NationStates Jolt Archive

FBI Tracks Potential GOP Protesters
By TOM HAYS

NEW YORK (AP) - With the Republican National Convention less than two weeks away, federal agents and city police are keeping tabs on activists and others they believe might try to cause trouble. They are making unannounced visits to people's homes, conducting interviews and monitoring Web sites and meetings.

In one such instance, FBI agents showed up at the door of John Young, a 68-year-old activist. ``Just a visit by the FBI has overtones,'' said Young, who says the government has been monitoring a Web site he runs ever since the agents visited late last year. ``Whether you've done anything wrong or not, you think, 'Oh no.'''

The overall surveillance effort has been overshadowed by far-reaching counterterrorism measures planned for the Aug. 30-Sept. 2 event. Officials won't discuss it in detail, other than to say investigators always act within the law.

``Violent acts are not protected by the U.S. Constitution, and the FBI has a duty to prevent such acts and to identify and bring to justice those who commit them,'' FBI Assistant Director Cassandra M. Chandler said Monday in a statement.

Ann Roman, a Secret Service spokeswoman, said its agents expect to respond to an increase in possible domestic threats against President Bush and other dignitaries as the convention at Madison Square Garden nears.

``How we do that specifically, I'm not going to go into,'' Roman said.

According to three law-enforcement sources, federal agents in New York have begun interviewing people they believe might know about plots to sow mayhem at the convention, and have used surveillance against possible suspects.

The intelligence unit of the New York Police Department has been watching Web sites run by self-described anarchists. It also has sent young, scruffy-looking officers posing as activists to protest-organizing meetings, said one high-ranking law enforcement source, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Donna Lieberman, executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, raised an alarm, arguing that few people know they have a right to turn away the FBI.

``Political interrogation without suspicion of criminal activity harkens back to the bad old days of the McCarthy era,'' she said. ``The FBI does not have a right to intimidate people for criticizing the government.''

Officials deny the operation threatens civil rights. They note that the FBI interviews are voluntary, and that protest meetings and Internet postings being monitored are public forums.

The Justice Department, through its office of legal counsel, concluded in an April 2004 memo that two FBI bulletins were proper in alerting law enforcement officers last year about expected protests in Washington, San Francisco and Miami.

Recent FBI bulletins about anti-war protests have urged local police to ``be alert'' and report ``potentially illegal acts'' to federal terrorism task forces. Illegal activity - such as bombings, vandalism or trespass - ``falls outside the scope of the First Amendment,'' the Justice Department concluded.

In recent weeks, several people linked to anarchist groups in Colorado, Kansas, Missouri and elsewhere have reported being ``harassed'' by federal agents about the convention.

Many activists fear a repeat of the last Republican convention, in Philadelphia, where authorities were accused of rounding up protesters on trumped-up charges before they could take to the streets. Police raided a warehouse and seized puppets that protesters planned to use as props, and arrested an organizer on misdemeanor charges and held on $1 million bail before his case was dropped.

Authorities in New York say no pre-emptive strikes are planned.

``We're not looking to get people with open warrants or anything like that,'' the law enforcement source said. ``We'll only arrest them if they commit vandalism or other illegal acts on 'Game Day.'''

In Manhattan, Young caught law enforcement's attention by what he described as an innocent attempt to expose gaps in national security through his Web site, cryptome.org. Recent postings feature diagrams, maps and photos of rail tunnels and gas lines leading toward Madison Square Garden.

The goal, he said, was ``to point out what's not being protected.''

In November, two FBI agents arrived at his apartment and told him they believed information on his site ``could be used to harm the United States,'' he said.

``They were very polite,'' he said. ``They made it clear that nothing I was doing was illegal.''

The agents also suggested he could help them identify threats - an idea he rejected as ``an invitation to be an informant.''

Since then, Young said, his Web site has recorded a ``tremendous number'' of hits from the Department of Justice and - in recent weeks - the NYPD.

``It certainly is chilling,'' he said.

Associated Press writer Devlin Barrett in Washington contributed to this report.

It's about time they did something with all these antiamerican terrorists running around threatening our government officials' lives. For too long they have hidden under the shield of free speech when it didn't apply to them.

Sowing mayhem, and plotting to disrupt meetings! Can't have that! People diverging from the narrow political spectrum that is acceptible in the US. Some one might start thinking they have freedom of speech and expresion!
they might even start to think that this is a democracy!
No, anyone who is not a devoute Republican or Democrat should be tagged, follwed and monitored, hell let's go the whole hog and have them commited. they must be mad for not conforming.

