Should The FBI And Various Police Be Treating All Assemblies As Threats?

[Formaldehyde]

The FBI and various local police organizations have been infiltrating various anti-war and peace groups for decades now. it dates back to at least the 50s during the great commie scare / McCarthy witch hunt and was quite prevalent during the Vietnam War protests.

This effort has grown substantially since 9/11, and in many cases it smacks of partisan politics when the efforts are directly aimed at protesters slated to appear at the Republican National Convention.

Here is one such example I posted in the Oslo slaughter thread:

Angry activists condemn FBI infiltration of peace movement

WASHINGTON (FinalCall.com) - Anti-war activists revealed a shocking discovery at a press conference in Minneapolis Jan. 12, that beginning a few months before their protests against the Republican National Convention in 2008, a law enforcement officer infiltrated the Twin Cities Anti-War Committee and even rose to a position of leadership among a variety of protest groups.

“There was a law enforcement agent who infiltrated the Anti-War Committee of the Twin Cities, in order to spy on and disrupt the plans for the protests at the Republican National Convention,” Joe Iosbaker one of dozens of activists later targeted by FBI subpoenas based on information generated by the spy told The Final Call.

“That person, who went by the name of Karen Sullivan, stuck around and eventually was in place as a spy for two and a half years,” he said, “causing a number of legal problems and expenses in order for those who had engaged in perfectly legal, Constitutionally protected activities to clear themselves of trumped-up charges,” Mr. Iosbaker said.

“In hindsight, she was a very good liar. Not only did she become a regular activist in the movement, she actually became a leader. She was speaking at rallies, speaking at educational programs about U.S. support for the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands. She was speaking at programs about the U.S. funding for the brutal military and the brutal regime of Colombia, and she even facilitated workshops at the protests and conferences at the School of the Americas and at the U.S. Social Forum,” Mr. Iosbaker said.

“We can only assume that this First Amendment protected organizing was the reason that this agent, Karen Sullivan, infiltrated the AWC,” Misty Rowan, of the Anti-War Committee, told Pacifica Radio's “Democracy Now!”

“It is the same kind of infiltration criticized in the October 2010 inspector general report and highlighted in the recent release of documents from the Richmond, Va., police, where any sort of assembly is defined as a disturbance and threat,” she continued.

“This professional liar posed as a fellow activist for two and a half years, and acted as if she was our friend,” Jess Sundin, of the Anti-War Committee, said. “She spent time around my child, and even attended a small BBQ to celebrate my release from the hospital after I survived a near-fatal brain hemorrhage in April of last year. This event had no investigative value. By attending personal events like this, she showed how unprincipled she was.”

“No one who has been raided or subpoenaed, no one has engaged in any criminal activity,” said Mr. Iosbaker, “and in fact, one of the ACLU's experts—Mike German, one of their policy guys in their Washington office—in reviewing the subpoenas and warrants that were used in September, his comment was that it was clear to him that there was no criminal activity that they were investigating.

And some local police are going to great lengths to prepare to counter any peaceful assembly:

Richmond Cops Mistakenly Hand Over Anti-Protest Guides to Anarchist

The Demonization of Protest

The Richmond Police Department’s Emergency Operations Plan
includes a section on “civil disturbances.” While this sounds innocuous, “civil disturbances” are defined so broadly as to include what the police call “dissident gatherings.”

“The City of Richmond is a target rich environment” for antiwar protesters, the document says. And it warns that police and homeland security have reason to be increasingly concerned:

“Current training and intelligence reveals that protestors are becoming more proficient in the methods of assembly.”

Militarization of Local Police

Such a depiction of “assembly” (a First Amendment right) as a “disturbance” and a threat is all the more troubling when put in the context of the other police department guides. Richmond’s Crowd Management Operating Manual is for the police unit assigned to large protests (no experience required). Among the tools that the crowd management team are issued include riot shields, chemical agents, cut tools, helmets, body armor, cameras, video cameras, batons, gas masks, and a “mass arrest kit.”

