The_Info_Web/20 - ORGANIZATIONS/PRIVATE/IBM.md

aliases	category	start	location	tags	summary	created	updated	relations
International Business Machines International Business Machines Corporation IBM Corporation Computing-Tabulating-Recording Company	Private Organization	1911	Armonk, New York, USA	Organization Private Technology Dehomag NaziGermany Holocaust LosAlamos SAGE NationalSecurityAgency Antitrust Apartheid PROMIS Inslaw USA	IBM is a computer company whose German subsidiary, by Edwin Black's account, supplied punch cards to Nazi Germany; it also built SAGE and NSA computers and was sued over South African identity records.	2024-05-11	2026-10-15	type with reverse role start fn head_of Thomas J. Watson Sr. true president and chief executive 1924 2 type with role start fn owned Deutsche Hollerith Maschinen Gesellschaft majority shareholder after Watson acquired 90 percent of Dehomag in 1922, per the Grossman complaint and Edwin Black 1922 2 type with role start fn participant_in Semi-Automatic Ground Environment AN/FSQ-7 combat direction computer designed with MIT Lincoln Laboratory 1952 10 type with role start end fn contractor_to National Security Agency HARVEST computer system, a Stretch derivative delivered January 1962 1958-04-30 1962-01-01 11 type with role start fn contractor_to Los Alamos punch-card accounting machines for the critical-mass calculations, delivered April 4, 1944 1944-04-04 8 type with role start end fn partner_of INSLAW co-marketing agreement for Enhanced PROMIS in the public sector, found by the bankruptcy court to have been entered between August and December 1982 1982-08-01 1982-12-31 15 type with reverse role start end fn prosecuted Department of Justice true Sherman Act monopolization defendant; complaint filed January 17, 1969, stipulation of dismissal filed January 8, 1982 1969-01-17 1982-01-08 17 type with role start end fn participant_in Grossman v. International Business Machines sole defendant in Holocaust-era class action, withdrawn March 2001 2001-02-12 2001-03-29 7 type with role start fn participant_in Khulumani v. Barclay National Bank defendant named in Alien Tort Claims Act suit over apartheid-era conduct 2002-11-01 21 type with reverse role start fn employed_by Kenneth W. Dam true joined IBM after serving as deputy secretary of state 1985-06-14 13 type with start role fn participant_in United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit 1982-08-13 petitioner in In re International Business Machines Corp., 687 F.2d 591, writ of mandamus to Judge Edelstein 17 type with reverse role fn employed_by Richard L. Garwin true IBM scientist associated with the Thomas J. Watson Research Center 26

International Business Machines Corporation, known as International Business Machines, is a technology company headquartered in Armonk, New York.¹ It traces its origin to the Computing-Tabulating-Recording Company, formed in 1911 by merger and renamed International Business Machines in 1924.² Edgar F. Codd of the IBM Research Laboratory in San Jose, California, published his relational model of data in the June 1970 issue of the Communications of the ACM; the paper is marked as received in September 1969.³

Dehomag and the Hollerith machines

Thomas J. Watson Sr. joined the Computing-Tabulating-Recording Company as general manager in 1914 and became its president within a year.² Herman Hollerith licensed his patents in 1910 to the German businessman Willy Heidinger, who created Deutsche Hollerith Maschinen Gesellschaft, known as Dehomag.⁴ According to the complaint in the 2001 suit described below, which cites a 1943 letter from Heidinger, Heidinger was forced by 1922 to relinquish 90 percent ownership of Dehomag to Watson, which reduced it to a subsidiary of the parent company.² Edwin Black writes that Watson raised his demand from 51 percent to 90 percent, that Heidinger felt "cornered," and that Heidinger kept approximately 10 percent of the stock.⁴

Black writes that Hollerith decided that his systems would be leased, not sold, and that this decision "would dominate all major IBM business transactions for the next century."⁴ Black states that Dehomag computed the 1933 German census, which recorded about half a million Jews, and that the 1939 census was designed to identify the so-called "racial Jews."⁴ Black opens his account with a scene in which Watson's company "custom-designed and leased the Hollerith card sorting system to the Third Reich for use at Bergen-Belsen and most of the other concentration camps."⁴