FBI Tracks Potential GOP Protesters

It's about time they did something with all these antiamerican terrorists running around threatening our government officials' lives. For too long they have hidden under the shield of free speech when it didn't apply to them.
Not everyone who protests against the GOP (or the Dems for that matter) is a terrorist. In fact almost none are.

Terrorists sould be punished, but there's something creepy about the FBI watching everyone who openly dislikes the party.

It's about time they did something with all these antiamerican terrorists running around threatening our government officials' lives. For too long they have hidden under the shield of free speech when it didn't apply to them.
you know, in this country, we have a couple of things called freedom of assembly and freedom of speech. Under these freedoms protected by our first amendment,it is COMPLETELY legal for thousands of people to go stand in the street, sit for all i care, in front of the republican national convention and yell "BUSH SUCKS" until they need a cough drop.

if anyone wants how the patriot act is being used to take away peoples rights, i will refer them to this thread. the FBI has no right to go barging into people's houses questioning and intimidating them

Funny, a represive, invasive, authoritarian country that tried to control the actions and even thoughts of it's people falls in the east and another starts to rise in the West.

The beginnings of a police state. God bless America.

It's about time they did something with all these antiamerican terrorists running around threatening our government officials' lives. For too long they have hidden under the shield of free speech when it didn't apply to them.

Please tell me you're being facetious here. :eek:

Well, I for one don't see anything wrong in this. The FBI look at possible violent protesters. They're not looking at *every* protesters as far as I can tell. They merely try to prevent violent disruption.

Now, going to have little chats with peoples is a method of intimidation, no doubt about it. But sometimes, it is better than to have a group of angry agitators whipping the crowd in a frenzy where the police is forced to take actions.

I'll say that most protesters are pacifists. But it takes just a dozen or so agitators to turn an otherwise fine manifestation in a full-blown riot. The FBI knows that and is trying to prevent it.

Well, I for one don't see anything wrong in this. The FBI look at possible violent protesters. They're not looking at *every* protesters as far as I can tell. They merely try to prevent violent disruption.

Now, going to have little chats with peoples is a method of intimidation, no doubt about it. But sometimes, it is better than to have a group of angry agitators whipping the crowd in a frenzy where the police is forced to take actions.

I'll say that most protesters are pacifists. But it takes just a dozen or so agitators to turn an otherwise fine manifestation in a full-blown riot. The FBI knows that and is trying to prevent it.
it doesnt say violent protestors, it says activists, and if you knew anything you would know activists are anyone that speak against the GOP, as thye believe it.

Well, I for one don't see anything wrong in this. The FBI look at possible violent protesters. They're not looking at *every* protesters as far as I can tell.

You don't forsee them using the need to "be sure we found all the violet protestors" as an excuse TO look at all of them?

And, do we know whose definition of "violent" is in use?

it doesnt say violent protestors, it says activists, and if you knew anything you would know activists are anyone that speak against the GOP, as thye believe it.
Well, activist is a term used by a journalist. Are we sure this is what the FBI said? Also, activist is commonly used as synonym to violent protestors.

If they wanted to say every single protestor. They would have said protestor instead of activist. I believe some of you are jumping to conclusions.

You don't forsee them using the need to "be sure we found all the violet protestors" as an excuse TO look at all of them?

And, do we know whose definition of "violent" is in use?
I swear to you that if they start saying that I'll be the next to protest in the streets. I believe it's a regular police action with no bad intentions behind it. They mentionit just because the GOP convention is coming to town and that there is concern of terrorist activities.

I'm sure the FBI did this for the DNC also. They were just not asked by journalist then. It's a non-story if you ask me. Given other circumstances, there wouldn't even be a mention of this in the papers.

i think we ignored what i said

Just one thing: COINTELPRO.

J. Edgar Hoover would be proud.

I swear to you that if they start saying that I'll be the next to protest in the streets. I believe it's a regular police action with no bad intentions behind it. They mentionit just because the GOP convention is coming to town and that there is concern of terrorist activities.

I'm sure the FBI did this for the DNC also. They were just not asked by journalist then. It's a non-story if you ask me. Given other circumstances, there wouldn't even be a mention of this in the papers.

But, why WOULD the media not have asked anyone about this sort of activity in Boston before the DNC if it was happening? That was also a convention, wasn't it? There was also concern for terrorist activity then too, wasn't there? If it was happneing then, why DIDN'T the media mention it?