Deputizing Local Cops as Counter-terrorism Officials

This militarization of local police is accompanied by another trend in law enforcement since September 11th: deputizing local cops to becoming “homeland security” and counter-terrorism officials. According to the Homeland Security Criminal Intelligence Unit Operating Manual, “The Richmond Police Department is under contract with the FBI to provide assistance through staffing, intelligence and equipment.” And one member of the homeland security unit is assigned to the Joint Terrorism Task Force.

The result? Documents like the Virginia Terrorism Threat Assessment. The 2009 document was created by the Virginia Fusion Center, of which the Richmond Police Department is part. Fusion centers are ostensibly designed to gather terrorism intelligence from multiple police agencies, and make us safer. In practice, they routinely label activists as “terrorists.” Among the “terrorist threats” identified in Virginia were animal rights activists, environmental activists, and anarchists.

According to the threat assessment, “The Virginia Federation of Anarchists has held two conferences in Richmond in November 2007 and January 2008″ and “Anarchist protesters at the International Monetary Fund in Washington, D.C. spilled over into Prince William County.”

In his court motion warning that Karn is an “anarchist,” Richmond’s Deputy Assistant Attorney Brian Telfair doesn’t allege the possibility of any violence or property destruction. Instead, he cites a blog post by Karn about acquiring government information through legal requests. The title? “FOIA Rocks!”

I don't think anybody is opposed to the FBI and local police keeping tabs on those who advocate the violent overthrow of the government, or who have shown signs in the past of supporting violent activity. But should any peaceful protesters be targeted in the same way?

Are all anarchists others who identify themselves with non-mainstream political groups so dangerous that they must be closely monitored at all times by the government?

 

[NiRv4n4]

If the implications of these peaceful protests are greater division in society and extremism, sure, the government can target them. Remember that in the Russian Empire, protests for the workers and human rights started out peaceful. Look where it got them. Same thing goes for the Nazis/nationalists in Weimar Germany. If the protest could lead to something threatening the state, why shouldn't the state react?

 

[Silurian]

Everything is a threat so the FBI or equivalent should keep an eye on it.

The Christian Fundamentalist terrorist in Norway joined some right wing groups so may have been spotted.

But after they have had a look and found no evidence of a violent threat then they should stop looking at least for a while.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I think that is the real issue. These various anti-war groups are constantly being monitored and nobody ever finds any actual threats in the vast majority of cases, yet the infiltrators remain and intentionally disrupt and spread disinformation about their goals, which frequently costs them substantial legal costs defending themselves from trumped-up charges.

What do you think should be done about these frequent abuses of power for clearly political purposes, which J Edgar Hoover made legendary and apparently still even exist in the Obama administration?

 

[Silurian]

It is probably a problem with management and training.

The FBI and similar organisations’ win by getting convictions.

If they find nothing it is regarded as being a waste of time.

No manager wants to report that they have wasted their assets.
So the people on the ground may well be reluctant to tell the manager what they do not want to hear. Then things can get out of control.

If the manager was viewed as good because one of their assets had investigated ten groups in two and a half years but had found nothing rather than one group and found not much it would be better.

 

[Formaldehyde]

So these individuals who chronically abuse their extensive power for political reasons shouldn't face criminal charges themselves? They should just be considered to be bad or sub optimal managers who should receive further training or possibly fired for incompetence?

What if their bosses told them to do so? Don't you think they would actually be commended and be promoted instead?

 

[Silurian]

Most of the evidence would show that there was a reason to investigate since there will be tendencies to justify the investigation, so criminal charges could well be a waste of time just like the investigation.

The only way things will change is from the top, or near the top.

 

[Formaldehyde]

That is quite likely true. Until we elect officials who understand and want to comply with the Constitution and Bill of Rights as required by their oaths of office, the persecution by the government of those who merely oppose their political views will probably continue when they are in office.

