Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Politics


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 08-16-2004, 11:05 AM   #1 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
investigations of antiwar/antibush acitivists

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/16/po.../16fbi.html?hp

a couple excerpts to give the gist of the article (it is 2 pages):

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. [snip]

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. [snip]

===
so it appears that bushworld is reverting to the good old conintelpro days of thinking dissent as a "suspicious activity" and working to blur the line between free speech and criminal activity.

this article is one os a gorwoing flurry on preparations underway for the rnc in new york from the viewpoint of opposition. see for example these two:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/inter...283404,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/salon/stor...280907,00.html


i am sympathetic to the sense held by many new yorkers (something like 83% polled, the citation is in one of the articles above, i think) that the republicans are trying to capitalize on 911 in a really manner by holding their convention in nyc---i do not blame them for being angry, nor do i blame them for wanting to show their anger.
but it seems already that the forces of "order" are preparing to overreact--- and that the protests could turn really ugly.

now there is a chance that the announcements about the militarized preaparations being undertaken by the nypd are part of a kind of media intimidation campaign designed to frighten people away from turning out.

or it could be simply a description of what is getting set up to happen.

what do you think of all this?
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite
roachboy is offline  
Old 08-16-2004, 11:14 AM   #2 (permalink)
Like John Goodman, but not.
 
Journeyman's Avatar
 
Location: SFBA, California
I think that this could have been a case of abuse, but I read the story yesterday here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/16/po...ign/16fbi.html
Which had this:
Quote:
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.
I don't see anything improper in that at all, other than the vague term "disruptions," which could mean a lot of things.
Journeyman is offline  
Old 08-18-2004, 01:10 PM   #3 (permalink)
is awesome!
 
Locobot's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Journeyman
I think that this could have been a case of abuse, but I read the story yesterday here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/16/po...ign/16fbi.html
Which had this:


I don't see anything improper in that at all, other than the vague term "disruptions," which could mean a lot of things.
Not everyone knows that they have the right to not answer any of these questions and would be wise to do so.
Locobot is offline  
 

Tags
acitivists, antiwar or antibush, investigations

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:02 AM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360