Widespread Spying Preceded '04 GOP Convention 471
Frosty Piss alerts us to a story in the New York Times reporting on details that are emerging of a far-flung spying operation lasting up to a year leading up to the 2004 Republican National Convention. The New York Police Department mounted a spy campaign reaching well beyond the state of New York. For at least a year before the convention, teams of undercover New York police officers traveled to cities across the US, Canada, and Europe to conduct covert observations of people who planned to protest at the convention. Across the country undercover officers attended meetings of political groups, posing as sympathizers or fellow activists. In at least some cases, intelligence on what appeared to be lawful activity was shared with other police departments. Outlines of the pre-convention operations are emerging from records in federal lawsuits brought over mass arrests during the convention.
Yep. (Score:3, Interesting)
Knowing what to do? (Score:5, Interesting)
(a) Ineffectual: writing or congresspersons, letters to the editor, voting.
(b) (Typically) Crazy: armed revolt.
It's like none of us (including me) knows how to navigate the territory between those two extremes. Heck, I don't even know whether or not there is any territory in between.
Is this why we're damned to stand bye, then get over these things and go watch the newest B.S.G episode to forget about the state of the nation? We're just convinced that there's no effective way to deal with these things without resorting to violence, which we're (sensibly) loathe to do?Re:The Best Intelligence Agency in the US! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:This is the police. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Watch the Extremists (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Watch the Extremists (Score:5, Interesting)
And kids, don't forget, not only should we start planning how to disrupt the 2008 Republican Convention, we should make "plans" even if we have no intention of going. Make those spies earn their pay. Shouldn't be hard to get their attention, if they are willing to infiltrate the Quakers and Billionaires for Bush.
Key Question: "What is the next step?" (Score:4, Interesting)
Once the FSB determines who the troublemakers are, the Kremlin orders its loyalists in the city governments to suppress dissent. In fact, on March 24, Russian authorities arrested all the peaceful protestors [iht.com] before they could begin their rally.
Will Washington follow in the footsteps of Moscow and go to the next logical step after spying? I hope that the answer is "no", but I cannot be 100% certain that the answer is "no".
I am going broke (Score:2, Interesting)
Shit-My Bad (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Looks like good policework (Score:5, Interesting)
Somehow I find it unlikely that the NYPD is up to date on current law in every jurisdiction where these activities took place. The likelihood of them having violated the legal rights of citizens increased with every new jurisdiction they entered for this conduct.
It should be noted, for example, that California's Constitution has an explicit right to Privacy, and the state AG has directed local law enforcement that "it is a mistake of constitutional dimension to gather information for a criminal intelligence file where there is no reasonable suspicion of criminal activity". In other words, what these officers did is blatantly unconstitutional in California, and only questionably unconstitutional in other jurisdictions.
It's okay, I support the right of you to be a fool willing to throw out the rights of anyone other than yourself, as long as they disagree with your politics. Continue to tell yourself that 90% of the world's population and 75% of the American population is wrong about current policy and that you, in your infinite wisdom, are the only one who understand how true peace and order may be brought to the world.
Thank you! If only you'd tell law enforcement agencies that, perhaps more peaceful protests could take place and we could all forget that the phrase "agent provocateur" ever existed!
Great Hoover's Ghost! (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem here isn't necessarily what they were monitoring, but why they were monitioring it. As the article repeatedly states, one must have grounds for an inquiry (i.e. possible illegal activity, backed up by either compelling circumstantial evidence or hard empirical evidence) before conducting a covert inquiry. As an example: it would be perfectly legal, in most cases, to begin covert surveillance of a target if the object of the investigation could in some way be demonstrated to be a possible factor involved in illegal activty, such as someone here in TN buying extremely large amounts of, say, nyquil (can be used in making crytsal methamphetamine), so long as the amounts were truly beyond any conceivable norm (compelling circumstantial evidence). While this would by no means be enough for an arrest or conviction, a judge could be convinced to allow wiretapping, diversion of assets towards surveillance, etc. However, one bottle of nyquil would not be enough (one would hope) to get this kind of permission.
In the case reported in the article, the NYPD was effectively conducting surveillance of the one bottle of nyquil people. Simply being involved in a political protest group is by no means indicitive of illegal activity; however, the police apparently deployed assets to groups with apparently peacful intentions, with no cause to suspect illegal activity (one bottle of nyquil.) Now, if the police could show that Group A. had been responsible, say, for severe property damage at the WTO riots in Seatlle, that is compelling circumstantial evidence (did it before, might do it again) that could be used in obtaining permission for covert intelligence gathering (55 gallons of nyquil, so to speak). This does not seem to be the case here, however.
The reason that this distinction is so important is that power does tend to corrupt, not necessarily morally, as the old adage is often taken to be stating, but more often ethically. You're a cop: protect and serve, preserve the peace, and all that. By the very nature of your job, if you're dedicated to it, anyways, you are going to always be pushing as close to the edge as possible. But where exactly is that edge? Where society (in the form of government, an ethical government one would hope) places it. Only when these distinctions are upheld, only when this line is constantly reinforced and restated, does the concept of checks and balances truly work. In this case, the police have overstepped their authority, it seems. Conducting an investigation with no probable cause is no different than pulling random people off of the street and interrogating them for a crime that one has no reason to suspect they comitted. Case in point: guys, how would you feel if everytime a woman was raped in your town, every male was wiretapped, followed, and snooped on? You might say that such a thing would be different, but it's not. After all, you have a penis (these people were involved in protest groups), and almost all women are raped by men (these groups are similar in form to groups that have created disruptions in the past), so all men should be surveilled equally (RTFA).
The argument can go on and on: it is logically sound. However, the thing that is most compelling to me in this instance is it reminds me of the FBI during the Cold War, expecially during the Mcarthy era, and the Vietnam war. Do we not find it disturbing that people like MLK Jr., John Lennon, and the vast majority of the faculties of NE colleges were under surveillance, that dossiers were compiled on their potential "socialist," or "Communist," leanings, due to no more evidence than that they "fit the profile,"? Same thing here. Such policies were the product of Hoover and his protegees at the FBI, which nowadays are
Re:If by "best", you mean "overzealous" (Score:2, Interesting)
I was in NY during the Republican convention. I wasn't there FOR the convention, but I just happened to have an install that same week in NY. I saw the "protests". These people were allowed to crowd the streets, scream, yell, carry their signs, and even harass anyone they thought to be a delegate, which was anyone not dressed in "protester attire". There was no repression of free speech. There was no oppression of the masses. There were not even that many areas that were blocked off. I was able to walk within a rock's throw of the Garden without any problems whatsoever. One protester even managed her way into the convention itself to disrupt it. These people would block streets, throw things at the delegates and even lay their bodies down on the path to the Garden to try and stop the convention in its tracks.
THAT was the full intention of these "protests". These people were not out there to protest anything. They were out there to disrupt the convention. They wanted to deny the Republicans their right to convention. These people were no different than the brown-shirts of the 1930's and 40's. Their job was to silence all opposing views through any means possible. I see the same thing at pro life marches, support the troop rallies, pro Israeli marches or anything that does not jive with what is, ironically enough, considered to be the PC ideals.
It was not just the job of the NYPD to ensure the Republicans their right to a convention, but to also protect the President, the Vice President and nearly the entire Presidential cabinet. When you have that many high-profile government officials in one place, their safety is a matter of national security. Now if the NYPD kicked down doors, harassed friends, wives and family members of "suspects", and detained "persons of interest", then we'd be on to something. But all it seems to me that they did was look into potentially harmful groups that may pose a security risk.
Re:All that intelligence gathering for what? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:If by "best", you mean "overzealous" (Score:4, Interesting)
That has almost nothing to do with the chilling effects of spying on legitimate political groups.
Tangentially, you're making all sorts of errors in generalizing from the behavior of the most visible protesters. I originally responded to a comment about "destructive assholes", and was pointing out that not all protesters, or political groups, fall into that category. If you conflate the two, you're helping us as a society go down the road I'm warning about, because it makes it all too easy to legitimize excessive investigative tactics.
And if that's all they did, there wouldn't be an issue. However, a point which the NYT article raises is that NYPD's collection and sharing of information went beyond this. I'm saying that this is something to be wary of, that it can very easily get out of hand. Simply saying "Yay NYPD" as the comment I responded to essentially did, is missing the point.
Re:This is the police. (Score:5, Interesting)
And yet.. at some point, I saw too much, and the scales were removed from my eyes and I saw before me a nation of horror, and no matter how hard I try I cannot put that genie back in the bottle.
I know, as does anyone who spends more than 5 minutes thinking about this, where all of this is going..
How all of this will end...
In fire.
There is only one end to what we have built. And brother, it ain't pretty.
Re:This is the police. (Score:3, Interesting)
Really, this is a non issue. Even the police files marked secrete from protesters who weren't planning on breaking the law is a non issue. It was likely done this way to single out potential problems and have a way to distinguish the people without intent from those with intent. "oh, your with mothers against the war? ok you can go, sorry for the mistake".
Someone please tell me were the issue is? Is it because people who were planning on breaking the law were foiled by those pesky kids again? Is it because we expect the police to be able to ensure our safety and when they do, we find out what they had to do in order to do it? Or is it just the tax payer funds spent on this effort? IS it because NY city had a democrat mayor (Michael Bloomberg) at the time, or that he ran for office as a republican to get elected?
Subverting our right to protest (Score:3, Interesting)
Now, people may say that what the police did is ok and legal because the meetings were all public, but think about it for a moment. In democratic countries we are supposed to have the right to protest and the purpose of protesting is to make a big noise, attract media attention and make governments change their minds about things. If everyone is arrested on route because the police knew exactly what train people were going to use, no big noise is made at all. That is an affront to our right to protest. The police are not there to protect governments or political parties from embarrassment. That is a complete misuse of the police force, yet it happens routinely. The easier it is for the police to stop people protesting, the worse it is for our democracies.
In the UK we now have the wonderful protest exclusion zone for a kilometer or so around parliament. Although you can apply for permission to protest, any effective protest is now impossible since the police dictate how many people you can have, how many signs you can have etc. It's not so much the protests themselves that the government fears, but rather the media attention that a protest draws. A protest outside parliament is much more attractive to the media than one in some random field, and the government knows this full well. It seems that the police are also briefed to avoid drawing media attention to protests. You will find that when celebrities attend protests, the police tend to keep their distance since their intervention could only result in more media attention.
A big shakeup is coming (Score:2, Interesting)
Major political milestone today: a Republican senator said that impeaching Bush "might be an option".
This is starting to look like the last months of the Nixon presidency. Gonzales is on the way out, with more disclosures coming every few days. Even the Republicans want him out. Bush is trying frantically to keep Karl Rove from testifying under oath. Cheney's old chief of staff was convicted of perjury last week. [washingtonpost.com] Bush's approval rating is down to 30-34%, depending on the poll. Cheney is somewhere around 18%.
It's like 1973 all over again.
Re:Knowing what to do? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:AGAIN again ..... (Score:3, Interesting)
What the hell difference does it make whether Clinton did it? Are you saying that the proper standard for Republican conduct is, "If Clinton did it, it's cool?" If Clinton does bad thing X and Bush also does bad thing X, it's bad and they should both be called on it.
To be consistent, you should turn your logic around. If Bush does something Clinton was criticized for and isn't himself criticized, does that mean the critics were wrong before and it was okay when Clinton did it?
The kneejerk Republican "But Clinton did it too!" response to any accusation of wrongdoing is pretty baffling to me. Last I heard the Republicans didn't consider Clinton a paragon of virtue, so why is it somehow okay to stoop to his level?
(And no, I am not a Democrat. They are a bunch of spineless gasbags as far as I'm concerned. But at least they don't have nearly the finger-pointing reflex the Republicans do, this obsessive need to make every problem someone else's fault.)
Re:This is the police. (Score:3, Interesting)
yet somehow, our ancestors made inroads and put an end to all of that.
we're now facing slightly tougher odds, though I can see why some cynicism can be had here, it's because people are more well off and more apathetic. Especially generation Y. However, look at what happened in nazi germany, people were happy in the first few years because they had everything and everything was stable and good, then someone got power hungry. When people started losing everything, they started wanting their great leader dead and were happy when we invaded, only ones not happy were the facists who were pretty much in for a hardcore assraping.
Yeah I agree it isnt going to be pretty, and it isnt going to happen overnight, but by no means, I dont think this country is going to meet its end. we may lose some states at the worst.
Re:Clinton fired 92 US Attorneys (Score:4, Interesting)
There is no argument that USAs serve "At the pleasure of The President".
*IF* George Bush had simply asked them to resign, there would be no scandal.
*BUT* George Bush chose to lie about the reasons they were asked to leave, defaming those USAs who in fact had very highly rated performance reviews.
Pay attention to this simple fact:
It's not the action, it's the cover-up.
And the kicker here? NO COVER UP WAS NEEDED. They just did the cover-up move out of habit.
And then Gonzales lied to Congress. And it all fell apart.
Hmmm.. Why is it important for all the USAs to be "Loyal Bushies" to use the criteria Alberto Gonzales office was using according to their emails?
It's the simple fact that the entire administration is vulnerable to charges for violating 18 USC 371.
Let me excerpt a bit of Elizabeth de la Vega's book, from the Model Indictment she drew up. ( She's an ex-United States Attorney, btw. )
From USA v. Bush. http://www.amazon.com/United-States-George-Bush-a
11. Pursuant to the Constitution, their oaths of office, their status as Executive Branch employees, and their presence in the United States, BUSH, CHENEY, RICE, RUMSFELD, and POWELL, and their subordinates and employees, are required to obey Title 18, United States Code, Section 371, which prohibits conspiracies to defraud the United States.
12. As used in Section 371, the term "to defraud the United States" means "to interfere with or obstruct one of its lawful government functions by deceit, craft, trickery, or at least by means that are dishonest." The term also means to "impair, obstruct, or defeat the lawful function of any department of government" by the use of "false or fraudulent pretenses or representations."
13. A "false" or "fraudulent" representation is one that is: (a) made with knowledge that it is untrue; (b) a half-truth; (c) made without a reasonable basis or with reckless indifference as to whether it is, in fact, true or false; or (d) literally true, but intentionally presented in a manner reasonably calculated to deceive a person of ordinary prudence and intelligence. The knowing concealment or omission of information that a reasonable person would consider important in deciding an issue also constitutes fraud.
14. Congress is a "department of the United States" within the meaning of Section 371. In addition, hearings regarding funding for military action and authorization to use military force are "lawful functions" of Congress.
15. Accordingly, the presentation of information to Congress and the general public through deceit, craft, trickery, dishonest means, and fraudulent representations, including lies, half-truths, material omissions, and statements made with reckless indifference to their truth or falsity, while knowing and intending that such fraudulent representations would influence Congress' decisions regarding authorization to use military force and funding for military action, constitutes interfering with, obstructing, impairing, and defeating a lawful government function of a department of the United States within the meaning of Section 371.
It looks like it would take a SINGLE United States Attorney with the guts to do their job, as per their oath, and the ENTIRE administration would be perp-walked at the same time.
Explains why Bush will ultimately give away whatever he's asked. That's a hella big club to hold over his head.