USA A FREE Country?

[akarunway 1]

Updated: 08:45 AM EDT
F.B.I. Goes Knocking for Political Troublemakers
GOP Convention Expected to Draw Thousands of Protesters

By ERIC LICHTBLAU, The New York Times

WASHINGTON, Aug. 15 - The Federal Bureau of Investigation has been questioning political demonstrators across the country, and in rare cases even subpoenaing them, in an aggressive effort to forestall what officials say could be violent and disruptive protests at the Republican National Convention in New York.



F.B.I. officials are urging agents to canvass their communities for information about planned disruptions aimed at the convention and other coming political events, and they say they have developed a list of people who they think may have information about possible violence. They say the inquiries, which began last month before the Democratic convention in Boston, are focused solely on possible crimes, not on dissent, at major political events.

But some people contacted by the F.B.I. say they are mystified by the bureau's interest and felt harassed by questions about their political plans.

"The message I took from it," said Sarah Bardwell, 21, an intern at a Denver antiwar group who was visited by six investigators a few weeks ago, "was that they were trying to intimidate us into not going to any protests and to let us know that, 'hey, we're watching you.' ''

The unusual initiative comes after the Justice Department, in a previously undisclosed legal opinion, gave its blessing to controversial tactics used last year by the F.B.I in urging local police departments to report suspicious activity at political and antiwar demonstrations to counterterrorism squads. The F.B.I. bulletins that relayed the request for help detailed tactics used by demonstrators - everything from violent resistance to Internet fund-raising and recruitment.


More From the Times




In an internal complaint, an F.B.I. employee charged that the bulletins improperly blurred the line between lawfully protected speech and illegal activity. But the Justice Department's Office of Legal Policy, in a five-page internal analysis obtained by The New York Times, disagreed.

The office, which also made headlines in June in an opinion - since disavowed - that authorized the use of torture against terrorism suspects in some circumstances, said any First Amendment impact posed by the F.B.I.'s monitoring of the political protests was negligible and constitutional.

The opinion said: "Given the limited nature of such public monitoring, any possible 'chilling' effect caused by the bulletins would be quite minimal and substantially outweighed by the public interest in maintaining safety and order during large-scale demonstrations."

Those same concerns are now central to the vigorous efforts by the F.B.I. to identify possible disruptions by anarchists, violent demonstrators and others at the Republican National Convention, which begins Aug. 30 and is expected to draw hundreds of thousands of protesters.

In the last few weeks, beginning before the Democratic convention, F.B.I. counterterrorism agents and other federal and local officers have sought to interview dozens of people in at least six states, including past protesters and their friends and family members, about possible violence at the two conventions. In addition, three young men in Missouri said they were trailed by federal agents for several days and subpoenaed to testify before a federal grand jury last month, forcing them to cancel their trip to Boston to take part in a protest there that same day.

Interrogations have generally covered the same three questions, according to some of those questioned and their lawyers: were demonstrators planning violence or other disruptions, did they know anyone who was, and did they realize it was a crime to withhold such information.

A handful of protesters at the Boston convention were arrested but there were no major disruptions. Concerns have risen for the Republican convention, however, because of antiwar demonstrations directed at President Bush and because of New York City's global prominence.

With the F.B.I. given more authority after the Sept. 11 attacks to monitor public events, the tensions over the convention protests, coupled with the Justice Department's own legal analysis of such monitoring, reflect the fine line between protecting national security in an age of terrorism and discouraging political expression.

F.B.I. officials, mindful of the bureau's abuses in the 1960's and 1970's monitoring political dissidents like the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., say they are confident their agents have not crossed that line in the lead-up to the conventions.

"The F.B.I. isn't in the business of chilling anyone's First Amendment rights," said Joe Parris, a bureau spokesman in Washington. "But criminal behavior isn't covered by the First Amendment. What we're concerned about are injuries to convention participants, injuries to citizens, injuries to police and first responders."

F.B.I. officials would not say how many people had been interviewed in recent weeks, how they were identified or what spurred the bureau's interest.

They said the initiative was part of a broader, nationwide effort to follow any leads pointing to possible violence or illegal disruptions in connection with the political conventions, presidential debates or the November election, which come at a time of heightened concern about a possible terrorist attack.

F.B.I. officials in Washington have urged field offices around the country in recent weeks to redouble their efforts to interview sources and gather information that might help to detect criminal plots. The only lead to emerge publicly resulted in a warning to authorities before the Boston convention that anarchists or other domestic groups might bomb news vans there. It is not clear whether there was an actual plot.

The individuals visited in recent weeks "are people that we identified that could reasonably be expected to have knowledge of such plans and plots if they existed," Mr. Parris said.

