roachboy

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

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.

Locobot

Not everyone knows that they have the right to not answer any of these questions and would be wise to do so.