 

[timtofly]

From a freedom enjoying standpoint I would say No. While freedom and peace seem to go hand in hand, it is not necessarily so. Feedom is maintained by giving up peace, and peace is maintained by giving up freedom. The difference is in trusting individuals. If society cannot be trusted, then the government has to be totalitarian and freedoms are given up. If we are allowed to have freedom of idealogy, then the one with the most support, may eventially trod on the freedoms of those who do not accept that ideologue. That is why you really cannot legislate morality, because there are usually an opposite group who do not wish to be subjected to the others morality.

Groups who form militias, are usually not ones that go aobut killing whole subsets of other groups. They are more conspiracist, who are preparing for an imaginary foe. Religions on the other hand have an agenda and a goal of propagating that religion. Some are militant some are not. Remember though that the "church" that Jesus started whas not a militant one. Is was one of blending into a society and causing personal change, not political one. Sometimes policies are formed and people will come to an agreement to be governed thereby, but that was never a mandate given by God. There are some who in error, take the militant stand against other humans, instead of the spiritual one against the "gates of hell".

 

[Tarquelne]

I like the idea that the FBI is infiltrating groups to keep an eye on them.

I don't like the idea that the FBI is wasting it's time with some groups.

I especially don't like the idea that the FBI is needlessly disrupting some groups. That's very, very bad.

Recruitment for these things is often a problem. I suspect the infiltrator in the "Final Call" article, for example, wasn't really so much a "law enforcement officer" as she was an informant. Informants often have a bias toward over-inflating the threat of whatever group they're in. (Well... professional LE officers do to, but they've got several things helping keep it in check.) Combine that with a political agenda in the handlers and things get bad quickly. The FBI and CIA have both been largely immune to that... but there have certainly been some big lapses.

If it really was a professional who infiltrated them, then it sounds like it was most likely a big waste of time. Maybe she broke up something even if wrongdoing couldn't be proved in court. But "waste of time" seems far more likely.

 

[Formaldehyde]

The woman who used the moniker "Karen Sullivan" is claimed to be a law enforcement officer. But nobody has been able to conclusively determine that yet, because they still can't get her to appear in court yet.

Undercover informant Karen Sullivan may be subpoenaed

Here is a video of Coleen Rowley, an ex-FBI agent who originally was the whistleblower of the FBI botching the pre-9/11 investigations of Zacarias Moussaoui. For that effort, she jointly won Time "Person-of-the-Year" award in 2002, and is now an anti-war activist. She describes her own harassment by FBI agents who did appear at a function at a library to spy on her.

Of the 30 people in the room, a good proportion were detectives.

She thinks "Karen Sullivan" is an FBI agent and actually met her at a Code Pink rally:


Link to video.

In the video, Coleen details how the FBI criteria to investigate any group went from "suspicion" based on a level of factual justification, which was mandated after the 60s abuses, to not requiring any factual justification under Ashcroft after 9/11, to 2008 under Bush when the guidelines were completely eradicated. Now, they just have to "deny" that they are targeting the group based solely on First Amendment rights, which is no hurdle at all.

Coleen Rowley: We're conflating proper dissent and terrorism

A secretive, unaccountable, post-9/11 homeland security apparatus has increasingly turned inward on American citizens.

The evidence includes everything from controversial airport body scanners to the FBI's raids last September on antiwar activists' homes in Minneapolis and Chicago. A federal grand jury investigation in Chicago was recently expanded.

Unless the erosion of proper legal safeguards is halted, we risk a return to Vietnam-era abuses on the part of the FBI and other security agencies.

Agents are now given a green light, for instance, to check off "statistical achievements" by sending well-paid, manipulative informants into mosques and peace groups.

Forgotten are worries about targeting and entrapping people not predisposed to violence.

Forgotten also are the scandals that came to light just months before 9/11 of decades-long FBI operations involving "top echelon informants" (high-level violent criminals) such as Boston crime boss Whitey Bulger.

Even if government officials are well-intentioned, the current tactics and incentives have opened the floodgates of error and opportunism.

Most important, what's been forgotten is that the protection of civil liberties does not weaken our overall security but actually helps to strengthen it.

