[NY Times]F.B.I. Scrutinizes Antiwar Rallies (1 Viewer)

[pete]

F.B.I. Scrutinizes Antiwar Rallies

By ERIC LICHTBLAU

WASHINGTON, Nov. 22 — The Federal Bureau of Investigation has collected extensive information on the tactics, training and organization of antiwar demonstrators and has advised local law enforcement officials to report any suspicious activity at protests to its counterterrorism squads, according to interviews and a confidential bureau memorandum.

The memorandum, which the bureau sent to local law enforcement agencies last month in advance of antiwar demonstrations in Washington and San Francisco, detailed how protesters have sometimes used "training camps" to rehearse for demonstrations, the Internet to raise money and gas masks to defend against tear gas. The memorandum analyzed lawful activities like recruiting demonstrators, as well as illegal activities like using fake documentation to get into a secured site.

F.B.I. officials said in interviews that the intelligence-gathering effort was aimed at identifying anarchists and "extremist elements" plotting violence, not at monitoring the political speech of law-abiding protesters.

The initiative has won the support of some local police, who view it as a critical way to maintain order at large-scale demonstrations. Indeed, some law enforcement officials said they believed the F.B.I.'s approach had helped to ensure that nationwide antiwar demonstrations in recent months, drawing hundreds of thousands of protesters, remained largely free of violence and disruption.

But some civil rights advocates and legal scholars said the monitoring program could signal a return to the abuses of the 1960's and 1970's, when J. Edgar Hoover was the F.B.I. director and agents routinely spied on political protesters like the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

"The F.B.I. is dangerously targeting Americans who are engaged in nothing more than lawful protest and dissent," said Anthony Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union. "The line between terrorism and legitimate civil disobedience is blurred, and I have a serious concern about whether we're going back to the days of Hoover."

Herman Schwartz, a constitutional law professor at American University who has written about F.B.I. history, said collecting intelligence at demonstrations is probably legal.

But he added: "As a matter of principle, it has a very serious chilling effect on peaceful demonstration. If you go around telling people, `We're going to ferret out information on demonstrations,' that deters people. People don't want their names and pictures in F.B.I. files."

The abuses of the Hoover era, which included efforts by the F.B.I. to harass and discredit Hoover's political enemies under a program known as Cointelpro, led to tight restrictions on F.B.I. investigations of political activities.

Those restrictions were relaxed significantly last year, when Attorney General John Ashcroft issued guidelines giving agents authority to attend political rallies, mosques and any event "open to the public."

Mr. Ashcroft said the Sept. 11 attacks made it essential that the F.B.I. be allowed to investigate terrorism more aggressively. The bureau's recent strategy in policing demonstrations is an outgrowth of that policy, officials said.

"We're not concerned with individuals who are exercising their constitutional rights," one F.B.I. official said. "But it's obvious that there are individuals capable of violence at these events. We know that there are anarchists that are actively involved in trying to sabotage and commit acts of violence at these different events, and we also know that these large gatherings would be a prime target for terrorist groups."

Civil rights advocates, relying largely on anecdotal evidence, have complained for months that federal officials have surreptitiously sought to suppress the First Amendment rights of antiwar demonstrators.

Critics of the Bush administration's Iraq policy, for instance, have sued the government to learn how their names ended up on a "no fly" list used to stop suspected terrorists from boarding planes. Civil rights advocates have accused federal and local authorities in Denver and Fresno, Calif., of spying on antiwar demonstrators or infiltrating planning meetings. And the New York Police Department this year questioned many of those arrested at demonstrations about their political affiliations, before halting the practice and expunging the data in the face of public criticism.

The F.B.I. memorandum, however, appears to offer the first corroboration of a coordinated, nationwide effort to collect intelligence regarding demonstrations.

The memorandum, circulated on Oct. 15 — just 10 days before many thousands gathered in Washington and San Francisco to protest the American occupation of Iraq — noted that the bureau "possesses no information indicating that violent or terrorist activities are being planned as part of these protests" and that "most protests are peaceful events."

But it pointed to violence at protests against the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank as evidence of potential disruption. Law enforcement officials said in interviews that they had become particularly concerned about the ability of antigovernment groups to exploit demonstrations and promote a violent agenda.

"What a great opportunity for an act of terrorism, when all your resources are dedicated to some big event and you let your guard down," a law enforcement official involved in securing recent demonstrations said. "What would the public say if we didn't look for criminal activity and intelligence at these events?"

The memorandum urged local law enforcement officials "to be alert to these possible indicators of protest activity and report any potentially illegal acts" to counterterrorism task forces run by the F.B.I. It warned about an array of threats, including homemade bombs and the formation of human chains.

The memorandum discussed demonstrators' "innovative strategies," like the videotaping of arrests as a means of "intimidation" against the police. And it noted that protesters "often use the Internet to recruit, raise funds and coordinate their activities prior to demonstrations."

"Activists may also make use of training camps to rehearse tactics and counter-strategies for dealing with the police and to resolve any logistical issues," the memorandum continued. It also noted that protesters may raise money to help pay for lawyers for those arrested.

F.B.I. counterterrorism officials developed the intelligence cited in the memorandum through firsthand observation, informants, public sources like the Internet and other methods, officials said.

