FBI Monitoring ACLU, Greenpeace

[Balta1701]

Boy...please someone out there raise your hand if you honestly didn't see this coming. The FBI has seemingly been monitoring left-leaning groups, notably the ACLU and Greenpeace, under the guise of fighting the war on terror. They've collected literally thousands of documents, and the ACLU is suing to get them released. 1 document was somehow leaked out, and it showed the FBI conducting surveillance on 1 group planning to protest the RNC Convention in 2004.

 

The FBI has thousands of pages of records in its files relating to the monitoring of civil rights, environmental and similar advocacy groups, the Justice Department acknowledges.

 

The organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union and Greenpeace, are suing for the release of the documents. The organizations contend that the material will show that they have been subjected to scrutiny by FBI task forces set up to combat terrorism.

 

The FBI has identified 1,173 pages related to the ACLU and 2,383 pages about Greenpeace, but it needs at least until February to process the ACLU files and until June to review the Greenpeace documents, the government said in a filing in U.S. District Court in Washington.

 

The FBI has not said specifically what those pages contain. The ACLU's executive director, Anthony Romero, said the disclosure indicates that the FBI is monitoring organizations that are engaging in lawful conduct.

 

"I know for an absolute fact that we have not been involved in anything related to promoting terrorism and yet the government has collected almost 1,200 pages on our activities," Romero said. "Why is the ACLU now the subject of scrutiny from the FBI?"

 

John Passacantando, Greenpeace's U.S. executive director, said his group is a forceful, but peaceful, critic of the Bush administration's war and environmental policies.

 

"This administration has a history of using its powers against its peaceful critics. If, in fact, the FBI has been deployed to help in that effort, that would be quite shocking," Passacantando said.

 

Justice Department and FBI spokesmen declined to comment, citing the ongoing case. The FBI has denied singling out individuals or groups for surveillance or investigation based solely on activities protected by the Constitution's guarantees of free speech.

 

Officials have said agents adhere strictly to Justice Department guidelines requiring evidence of criminal activity or indications that a person may know something about a crime.

 

The ACLU has sought FBI files on a range of individuals and groups interviewed, investigated or subjected to searches by the task forces. The requests also are for information on how the task forces are funded to determine if they are rewarded with government money by labeling high numbers of cases as related to terrorism.

 

The government did release one document it gathered on United for Peace and Justice that Romero said reinforces his concerns. The organization describes itself as a coalition of more than 1,300 anti-war groups.

 

A memo from Sept. 4, 2003, about Internet sites that were promoting protests at the 2004 Republican National Convention in New York was addressed to counterterrorism units in Boston, Los Angeles and New York.

 

"Why is this being labeled as counterterrorism when it's nothing more protests at a political convention, a lawful First Amendment activity?" Romero asked.

As a bit of a history lesson, the FBI did something exactly like this in the 60's and 70's during the Vietnam war. They went and started gathering files on anyone and everyone that they could find who they thought opposed the war/opposed the current administration. They infultrated legal political groups to monitor them. They blacklisted people. Created files on John Lennon, on the song Louie Louie, on just about everything.

 

Heck, the FBI even sent a guy to my alma mater, Indiana University, to try to organize some anti-vietnam war protests so that they could see who came to the protests and put their names down on lists.

 

When these files came out, and people learned how far the FBI had gone and how much it was used against political opponents by Hoover and Nixon, the FBI was banned from doing this sort of surveillance. Many of those bans were then removed by the Patriot Act, and more may have been removed simply because the current Administration has refused any Congressional Oversight of how it has employed the powers of the Patriot Act.

 

Just remember 1 thing here...if the FBI is monitoring the ACLU to make sure no terrorists try to hide themselves in the ACLU...are we so certain that no terrorist is smart enough to make a sign that says "Vote Bush"?

Edited July 18, 2005 by Balta1701

[Texsox]

We must destroy our rights and liberties to preserve our rights and liberties. If we have none, the terrorists cannot take them away.

[Rex Kickass]

Beat me to the punch, Tex.

[southsider2k5]

I don't know why they are monitoring the ACLU, but with all of the illegal and dangerous activities that Greenpeace undertakes, I have no problems with them being kept tabs on.

[Texsox]

Beat me to the punch, Tex.

 

The punch sucks, have a tequila. Oops better not, the FBI may think you are a Mexican sympathizer.

[Rex Kickass]

Mmmmmmmmmm. tequila. No lime, please.

[EvilMonkey]

You have lots of groups saying they will protest at the Republican national convention. Why SHOULDN'T the FBI look into them just to make sure there are no terrorists among them. What better place to wreak havok that at the convention? They are going there to protest, and we all know how the peace-loving liberal protesters can be anything but peaceful while protesting. Not sure about the ACLU, though, unless they were trying to see if terrorist groups may have been funneling them money to fight Bush? No clue on that one.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

You have lots of groups saying they will protest at the Republican national convention.  Why SHOULDN'T the FBI look into them just to make sure there are no terrorists among them.  What better place to wreak havok that at the convention?  They are going there to protest, and we all know how the peace-loving liberal protesters can be anything but peaceful while protesting. Not sure about the ACLU, though, unless they were trying to see if terrorist groups may have been funneling them money to fight Bush?  No clue on that one.

 

It is just COINTELPRO under a new name. From Wikipedia:

 

COINTELPRO is an acronym ('COunter INTELligence PROgram') for a program of the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation aimed at investigating and disrupting dissident political organizations within the United States. Although covert operations have been employed throughout FBI history, the formal COINTELPRO operations of 1956-1971 were broadly targeted against organizations that were (at the time) considered to have politically radical elements, such as Martin Luther King Jr.'s Southern Christian Leadership Conference to organizations whose stated goal was the violent overthrow of the US government such as the Weathermen, to racist and segregationist groups like the Ku Klux Klan. The document that launched the COINTELPRO operations against Black groups directed FBI agents to "track, expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit, or otherwise neutralize the activities" of these dissident movements and their leaders. Notice it doesn't say anything about arresting them for being criminals -- just become a domestic thought police.