The reviewer Terry W. Hartle, writing in the Christian Science Monitor in March 2001, summarized Black's thesis as being that Nazi Germany leased several thousand punch-card machines from Dehomag, used them for the population censuses of 1933 and 1937, and so was able to identify Jews and target them for asset confiscation. Hartle wrote that Black "never convincingly demonstrates that IBM knew about the deadly uses to which its technology would be put," and that Black found no "smoking gun" showing that Watson knew how the machines were used. Hartle also wrote that Watson "was certainly naive and probably indifferent."⁵

The complaint alleges that IBM Hollerith machines were located in concentration camps as early as 1940.²

The Order of the German Eagle

In 1937 Watson received the Order of the German Eagle with Star at the International Chamber of Commerce congress in Berlin. Hartle describes the award as ranked second in prestige only to the German Grand Cross, and as designed to honor foreign nationals who made themselves deserving to the Third Reich.⁵ Black writes that the medal was bestowed by Hjalmar Schacht as newsreel cameras whirred.⁴ Sam Jaffe wrote in Bloomberg in April 2001 that Hitler had personally draped the medal over Watson's chest in 1937.⁶

Black writes that on May 16, 1940, the day after Holland capitulated, Watson sent a note to Secretary of State Cordell Hull asking whether the government wanted him to return the medal, and that Hull replied that the decision rested entirely with Watson.⁴ On June 6, 1940, Watson returned the medal to Adolf Hitler with a letter castigating Hitler's Nazi policies.⁶ Black quotes the letter as stating that "the present policies of your government are contrary to the causes for which I have been working and for which I received the decoration," and writes that Watson released it to the newspapers. Black states that Hitler's newspaper, the Volkischer Beobachter, reviled Watson in response and that Dehomag's management in Berlin reacted with alarm.⁴

The 2001 class action

The complaint in a class action against IBM is dated February 2001 in its signature block, with the day left blank. A Jewish Telegraphic Agency report dates the filing to February 12, 2001.⁷ The suit was brought in the Eastern District of New York by Thomas Grossman, Fanny Aizenberg, Oldrich Stransky, Felix Kolmer and Anatoli Markowitsch Manitsh, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, with IBM as the only defendant. The complaint states that its claims rest on the conduct of IBM in the United States, distinct from the conduct of its German subsidiary, which it describes as the successor to Dehomag and which it states is not a defendant. Count I alleges violations of customary international law. Count II alleges unjust enrichment. The prayer for relief seeks class certification, an injunction against destruction of documents about IBM's role in the Holocaust, and an order that IBM open its archives and produce data derived from its Hollerith technology.²

The lead attorney for the plaintiffs, Michael Hausfeld, announced in March 2001 that the suit was being withdrawn so that Germany would have "no excuses whatsoever" to withhold payments. Hausfeld said the lawsuit could be refiled if IBM's archives remained closed. The United States Department of State reported that Germany had indicated the lawsuit endangered the "legal peace" condition attached to the German compensation arrangement, under which companies that paid into the fund, including IBM's German subsidiary, would not face further legal claims for their activities during the Holocaust.⁷

Punch-card computing at Los Alamos

Wallace Eckert persuaded IBM in 1937 to support the Watson Astronomical Computing Bureau at Columbia University with Punch Card Accounting Machines, and Dana Mitchell, who had worked in Eckert's laboratory, recommended the machines to Hans Bethe in the fall of 1943 for the critical-mass calculations at Los Alamos.⁸ The machines were delivered on April 4, 1944. Because of the classified nature of the site, IBM was not told where they were going and could not send a maintenance man.⁸ John von Neumann urged Los Alamos in September 1943 to pursue the implosion method and to use the machines for the calculations, and the first program on them solved a set of hydrodynamics equations.⁸ In May 1944 the machine operator John Johnston suggested a prototype multiplier he had seen at IBM; Los Alamos "decided to have IBM build triple-product multipliers and machines that could divide," three were ordered after a visit to an IBM vice president in early June 1944, and they were delivered in late 1944 and in use in November 1944.⁸

SAGE air defense computers

The AN/FSQ-7 computer of the Semi-Automatic Ground Environment (SAGE) air defense system was designed by MIT Lincoln Laboratory and IBM, and was based on the earlier design of the Whirlwind computer at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. A 1959 MITRE Corporation report describes it as a binary, parallel machine with a 32-bit word, a 250,000-word core memory, an operating speed of 75,000 instructions per second and 60,000 vacuum tubes, consisting of two computers of which one was active while the other stood by, monitored by about 100 Air Force operators at each direction center.⁹ IBM states that it handled hardware development and manufacturing for SAGE while Burroughs oversaw inter-site communications, Western Electric contributed building construction and the System Development Corporation, part of the RAND Corporation, delivered software, and that between 1952 and 1955 80 percent of the company's computing revenue came from SAGE.¹⁰