"We vetted down a list and went out and knocked on doors and had a laundry list of questions to ask about possible criminal behavior," he added. "No one was dragged from their homes and put under bright lights. The interviewees were free to talk to us or close the door in our faces."

But civil rights advocates argued that the visits amounted to harassment. They said they saw the interrogations as part of a pattern of increasingly aggressive tactics by federal investigators in combating domestic terrorism. In an episode in February in Iowa, federal prosecutors subpoenaed Drake University for records on the sponsor of a campus antiwar forum. The demand was dropped after a community outcry.

Protest leaders and civil rights advocates who have monitored the recent interrogations said they believed at least 40 or 50 people, and perhaps many more, had been contacted by federal agents about demonstration plans and possible violence surrounding the conventions and other political events.

"This kind of pressure has a real chilling effect on perfectly legitimate political activity," said Mark Silverstein, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado, where two groups of political activists in Denver and a third in Fort Collins were visited by the F.B.I. "People are going to be afraid to go to a demonstration or even sign a petition if they justifiably believe that will result in your having an F.B.I. file opened on you."

The issue is a particularly sensitive one in Denver, where the police agreed last year to restrictions on local intelligence-gathering operations after it was disclosed that the police had kept files on some 3,000 people and 200 groups involved in protests.

But the inquiries have stirred opposition elsewhere as well.

In New York, federal agents recently questioned a man whose neighbor reported he had made threatening comments against the president. He and a lawyer, Jeffrey Fogel, agreed to talk to the Secret Service, denying the accusation and blaming it on a feud with the neighbor. But when agents started to question the man about his political affiliations and whether he planned to attend convention protests, "that's when I said no, no, no, we're not going to answer those kinds of questions," said Mr. Fogel, who is legal director for the Center for Constitutional Rights in New York.

In the case of the three young men subpoenaed in Missouri, Denise Lieberman, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union in St. Louis, which is representing them, said they scrapped plans to attend both the Boston and the New York conventions after they were questioned about possible violence.

The men are all in their early 20's, Ms. Lieberman said, but she would not identify them.

All three have taken part in past protests over American foreign policy and in planning meetings for convention demonstrations. She said two of them were arrested before on misdemeanor charges for what she described as minor civil disobedience at protests.

Prosecutors have now informed the men that they are targets of a domestic terrorism investigation, Ms. Lieberman said, but have not disclosed the basis for their suspicions. "They won't tell me," she said.

Federal officials in St. Louis and Washington declined to comment on the case. Ms. Lieberman insisted that the men "didn't have any plans to participate in the violence, but what's so disturbing about all this is the pre-emptive nature - stopping them from participating in a protest before anything even happened."

The three men "were really shaken and frightened by all this," she said, "and they got the message loud and clear that if you make plans to go to a protest, you could be subject to arrest or a visit from the F.B.I."

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[mnealtx 0]

And? I'm sure they did the same thing for the Democratic convention.

Of course, that doesn't show the Republicans or the current administration in a bad light, so it'll never make the papers....

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

And? I'm sure they did the same thing for the Democratic convention.

Of course, that doesn't show the Republicans or the current administration in a bad light, so it'll never make the papers....

Actually it was. There were quite a few news stories about the designated protest zones etc. that were set up in Boston.

[freeflydrew 0]

Quote

And? I'm sure they did the same thing for the Democratic convention.

They did... and it's in the news

[mnealtx 0]

Thank y'all for helping prove my point. It's being done to protect both sides, and has been for years.

Admittedly, the "protest zones" seem to be a recent development, but seeing the types of shenanigans as what happened at the MMM and other activist protests, I'm really not all that surprised...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[PhillyKev 0]

You're missing the point that it's wrong no matter who does it. You seem to be implying that since the democrats did it, it's ok for the republicans. It's not.

[Kennedy 0]

How can we stop things like what happened in Seattle from happening in NY?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

You're missing the point that it's wrong no matter who does it. You seem to be implying that since the democrats did it, it's ok for the republicans. It's not.

Then why weren't you so passionate about it when it was happening? Why NOW do you raise a fuss?

Selective attention?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[Ron 10]

Quote

You're missing the point that it's wrong no matter who does it. You seem to be implying that since the democrats did it, it's ok for the republicans. It's not.
____

I find it funny that the Democrats came up with the idea....

Ya know the group that claims to be about freedom limiting it....Thats irony folks.

I also find it funny that the Dems make a big deal out of it only when the Republicans do it.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[PhillyKev 0]

Well first of all, I don't know why two posts is considered"raising a fuss". But if it is, then I did "raise a fuss" about the dems doing it too.

The selective attention is all yours.

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Well first of all, I don't know why two posts is considered"raising a fuss". But if it is, then I did "raise a fuss" about the dems doing it too.

