LOS ANGELES - The FBI late Tuesday made public 10 documents from their files on John Lennon that have been withheld for 25 years under the claim that releasing them could cause "military retaliation against the United States."

The files, however, contain only well known information about Lennon's ties to New Left leaders and antiwar groups in London in 1970 and 1971.

"I doubt that Tony Blair's government will launch a military strike on the US in retaliation for the release of these documents, " said Jon Wiener, a historian at the University of California at Irvine, who first requested the files in 1981. 'Today we can see that the national security claims the FBI has been making for 25 years were absurd from the beginning. The Lennon FBI file is a classic case of excessive government secrecy.'

The documents, which have been posted at www.LennonFBIfiles.com:

'Describe an interview with Lennon published in 1971 in The Red Mole, a London underground newspaper, in which, according to the document: 'Lennon emphasized his proletarian background and his sympathy with the oppressed and underprivileged people of Britain and the world.'

'State Lennon promised to help "finance a left wing bookshop and reading room in London,' and that Lennon and his wife Yoko Ono had signed an appeal in support of Cambodian Prince Sihanouk, a neutralist, at the time Cambodia was invaded by the United States.

'Conclude that Lennon had 'apparently resisted the attempts of any particular group to secure any hold over him.'

'State "Lennon has encouraged the belief that he holds revolutionary views...by the content of some of his songs.' This appears to be a reference to Lennon's song "Power to the People."

'The release of these final documents, concealed from public view for nearly a quarter of a century, reveals government paranoia at a pathological level and an attempt to shield executive branch abuse of civil liberties under the rubric of national security,' said Mark Rosenbaum, legal director for the ACLU of Southern California. 'They show that the only military secrets protected were revelations about Nixon and J. Edgar Hoover's war against John Lennon for his lawful dissent. Our government jeopardizes the national security when it treats as the enemy a rock musician and his lyrics about peace.'

The FBI had withheld the files on the grounds that they contained 'national security information provided by a foreign government under an explicit promise of confidentiality.' The name of the foreign government remains classified, although it has been widely reported that Britain's MI-5 intelligence agency had a file on Lennon which contained information like that released by the FBI today.

Wiener originally filed suit in 1983, represented by the ACLU of Southern California and attorney Dan Marmalefsky of Morrison & Foerster. Marmalefsky said: "From the beginning the FBI treated John Lennon as if it were a crime to sing 'Give peace a chance.' This case shows how our government exploits the claim of national security to shield itself from political embarrassment, subverting the First Amendment and the Freedom of Information Act."

Most of the 300 pages in the Lennon FBI file were released to Wiener in 1997 in a settlement with the Clinton administration. Those documents were published in Wiener's book Gimme Some Truth: The John Lennon FBI File, and were featured in the documentary "The U.S. vs. John Lennon," which opened in September.

But 10 documents had remained classified on the grounds that they contained "national security information provided by a foreign government." The Bureau told the courts in 1983 that release of those documents "can reasonably be expected to inter alia: lead to foreign diplomatic, economic and military retaliation against the United States."

U.S. District Court Judge Robert K. Takasugi had rejected the FBI's claims in 2004 and ordered the documents released. In 2005 the FBI announced it would appeal that order. Today's release of documents ends the litigation.

LOS ANGELES - The ACLU of Southern California joined with Michigan civil rights groups and 19 students, faculty and applicants to the University of Michigan in asking a federal court to declare that the newly passed state ballot initiative does not prohibit universities from considering race and gender as one factor among many in university admissions.

The ACLU/SC, the ACLU of Michigan and the NAACP among others filed the lawsuit Tuesday morning in U.S. District Court in Detroit. The lawsuit asks the court to issue a "declaratory ruling" explaining that Proposal 2, passed by Michigan voters in November, does not ban programs that use race or gender as part of the decision-making process in any manner whatsoever. Such a construction of the language of Proposal 2 would place an unconstitutional burden on the ability of protected groups to advance their interests and rights while leaving other members of the community free to advance theirs without any similar burdens.

