Last year during the should we/shouldn't we debate over bombing Iraq, all sorts of interest groups and individuals gathered several times in cities across the country for one common cause -- to let the president and the nation know that not everyone was in support of invading Iraq. One table set up along the mall outside the Capitol Building in Washington, D.C., was an extremely radical civil disobedience group -- you had to sign a paper saying you were willing to serve a jail sentence in order to even be put on their Internet list-serve. However extreme their politics seemed, the actions they outlined were aimed to gain the government's attention, not to hurt anybody.
Last month, the FBI sent out a memorandum just 10 days before demonstrations in Washington, D.C., and San Francisco, detailing to local law enforcement agencies why it is important to monitor the events and report any "suspicious activity" to its counterterrorism squads. They're beginning to scrutinize the peaceful rallies that have always been one of the most successful and efficient forums for free speech and dissent in the United States. There are often hundreds of thousands of participants; if the purpose was to raise hell, it surely wouldn't be a problem. However, their activities are now being screened for terrorist actions. Antiwar protesters are not usually the ones out for blood. You'd think that would be self-explanatory.
The Oct. 15 memorandum made a note that the bureau "possesses no information indicating that violent or terrorist activities are being planned as a part of these protests" and furthermore that "most protests are peaceful events." So, let's get this straight. They have no proof of terrorist activities taking place at the protests and there haven't been any connections between protesters and any terrorist groups. Sounds like good enough reason for investigation to me. I guess the FBI has decided to jump on the good old preemption bandwagon.
Besides the idea that peace rallies are an extremely ideal place for terrorism to brew (according to the memorandum), protesters themselves have actions to beware of. The memo explains that demonstrators use such techniques as videotaping arrests as a means of intimidating the police. It details how protesters have in the past used "training camps" to teach participants what to do in case of arrest, and used the Internet to gain support and raise money and gas masks to protect themselves from tear gas. It goes on to explain that these same protesters will often raise money to pay for lawyers for those arrested. When did these activities become suspicious?
Officials said the FBI is not aiming to monitor protesters but to gather intelligence. How is it possible to gather any intelligence at a peace rally without observing the crowds?
Without the people, there would be no protest.
Anthony Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), is concerned that "the FBI is dangerously targeting Americans who are engaged in nothing more than lawful protest and dissent ... the line between terrorism and legitimate civil disobedience is blurred." It has become easy enough for police to find a reason to tear gas or arrest demonstrators. Now the problems are becoming more about what the people believe and less about what they're actually doing.
Earlier this year, the New York Police Department questioned many of people they arrested at demonstrations about their political affiliations. This should have nothing to do with why they're arrested -- being a member of the Liberatarian, Green, Independent, Democratic or Republican parties is not a crime, and should not be associated with arrest in any situation. The act has since been stopped because of public criticism.
This memorandum sets a scary precedent. It is a government agency scanning events of peaceful dissent against government action for anything they consider "suspicious activity." Meanwhile, the protesters are doing all they can to express their doubts about other suspicious activities.
Free speech is not terrorism and protests are not a gathering or recruiting place for terrorists. There are far worse things to fear than dissent, and far better places to monitor for "potential disruption."