Officials said the F.B.I. treats demonstrations no differently than other large-scale and vulnerable gatherings. The aim, they said, was not to monitor protesters but to gather intelligence.

Critics said they remained worried. "What the F.B.I. regards as potential terrorism," Mr. Romero of the A.C.L.U. said, "strikes me as civil disobedience."

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/23/national/23FBI.html

 

[pete]

Congress Expands FBI Spying Power

By Ryan Singel

Story location: http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,61341,00.html

02:00 AM Nov. 24, 2003 PT

Congress approved a bill on Friday that expands the reach of the Patriot Act, reduces oversight of the FBI and intelligence agencies and, according to critics, shifts the balance of power away from the legislature and the courts.

A provision of an intelligence spending bill will expand the power of the FBI to subpoena business documents and transactions from a broader range of businesses -- everything from libraries to travel agencies to eBay -- without first seeking approval from a judge.



Under the Patriot Act, the FBI can acquire bank records and Internet or phone logs simply by issuing itself a so-called national security letter saying the records are relevant to an investigation into terrorism. The FBI doesn't need to show probable cause or consult a judge. What's more, the target institution is issued a gag order and kept from revealing the subpoena's existence to anyone, including the subject of the investigation.
The new provision in the spending bill redefines the meaning of "financial institution" and "financial transaction." The wider definition explicitly includes insurance companies, real estate agents, the U.S. Postal Service, travel agencies, casinos, pawn shops, ISPs, car dealers and any other business whose "cash transactions have a high degree of usefulness in criminal, tax or regulatory matters."

Justice Department officials tried earlier this year to write a bill to expand the Patriot Act. A draft -- dubbed Patriot II -- was leaked and caused such an uproar that Justice officials backed down. The new provision inserts one of the most controversial aspects of Patriot II into the spending bill.

Intelligence spending bills are considered sensitive, so they are usually drafted in secret and approved without debate or public comment.

Chris Schroeder, a Duke law professor and former assistant attorney general in the office of legal counsel at the Justice Department, said the re-insertion shows that "people who want to expand the powers of the FBI didn't want to stop after Patriot II was leaked."

"They are going to insert these provisions on a stealth basis," Schroeder said. "It's insidious."

James X. Dempsey, executive director of the Center for Democracy and Technology, echoed Shroeder's analysis.

"On its face, it's a cryptic and seemingly innocuous amendment," Dempsey said. "It wasn't until after it passed both houses that we saw it. The FBI and CIA like to try to graft things like this into intelligence bills."

House Intelligence Committee chairman Porter Goss (R-Florida) defended the new definition, saying it was necessary to keep pace with terrorists and the changing economy.

"This provision brings the definition of 'financial institution' up to date with the reality of the financial industry," Goss said on the House floor. "This provision will allow those tracking terrorists and spies to 'follow the money' more effectively and thereby protect the people of the United States more effectively."

The expansion surprised many in Congress, including some members of the intelligence committees who recently began reconsidering the scope of the Patriot Act.

Timothy Edgar, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, decried the expansion of an executive power that is not subject to judicial oversight.

"The more that checks and balances against government abuse are eroded, the greater that abuse," Edgar said. "We're going to regret these initiatives down the road."

National security letters, or NSLs, are among the most-used antiterrorism powers, and are among the least-known or scrutinized. The Bush administration has pushed to expand their use. In the spring, it tried unsuccessfully to allow the CIA and the military the right to issue such subpoenas.

The FBI says it can't say how many times it has issued itself NSLs because of national security. A few weeks ago, civil liberties groups forced the Justice Department to release some of those records, but Justice handed over a six-page, blacked-out list.

Other portions of the funding bill eliminate annual reports to Congress on several controversial matters, such as foreign companies' involvement in the spread of weapons of mass destruction, the effectiveness of the intelligence community and antidrug efforts.

The bill also nixes reports on how many times national security letters are used to access individuals' credit reports.

After a joint committee reconciled the two versions of the bill, both houses had to vote to approve the compromise version, which is usually considered a formality. While Friday's Senate vote was a voice vote, on Thursday, 15 Republicans in the House broke ranks and voted against the entire intelligence-funding bill in protest of the national security provision. The bill passed by a vote of 264 to 163.

Though debate was limited, a handful of representatives, including Butch Otter (R-Idaho), spoke out against the bill.

"In our fight for our nation to make the world a safe place, we must not turn our backs on our own freedoms," Otter said. "Expanding the use of administrative subpoenas and threatening our system of checks and balances is a step in the wrong direction."

The ACLU's Edgar said he was surprised by the extent of the Republican defections. It shows how views in both parties have changed about granting unchecked antiterrorism powers.

Edgar also argued the extension may anger strong interest groups -- such as casinos, Realtors and travel agents -- who previously weren't part of the civil liberties debate.

"They had no idea this was coming," Edgar said. "This is going to help to continue to expand the list of people and organizations that are asking questions about civil liberties and Patriot Act powers."

Members of Congress who were upset by the provisions and the process that led to their passage may hold hearings on the matter early next year.

Neither the chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kansas) nor the ranking minority member, Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-West Virginia), responded to requests for comment.

The FBI directed press calls to the Department of Justice, which didn't respond by press time.

The Justice Department has vigorously defended its use of the Patriot Act for both terrorist and nonterrorist investigations and set up a website to respond to its critics.