Pennsylvania Rhetorical Analysis

In the year 1971,a group of people from Media, Pennsylvania did something that no one thought anyone would dare do. A group of activists broke into a FBI office stole all the files and then released all of the FBI's illegal activities shown in the files to the public. They were never caught or convicted of their crime and because of their crime the general populace were told the truth about what the FBI was planning to do.1 Even though they committed a crime, was their crime morally acceptable, or even necessary? There is no doubt that the robbers of Media, Pennsylvania(RMP) committed a crime. The question at hand is, is it morally justified? There are pro’s and con’s to their actions, but there is a very clear answer to this question. The most prominent pro would have to be that they changed lives for the better for thousands. With the path that the FBI was …show more content…
Edgar Hoover was the head and director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation for many years. He was feared throughout the countryside. During his career as director of the FBI, he had found information about every presidential candidate that ran in addition to all of the candidates. All of them would try to get on his good side. Throughout his time as director, Hoover would use illegal wiretaps and warrantless searches, as well as false evidence to get his way. If anyone got on his bad side, they would be “brought to justice” through his methods. The most notable case of this was shown when J. Edgar built a case against Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. However, in 1971, when the RMP stole and released the files, everything he had worked for began to crumble. The COINTELPRO program, the main illegal program revealed in the stolen files, that Hoover had started, was shut down. He was placed under investigation and they discovered all of his illegal investigative methods. They shut them all down and he was permitted to stay as the head of the department, where he stayed for another year before passing