The HARVEST computer for the National Security Agency

IBM representatives contacted the National Security Agency in May and August 1955 about a high-performance system, the IBM 7030 Stretch program, which they said would have one hundred to two hundred times the power of the best existing machine.¹¹ IBM proposed that the first Stretch system be built and delivered for a fixed price of $3,500,000. The agency rejected the offer, and instead awarded two study contracts of eighteen months, SILO, for high-speed memory development at $821,203, and PLANTATION, later renamed RANCHO, at $828,340, which led to the agency-oriented system HARVEST.¹¹ A third study contract, TRACTOR, for a high-performance tape system, began in January 1957 at $337,443.¹¹ IBM delivered a preliminary HARVEST manual of operation on May 1, 1957. In April 1958 the agency presented the formal purchase description, and two letter contracts were ratified by IBM on April 30, 1958.¹¹ The system was delivered in January 1962, about fifteen months after the original target date, and its cost exceeded the original estimate by about 32 percent.¹¹ The NSA history also states that the agency's PLANTATION (RANCHO) contract for the HARVEST design, together with its support for memory and magnetic tape research, influenced IBM's 7030 (Stretch) machine, and that IBM based much of its early computer philosophy on the agency's experience with large data-processing problems.¹¹

Export controls and the Soviet Union

In August 1984 the national security affairs assistant Robert McFarlane recommended that President Ronald Reagan approve the reexport of a used IBM central processing unit, which Austrian Airlines had applied to send to Hungary. The unit would increase the computing capacity of a Soviet computer at the University of Budapest used for teaching and research. McFarlane wrote that the unit "does not carry with it significant technology loss risks," though it conflicted with guidelines set out in a 1974 directive that he described as no longer relevant.¹²

Kenneth W. Dam, who had served as deputy to Secretary of State George P. Shultz since October 1982, left the Department of State on June 14, 1985 for a job at IBM.¹³

Ari Ben-Menashe wrote in 1992 that TransCapital Corporation was allowed in 1986 and 1987 to export high-tech IBM computers to the Soviet Union despite a general ban on such equipment to the East Bloc, and that Robert Gates lifted the barriers. He wrote that when the Soviets wanted PROMIS, Degem technicians fitted it to the IBM computers, complete with the trap door.¹⁴ Ben-Menashe also wrote that Medan Computers Ltd., the Israeli franchise of Honeywell whose technicians were military intelligence reservists, pointed out that its computers would not suit a PROMIS installation in Guatemala, and was then arranged to broker IBM equipment there.¹⁴

PROMIS and Inslaw

The bankruptcy court that heard the case of INSLAW found that earlier versions of PROMIS ran on Digital Equipment Corporation PDP 11/70 computers and on computers sold by IBM, Wang, Honeywell and Burroughs, and that between August and December 1982 INSLAW entered a co-marketing agreement with IBM for the public sector, after IBM had asked for evidence that the Department of Justice consented to INSLAW's marketing plans for Enhanced PROMIS.¹⁵ An April 22, 1983 Justice Department memorandum by Jack Rugh, acting assistant director of the Executive Office for United States Attorneys' management systems office, quoted in the House Judiciary Committee's 1992 report, states that all four LEAA versions of PROMIS (DEC, IBM, Wang and Burroughs) were supplied to bidders for use in benchmarking their equipment.¹⁶ The same report records Michael Riconosciuto's allegation that modified PROMIS software was ported to systems at the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and that Earl Brian brokered the sale to the government of Canada; the report does not state which computer hardware the Canadian agencies used.¹⁶ The bankruptcy court's judgments were reversed on May 7, 1991 by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on primarily jurisdictional grounds.¹⁶

Antitrust case, 1969 to 1982

The Justice Department filed a complaint on January 17, 1969 alleging that IBM had monopolized the market for general purpose electronic digital computer systems in violation of section 2 of the Sherman Act.¹⁷ In 1974 Chief Judge David N. Edelstein of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled on the privilege claims over documents generated by the so-called Cravath, Swaine & Moore task forces and IBM's Office of Business Practices, holding most of them privileged as work product or attorney-client communications unless their content showed otherwise.¹⁸