The Michigan proposal is backed by former University of California Regent Ward Connerly and is nearly identical to California's Proposition 209, which was passed by voters here in 1996.

"Proposal 2 in Michigan is the offspring of Proposition 209 - an attempt to undo the hard fought gains of the civil rights movement to expand access to higher education to historically disadvantaged groups," said Mark Rosenbaum, legal director for the ACLU/SC and lead counsel in the challenge brought against Proposition 209. "We filed this case because in California Proposition 209 has left UCLA classrooms with few African American and Latino students and this effort must be stopped in its tracks."

The Michigan proposal also seeks to dismantle an admission program specifically approved by the U.S. Supreme Court, Rosenbaum said. As recently as 2003 the court stated that it is constitutionally permissible for universities to consider race and gender as one factor among many in university admissions.

Kary Moss, Executive Director of the ACLU of Michigan, said: "We are pleased to be able to represent current students and faculty, as well as prospective students, in a case that will be the first to evaluate exactly what Proposal 2 means in this state. The recent decisions by the United States Supreme Court made clear that it is entirely within the law for universities to consider race or gender as one of many criteria in selecting their student body. Proposal 2 should not change that."

Rev. Wendell Anthony, President of the NAACP, Detroit Chapter, said, "Affirmative Action is still the law of the land. Recent events in Michigan related to the passage of Proposal 2 have only increased our energy to keep the doors of equal opportunity open and accessible for all of America's sons and daughters. We have come too far to allow the doors of opportunity to be shut in the face of the American promise of liberty and justice."

Proponents of Proposal 2, called the "Michigan Civil Rights Initiative," have asserted from the beginning that it would not end all affirmative action but, instead, would only make it "unconstitutional to pick winners and losers based solely on race and sex."

One of the plaintiffs represented in today's lawsuit is Chase Cantrell, an African American Detroit native who is in his second year at the University of Michigan Law School. Cantrell also obtained his BA from the university and is the first in his family to attend graduate school.

"After many years as a student at the university, I have learned to achieve a better understanding of world culture through the eyes of students and faculty from a wide range of backgrounds," Cantrell said. "Although I was invited to attend Cornell Law School, I chose the University of Michigan because the student body is so much more dynamic."

In the 2003 case Grutter v. University of Michigan, the Supreme Court held that the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution does not prohibit the narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the education benefits that flow from a diverse student body. Moreover, the Supreme Court has found that a state law violates the equal protection clause when it makes it more difficult for certain racial minorities than for other members of the community to achieve legislation that is in their interest.

The plaintiffs are represented by Melvin Butch Hollowell of the NAACP; Moss, Michael Steinberg and Mark Fancher of the ACLU of Michigan; ACLU of Southern California Legal Director Mark Rosenbaum; Theodore Shaw and Victor Bolden of the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund; Dennis Parker and Alexis Agathocleous of the national ACLU Racial Justice Project; Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe; Duke Law Professor Erwin Chemerinsky; and Reginald Turner of Michigan law firm Clark Hill.

When Diana Bijon asked her fianc�, Michael Buday, to take her last name when they wed last year, he said yes. California said not without a court order and more than $300. So they called the ACLU/SC, which sued to equalize the treatment of men and women when they change their name on a marriage application in this state.

"If you want to set up a system to discourage couples from adopting the name of the wife, this is it," ACLU/SC legal director Mark Rosenbaum told the Los Angeles Times. Only six states explicitly allow husbands to take their wives' names when they marry.

Men must now pay court fees of more than $300 and advertise the name change in a newspaper. Women who choose to take their husband's name when they wed pay only a $50-$80 marriage license fee.

Buday, 29, and Bijon, 28, made the decision to recognize her father's importance in his life. The couple also hopes to extend the Bijon family name into another generation as an expression of her French-American ancestry.

"It's not about the money, it's about the principle of families being able to make their own decisions," said Michael. "Diana's dad has become my father figure, and I want to honor that."

"Thirty years ago many women did not have a choice to keep their own name," said Diana. "We've come a long way, and it's time to recognize men's equal rights to make important family choices."