[Wong & Owens]

You have lots of groups saying they will protest at the Republican national convention.  Why SHOULDN'T the FBI look into them just to make sure there are no terrorists among them.  What better place to wreak havok that at the convention?  They are going there to protest, and we all know how the peace-loving liberal protesters can be anything but peaceful while protesting. Not sure about the ACLU, though, unless they were trying to see if terrorist groups may have been funneling them money to fight Bush?  No clue on that one.

 

That only makes sense if 1) The gov't is keepting tabs on ALL organizations, both pro and con, or 2) We have confirmation that terrorists are retarded. If I'm a terrorist, and I want to cause problems at the RNC, would I associate with a rabble-rousing group of protesters, sure to draw attention, or would I get in with some non-descript pro-Republican group that would conceivably get me closer to places/people where I could cause more damage?

[EvilMonkey]

That only makes sense if 1) The gov't is keepting tabs on ALL organizations, both pro and con, or 2) We have confirmation that terrorists are retarded.  If I'm a terrorist, and I want to cause problems at the RNC, would I associate with a rabble-rousing group of protesters, sure to draw attention, or would I get in with some non-descript pro-Republican group that would conceivably get me closer to places/people where I could cause more damage?

 

Who said they had to be foreign terrorists? ELF is pretty damn bad, and I don't think they are Muslum. Greenpeace is also anything but peacefull. There are alot of wacko nutbag domestic groups out there, that could be inspired to violence by the stupidest things.

[Texsox]

That only makes sense if 1) The gov't is keepting tabs on ALL organizations, both pro and con, or 2) We have confirmation that terrorists are retarded.  If I'm a terrorist, and I want to cause problems at the RNC, would I associate with a rabble-rousing group of protesters, sure to draw attention, or would I get in with some non-descript pro-Republican group that would conceivably get me closer to places/people where I could cause more damage?

 

Seems like you've been giving this some thought

[Rex Kickass]

I just wonder if Minutemen and the Reverend Phelps have files on em. If they do, I can live with Greenpeace.

 

Why they need files on the ACLU is beyond me.

[YASNY]

I just wonder if Minutemen and the Reverend Phelps have files on em. If they do, I can live with Greenpeace.

 

Why they need files on the ACLU is beyond me.

 

I don't recall the Minutemen being involved in any violence.

[Rex Kickass]

I'd argue that the potential for violence is greater with the Minutemen than with the ACLU.

[Texsox]

I don't recall the Minutemen being involved in any violence.

 

I guess it is all about definitions. Holding an American citizen at gun point seemed violent to me. At the minimum aren't these people similar to the anti-government "Patriots" who have attacked the US government over Ruby Ridge, Waco, and other issues? Anti-government rhetoric, taking action into their own hands, facing a threat against America and their way of life. To hide from the similarities isn't a good path to take.

[Texsox]

I'd argue that the potential for violence is greater with the Minutemen than with the ACLU.

 

In one corner, wearing Armani suits and carrying brief cases, the lawyers from the ACLU.

 

In the other corner, wearing Anti-Mexican t-shirts and carrying rifles and hand guns, the Minutemen.

 

Come on DJ, you're talking crazy

 

Now I will agree that the lawyers could cause more damage . . .

[YASNY]

I'd argue that the potential for violence is greater with the Minutemen than with the ACLU.

 

I was referring to Greenpeace.

[Rex Kickass]

I would say that the vast majority of Greenpeace members (>99%) aren't motivated to violence.

[Balta1701]

In terms of greenpeace/ELF, etc.

 

Yes, ELF is a terrorist group. They have hurt and killed people, and many of their members should likely face at least charges of conspiracy.

 

But just because there are terrorists who are environmentalists one should not conclude that all environmentalists, or all leftists for that matter, support those terrorists.

[Texsox]

I was referring to Greenpeace.

 

YAS, I cannot think of a Greenpeace violent protest. Chaining themselves to stuff and driving their inflatable boats around whales to protect them doesn't seem violent. What did I miss? Most of the breaking and entering to free animals, etc. I believe have been other groups.

[southsider2k5]

In terms of greenpeace/ELF, etc.

 

Yes, ELF is a terrorist group.  They have hurt and killed people, and many of their members should likely face at least charges of conspiracy.

 

But just because there are terrorists who are environmentalists one should not conclude that all environmentalists, or all leftists for that matter, support those terrorists.

 

And in no way should they... Groups like the Sierra Club I have no problem with, they follow the law, and there isn't a problem in my eyes. Greenpeace has routinely broken the law, and I have no problem with them being watched... Even more so in the case of ELF.

[Texsox]

Are you talking about things like this?

 

Greenpeace activists scale walls at Ford

[YASNY]

Texsox, to be honest, I'm too damn lazy to research it... so I withdraw my remarks.

Edited July 19, 2005 by YASNY

[Texsox]

Texsox, to be honest, I'm too damn lazy to research it... so I withdraw my remarks.

 

I wasn't necessarily challenging you on that, I was interested in what Greenpeace may be up to currently. I haven't followed them much. I've always thought of them as a more mainstream, "normal" group like Sierra Club.

 

I tried googling Greenpeace and violent, law breaking, etc and didn't come up with much besides their usual trespassing.

[Rex Kickass]

There's a big difference between civil disobedience through direct action and terrorism.