But that’s a separate question than just using informants.
There’s lots of other reasons to be concerned with what the FBI is doing, in general, without demanding that they never use informants in tracking certain groups.
I do understand the reflex. However, hostility in such a situation ends up being counterproductive. Hostility tends to put the magat on the defensive, pushing them into a closing ranks posture, solidifying their resolve. A simple, cordial disinterest is more off-putting, more disarming, less likely to make the magat feel the vitality of their case.
If there’s no evidence that the group is planning or promoting crimes, what we have is law enforcement targeting Americans for surveillance because of their opinion of law enforcement.
We are guaranteed the right to present our grievances to the government, without the government attacking us over it. FBI infiltration is an effort to discredit the people who want to change law enforcement, a complete fishing expedition for the purpose of silencing LE critics.
Right, it’s also a question of what they do with the information that they get from informants.
Sure, but who made that demand?
And I would say that the criteria for tracking a group that closely is a reasonable suspicion that they are committing or planning crimes, not merely that they are critical of the government or police.
Exactly. If they insert someone and Agent Amble says “They’re just planning demonstrations” you pull 'em out. But you’re not going to know that for sure until you insert them. And building the case for sneaking or turning someone should give you that suspicion before you go to all of that trouble.
There have been riots closely associated with BLM protests, though, so it’s reasonable to ask, are these being organized by BLM, or not? I suspect the answer to be “No”, but until you have an informant, you won’t really know.
And were the FBI to employ actual informants as informants, then it would probably be good for BLM, because there’s a whole lot of people out there who are convinced that BLM is deliberately causing riots. Having actual information that contradicts that narrative wouldn’t be a bad thing.
I mean, I don’t know for sure that you aren’t going to rob a bank. Does that give me reason to spy on you until I am confident you aren’t going to?
The FBI shouldn’t be investigating groups to find out if they are up to something. The FBI should be investigating groups that they already have reason to believe are up to something.
Do they plant an undercover in your local book club or bible study? If not, then why should they plant one in a group that is critical of the government?
As the only difference between them is their speech, it seems as though using their speech to decide to investigate them runs a bit afoul of the First Amendment.
There have been riots closely associated with football teams winning games. Is it reasonable to ask if they are being organized by the team?
As though the FBI would ever release such information.
Not by the team, no, but if I found out the cops were putting undercover officers in the local fan clubs and spots bars, I wouldn’t be surprised, or disturbed.
If someone noticed that every time I visited a new city, a bank got robbed in a particular way, then yeah, I wouldn’t be surprised that they’re taking a look at me. To say there’s no reason at all to treat BLM even slightly differently that a local book club is to ignore reality.
I certainly would be. They have no reason at all to believe that I am committing a crime, and yet, I am being investigated. That’s how police states operate, they investigate people and groups instead of crimes.
So, in this analogy, BLM starts a riot in every city they visit?
I think I see where you are coming from, and I think I’m done with this conversation.
Clearly we have different definitions of “no reason at all”.
So much for nuance. If you can’t see why the FBI is more interested in BLM than a book club, you’re just as blind as the people who think BLM is burning down every city in America.
This thread of discussion came from the idea that the FBI is an interested party because BLM is for law enforcement reform.
If the FBI is interested because there have been crimes, that’s a hugely different concept than the FBI being interested because BLM wants to reform law enforcement. They are oceans apart in terms of appropriate use of law enforcement powers.
One of them is exactly the sort of thing law enforcement should do to ensure the safety of the public.
The other is exactly the wrong thing for law enforcement to do. It’s a direct violation of rights, a gross abuse of LE power in response to people complaining about LE abusing their power.
It isn’t hard to believe that they are more interested. They question is why they are interested-is it primarily because of possible illegal actions, or is the primary reason the reforms in police procedure and expenditure the BLM is pushing for?
And we actually agree on that. Had every BLM event to date been perfectly peaceful, I’d be saying there is no reason to be concerned. But there has been violence in close association with several events, and it’s reasonable to ask how much of that is because of BLM itself, as opposed to others taking advantage of the opportunity. As I said earlier, my expectation is that an honest investigation would most likely clear BLM.
If the FBI isn’t conducting an honest investigation, that’s a whole different discussion.
But to say there’s “no reason” to be more concerned about BLM than a book club is nonsense.
Fair, you seem to think that being critical of the government is a good reason to investigate a group, I don’t.
So, sure, I suppose we have different definitions there.
What nuance? In order for your analogy to work, you’d have to think that there is a riot in every city that BLM visits.
That’s the opposite of nuance on your part.
Of course I see why they are more interested, BLM has anti-government sentiments, and the FBI has plenty of reason to shut that sort of thing down.
However, if you think that being anti-government is a good reason to be investigated, you are no better than the FBI agents who intentionally instigate violence in order to have a reason to arrest someone.
Heh, heh, hahahaha.
You don’t think that there have ever been crime rings and terrorist groups that passed themselves off as something innocuous like a book club?
By your logic, if you can find just one crime that was planned in a book club, you should be embedding FBI agents in all of them.
Alright, you just keep believing whatever you want, you’re clearly not reading what I’ve actually written.
BLM is not the Black Panthers
BLM is not the Symbionese Liberation Army
BLM is not La Cosa Nostra, or III% or Greenpeace.
BLM does not “visit a city”. It is a disparate expression of a notion. It is not an organization, any more than arrgh Antifa! or Occupy <something something>.
The very idea of infiltrating BLM is absurd on the face of it.