Skip to main content

View Diary: Actually read the documents released by the FBI about OWS (319 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Diarist's read is interesting. So is DemocracyNow! (55+ / 0-)

     interview with the watchdog ngo ex dir ...

    Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, executive director of the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund, which released the documents showing how the FBI monitored Occupy Wall Street.

     

    Once-secret documents reveal the FBI monitored Occupy Wall Street from its earliest days and treated the nonviolent movement as a potential terrorist threat. Internal government records show Occupy was treated as a potential threat when organizing first began in August of 2011. Counterterrorism agents were used to track Occupy activities, despite the internal acknowledgment that the movement opposed violent tactics. The monitoring expanded across the country as Occupy grew into a national movement, with FBI agents sharing information with businesses, local police agencies and universities.We’re joined by Mara Verheyden-Hilliard of the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund, which obtained the FBI documents through the Freedom of Information Act. "We can see, decade after decade, with each social justice movement, that the FBI conducts itself in the same role over and over again, which is to act really as the secret police of the establishment against the people," Verheyden-Hilliard says. [includes rush transcript]
    Filed under  Occupy Wall Street, Domestic Spying, FBI, Civil Rights, Mara Verheyden-Hilliard
    Guest:

    Move Single Payer Forward? Join 18,000 Doctors of PNHP and 185,000 member National Nurses United

    by divineorder on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 11:23:09 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  It's really hard to make sense of the docs (60+ / 0-)

      because they have so many redacted holes in them. Moreover, they were selectively released. Hundreds of pages were held back. What's clear is the strong coordination between the Homeland Security and the large corporations.

      Mara Verheyden-Hilliard of the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund should be listened to more than the rest of us because she has spent more time investigating this situation. She has the background info and context that we don't.

      I will review what I wrote about the sniper plans to make sure I got it right in my diary. I was literally reading and writing at 4 something in the morning in the dark.

      look for my eSci diary series Thursday evening.

      by FishOutofWater on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 11:33:18 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Both your diary and the current one are welcome. (8+ / 0-)

        Downthread the current diarist arrived at this conclusion:

        http://www.dailykos.com/...

        One of the things that is consistent in the report is that the FBI was very hands off and left security and policing to the local law enforcement.
        Huh?

        Move Single Payer Forward? Join 18,000 Doctors of PNHP and 185,000 member National Nurses United

        by divineorder on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 11:51:32 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Diarist also conveniently omitted the FBI title (41+ / 0-)

          of the doc... Criminal Activities Alert.

          And the FBI led off with a comparison of Occupy with the Arab Spring.

          And, other journalists have filed FOIA requests with the FBI and have been lied to and told that no documents exist.

          Furthermore, as Naomi Wolf notes, now that the FBI is working for with banks and corporations, any negative label (erroneous or not) impugned upon a protester can easily result in financial calamity for them.

          No matter how rich or protected... if you are labeled a "terrorist" ... which Occupy was labeled as a terrorist organization by the FBI... can result in the impoundment of your assets.

          Jason Leopold, at Truthout.org, who has sought similar documents for more than a year, reported that the FBI falsely asserted in response to his own FOIA requests that no documents related to its infiltration of Occupy Wall Street existed at all. But the release may be strategic: if you are an Occupy activist and see how your information is being sent to terrorism task forces and fusion centers, not to mention the "longterm plans" of some redacted group to shoot you, this document is quite the deterrent.

          There is a new twist: the merger of the private sector, DHS and the FBI means that any of us can become WikiLeaks, a point that Julian Assange was trying to make in explaining the argument behind his recent book. The fusion of the tracking of money and the suppression of dissent means that a huge area of vulnerability in civil society – people's income streams and financial records – is now firmly in the hands of the banks, which are, in turn, now in the business of tracking your dissent.