The case had been pending for thirteen years, at a cost of between $1 million and $2 million a year, when William Baxter, assistant attorney general for antitrust, ended it in January 1982.¹⁹ Some career trial staff had wanted the case continued. Baxter argued that under Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, IBM could not be sued simply because it held a monopoly, and that the monopoly must have been obtained illegally. He said the government probably would lose the case, and that for it to stretch on another twenty years would be "the ultimate horror."¹⁹ The stipulation of dismissal, signed by Baxter and IBM's counsel and filed on January 8, 1982, recites that the Antitrust Division began a review of the case in June 1981 and concluded that the case was "without merit." Baxter's memorandum stated that continued litigation offered "little prospect of victory or meaningful recovery."¹⁷

Edelstein criticized the dismissal in a Wall Street Journal article of January 26, 1982, and at a hearing on March 2, 1982 placed in the record letters indicating that Baxter had served as a consultant to IBM during the early stages of the private antitrust suit brought by Memorex. On August 13, 1982 the Second Circuit issued a writ of mandamus in the matter. The panel of Judges Thomas J. Meskill, Jon O. Newman and Amalya L. Kearse held that "a writ of mandamus shall issue directing Judge Edelstein to cease any further inquiry with respect to the conflict of interest claim," and stated that "[w]e express no view as to the merits of that claim." The panel did not expedite its review of whether mandamus should also issue on the Tunney Act question, because no urgency attended that aspect of the petition.¹⁷

South African computer systems and apartheid litigation

A report by Thomas Conrad in the April 1982 Multinational Monitor states that IBM received its first order for an "electronic tabulator" in 1952 from Pretoria's Division of Economics, that the Interior Department ran its population registry on two IBM 370 computers storing details on seven million people classified as coloureds, Asians and whites, and that the passbook system for those classified as black was maintained on a different computer. Conrad wrote that IBM reportedly bid on the contract to run the pass system and lost to the British firm ICL, that IBM officials said the Interior Department installation was not objectionable because it did not cover the black population, and that a 1980 South African software catalog listed an IBM "Law Enforcement System" which IBM at first did not deny and later said was not available in South Africa.²⁰

The Khulumani Support Group filed a complaint in the Eastern District of New York in November 2002, according to a report of the filing. The complaint states that "for several years IBM knowingly rented a Model 370 computer system to the South African department of the interior which [was] used for the regime's national identity system," and that the machine stored files on seven million people the regime designated as coloureds, Asians and whites.²¹

On October 12, 2007 the Second Circuit, in an Alien Tort Claims Act case in which IBM appears among the defendants-appellees in the caption, held that a plaintiff may plead a theory of aiding and abetting liability under the statute. It vacated the district court's dismissal of the ATCA claims and remanded.²²

On April 8, 2009 the Southern District of New York held that the Ntsebeza plaintiffs had adequately pleaded that IBM aided and abetted the South African government's denationalization of black South Africans, and the crime of apartheid. The plaintiffs alleged that IBM sold the South African government and the governments of the bantustans computers used to register individuals, strip them of South African citizenship and segregate them, that IBM employees assisted in developing software and support designed to produce identity documents, that IBM sold its South African subsidiary to local employees in 1987, and that it executed a buy-back provision in 1992. The court found a plausible inference that IBM understood the nature of the projects it assisted, and held that the plaintiffs had not pleaded a claim of aiding and abetting cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment against IBM, because computers were not an essential element of that crime.¹ The Khulumani plaintiffs' claims against IBM were dismissed with leave to amend.¹

On July 27, 2015 the Second Circuit affirmed the August 28, 2014 order of the district court in the claims against Ford Motor Company and IBM, holding that the plaintiffs had not rebutted the presumption against extraterritoriality under the Alien Tort Statute.²³

Israel

In November 1994 the National Security Council approved a supercomputer sale to Israel, after five federal agencies fought for months over whether to allow Cray Research to sell its machine to a network of Israeli universities. Approved IBM systems, by composite theoretical performance, went to Tel Aviv University (6,796.1), Hebrew University (1,421.0), Bar-Ilan University (1,421.0), the Technion (1,278.1) and the Weizmann Institute (1,278.1). The Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control reported that a 1987 Pentagon-sponsored study found the Technion to be helping design Israel's nuclear missile re-entry vehicle and that Hebrew University supplied physicists to the nuclear laboratory at Soreq.²⁴