And, do we know whose definition of "violent" is in use?

Uh...probably the definition used in current local, state, and federal laws. You know, the things those "peaceful activists" are supposed to obey.

But, why WOULD the media not have asked anyone about this sort of activity in Boston before the DNC if it was happening? That was also a convention, wasn't it? There was also concern for terrorist activity then too, wasn't there? If it was happneing then, why DIDN'T the media mention it?
I don't know. Maybe they did and the publisher decided it was not newsworthy. Maybe because protesters at the DNC didn't make such a fuss about them being here for a month before the convention. Who knows?

Also, this is publicity for the protesters. Some protesting organisation may be mentionning this because they want their name in the papers. They heard about the security measure and decided that this was a good way to get their actions in the papers.

I don't see any kind of police abuse in the article. The FBI is going out of their way to mention that everybody's rights are respected. If the website of the guy posting how to get in was shut down, you'd have a case. But they didn't even do that. I think this is much ado about nothing.

Really, just do the decent thing and return the Statue of Liberty to France.

Really, just do the decent thing and return the Statue of Liberty to France.

No! They can't have her. She's all we've got left.

Uh...probably the definition used in current local, state, and federal laws. You know, the things those "peaceful activists" are supposed to obey.And what proof is there that any of the activists questioned advocate violence? I hope all those in favour of the second amendment will support the protestors right to bear arms in case they need to defend themselves.

I don't know. Maybe they did and the publisher decided it was not newsworthy. Maybe because protesters at the DNC didn't make such a fuss about them being here for a month before the convention. Who knows?

What would be "not newsworthy" about police ensuring a safe environment for conventioneers, especially when we're trying to prove to citizens that we are ahead of the game in the war on terror?

It's about time they did something with all these antiamerican terrorists running around threatening our government officials' lives. For too long they have hidden under the shield of free speech when it didn't apply to them.

y'know i'm seriously starting to wonder whether whittier isn't TRA/MKULTRA in disguise. The both copy and paste quite a few articles, just whittier seems to be desingned to be so ridicululous and right wing as to destroy all of their credibility.

No surprise really. The americans finally reap what they sowed. Remember what Benjamin Franklin said - you dont deserve freedom nor security if you exchange freedom for security.

What would be "not newsworthy" about police ensuring a safe environment for conventioneers, especially when we're trying to prove to citizens that we are ahead of the game in the war on terror?
i like to refer to that as "scare tactics", there is NO need at all to go around advertising that there are security problems and they are raising security to take care of it, just raise security and be done with it, if anything happens, we got ourselves some terrorists in custody

i like to refer to that as "scare tactics", there is NO need at all to go around advertising that there are security problems and they are raising security to take care of it, just raise security and be done with it, if anything happens, we got ourselves some terrorists in custody

Well, then, the only conclusion I can draw is that the media was focusing attention on THIS convention and not the other is, because it WASN'T happening at the other convention. If the FBI actions were really as benign as you are implying, then the only reason the media would even be paying attention was in an effort to exhibit that we are cognizant of terrorist threats and are endeavoring to take precautions.

I can think of no reason, if this same activity took place at BOTH conventions, why the press would cover the activity preceding one and not the other. The far simpler explanation is that, it DIDN'T happen before the DNC, and IS happening before the GOP convention.

Unless you can suggest an alternate explanation why the media would regard this activity newsworthy at some times, but not at others.

Unless you can suggest an alternate explanation why the media would regard this activity newsworthy at some times, but not at others.
Alternate explanation (not saying it's true): A member of Bush's election comitee put pressions on the papers so they speak about the president's fight on terrorism. It is a scare tactic and, since Bush is associated with tough on terrorism, more voters think Bush is doig a good job.

If nothing happens during the protest, Bush can also claim he gave the means to fight crime to the police.

There is always another explanation.

Alternate explanation (not saying it's true): A member of Bush's election comitee put pressions on the papers so they speak about the president's fight on terrorism. It is a scare tactic and, since Bush is associated with tough on terrorism, more voters think Bush is doig a good job.

If nothing happens during the protest, Bush can also claim he gave the means to fight crime to the police.

There is always another explanation.

Which then leads us back to the original implication that these crackdowns on activists are unjustified and trumped up, no?

Which then leads us back to the original implication that these crackdowns on activists are unjustified and trumped up, no?
If used to promote a political party only. Nothing tells us if they did this screening process for the DNC unless we ask the FBI. Besides, you asked me another reasonable explanation and I gave one to you.

