John Tierney: Shame on RFK's Family
[John Tierney is former Professor of Political Science at Boston College
.]
In yesterday's Boston Sunday Globe, Bryan Bender reported on the Kennedy family's tight-fisted and iron-willed efforts to keep the official papers of Robert F. Kennedy secret. Those papers, spanning Kennedy's public career, are housed under close guard at the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum in Boston. The papers of greatest interest to historians and researchers are those from Kennedy's years of service as Attorney General in the Administration of his brother, John F. Kennedy. In particular, historians say the records presumably contain valuable archival resources -- perhaps diaries, notes, messages and memos, phone logs and recordings, and other documents -- that would reveal details, and answer questions, about Robert Kennedy's role in the early 1960s as the coordinator of Operation Mongoose, a covert effort to assassinate Cuba's Fidel Castro or to destabilize his regime.
But so far, nobody has been able to see this trove of documentary resources about the foreign-policy intrigues and governmental activities of a half-century ago. Why not? Because Robert Kennedy's family controls access to them. The person in control is Max Kennedy, Robert and Ethel Kennedy's ninth son, and he won't let anyone see them. His explanation, in a written response to questions from Bender of the Globe, is classic stonewalling -- some blather about scholars with "poorly conceived projects" who fail to follow "correct procedures" to seek permission to consult the papers. (What? They didn't genuflect as they approached Max's office?) Nice legal-speak from Mr. Kennedy. It's also hogwash. This is the sort of nonsense that now flows from a family that once was considered, at least in some circles, synonymous with the highest aspirational values of American politics and government -- principles such as a respect for transparency, openness, and the free flow of information.
Why is this important? For historians and others who care about the Cold War and events of that period, the stakes are high. Bender reports that some historians believe the documents may contain evidence that Robert Kennedy's ruthless anticommunism led him to break laws and engage in other abuses of power. Bender quotes Lamar Waldron, author of two books about the Kennedys and Cuba, as saying, "The main acts of the Kennedy presidency involved Cuba and we still don't have the most important records." Noting speculation about the peculiarity of John Kennedy's having "handed his attorney general the anti-Cuba portfolio in the first place," Bender quotes Philip Brenner, a professor at American University, who has written extensively about US-Cuba relations: "It is very unusual for an attorney general to be in charge of an international covert operation. ...[Perhaps] It involved the violation of so many domestic laws you needed the top law enforcement officer to oversee it."
Maybe the documents show wrongdoing; maybe they don't. The point is we should know. Let's find out...
Editor's Note: The author of this piece was incorrectly identified as a NYT reporter. HNN regrets the error.
Read entire article at Atlantic
In yesterday's Boston Sunday Globe, Bryan Bender reported on the Kennedy family's tight-fisted and iron-willed efforts to keep the official papers of Robert F. Kennedy secret. Those papers, spanning Kennedy's public career, are housed under close guard at the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum in Boston. The papers of greatest interest to historians and researchers are those from Kennedy's years of service as Attorney General in the Administration of his brother, John F. Kennedy. In particular, historians say the records presumably contain valuable archival resources -- perhaps diaries, notes, messages and memos, phone logs and recordings, and other documents -- that would reveal details, and answer questions, about Robert Kennedy's role in the early 1960s as the coordinator of Operation Mongoose, a covert effort to assassinate Cuba's Fidel Castro or to destabilize his regime.
But so far, nobody has been able to see this trove of documentary resources about the foreign-policy intrigues and governmental activities of a half-century ago. Why not? Because Robert Kennedy's family controls access to them. The person in control is Max Kennedy, Robert and Ethel Kennedy's ninth son, and he won't let anyone see them. His explanation, in a written response to questions from Bender of the Globe, is classic stonewalling -- some blather about scholars with "poorly conceived projects" who fail to follow "correct procedures" to seek permission to consult the papers. (What? They didn't genuflect as they approached Max's office?) Nice legal-speak from Mr. Kennedy. It's also hogwash. This is the sort of nonsense that now flows from a family that once was considered, at least in some circles, synonymous with the highest aspirational values of American politics and government -- principles such as a respect for transparency, openness, and the free flow of information.
Why is this important? For historians and others who care about the Cold War and events of that period, the stakes are high. Bender reports that some historians believe the documents may contain evidence that Robert Kennedy's ruthless anticommunism led him to break laws and engage in other abuses of power. Bender quotes Lamar Waldron, author of two books about the Kennedys and Cuba, as saying, "The main acts of the Kennedy presidency involved Cuba and we still don't have the most important records." Noting speculation about the peculiarity of John Kennedy's having "handed his attorney general the anti-Cuba portfolio in the first place," Bender quotes Philip Brenner, a professor at American University, who has written extensively about US-Cuba relations: "It is very unusual for an attorney general to be in charge of an international covert operation. ...[Perhaps] It involved the violation of so many domestic laws you needed the top law enforcement officer to oversee it."
Maybe the documents show wrongdoing; maybe they don't. The point is we should know. Let's find out...
Editor's Note: The author of this piece was incorrectly identified as a NYT reporter. HNN regrets the error.