Bush’s domestic-surveillance program having come to light, he is naturally trying to defend it as necessary to protect America from terrorist threats. But some of the spying appears to have been directed against parties whom most of us do not think of as threats – indeed, whom we hardly ever think of at all. From http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/12/1791958.php:
What is the thinking behind this? What are they so afraid of? Is there any justification?
Everything.
No.
From the odd notion that any “disruption” needs to be examined for possible escalation by radical extremists, I can see a (really weak) argument to go look at the Greenpeace and P.E.T.A. protests.
The Catholic Workers surveillance sounds like some ancient idiot in the FBI who has not learned that the Cold War is over decided to resurrect one of his old bogeymen. The CW is certainly socialist leaning, but they have never been involved in violent efforts and even during the 1950s, “tracking” them was a waste of effort and a display of idiocy. (I wonder if the order came directly from Ashcroft with his own odd brand of religious prejudices?)
This article is too non-specific. What do they mean by surveillance? That they had some agents on the ground watching? I fail to see how this is related at all to the NSA monitoring international telephone conversations.
Anyways, the FBI has a long history of being pretty stupid a lot of the time. There’s the old joke for example that, everyone and his grandmother has an FBI file.
Did you read the whole article? It does go into some depth – so far as that is possible when the story is based on selectively-declassified documents.
why do dogs lick their dicks?
I know, I know . . . because they can . . .
Not at first, I thought what you quoted was the entire article, I didn’t notice the hyperlink.
Reading the entire article I’m still not sure why this is being linked to the concept of illegal wiretaps. Because it shows the FBI monitored protests, downloaded stuff from websites, and talked to informants from the group. None of that is something a private citizen isn’t allowed to do, and isn’t something law enforcement has to get a warrant for or even any judicial approval (unless by downloading from websites they’re accessing non-public files.)
Do I think it’s stupid? Yeah, but I think it’s weird you linked it with the wiretap scandal.
The Hoover days weren’t that long ago, and neither were the Oklahoma City Bombing days or the Waco days, the FBI has done some things I consider questionable throughout its history, so I don’t view this as new other than they use the word “terrorist” as opposed to the word “communist” like they used to in the 60s and 70s (well, they actually did use the word communist in reference to Catholic Workers.)
I’m not excusing or supporting. Just saying I’m not surprised and I don’t consider this “Bush news” but just, more “same shit, different day” kind of stuff from the FBI.
This is EXACTLY why Bush didn’t bother to go before a federal judge to seek a warrant for this surveillance. The judge would’ve thrown out the requests in a heartbeat.
This surveillance? No one went to a judge for this surveillance because under no law in the United States are you required to get a warrant in order to:
Talk to members of environmental, animal rights, and etc groups.
Browse their websites
Watch their protests
None of those things are things that U.S. private citizen wouldn’t be allowed to do, in fact I could do all of those things tomorrow, I’d just need to find a group with a protest going and be sure to download their homepage as a web archive before I left.
The FBI would need a warrant to start monitoring phone calls, or to bug people, or search the facilities of these organizations, or the homes of their members, etc.
Many years ago I read that if you write to the FBI under the Freedom of Information Act to inquire about whether or not you have anything in an FBI file, if you did not have a file previously, you will from that point on.
Although infilltration into these groups is something that any ordinary citizen can do, they don’t do it for the purpose of spying. It’s intrusive. It’s Big Brother. And it’s done without just cause. Why can’t we just be a country that truly honors differences rather than paying lip service?
I know the Republicans spy on peace groups and environmentalists. Are they also targets of the Democrats? If not, who is?
I’m not sure “honoring differences” is really the case here. As it is, intrusive or not, it isn’t illegal and it doesn’t require a warrant to join a group on false pretenses.
The FBI in general actually doesn’t have its day to day policy set by the man in the White House. As an agency they actually have a enormous amount of independence in who they investigate and why. They don’t have to get approval from the President for every little thing they do, anymore than the NYPD has to get approval from Mayor Bloomberg for putting an undercover cop in a drug cartel.
