Talk:Subcommittee on International Organizations of the Committee on International Relations

let People decide on their own. Or is that too much TOUBLE ? Brainwashing is for losers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.34.49.215 (talk) 15:51, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary section header

I'm not sure the title of this article, United States Congressional Report on the Unification Church, is correct. The Fraser Committee explicitly denied that its investigation was primarily about the Unification Church but rather on Korean-American Relations.

Of course, the church's position is that Fraser abused his committee for self-aggrandizement at the expense of the church, and it published a detailed critique of what it called 'the Fraser Report' (see Truth Is My Sword, by Bo Hi Pak).

Nonetheless, a major focus of the committee and the bulk of its report was to leak allegations against what it repeatedly called "the Moon Organization". None of these allegations were ever substantiated, as the Fraser Report actually admits. They pursued a PR strategy of:

• Leak the allegation
• Make sure it gets wide publicity
• Quietly admit to having no evidence to back up the accusation

--Ed Poor, not bitter just sad :-(

Ed, you of all people should be able to answer this: The Unification Church claims that "when the Fraser Report was finally published, it admitted (in one hard-to-find sentence) that none of the allegations asserted in the rest of the report could be substantiated." Where in the report is this hard-to-find sentence? Also, if these allegations were untrue, then surely Moon would have sued Congressman Fraser and the government for libel? --Modemac 23:44, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner. I'm much more interested in building Wikipedia, than in using it to defend my church. But since you ask, here's a lengthy quotation from Bo Hi Pak: -- Uncle Ed (talk) 17:14, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

---

==Begrudging Admissions--

Mr. Fraser conducted the most extensive congressional inquiry into a religious organization in recent history, alleging that the Unification Church was a front for the Korean Central Intelligence Agency. To prove this, he subpoenaed church officials, interviewed scores of present and former church members, minutely scrutinized church financial records (literally tons of documents were turned over to the subcommittee), probed the business and political affiliations of church members, sent investigators to Korea, and speculated about the meaning of the church's religious doctrines and teachings. Despite all of this, in the end he had to admit that all of his major allegations were false. Rather than apologizing for the ugly rumors his investigation had spread, however, Mr. Fraser buried his admissions in begrudging, single-line statements in the middle of a 447-page report that few people will ever read.

For instance, Mr. Fraser's final report on Korean-American relations had to recognize the following:

1. That the Unification Church and associated organizations were not agents for the Korean Government or the KCIA (Fraser report p. 389).

2. That the ridiculous rumor that the Director of the KCIA had founded the Unification Church-a rumor propagated by Mr. Fraser himself-had no basis in fact (Fraser report p. 354).

3. That the ugly stories, made public by the investigation, alleging that Rev. Moon had been arrested on morals charges in Korea also turned out to be utterly groundless (Fraser report p. 353).

4. That there was no evidence of funding by the Korean government and no collusion between the members of the Unification Church and Tongsun Park with regard to stock purchases in the Diplomat National Bank (Fraser report pp. 385-6).

No, Mr. Fraser could not bring himself to make these admissions publicly. Instead he made a series of new charges, many of which have nothing at all to do with Korean-American relations and are equally outlandish and unfounded. As a fig leaf to hide his own failure, Mr. Fraser has now asked for more investigations. After spending $685,000 and nearly three years, all he could recommend is that "somebody should investigate." When one Washington reporter heard this at his press conference he commented, "Do you mean after all this time and money, you're calling for another investigation? You've got to be joking!" [1]

Full text?

