To say that we are living in another McCarthy era may be exaggeration. But once again, the government's political opponents are coming in for extraordinarily harsh treatment. Officials in the government are conjuring up plots which they say vitally threaten the national security. And, as in the McCarthy era, there are many willing to accept the argument that the government's "enemies" do not merit the civil liberties traditionally assured to American citizens.

Today, and in the next few days, the CRIMSON will analyze some of the Justice Department's actions against white radicals since the Chicago trail. It was in Chicago that the Justice Department began its present policy of prosecute-and-persecute. Chicago represented a new morning for Justice.

Radicals frequently assume that they know the Justice Department's purpose in prosecuting a given case-the government is trying to intimidate the Left, or discredit the Left with the Middle, or satisfy the Right. No one can know for sure what the government's purpose is. But it pretty clearly is not the pursuit of justice.

During the sixties, cases against anti-war activists and draft resisters were handled by the Justice Department's Criminal Division. Mitchell transferred these cases to the Internal Security Division, which has been largely inactive since its heyday during the fifties. All the cases which will be described during the next three days were initiated by, or in consultation with, the Internal Security Division.

The Seattle Eight

Last April, a Federal Grand Jury indicted seven men and one woman in Seattle for conspiracy, in connection with a TDA demonstration which caused several thousand dollars of damage to the Federal Court House there.

All eight were charged with conspiracy to destroy federal property; four were charged with conspiracy to cross state lines with intent to incite a riot: and one was charged with using an interstate facility-a telephone-to incite a riot. J. Edgar Hoover announced the indictments and the immediate arrest of seven of the accused from Washington.

The Seattle trial began last November 23 and lasted eight days. On the ninth day, the defendants delayed their entrance into the courtroom by about 15 minutes. District Judge George E. Boldt responded by finding them all in contempt and declaring a mistrial: he said that the defendant's contempt had prejudiced the jury to the point that they could not receive a fair trial. He made the contempt and mistrial decisions summarily, with out holding hearings.

The trail's untimely end does not allow us to draw any definite conclusions about the evidence which either side would ultimately have presented. It seems quite possible, however, that the prosecution did not in fact have any concrete evidence that a conspiracy existed.

The elaborate indictment listed eighteen "overt acts" of conspiracy, such as "On February 11, Defendant Marshall spoke at a meeting at the University of Washington." In his opening statement to the jury, U.S. Attorney Stan Pitkin of Seattle added some detail to the indictment's description of the overt acts.

This, it appears, was the evidence he would produce against the defendants: between January 11 and February 13, 1970, the defendants were present at a number of public meetings; at some of these meetings, the TDA demonstration was discussed; some of the defendants made some militant, but unspecific, statements there.

More evidence: four of the defendants moved to Seattle from Ithaca, N.Y., three months before the demonstration took place. One of the defendants called Rennie Davis in Chicago to get a statement to promote the TDA demonstration (officially, the demonstrators planned to "stop the courts" nonviolently by entering the courtrooms and confronting the judges).

There is further evidence-disputed by the defense-that a few of the defendants led the trashing of the federal court. Two of the defendants were not in Seattle at all during the demonstration, however.

Even taken together, these overt acts do not substantiate a charge of conspiracy. While it is possible that the government was just not able to get the evidence it needed to expose the conspiracy, it is also quite possible that there were no grounds for indictment in the first place.

The Justice Department had nothing to lose in bringing the false charges; at worst, it could lose the case. But indictments are in themselves incriminating in the public mind. Standing trial and providing money for a defense is a tremendous burden for the defendants. And there is always the possibility that the jury will find the defendants guilty.

It may be significant that Guy Goodwin, a special assistant in the Internal Security Division, flew to Seattle to handle the Grand Jury investigation there, for it is reported that Pitkin was opposed at first to bringing charges against the defendants. He later said in court that his office had been involved in the case from the outset, however.