The Nation: War at Attica: Was There No Other Way?

(10 of 11)

judgment," he said. Yet that judgment raised some legitimate questions, for which only tentative answers can be given until more facts are known.

WAS IT WISE TO NEGOTIATE? Almost to a man, prison officials say no. As long as the inmates held any hostages, officials were in an impossible position, they say. Moreover, dealing with prisoners in this situation only encourages more such seizures. Some uprisings have been quelled when authorities simply refused to negotiate with inmates until hostages were released. Last February, Maryland Governor Marvin Mandel rushed to a state prison where inmates had seized two guards and threatened to kill them. He faced the rebels and said: "We've shown our good faith by coming here; now you show your good faith by releasing them. If you don't, I'm leaving." After 20 minutes, the prisoners surrendered their hostages, then poured out their grievances to the Governor.

WHAT ELSE COULD HAVE BEEN DONE EARLY? Rebellious prisoners, say many experts, are scared and uncertain at the start of an uprising and must be overwhelmed promptly. Contends one Midwestern warden: "At the beginning, the inmates had no security; they would have run if authorities had gone in right away." Actually, Attica prison guards tried, but were repulsed. The Midwestern officer insists that a large enough force, using tear gas and clubs instead of guns, could have been mustered quickly to handle the mob. Another warden says that bringing in too many outside police can undermine the authority of the regular prison staff in the prisoners' eyes.

WAS THE OVERSEERS' COMMITTEE A GOOD IDEA? Once the negotiation path is entered, an outside mediator trusted by both convicts and officers can be useful. But if there is a committee of mediation, it must be small to be effective, and it cannot be fractious. There were far too many Attica observers, and they were sharply divided in ideology. Rockefeller, who had complained at first about the role of "outside revolutionaries" in the uprising, was asked why he later admitted a potential troublemaker like Seale to the bargaining. "Because the prisoners wanted him," he replied.

SHOULD ROCKEFELLER HAVE GONE TO ATTICA? There is no way to know whether Rockefeller's arrival on the scene would have saved lives; yet it is hard to see how it could have made matters worse. A confident and able persuader, Rockefeller might have eased tensions by dramatizing the state's concern; he might even have given weight to Oswald's ultimatum. Theodore Kheel, New York's veteran labor negotiator, contends that the convicts found Oswald's quick acceptance of 28 prisoner demands "too good to be believed"; they feared that his promises were only a ploy to free the hostages and would not be kept. "It would have been a mistake for the Governor to negotiate with them face to face," said Kheel. "But if he had come, he would have given the concessions credibility."

WAS THERE ANY ALTERNATIVE TO THE ASSAULT? Certainly, if hostages were being killed, force had to be applied. Officials were convinced, rightly or wrongly, that the guards were in imminent danger of execution. Waiting could indeed have resulted in more deaths. But there is simply no certainty of that. Criminologist Vernon Fox points out that