Richard Garwin and the Vela data

Richard L. Garwin was associated with IBM's Thomas J. Watson Research Center. Seymour Hersh describes him as a member of an ad hoc panel of distinguished scientists tasked with studying the VELA Satellite data related to a probable nuclear explosion between the southern Atlantic and Indian Oceans in 1979, and as known for independence as a government consultant.²⁵ The National Security Archive describes Garwin as then with IBM's James Watson Laboratory at Columbia University and the body as a White House panel chaired by Jack Ruina, on which Garwin served. It states that Garwin, who had first read the Vela data as indicating a nuclear event, changed his view while on the panel, and quotes an October 19, 1979 letter in which Garwin wrote that "I would bet 2 to 1 in favor of the hypothesis" that the incident was a nuclear explosion.²⁶

Footnotes

---

1. In re South African Apartheid Litigation (Ntsebeza v. Daimler AG), 617 F. Supp. 2d 228 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 8, 2009) (headquarters of IBM in Armonk; aiding and abetting denationalization and apartheid pleaded against IBM; Khulumani claims against IBM dismissed with leave to amend, amended complaint due May 1, 2009). https://static.case.law/f-supp-2d/617/cases/0228-01.json ↩︎

2. Complaint, Grossman v. International Business Machines Corp. (E.D.N.Y., signature block dated "February _, 2001"), including footnote 3 of the complaint on the Dehomag and Watson history, paragraphs 19 and 22, and counts I and II. Copy from the Wayback Machine raw capture: https://web.archive.org/web/2016id/https://www.asser.nl/upload/documents/DomCLIC/Docs/NLP/Switzerland/Grossman_v_IBM_US_10-02-2001.pdf. Sections citing this note state the plaintiffs' allegations as the complaint states them. ↩︎

3. E. F. Codd, "A Relational Model of Data for Large Shared Data Banks," Communications of the ACM 13, no. 6 (June 1970), pp. 377-387 (author's affiliation: IBM Research Laboratory, San Jose; "Received September, 1969; revised February, 1970"). https://www.seas.upenn.edu/~zives/03f/cis550/codd.pdf ↩︎

4. Edwin Black, IBM and the Holocaust: The Strategic Alliance between Nazi Germany and America's Most Powerful Corporation (Crown, 2001; page numbers here are those of the 2002 paperback printing with the new afterword): Hollerith leasing policy, pp. 26-27; Hollerith's 1910 license to Heidinger and the creation of Dehomag, p. 30; Watson's 90 percent demand and Heidinger's 10 percent, pp. 44 and 75; Dehomag and the 1933 census, p. 89; 1939 census, p. 169; Bergen-Belsen scene, p. 22; award of the Merit Cross, pp. 131-134; Watson's note to Hull of May 16, 1940, the reply (letter of Hull to Watson dated May 20, 1940, per Black's endnote, IBM files) and the June 6, 1940 letter, pp. 213-217; reaction in Germany and at Dehomag, p. 219. Lending copy: https://archive.org/details/ibmholocaustt00blac. ↩︎

5. Terry W. Hartle, "An eager vendor in deadly computations," review of Edwin Black, IBM and the Holocaust, Christian Science Monitor, March 2001. https://www.csmonitor.com/2001/0301/p16s1.html ↩︎

6. Sam Jaffe, Bloomberg, April 12, 2001. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2001-04-11/ibm-the-holocaust-and-my-grandfather. ↩︎

7. "IBM Holocaust suit dropped," Jewish Telegraphic Agency, March 29, 2001 (dateline Washington). https://www.jta.org/2001/03/29/default/ibm-holocaust-suit-dropped. ↩︎

8. B. J. Archer, "The Los Alamos Computing Facility during the Manhattan Project," Los Alamos National Laboratory, LA-UR-21-20164 (draft, February 17, 2021), pp. 1-4. Archer cites R. B. Lazarus et al., "Computing at LASL in the 1940s and 1950s," LA-6943-H, and L. Hoddeson et al., Critical Assembly, for the April 4, 1944 delivery date. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2103.05705 ↩︎

9. D. R. Israel, The Integration of Air Traffic Control and Air Defense, MITRE Corporation, SR-6, September 1959 (Defense Documentation Center copy), pp. 3-4. https://ftp.mirrorservice.org/sites/www.bitsavers.org/pdf/mit/mitre/charm/ESD-TDR-63-390_The_Integration_of_Air_Traffic_Control_and_Air_Defense_195909.pdf ↩︎

10. IBM, "SAGE," IBM Heritage. https://www.ibm.com/history/sage. The division of work and the 80 percent revenue figure are IBM's own statements. ↩︎