• Is the full text of the investigation findings text, available online, in another format other than PDF? If not, Wikisource looks like an interesting place for that, being as how it is a work released into the public domain by the United States government. Smeelgova 22:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC).
  • Found answer to my own question, full text. Wikisource would still be a good place for this report, as it is a public domain piece from the U.S. govt. Smeelgova 22:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC).
  • On closer inspection, this is only a partial text - so there might not be a full text version in indexable format on the web yet. Smeelgova 23:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

I have attempted to post an accurate summarization of the full text. Can someone assist me ? http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_Congressional_investigation_of_the_Unification_Church

Unsourced, malformated & excessive material
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The subcommittee findings regarding the Moon Organization may be summarized as follows: (1) The UC and numerous other religious and secular organizations headed by Sun Myung Moon constitute essentially one international organization. This organization depends heavily upon the interchangeability of its components and upon its ability to move personnel and financial assets freely across international boundaries and between businesses and nonprofit organizations. (2) The Moon Organization attempts to achieve goals outlined by Sun Myung Moon, who has substantial control over the economic, political, and spiritual activities undertaken by the organization in pursuit of those goals. (3) Among the goals of the Moon Organization is the establishment of a worldwide government in which the separation of church and state would be abolished and which would be governed by Moon and his followers. (4) In pursuit of this and other goals, the Moon Organization has attempted, with varying degrees of success, to gain control over or establish business and other secular institutions in the United States and elsewhere, and has engaged in political activities in the United States. Some of these activities were undertaken to benefit the ROK Government or otherwise to influence U.S. foreign policy. (5) While pursuing its own goals, the Moon Organization promoted the interests of the ROK Government, and at times did so in cooperation with, or at the direction of, ROK agencies and officials. The Moon Organization maintained mutually beneficial ties with a number of Korean officials. (6) The Moon Organization established the KCFF ostensibly as a non- profit foundation to promote Korean-American relations, but used the KCFF to promote its own political and economic interests and those of the ROK Government. (7) The Moon Organization extensively used the names of Senators, Congressmen, U.S. Presidents, and other prominent Americans to raise funds and to create political influence for itself and the ROK Government. (8) A Moon Organization business is an important defense contractor in Korea. It is involved in the production of M-16 rifles, antiaircraft guns, and other weapons. (9) Moon Organization agents attempted to obtain permission from an American corporation to export M-16’s manufactured in Korea. The M-16’s are manufactured under a coproduction agreement approved by the U.S. Government, which puts M-16 production under the exclusive control of the Korean Government. Despite this, Moon Organization representatives appeared -- apparently on behalf of the Korean Government -- to negotiate an extension of the agreement. (10) The Moon Organization attempted to obtain a controlling interest in the Diplomat National Bank by disguising the source of funds used to purchase stock in the names of UC members. (12) The Moon Organization used church and other tax-exempt components in support of its political and economic activities. (13) Although many of the goals and activities of the Moon Organization were legitimate and lawful, there was evidence that it had systematically violated U.S. tax, immigration, banking, currency, and Foreign Agents Registration Act laws, as well as State and local laws related to charity fund, and that these violations were related to the organization’s overall goals of gaining temporal power.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.6.61.168 (talk) 15:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Kindly cease and desist disrupting Wikipedia by trying to force this unsourced, malformatted & excessive material into various articles. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Notable article

The notability of the article is sound. Of course, we can always use more reputable secondary sourced citations, but the investigation itself is quite notable, and quite well covered in these secondary sources. I shall add some when I get a chance... Smee 08:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

• User:Justanother is correct on the {{quotefarm}} tag addition, however. These quotes need to be cut down and paraphrased, more secondary sourced citations need to be added - overall a bit of spring cleaning is needed on this article. I will scout out some more reputable secondary sourced citations in anticipation of expansion... Smee 20:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

• Smee, it is norm to leave the notability tag in until the issue is addressed, not remove it with a promise to address. However, I will trust you on this one. --Justanother 21:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• Okay, thank you. In this particular case, I had actually skimmed through some of the report whilst in the library at one point. Needless to say, it is voluminous... Smee 22:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

Rename?

This was not an investigation by the United States Congress, but just by one congressman. It also was not an investigation of the Unification Church, but one of American-South Korean relations in which UC members (but not the church itself) played a part. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I would just call it Fraser Committee. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Charges and lack of evidence

I added to the intro the fact that 4 years of real investigations after the initial muckraking produced nothing. Nit. Nada. The church got a clean bill of health. --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Primary sources

The whole article is based on nothing by primary sources. I am sure some news coverage of the event could be found. Borock (talk) 11:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm working on this now. Here is another source:[2] [3] Borock (talk) 14:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)