely (9) Fight Back (FTA): The Fight Back organization, with its base in Heidelberg, first surfaced in August 1972. It is the successor to the now defunct Heidelberg Liberation Front. The stated aim of Fight Back is to keep "GI's" informed of their rights and to assist soldiers in obtaining their civil rights. The news organ of Fight Back is Fight back (FTA), a publication that is allegedly by and for "GI's." However, soldiers do not author all of the articles that appear in the paper, nor do soldiers become involved in the printing or the financial matters of the paper. Fight back is professionally printed and not the normal mimeographed underground newspaper, that is put together by a group of soldiers. Fight back is published monthly in approximately 5,000 copies per printing. Copies are mailed to soldiers for distribution. Members of Fight Back have been instructed to leave papers in snack bars, orderly rooms and other common-use troop areas. This is done to avoid penalties for distributing unauthorized publications on post. The newspaper is also distributed outside casernes. This type of distribution is handled by personnel other than soldiers such as the organizers of Fight Back or German students, who belong to left-wing organizations at the University of Heidelberg such as the AStA and Spartakus (see subparagraph (22), below). While the publishers of FighT back cannot legally charge for their paper, they do solicit contributions. They appear to be sufficiently successful to keep the publication going. There are further indications that not all the contributions find their way to the publisher. It appears that some of the organizers may be keeping the contributions for their own use. No soldier who is involved with Fight Back is permitted by the organization to handle the contributions. The organizers of Fight Back and those responsible for the publication of FighT back are: (a) Karen S. Bixler, U.S. citizen, allegedly a student at the University of Heidelberg. Bixler has no official status with U.S. Forces in Europe. (b) Carolyn Stevens, U.S. citizen. Stevens has taught University of Maryland courses in the Heidelberg area. (c) Anna Heath aka Leszczynka, British citizen of Polish extraction. She obtained her British citizenship through marriage. Heath is a student at the University of Heidelberg. (d) Linda Lucas aka Huley, U.S. citizen. Lucas states she is on vacation in Europe. She also has stated that she is a member of the Progressive Labor Party in the U.S. (e) Helga Kramer, U.S. citizen, a close friend of Lucas and also a member of the Progressive Labor Party. All of the above individuals are extremely left-wing oriented and generally espouse the Marxist/Leninist line. They have even gone so far as to discuss the possibility of using Fight back to convey the communist line to the soldier. Fight Back has been holding monthly meetings since its inception. Until September 1973 these meetings always were held in Heidelberg. In September, meetings were held in Mannheim and Nuernberg. The October and November meetings were held in Kaiserslautern. Previously, meetings were held to produce articles for the paper, but since September, meetings have been held for organizational purposes. There does not appear to be any further effort to maintain an appearance of soldier participation in the preparation of the newspaper. Current goals of the leadership of Fight Back are to organize soldiers on a local level. Subjects of discussion center around allegations of racism and sexism in the U.S. Army and failure of the Modern Volunteer Army. Using these themes, Fight Back hopes to form local chapters and develop a united front among soldiers to fight against real or imagined infringements on their civil rights. To date, these efforts of establishing local chapters have not been particularly successful, but it can be anticipated that these efforts will continue. Every area where troops are assigned is a potential target for Fight Back. Fight Back presents itself as being against the use of drugs; however, there are indications that the leadership has at least experimented in drugs and has turned a blind eye on drug users who attend their meetings. On the surface, Fight Back is little more than a nuisance organization controlled by a small nucleus of misguided individuals, who are carrying out personal vendettas against the U.S. Army at the expense of soldiers who naively become involved. However, the leadership of Fight Back periodically publishes a questionnaire or asks questions, which on the surface appear to support their claims of fighting against racism and sexism. The following are some examples of their questioning: "What is the installation mission?" "What are the armaments?" "What are the names of the commanders?" This type of information is allegedly gathered to support their claims; and the soldier is told that his answers will be used to prepare articles for their paper. To date, if this information has been provided, it has never appeared in the FighT back publication. Should any of the persons mentioned above or any person who is believed to be a representative of Fight Back appear in a unit area, their presence should be reported immediately to the nearest U.S. Military Intelligence (MI) office. (15) Lawyers Military Defense Committee (LMDC): The LMDC is an