FBI, RNC, NYC
Find a Conversation
| Tue, 08-17-2004 - 8:18am |
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/16/politics/campaign/16fbi.html
F.B.I. Goes Knocking for Political Troublemakers
By ERIC LICHTBLAU
Published: August 16, 2004
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.
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 Counsel, 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.

Pages
I heard an interesting radio interview with a woman who works for the group "Not in our name". She was going on and on about how Mayor Bloomberg needs to recognize the groups right to obtain a permit to protest in Central Park, which Bloomberg said they will not allow, but would allow a permit in other areas.
The woman was then asked if she, being one of the leaders of the group, would tell her fellow members to protest in a non-violent manner. She ducked the question by trying to point the finger back at Bloomberg saying this was his problem.
The woman was asked the same question again, and she ducked the question yet again.
Over the course of the 10 minute interview, the woman was asked the same question at least 7 or 8 times, and refused to answer the question one way or the other (no surprise she is supporting John Kerry as she has the duck and cover move down pat).
If she were truly concerned about the groups right to peacefully assemble to protest, then she would have made it clear on the radio that she would ask the members of the organization to keep the protest peaceful and not get involved in any conflicts with law enforcement. Since she could not, she showed her true colors. This is one reason why this group is not getting a permit for Central Park. It has nothing to do with Bush.
Well the media often do not cover protests, & sometimes they cover them inaccurately. The NYT had to apologise for a report that greatly underestimated attendance at one of the earliest anti Iraq war protests in D.C. Who knows how many others were not covered accurately & no one printed a correction. I've been at some protests that were not covered at all. Some of Bush's campaign stops are covered without mentioning the protesters in "Free Speech zones". Of course, they are so far away, the reporters probably didn't see them. I came home from the Women's Rights March this year & had a friend ask me "What march?" She hadn't heard a thing about it & there were a million women there.
The NY protests will be covered, but how well? How extensively?
Absolutely our civil liberties are under attack, like never before. No, this is worse than under Nixon. During that time they were primarily after groups that were violent, like the Weathermen.
Going to visit peaceful protesters in their homes prior to a planned event is chilling to say the least, & unprecendented.
< Gotta wonder what Bush is so afraid of? The truth getting out? It'd be awfully hard for the media NOT to cover the protests that will take place in NY. Also, can anyone argue that our civil liberties aren't under attack? I'm sure you've seen Ashcroft's plan to use surveillance on the internet now too? I'm too young to remember Nixon, but does this harken back to that time? >
But I've been at several anti war protests & never saw any violence, so I wonder at the question in the first place. Not in Our Name is a peaceful group, I've been at protests that they were involved in & there was no encouragement or approval of violence. My conclusion is the insistence on getting a promise of no violence from peaceful groups is just a ruse to avoid granting the permit. There is no way any of the several peaceful groups can promise no one will get violent in NY. The peaceful groups that take the time to obtain permits are not the ones planning violence, it's individuals not associated with any group. That shouldn't determine what peaceful groups can do.
This has everything to do with Bush. EVERYTHING.
< If she were truly concerned about the groups right to peacefully assemble to protest, then she would have made it clear on the radio that she would ask the members of the organization to keep the protest peaceful and not get involved in any conflicts with law enforcement. Since she could not, she showed her true colors. This is one reason why this group is not getting a permit for Central Park. It has nothing to do with Bush. >
Then why didnt she????
To me this indicates that privately, she may be hoping for a little civil disobedience.
In fact, she and the group could actually make Bloomberg look even worse by staging their protest peacefully even if they do not get a permit. If the police tries to break them up, and begins to arrest them, go peacefully so Bloomberg looks like the idiot.
I never understood why some protest groups resort to throwing bottles at the police or starting fires and turning over automobiles (like when a team wins a championship). To me that is just stupidity at its finest, and it does nothing to further the message of the group, especially when the group is supposedly a peace oriented group.
