| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Harry Hope" |
| Date: |
27 Aug 2004 07:33:53 PM |
| Object: |
Bob Barr writes about George W. Bush's Gestapo |
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20040825_barr.html
The FBI's Pre-Emptive Interrogations Of "Possible" Demonstrators:
Chilling Political Speech
By BOB BARR
----
Wednesday, Aug. 25, 2004
The FBI, no longer content with working to maintain order at political
events, is now preemptively identifying and interrogating
("interviewing") possible demonstrators.
It has summarized this strategy in a memo.
To make matters worse, the Department of Justice blessed the FBI
strategy in its own memo - suggesting that no First Amendment concerns
are raised by the interrogations.
As I will explain in this column, however, the truth is quite to the
contrary:
The strategy, as outlined in the memo, is a serious threat to free
speech.
-----Back When Politics Was Fun, Protest Was Part of It
Throughout the Reagan and Clinton presidencies, and even to some
extent during the Nixon years, politics was fun.
At least, political protesting had its lighter moments.
(Nothing was really fun during the dour Carter Administration, and
George H.W. Bush's presidency was, well, pretty boring except for the
First Gulf War.)
Who can forget the great costumes and Nixon face masks that appeared
at many political rallies and other events during the 1960s and early
1970s?
Reagan and Clinton masks, the latter sometimes adorned with long,
Pinocchio-type noses, added color and a bit of levity to political
demonstrations throughout most of the 1980s and 1990s.
There was, in a word, tolerance.
Reagan, with his constant good humor, almost always disarmed
protesters with his wit.
Conservatives wearing anti-Clinton T-shirts frequently showed up at
Clinton rallies.
The worst they might face from the then-president's supporters were
scowls.
This atmosphere didn't mean security was absent; it was very present.
In the 1960s through the end of Clinton's second term in January 2001,
everyone knew if you caused disruption, Secret Service agents would be
on you in an instant, as they should be.
But during that period, you didn't feel you were doing something
criminal if you simply decided to show up at a rally with a protest
T-shirt on, or lugging around a sloppy paperboard sign criticizing the
president.
You didn't feel intimidated.
-----The Bush Administration: Squelching Disagreement and Dissent
Now, things are very different.
The Administration and campaign of George W. Bush is squelching any
possible hint of disagreement or protest at every political rally or
gathering.
For example, people with T-shirts that hint at disagreement are not
allowed anywhere near the events, nor even on the route traveled by
the presidential motorcade.
Think what they'd do to you if you showed up in a - shudder -- mask.
But it's gotten even worse than that.
-----The FBI's Preemptive Interrogation Memorandum
As the New York Times has reported, in an October 2003 memorandum to
law enforcement agencies, the FBI expressed great concern over the
possibility that marches and rallies in Washington, D.C. and San
Francisco might become "violent, destructive, or disruptive."
The memo went on to urge law enforcement to monitor the Internet,
because "protesters often use the Internet to . . . coordinate their
activities prior to demonstrations."
It also urged law enforcement to watch out for protesters who use cell
phones to "coordinate . . . or update colleagues."
In the memo, law enforcement agencies at all levels of government are
warned to be aware of "possible indicators of protest activity."
Moreover, even though the memo does not cite any evidence of violence
likely to take place at "possible protests," the Bureau's memo
concluded by telling law enforcement agencies to "report any
potentially illegal acts to the" FBI (italics added).
-----The Department of Justice Memo Blessing the FBI Memo
Doubtless, the Department of Justice, aware of the FBI memo, was
concerned that it would be seen as urging law enforcement to begin
monitoring persons who might be contemplating staging political
protests protected by the First Amendment.
So several months later, in April 2004 - as the New York Times also
reported -- the Department of Justice, which oversees the FBI, issued
its own memo - addressing, and dismissing, these constitutional
concerns.
The memo came from DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC). In the memo,
OLC concluded, not surprisingly, that the monitoring, interrogating
and gathering of evidence on potential political protesters raised no
First Amendment concerns.
In addition, it went on to conclude that even if, hypothetically, such
activities did raise concerns, any "chilling" effect would be "quite
minimal" and would be far outweighed by the overriding public interest
in maintaining "order."