organization located at 7 Maerzgasse, Heidelberg. LMDC first arrived in the FRG in the summer of 1972. While it is not a subversive organization in itself, being nominally recognized by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the current LMDC attorneys have aligned themselves with the leadership of Fight Back and other known anti-US Army/Government individuals. LMDC's stated purpose is to defend all members of the military whose civil rights are being usurped. LMDC will not defend anyone charged with purely criminal acts. While LMDC does not charge for its services, it does put pressure on the soldiers it defends to contribute money. It has further been noted that LMDC defends soldiers when it believes that charges resulted from racial prejudice or when it believes that the charges can be construed to be in violation of an individual's civil rights. There are instance noted where LMDC has withdrawn from cases when it became evident that they had no case or there would be no press coverage. LMDC counsels soldiers not to accept punishment under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice under any circumstances and not to accept trial by Summary Court. As a result, there have been instances where young soldiers who followed this advice found themselves without an attorney when it became evident that their case would be lost, or that it would not draw publicity. LMDC has further become involved with the organization CARE. LMDC provided counsel and advise when CARE was organized. LMDC initially was composed of two attorneys, Howard DeNike and Robert Rivkin. In August 1973, DeNike returned to the US, leaving only Rivkin. LMDC uses the leadership of Fight Back as advisors and consultants. It can be certain that when a soldier is defended by LMDC, there will be news media coverage of any trial that results. APPENDIX K NEW LEFT NOTES-PHILADELPHIA, SEPTEMBER 16, 1970, EDITION NO. 1 This newsletter will be produced at irregular intervals as needed to keep those persons dealing with New Left problems up to date in an informal way. It is not a serial and is considered an informal routing slip. It should be given the security afforded a Bureau serial, classified confidential, but may be destroyed when original purpose is served. The New Left conference at SOG 9/10-11/70 produced some comments : In disseminating reports recommending for the SI it is preferable to designate and disseminate to Secret Service immediately and put the FD-376 (the buck slip to Secret Service) on the second Bureau copy. There was a pretty general concensus that more interviews with these subjects and hangers-on are in order for plenty of reasons, chief of which are it will enhance the paranoia endemic in these circles and will further serve to get the point across there is an FBI Agent behind every mailbox. In addition, some will be overcome by the overwhelming personalities of the contacting agent and volunteer to tell all-perhaps on a continuing basis. The Director has okayed PSI's and SI's age 18 to 21. We have been blocked off from this critical age group in the past. Let us take advantage of this opportunity. In payments to information, if the total of services and expenses to an informant is less than $300 in a lump sum payment or per month, our request for such payment is handled within division 5. If the lump sum payment or monthly authorization is $300 or more, it must be approached on a much higher level. Note: If an informant is to travel outside our division and we initially go in and request expense payment of less than $300, it can be handled simply while the services payment and be requested later based on what he has produced. The Bureau would like to offer for your considera a proposal for a disruptive-disinformation operation target against the national office of the Black Panther Party (EPP This proposal is not intended to be all inclusive or binding in any of its various phases, but only is a guide for the suggested action. You are encouraged to submit recommendat relating to revisions or innovations of the proposal. 1. The operation would be effected through close coordination on a high level with the Oakland or San Franci Police Department. 2. : Xerox copies of true documents, documents sub incorporating false information, and entirely fabricated doc would be periodically anonymously mailed to the residence c key Panther leader. These documents would be on the static and in the form used by the police department or by the F3 disseminating information to the police.. FBI documents, used, would contain police routing or date received notati clearly indicating they had been pilfered from police files 3. An attempt would be made to give the Panther recipient the impression the documents were stolen from po files by a disgruntled police employee sympathetic to the Panthers. After initial nailings, brief notes by the ailen Hisgruntled employee would be included with the railed docu These notes would indicate the motive and sympathy of the employee, his bitterness against his cartment. and possi request for money. 1 4. Depending on developments, at a propitious t consideration would be given to establicy office or other suitable "drop" address for the use of the allege fisgruntled employee to receive responsrunds/or pecifications relating to the documents from the Panthers. i |