When security agencies expend their energy against war protesters and environmental advocates, they lose effectiveness in preventing real terrorist violence.

A good place to begin reform is by challenging the handful of words in the "Patriot Act" that enlarged the definition of "material support of terrorism" to encompass "expert advice and assistance" given to designated "foreign terrorist organizations."

This phrase essentially makes mere advocacy of peace and humanitarian issues illegal with respect to groups listed by the State Department.

The Patriot Act thus condemns a large range of nongovernmental efforts, which have tended to be more effective than government-backed ones at furthering education, providing humanitarian assistance, and ensuring free and fair elections throughout the world.

Such a chilling effect only makes nonviolent conflict resolution and mediation more difficult and terrorism more likely.

Next, it's necessary to reverse the erosion of attorney general guidelines governing initiation of domestic investigations, which were adopted after the Church Committee uncovered abuses in the 1970s.

In one of its last official acts, the Bush administration lowered the level of necessary suspicion to the point where the FBI needs only deny that it is targeting a group based solely on its exercise of First Amendment rights.

Like the Patriot Act provision, this opens the door wide to FBI harassment of nonviolent activists.

In 2003, a spokesman for the California Anti-Terrorism Information Center said, apparently without thinking too hard, that evidence wasn't needed to issue warnings about war protesters: "You can make an easy kind of a link that, if you have a protest group protesting a war where the cause that's being fought against is international terrorism, you might have terrorism at that [protest]. ... You can almost argue that a protest against [the war] is a terrorist act."

n a similar vein, the Department of Defense asked on its annual mandatory antiterrorism test, "What is an example of low-level terrorism activity?" The correct answer was "protest."

But protest and civil disobedience are not terrorism. Until that distinction is made at every level of the security system, and proper institutional safeguards are implemented, the "war on terror" will continue to shred civil liberties while failing to prevent terrorist outrages.

Top Secret America" needs to ask itself who is more guilty of furnishing "material aid to terrorism" -- its own operatives, or the activists and protesters it so wrongheadedly targets.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I don't see how anyone can defend the government in this case.

 

[Tarquelne]

Here is a video of Coleen Rowley...

Thanks for all the info.

I looked up a couple of the notable things in the ST article:

n 2003, a spokesman for the California Anti-Terrorism Information Center said, apparently without thinking too hard, that evidence wasn't needed to issue warnings about war protesters: "You can make an easy kind of a link that, if you have a protest group protesting a war where the cause that's being fought against is international terrorism, you might have terrorism at that [protest]. ... You can almost argue that a protest against [the war] is a terrorist act."

The above was offered up as part of the justification for firing rubber bullets into a peaceful protest.

In a similar vein, the Department of Defense asked on its annual mandatory antiterrorism test, "What is an example of low-level terrorism activity?" The correct answer was "protest."

Here's the question. (According to Fox!)

“Which of the following is an example of low-level terrorism?”

— Attacking the Pentagon

— IEDs

— Hate crimes against racial groups

— Protests

The correct answer, according to the exam, is "Protests."

The DoD claims the "protests" they had in mind were the violent demonstrations places like the ME are prone to. IMO that's such a stupid mistake an actual anti-democratic agenda on the part of whoever put the question in is more likely. (And "Attacking the Pentagon"? Really? Want to test comprehension of the word "low", do they?)

 

[woody60707]

Should The FBI And Various Police Be Treating All Assemblies As Threats?

Yes! I believe in an equable government for all. Be it equable rights, such as gay marriage, or as equable government harassment to protesters.

Why do you hate Democracy that you wouldn't want it shared by all?

 

[Formaldehyde]

Really? Want to test comprehension of the word "low", do they?)

Wow. I wonder if anybody actually missed it.

Yes! I believe in an equable government for all. Be it equable rights, such as gay marriage, or as equable government harassment to protesters.

Why do you hate Democracy that you wouldn't want it shared by all?

Then you can't wait until the FBI starts infiltrating all churches, synagogues, town hall meetings, and schools?