As it is, the FBI has always monitored some environmental groups as some environmental groups actually do advocate “domestic terrorist” type of actions in the same vein as the kind of crap White supremacist and survivalist groups engage in. While none of them has yet to do anything major, no one from the ultra-right wing survivalist groups had done anything major prior to Oklahoma City.
We’d all like to believe that peace movements and environmental movements were populated entirely with sane, rational people. But unfortunately some of them aren’t. And in some other countries environmental terrorism is actually pretty serious, we’re lucky it isn’t in the United States.
There’s a big difference between an organization like the Sierra Club and an organization with 20-30 members that has come together for the sole purpose of arson and sabotage.
No one in this thread has yet accused the FBI of acting illegally in these matters, or of bringing unsupportable prosecutions. But, knowing all the kinds of real crime and terrorism which the FBI is responsible for policing, don’t you find it somewhat disturbing that the agency is spending our tax dollars and its own limited budget and man-hours on this sort of thing?
Cite?
I know of at least one instance where agents of Greenpeace allegedly interfered with a US Naval exercise and attempted to use a Greenpeace vessel to ram a Navy vessel.
While this doesn’t make them al-Qaeda operatives, it probably does cross the line from “political” to “inclined to violate federal law” and perhaps even “willing to use violence in a terrorist fashion” (I think that last bit is a stretch, though). And, of course, they were protesting nuclear weapons, which makes the whole scene political speech, albeit very goofy.
PETA also seems to have fanatical adherents, but I’ve not heard a single story that actually has them violating federal law,
And they’re monitoring mosques as well.
Nice, huh? There’s also been reports of the FBI investigating groups like the Quakers who are opposed to the war in Iraq. Yeah, those pacifists are liable to kill us all.
And, apparently, they’re doing their best to eavesdrop on every call on the planet.
You wouldn’t be collecting a paycheck from US citizens to do these things however.
I would suppose that the security services are under tons of pressure to leave no stone unturned to prevent the next 9-11. When some mullet-head from (say) PETA bombs Los Angles to free the Gay Whales for Jesus (or whatever) nobody in the FBI et. al. wants to be the guy who did not order the group to be investigated.
Actually I don’t even have to go overseas, apparently it’s a much bigger problem than I expected it was in the United States:
That’s a long list, but it ain’t what I would call a major terrorism problem. These acts seem to consist mostly of “monkeywrenching” – destruction of property. (Plus a couple of acts of street theater by the Biotic Baking Brigade! 
) Until the Earth Liberation Front starts killing people, I ain’t gonna worry about it – and I don’t see why the FBI needs to spend our tax dollars investigating them, much less PETA or Greenpeace.
Well, I’ll agree I’d put some serious thought into this if I ran the FBI, I’m not sold on the necessity.
At the same time, organized groups that intentionally commit arsons, assaults, break-ins, and bombings are a genuine terrorist group. They’re using panic and mayhem to try to advance their ideas.
They obviously aren’t the same threat as Al-Qaeda, but all it takes is a true nutter who decides that, this time, he’s going to make sure his fire kills people, to make this a mortal matter.
Like I said, the FBI monitors survivalist and militia groups, which, in the grand scheme of things, haven’t done much to hurt anyone. Should an entire movement suffer just because of the actions of Tim McVeigh? Well, maybe. At least they should be watched carefully because quite simply people that are acquiring military arsenals and advocating an overthrow of the United States government are the kind of people we need to be watching carefully whether or not they are committing crimes.
I’d argue there is a fine line between vigilance and goose-chase type antics, and the FBI may be crossing it with some of this stuff.
Even if I were to accept that arson is not “real” terrorism, which I do not …
Where do you think “real” terrorists get their start? Their encouragement? Their funding?
(Do you think PETA would call the FBI if some of its members began advocating terrorism?)