I agree that there is no need for violence but I fear there will be. By denying them a reasonable place to protest, add FBI interrogation, the lack of media coverage or investigative reporting, and the number of different issues that have them worked up (Pro-Choice, Environment, War, Economy), all of which these people are very passionate about to begin with, I think you're dealing with a pressure cooker. Not to mention how upset people in NY, a Dem stronghold (Dems outnumber Repubs 5 to 1), are about the convention being held there to expoit 9/11. Then add to that NY cops with attitudes and stun guns already EXPECTING to arrest an average of 1,000 a day. What do you expect to happen? If Bush allowed some of this steam to be released during his campaign stops - allowed protesters near, or allowed them their say, it wouldn't be this bad. Or if the media debunked some of the conspiracy theories or asked questions or gave coverage to the issues that these people care about, it wouldn't be this bad. There has been no outlet for the steam.
It IS all about Bush and I pray that everything goes without a hitch. My biggest fear is that this will be Kent State and a lot of young kids (and older ones too) are going to get hurt. But I feel Bush brought this on himself. The blood will be on his hands. Not only does he not understand, but he doesn't care - at least not about anyone other than his base. Look at how divided we are as a country. Look at how polarized we are so early in an election year. Look at how few are undecided at this time. Heck, look at this board! How many can you rattle off that are strongly for Kerry and how many are for Bush? You can tell immediately.
There is too much anger and emotion in this race. I feel it myself. I come here to see how the events of the day are spun. I get angry and worked up, which is fine it motivates me to keep volunteering. But when I'm really upset I go to Kerry's website. For me there really is Hope there. A positive message. Yes, things are bad, but they'll get better. If Bush would acknowledge some of the pain people feel - loss of jobs/economy and stop saying "We've turned a corner", or he would acknowledge at least one of those that has died while serving in Iraq by attending the funeral at Arlington National Cemetary or meeting the planes that fly in at night carrying the dead, maybe some of the built up steam would lessen. Instead he simply "stays the course". Can't bend, won't listen. He certainly learned nothing from Reagan's funeral. The Great Communicator. I can't even stand to watch Bush on TV. Had to force myself to watch Larry King. Had to force my husband as well.
The other day I wrote to Renee saying if she said something nice about Kerry I think she'd snap in two. I left work that day asking myself that same question. Could I honestly find something nice to say about Bush without it being a backhanded compliment? The best I could come up with was that someone said he was a great uniter while in Texas. Boy do I wish he could channel the person he once was. It might help avoid a large mistake in NY.
This is exactly what I mean about ducking the issue. She never would say anything about this.
If she is holding the violence card, then any bloodshed on the demonstrators will be on her hands and those of the leadership of each organization.
I am all for ones right to protest, but when those protestors turn violent and begin throwing rocks, bottles, etc at the police, I am all for the police using whatever force necessary to end such idiocy.
< If she is holding the violence card, then any bloodshed on the demonstrators will be on her hands and those of the leadership of each organization. >
Too
Renee ~~~
< Too many of the 'respectable' protest groups benefit from the less savory ones, and that's the way it's meant to be so they can keep their hands clean. If they don't want their mainstream reputation tarnished, they'd better work hard to distance themselves from the violent protesters and sincerely condemn them. >
I don't think there are many, although there are probably some unfortunately, who are going into the protests with the idea that they'll need to be violent. But I think these guys have had a lot to say for a while and no outlet. The events leading up to NY - FBI interrogation, mistreatment by police during other events, not being able to protest at campaign stops, lack of coverage by the media of many of these issues, etc. are all building. There are going to be thousands of people there who are unhappy with this administration. On the other side you have thousands of police already expecting to arrest 1,000 people a day, ready for violence, with Code Orange hanging over them, and they're going to act on the slightest provocation. What do you think is going to happen?
The police will try to block the protesters from entering an area they feel they have the right to enter. The police will use the excuse of "terrorist threat", the pushing will start. A cop will grab someone to arrest or a protester will force his/her way through. The cops will react. The protesters will react. The media will salivate and egg them all on by their mere presence in the hopes of bigger ratings. Maybe it escalates to tear gas. But which side do you think will "stand down"? The police who's duty it is to hold their ground or the protesters who are fed up with being denied and think this is the last big chance to protest this administration before Nov 2nd?
Technically it'll be the police and the protesters who will share the blame. The media will get off scott free. But ultimately the blame lies with those who could've prevented this situation. The so-called "leaders" that are supposed to represent ALL of us.
Pages