The selective attention is all yours.

I guess the question is: Did you know about the protest areas during the DNC? (Good set of initials, those . . .)

I did - and I thought it was a safer alternative

If you did - Why didn't you complain about it then? Where was your moral fiber then? Why is it that only AFTER the republicans are doing the same thing as the democrats do you find fault?

Could it be that you are partisan and don't see past your party?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

I find it funny that the Democrats came up with the idea....

I didn't know the dem convention this year was the first ever instance of gov't surveilance and control of public protest. Thanks for clearing that up.

Quote

I also find it funny that the Dems make a big deal out of it only when the Republicans do it.

Still trying to figure out how me saying it's wrong no matter who does it is "making a big deal out of it". Also wondering how you can make that claim when I posted more vehemently when the dems did it.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

I guess the question is: Did you know about the protest areas during the DNC?

Yes,

Quote

If you did - Why didn't you complain about it then?

I did.

Quote

Why is it that only AFTER the republicans are doing the same thing as the democrats do you find fault?

Completely baseless assumption on your part.

Quote

Could it be that you are partisan and don't see past your party?

Look in the mirror. Why didn't you defend the protest areas at the DNC when I said it was wrong then/

[turtlespeed 226]

Show your defence?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[PhillyKev 0]

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1168349;search_string=protest%20;#1168349

[PhillyKev 0]

chirp chirp

Wondering if you'll follow your leader and not appologize for your mistake.

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

chirp chirp

Wondering if you'll follow your leader and not appologize for your mistake.

LOL

Eight minutes - wow - there are threads here besides yours PK - Get over yourself.

I admit that I wasn't aware that you voiced opposition to the protest areas. But watch this - PK, as you cannot seem to - I CAN admit I was wrong. And I do.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[turtlespeed 226]

chirp chirp

Wow - all this time went by - and not even an aknowledgement . ..

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Wow - all this time went by - and not even an aknowledgement

'cause I'm still waiting for the appology.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

You're missing the point that it's wrong no matter who does it. You seem to be implying that since the democrats did it, it's ok for the republicans. It's not.

Yes, and if they didn't do it, and left everyone exposed to the threat of possible plots of assassination and/or major disruption not exclusive of terrorist attack and people died, the left would then bitch that the Republican administration had not done enough to safeguard lives.

It's fucking maddening how the left wants it both ways, and believe me, the rest of us fully realize the impossible position that leftist hatred of anything non-leftist leaves us in: damned if you do, and damned if you don't. NOTHING the Bush administration does will meet with the approval of these people. If he tightens security, he's chilling the first amendment; if he relaxes security, he's not doing enough to safeguard lives. There reaches a point when these whiners lose all credibility -- when one realizes that you can't possibly please them, and that's just the failure they want you to make.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

You're missing the point that it's wrong no matter who does it. You seem to be implying that since the democrats did it, it's ok for the republicans. It's not.

Then why weren't you so passionate about it when it was happening? Why NOW do you raise a fuss?

Selective attention?

Looks like you caught him in a state of hypocrisy. Of course they don't complain about shit the democrats do. Only when the same thing is done by or for republicans is it suddenly wrong -- and of course the timing of the complaints exposes the hypocrisy.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

I find it funny that the Democrats came up with the idea....

I didn't know the dem convention this year was the first ever instance of gov't surveilance and control of public protest. Thanks for clearing that up.

Quote

I also find it funny that the Dems make a big deal out of it only when the Republicans do it.

Still trying to figure out how me saying it's wrong no matter who does it is "making a big deal out of it". Also wondering how you can make that claim when I posted more vehemently when the dems did it.

The suspicion that you are rightly under right now is that you might have (probably would have) said nothing about this policy if the republicans had not followed suit and done it. If the policy -- old or new -- was what outraged you, and you knew it went on at the DNC, then why didn't you complain in the time between the DNC and the current questioning that went on for the RNC?

Can you see how this makes your griping suspect? How can we know that you would have still complained about the security measures taken if the republicans had not engaged in them? It easily begins to seem that you would not have, since it's been weeks since the dems did the same thing and you're only voicing a complaint about it now that the republicans did it.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[PhillyKev 0]

Maybe you should read the whole thread before repeating the false accusation of others since I linked to where I did talk about it previously in regards to the DNC.

I'll await your apology for falsely accusing me as well.

[PhillyKev 0]

chirp chirp

At least you guys take good lessons from your master, GWB. Never appologize for making false accusations, even when you have been proven wrong.

I love how Jeffrey responds to every post of mine in the thread, until he gets to the one that shows he was mistaken in all of his baseless accusations. Then suddenly he found something better to do.

[nacmacfeegle 0]

You too huh?

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson