
FBI Documents Reveal Secret Nationwide Occupy Monitoring - mtgx
http://www.justiceonline.org/commentary/fbi-files-ows.html
======
DanielBMarkham
What kind of idiocy is this? This is the FBI's _job_ \-- to monitor both
foreign and domestic groups of national scope that _might_ present some kind
of threat to civil order.

They're not like the fire department, where they sit around waiting for
something to happen. They're supposed to get out there and get proactively
involved in all kinds of things from white supremacists to greens.

As a libertarian I enjoy a good rant about state security as much as the next
guy, but I prefer to do so from an informed position. There's enough real
things to worry about without going on about the FBI doing what they're
supposed to be doing.

~~~
themgt
The group that poses the biggest threat to civil order in the US are the
elites who are looting the country as society collapses around them.

And how exactly do you call yourself a "libertarian" and then support a
national intelligence agency monitoring the non-violent political activities
of private citizens? If the FBI was monitoring libertarian party members and
events that would be kosher with you too, or is it just hippies that deserve
the police state treatment?

~~~
btilly
I am not a libertarian. I am a liberal. I broadly support the goals of the
Occupy movement. I also support the principles of this action by the FBI
(though almost certainly not all of the details).

Why?

Among other things, it is the job of the FBI to monitor situations that could
turn into problems. The Occupy movement, as legitimate as it is, has the
potential to attract easily radicalized people. These people could easily
coalesce into a radical fringe whose methods would be counter to both the
desires of both the majority of Occupy and the legitimate goals of law
enforcement. (See the Weathermen for an example of such a group that arose out
of broad protests during the 60s.)

If law enforcement can stay abreast of the Occupy movement, and hopefully form
connections between their officers and various well connected people, they
have the opportunity to better monitor and head off this radical fringe. That
is a legitimate goal for law enforcement, and benefits the Occupy movement as
well.

The details where I would disagree with this action are any and all where law
enforcement seeks to block the rights of reasonable people to political
protest. Given what law enforcement is like, I am certain that this has
happened to some extent. However my impression is that on the whole the focus
really has been to be prepared for illegitimate action, and not to block
legitimate protest. Therefore my default position is cautious support of this
law enforcement action, even though I recognize the possibility of abuse.

~~~
subsystem
Who decides what's illegitimate? Is it anything the police says like sitting
down at the wrong place, wearing a mask not to be identified or just being
part of something considered illegitimate?

It's uncommon even in totalitarian countries that the government won't have
some justification for its behavior. If people in Quebec would have respected
bill 78, maybe there wouldn't have been a change in government there.

~~~
btilly
In the end, legitimacy is decided by the country as a whole. In a well-working
country, laws, courts, and police are a reasonable proxy for that.

Incidentally I had not read about bill 78. The anti-protest portions of the
bill I am strongly against. But the tuition hikes that were being protested,
well, I was paying more tuition 20 years ago in British Columbia, Canada than
Quebec students would have paid. I have little sympathy with the student
protests about tuition. Furthermore I am personally of the political belief
that the culture of widespread entitlement in Quebec is among the reasons that
it is much worse off economically than the rest of the country.

Note, this is coming from someone who, while I was in Canada, was politically
fairly far to the left. And Canada is fairly far to the left of the United
States. This is not the time or place to debate it, but in the case of Quebec
my opinions are shaped in part by the separatist movement there. I grew up
with friends whose families left Quebec due to Bill 101, which is likely the
most racist law passed anywhere in North America in my lifetime. Before
objecting, go read it, and educate yourself on why the Bank of Montreal is now
headquartered in Toronto, and what economic impacts that has had on Montreal.

It didn't help that the value of my Canadian sourced scholarship dropped
sharply due to the the widespread belief in Quebec during the early 90s that
they had the right to take not only their marbles, but all of the marbles that
they had been given while abandoning all of the debts that they had run up, on
a straight majority vote. (One of those marbles being a lot of land with good
hydroelectric power, built on land given under the condition that they take
good care of the natives, with natives who voted 99.7% that if Quebec left
Canada, they would leave Quebec.) Yes, I am sure that you see things
differently and think that Quebec was entitled to do that. But explain to me
why the natives were not entitled to leave Quebec, and find an argument that
cannot be turned around and be seen by a third party as an argument that
Quebec not be allowed to leave Canada.

~~~
ced
French Quebecer here. I've been trying to learn more about why the perception
from English Canada is the way it is and posts like yours help a lot.

 _likely the most racist law passed anywhere in North America_

In what ways? Do you feel that it was specifically intended to kick out
English Canadians?

 _It didn't help that the value of my Canadian sourced scholarship dropped
sharply due to_

I don't follow - how did that happen?

 _built on land given under the condition that they take good care of the
natives, with natives who voted 99.7% that if Quebec left Canada, they would
leave Quebec_

Both of those facts are new to me. Do you have any source/link? Which
territory and treaty are you referring to?

~~~
goodcanadian
I feel btilly's comment contained more venom than it ought to have, but it
does give you some idea of a common viewpoint in English Canada.

>In what ways? Do you feel that it was specifically intended to kick out
English Canadians?

The law itself is probably not so bad, but the perception has been that it
specifically targets English speaking Quebecois. There have certainly been
plenty of news stories over the years about inappropriate and over zealous
enforcement. For example, a store owner receiving a fine for a sign saying
"leave the air conditioner plugged in" without a French translation. Now, I
don't know, he probably won in court, but the fact that he even had to go to
court is a travesty.

>I don't follow - how did that happen?

The uncertainty surrounding the referendum in 1995 caused a significant fall
in the value of the Canadian dollar.

>Both of those facts are new to me. Do you have any source/link? Which
territory and treaty are you referring to?

I think btilly's grasp of history is a bit weak here, but for an idea of what
inspired this bit of the rant read this short section on wikipedia:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_referendum,_1995#First_N...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_referendum,_1995#First_Nations),
keeping in mind that Jacques Parizeau insisted that Quebec could not be
partitioned, "the borders are protected by international law," while at the
same time insisting that Quebec could unilaterally leave Canada.

~~~
btilly
_The law itself is probably not so bad..._

Until they were forced to change it because of the 1982 Constitution,
anglophone children of anglophone parents who had moved to Quebec from
elsewhere in Canada were forced to send their children to French only schools.
This was in fact the primary reason that the families of children who I met in
school gave for having recently left Quebec. (Even after the new Constitution,
people who had moved to Quebec from other countries were still impacted.)

 _I think btilly's grasp of history is a bit weak here..._

I misremembered the statistics, but not the gist of the facts. As I pointed
out in a separate response, the rest of the history that I'm digging up is
that 2/3 of the current boundaries of Quebec were given to it post-
Confederation. And the bills which gave those to Quebec came with both rights
and responsibilities. With the clear message that if Quebec failed of its
responsibilities, it could not retain its rights.

Given that historical fact, Jacques Parizeau's proclamation that Quebec is
unpartitionable was incredibly one-sided. And I have no clue why so many in
Quebec both did, and continue to, accept that position as being undisputedly
correct.

------
dquigley
The presumptuous labeling is definitely questionable, but the coordination and
communication seems applaudable.(for a government organization)

If there was a movement of people planing to protest Google or Facebook, I
would expect the FBI to warn them if they had solid information it was going
to happen. In fact if they were aware of large scale protests again an all but
convicted child killer, they still have a responsibility to inform and
protect. We protect criminals and saints equally in this country.

Second in my mind there is no question that on both "sides", police and
protesters, individual people broke laws. Protests bring out the worst in some
of the police officers under pressure and some of the protesters. So the FBI
and the agencies they coordinated with would have been failing at their job to
not monitor and report in an effort to protect the employees of the
businesses.

You might not like the protection big banks got but they should receive it.
Just like the most heinous criminal receives a lawyer to defend themselves,
access to protection from danger (vigilanties), etc

So if we can step the emotions back a bit and use a critical eye on both sides
of the protests I think we will see a FBI that jumped to conclusions but did
their job.

And finally, I find it surprising in a start up forum that promotes agility
and a lack of bureaucracy as the ideal that we are so quick to suggest more of
it to an already bureaucratic, slow government.

------
w1ntermute
Is anyone surprised at all by this? It's not like this is new or something.
Despite the various documented incidents of physical violence and intimidation
inflicted by law enforcement officers on Occupy protesters, it comes nowhere
near the sorts of horrors suffered by protesters during the Civil Rights
Movement, for example. Especially in the South, where protesters were often
being _attacked_ by the police.

------
derekerdmann
Of course they did. Let's ignore for a moment that protest groups (like PETA)
are usually considered some of the highest risks for terrorism; it would be
irresponsible of the bureau to take the protest at face value and assume they
have completely peaceful intentions.

~~~
neumann_alfred
It's people actually peacefully protesting injustice and corruption that scare
the powers that be. A bunch of rowdies can be arrested or shot easily and to
the relief of many. Old and young people singing songs and what not, that's
much trickier.

Ever read War Is a Racket? What makes you think Wall Street has peaceful
intentions? What makes you think Wall Street doesn't cause a lot of death?
What makes you think it's reasonably to project that evil on those who protest
it? No wait; do you think, at all? Your bit about "the highest risks for
terrorism" makes me wonder. Also, why bring up PETA? Why not bring up all the
wonderful people who protest a lot of evil shit and make the world better;
there is no day without that happening. You make it seem like all protest
groups are out to destroy, which makes it rather obvious you wish they were.
Would make it seem less crappy to, you know, not be out there protesting.
Since protesters are potential terrorists (not my words, that's what you
basically said), people who just sit at home are basically like the
firefighters of 9/11 and the armed forces combined, but with a healthier
lifestyle and pets 'n shit.

Yes, I'm at the border of flamebaiting, mod me down. This self-righteous
stating if BS ("are usually considered some of the highest risks for
terrorism" -- by whom? that's like "some people say", the staple of any hit
piece) really really ticks me off. And I'm not even American, I'd be breathing
fire otherwise.

~~~
derekerdmann
> "No wait; do you think, at all?"

Frankly, I'm offended and disappointed that you've decided to turn this into a
pointless personal attack. You already know you're being rude and belligerent,
so moderate yourself instead of throwing out a condescending rant.

Take a look at <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco-terrorism> for a few groups
that the FBI has historically monitored (PETA IS on that list). Given that all
of these organizations have been accused of actions that endanger the safety
and property of other American citizens, the FBI isn't doing its job if it
doesn't monitor them. The Occupy movement could easily have spawned
destructive or violent protests, and being unprepared would have been
irresponsible of the Bureau.

------
nakedrobot2
How much power do these scary bureaucratic agencies FBI, CIA, NSA actually
yield in comparison to our elected politicians, anyway? Do they have any real
accountability?

~~~
mtgx
No, not really. If they are in danger of having a lawsuit against them, they
can usually just brush it off with the "state secrets" privilege, and if they
are actually found guilty of doing illegal things, well...nothing happens to
them. The worst that happens is that they need to change their methods, if
that.

Now, if they get themselves in a sexual scandal, they are expected to present
their resignation immediately. Because obviously that matters much more than
doing something unconstitutional.

------
lostlogin
Surprised no one has posted this, it's a Rolling Stone article about Anonymous
hacks that touches on Occupy movement monitoring. A good read if you have a
minute.
[http://m.rollingstone.com/entry/view/id/34125/pn/all/p/0/?KS...](http://m.rollingstone.com/entry/view/id/34125/pn/all/p/0/?KSID=771c39799bd7b9021608ce0d5ecf23aa&ints_viewed=1)
Edit for bad link.

------
dinkumthinkum
For those of you that think the FBI is doing a wonderful job by doing this, I
suggest looking up Brandon Darby and decide if that was tax dollars well spent
and good government.

------
aj700
Some are, I see, already mocking the ideological presumptousness of this, from
a law enforcement agency. Gee Mulder, there's also this report of blah blah
blah.

Well, why is PREVENTING some citizens from changing the ALWAYS "pro-business"
status quo their job?

Socialism is coming anyway (not the socialism-for-the-rich-kind), esp if you
consider socialized medicine to be a trojan horse of socialism.

The reason America fought socialism is not that it was bad, it was that it was
foreign (Soviet domination) and undemocratic in that form. Via democracy you
can have it any time you vote for it, and even press mogul Republican
billionaires can't stop you.

(See my record.) I never comment these days anyway, since I worked out that
this is not a board of intellectuals (and I allow that there are conservative
intellectuals), it is a board of (inherently capitalist and "selfish") Silicon
Valley VCs and startup people. And here come the some people to argue with me,
and some Randroids among them.

~~~
mikegioia
This is interesting. Are you saying socialism is coming because of a current
trend in policies the US population is voting for, or because of a different
reason? I'm legitimately curious.