And these are the people sperading the miracle of "democracy" to Afghanistan and Iraq?! :eek:

If used to promote a political party only. Nothing tells us if they did this screening process for the DNC unless we ask the FBI. Besides, you asked me another reasonable explanation and I gave one to you.

We're going around in circles -- again, this brings us back to, if they did this screening process for the DNC, but in the case of the DNC the media kept it hush-hush, and they talked it up before the GOP convention, then isn't that still somewhat of a sketchy misuse of power?

And, for the reasons stated above, that may be another "reasonable" explanation, but it is also one that still raises uncomfortable questions about how power is being used.

We're going around in circles -- again, this brings us back to, if they did this screening process for the DNC, but in the case of the DNC the media kept it hush-hush, and they talked it up before the GOP convention, then isn't that still somewhat of a sketchy misuse of power?

Possibly, but who did the misuse? The FBI? Only if did not do it on the DNC.
The media? They are the one to blame IF they didn't report it in both convention.
Who is pushing for this story to get out? That's your culprit.

Well, gotta go for the night. Nice talking to you all.

Possibly, but who did the misuse? The FBI? Only if did not do it on the DNC.
The media? They are the one to blame IF they didn't report it in both convention.
Who is pushing for this story to get out? That's your culprit.

My point exactly.

y'know i'm seriously starting to wonder whether whittier isn't TRA/MKULTRA in disguise. The both copy and paste quite a few articles, just whittier seems to be desingned to be so ridicululous and right wing as to destroy all of their credibility.
No valid arguments so he personally attacks the author of the thread.

y'know i'm seriously starting to wonder whether whittier isn't TRA/MKULTRA in disguise. The both copy and paste quite a few articles, just whittier seems to be desingned to be so ridicululous and right wing as to destroy all of their credibility.

They're probably both some moderate who doesn't really care just having a laugh. Niether posters really give any credibility to their respective 'sides' (if that is how it works now)

It's about time they did something with all these antiamerican terrorists running around threatening our government officials' lives. For too long they have hidden under the shield of free speech when it didn't apply to them. All I want to know is if the FBI did the same for the people who protested prior to the Democratic National Convention?

They're probably both some moderate who doesn't really care just having a laugh. Niether posters really give any credibility to their respective 'sides' (if that is how it works now)
No you are quite mistaken. If the dems win, America will collapse and Bin Laden will win the war.

No you are quite mistaken. If the dems win, America will collapse and Bin Laden will win the war.

What war will he win again? I thought we left afhghanistan.

FBI has to protect the president, he is the commander in cheif.
But if Kerry is taken out they won't care, he isn't president.

Oh and we lost Afganistan: only the captial if free, gee how safe.

If we lost afganistan does that mean Kerry will win!
Yay! Republicans think kerry will win!

All I want to know is if the FBI did the same for the people who protested prior to the Democratic National Convention?

Am I the only one who remembers the fenced-off areas protestors were forced to stand in during the DNC? It wasn't that long ago, people.

Whittier -- you're a moron. I really can't state it any simpler than that. No, I'm not attacking you because I can't express my own opinions or whatever, I can just already tell that arguing with you would be worthless, since you're not operating on the same level of reality as everyone else. So: you're a moron.

No you are quite mistaken. If the dems win, America will collapse and Bin Laden will win the war.
*sarcasm* yeah, right/ - don't you think you're being overdramatic there?

Compared to the US, bin Laden has little to no power.

FBI has to protect the president, he is the commander in cheif.
But if Kerry is taken out they won't care, he isn't president.


Completely false. The secret sevices are in charge of protecting both presidential candidates. The FBI isn't there to protect the president.

Besides, the FBI is a big organisation. Stating that they won't care if Kerry is killed is absurd.

Am I the only one who remembers the fenced-off areas protestors were forced to stand in during the DNC? It wasn't that long ago, people.

Whittier -- you're a moron. I really can't state it any simpler than that. No, I'm not attacking you because I can't express my own opinions or whatever, I can just already tell that arguing with you would be worthless, since you're not operating on the same level of reality as everyone else. So: you're a moron.There's a difference. There are "free speech zones" (Still pisses me off to write that) at the RNC as well, but it wasn't reported that the FBI was doing what seems to be pre-emptive background checks on potential protestors before the DNC the way they seem to be doing for the RNC. Maybe they were--that's all I'd like to know.