11. Samuel S. Snyder, History of NSA General-Purpose Electronic Digital Computers (Department of Defense, 1964): IBM influence and early computer philosophy, p. 7; Stretch contacts of 1955 and fixed-price offer, pp. 40-41; SILO, PLANTATION and TRACTOR contracts, pp. 41-42; May 1, 1957 manual, p. 42; April 1958 purchase description and April 30, 1958 letter contracts, p. 45; January 1962 delivery and 32 percent cost overrun, pp. 45-46. https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/sites/default/files/documents/3121322/Document-02.pdf ↩︎

12. Memorandum, Robert McFarlane to Ronald Reagan, August 1, 1984, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1981-1988, vol. X, Eastern Europe, doc. 30. https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1981-88v10/d30 ↩︎

13. Memorandum, Kenneth W. Dam to George P. Shultz, June 12, 1985, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1981-1988, vol. V, Soviet Union, March 1985-October 1986, doc. 40, note 1. https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1981-88v05/d40 ↩︎

14. Ari Ben-Menashe, Profits of War: Inside the Secret U.S.-Israeli Arms Network (Sheridan Square Press, 1992; TrineDay reprint, 2015). ↩︎

15. In re Inslaw, Inc., 83 B.R. 89 (Bankr. D.D.C. Jan. 25, 1988), findings of fact 34 (PROMIS versions on PDP 11/70, IBM, Wang, Honeywell and Burroughs computers) and 192 and 202 (IBM request for the Department of Justice letter; co-marketing agreement). https://static.case.law/br/83/cases/0089-01.json ↩︎

16. U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, The INSLAW Affair: Investigative Report, H. Rept. 102-857 (September 10, 1992): LEAA versions, p. 47; Riconosciuto's allegation on the Canadian agencies, p. 52; appeal of May 7, 1991, pp. 39-40. https://archive.org/details/InslawAffairInvestigativeReport. ↩︎

17. In re International Business Machines Corp., 687 F.2d 591 (2d Cir. Aug. 13, 1982), Background section (docket United States v. International Business Machines Corp., 69 Civ. 200, S.D.N.Y., filed January 17, 1969). https://static.case.law/f2d/687/cases/0591-01.json Discussion and conclusion (Meskill, Newman, Kearse, JJ.): "we conclude that a writ of mandamus shall issue directing Judge Edelstein to cease any further inquiry with respect to the conflict of interest claim"; "We express no view as to the merits of that claim"; Tunney Act aspect not expedited. ↩︎

18. United States v. International Business Machines Corp., 66 F.R.D. 154 (S.D.N.Y. June 27, 1974), No. 69 Civ. 200 (DNE). https://static.case.law/frd/66/cases/0154-01.json ↩︎

19. "Impact of AT&T, IBM decisions," Christian Science Monitor, January 11, 1982. https://www.csmonitor.com/1982/0111/011144.html ↩︎

20. Thomas Conrad, "U.S. Data Processing Corporations Are Supplying South Africa with the Brains of Its Military and Police Services," Multinational Monitor 3, no. 4 (April 1982). https://www.multinationalmonitor.org/hyper/issues/1982/04/conrad.html. ↩︎

21. "South Africa: IBM, ICL Accused of Apartheid Collaboration," allAfrica, November 15, 2002, quoting the Khulumani complaint as filed in the Eastern District of New York. https://allafrica.com/stories/200211150560.html. ↩︎

22. Khulumani v. Barclay National Bank Ltd., 504 F.3d 254 (2d Cir. Oct. 12, 2007) (per curiam). https://static.case.law/f3d/504/cases/0254-01.json ↩︎

23. Balintulo v. Ford Motor Co., 796 F.3d 160 (2d Cir. July 27, 2015). https://static.case.law/f3d/796/cases/0160-01.json ↩︎

24. "Israel Gets High-Speed Computers," Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control, page dated January 1, 1995. https://wisconsinproject.org/israel-gets-high-speed-computers ↩︎

25. Seymour M. Hersh, The Samson Option: Israel's Nuclear Arsenal and American Foreign Policy (Random House, 1991), chapter 11. ↩︎

26. National Security Archive, "Vela Incident: South Atlantic Mystery Flash, September 1979," December 6, 2016. https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/nuclear-vault/2016-12-06/vela-incident-south-atlantic-mystery-flash-september-1979 ↩︎