-----Evidence Suggests Protesters Are Subjected To Home and Office
Interviews
No chilling effect?
In the last few months, evidence has been mounting that special agents
are showing up at the homes and offices of potential protesters -
casting suspicion upon them in front of bosses, colleagues, family,
friends and neighbors.
This activity apparently has increased as the Republican Convention
and the November election draw near.
If that's not a chilling effect, I don't know what is.
The price of free speech should not be a high-profile FBI visit that
makes all who know you wonder if you may be a criminal.
During these visits, the special agents "interview" the potential
protesters to determine if they -- or anyone they know -- might be
planning any political demonstrations.
Of course, the "anyone they know" is especially worrisome - hints of
McCarthyism.
Also according to the New York Times, the final question the FBI
agents ask is this:
Does the interviewee know that withholding information on whether they
know anyone else who might be planning a demonstration or "disruption"
is itself a crime?
One can only imagine how this parting shot plays out:
"Oh, by the way, ma'am, before me and my armed partner here leave your
house, we'd like to remind you that if you haven't told us if you know
someone else who might be planning a demonstration, you have committed
a crime and we can prosecute you for not telling us that. Have a good
night, ma'am."
This, of course, is pure intimidation.
-----DOJ's Absurd Stance: Interrogation in Home or Office Is Not
Interrogation
The FBI, seemingly, takes an absurdly narrow view of what kind of
tactics would, in fact, chill speech - a view that excludes its own
plainly chilling measures.
For instance, Joe Parris, an FBI spokesman, told the New York Times
that, because "no one was dragged from their homes and put under
bright lights," interviews of potential demonstrators are not
"chilling."
So now we know the Administration's new First Amendment standard:
So long as the government agents don't "drag you from your home" and
interrogate you "under bright lights," you have nothing to complain or
worry about.
The fact of the matter is, tactics such as those contemplated in last
year's FBI memo, and approved by the Justice Department this past
spring, do chill free speech.
They do intimidate.
And, self-justifying memos by government lawyers notwithstanding, such
tactics usher in an era of intolerance and fear that has no place in
American politics.
__________________________________________________________
Harry
.
|
|
| User: "Topaz" |
|
| Title: Re: Bob Barr writes about George W. Bush's Gestapo |
27 Aug 2004 08:47:41 PM |
|
|
With Bush's Jewish advisors and his activities in the Middle East it
became obvious that he was a puppet of the Jews, who are the real
rulers of America and who control its media. Not that Clinton was
different from that. The "leftists" were getting to close to the truth
about this. So their Democratic leaders devised a diabolical plan
to redirect them from fighting the real rulers of America. Now Bush
and company are supposedly not puppets of the Jews but of the Nazis!
http://kdka.com/topstories/topstories_story_311151421.html
Ashcroft Vows To Fight Anti-Semitism
Attorney General Speaks At Anti-Defamation League's 90th Anniversary
Celebration
Nov 7, 2003 3:12 pm US/Eastern
NEW YORK (AP) Attorney General John Ashcroft vowed Friday that the
Justice Department would continue its fight against anti-Semitism and
terrorism.
"This administration believes that acts of anti-Semitism must be
confronted, condemned and denounced," Ashcroft said in a keynote
address at the Anti-Defamation League's national meeting.
"As history shows, verbal attacks on the Jewish people are portends of
more savage criminality to come," he added...
Ashcroft also spoke at length about the benefits of the USA Patriot
Act, passed overwhelmingly by Congress after Sept. 11. It greatly
expanded the government's surveillance and detention powers, and the
attorney general said without the legislation, some people indicted
for terrorism-related offenses might not have been detected by
officials.
Ashcroft spoke on the second day of the three-day conference,
celebrating the ADL's 90th anniversary. The ADL was founded in 1913 by
Chicago lawyer Sigmund Livingston, who saw a need for an organization
to protect Jews from anti-Semitic acts.
Abraham Foxman, the ADL's national director, praised Ashcroft and
President Bush for their efforts in fighting anti-Semitism...
2003 The Associated Press.
MMIII, Viacom Internet Services Inc.
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info http://www.RealNews247.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