          Remember that only 10% of the money donated to WikiLeaks can be processed – because of financial sector and DHS-sponsored targeting of PayPal data. With this merger, that crushing of one's personal or business financial freedom can happen to any of us. How messy, criminalizing and prosecuting dissent. How simple, by contrast, just to label an entity a "terrorist organization" and choke off, disrupt or indict its sources of financing.

          I cannot believe that so many here are just wiping this information under the rug.


          One may live without bread, but not without roses.
          ~Jean Richepin
          Bread & Roses

          by bronte17 on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 12:53:00 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Diary this ? (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            antirove, Lujane, glitterscale

            Move Single Payer Forward? Join 18,000 Doctors of PNHP and 185,000 member National Nurses United

            by divineorder on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 01:09:20 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  If you do read the entire document drop (23+ / 0-)

            you'll notice that there are occasional mentions of potential criminal and terrorist activities from other sources -- Anonymous, white-collar bank robbers, Aryan Nation, etc. (Why "occasional"? At least in part because the FOIA request was focused on documents related to OWS, not documents related to Anonymous, etc.)

            It would appear that the agents who prepared these reports are focused on prevention. As a general concept, that's not a bad thing for the FBI to be doing.

            Should they be keeping an eye on OWS? Well... it depends. They note in many places that OWS itself is peaceful. They also note that OWS has been vulnerable to exploitation by groups with more violent aims, e.g. the Black Bloc. They also kept tabs on potential threats against OWS. (Yes, I see some possibility that the assassination threats that are mentioned are threats from within the government or even within the FBI, but I'm doubtful that that was the actual meaning of those notes. The FBI-as-conspirator reading doesn't fit the surrounding context of that note; not for me, anyway.)

            So, well, yeah: Honestly, if I were running the FBI, I'd have wanted people to keep an eye on OWS, simply because of its potential vulnerability to exploitation. And if they were planning disruptive protests, as they did in Oakland and Anchorage, I might have wanted to keep an eye on that as well. Not because I think OWS did anything criminally wrong, and certainly not because I disagree with their aims, but simply because there was so much opportunity for things to go terribly wrong.

            Those documents tell me that the FBI was, more or less, doing what it should do. If the FBI did more than that -- if they actively coordinated the crackdown, encouraged the use of pepper spray or other such attacks, or planned assassinations against OWS leaders -- well, I'd be foolish to rule that out, but I see little if any evidence of that in those documents.

            Let us all have the strength to see the humanity in our enemies, and the courage to let them see the humanity in ourselves.

            by Nowhere Man on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 03:21:58 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  It's the coordination (10+ / 0-)

              that matters.

              We will not see fingerprints from one agency... i.e. the FBI... as definitive "proof" of the crackdown on Occupy.

              For whatever reason, the FBI deemed Occupy as a terrorist organization. Ergo, by facilitating this moniker upon the group, it led to the legality... quasi or otherwise... of the banks to suspend or possibly seize (think Wikileaks) bank accounts and assets of protestors.

              The FBI is NOT in the business to protect the interests of Occupy protestors. To say otherwise is manipulation. It's not their raison d'etre. Not their modus operandi to give a shit about the Occupy protestors.

              And, the mot du jour from the articles about this subject... coordinated... is the crux.

              We are funding our own institutional degeneration.


              One may live without bread, but not without roses.
              ~Jean Richepin
              Bread & Roses

              by bronte17 on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 04:21:58 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  You're claiming that there was coordination. (6+ / 0-)

                Many of us don't see that. Yes, we do see that the FBI was working with the state and local officials to the extent that there was reasonable concern of terrorist or criminal activity. That seems to be within the scope of their duties. But evidence of a federally coordinated effort to crack down on OWS is in short supply.

                Consider this part, from p. 88 of the document drop:

                [Two FBI agents] were present to ensure that no Federal nexus existed. As none was articulated, [the two agents] did not offer any commentary."
                In other words, at the meeting that's reported on here, the local police presented no reasonable suspicions of possible terrorist activity or interstate criminal activity, so the FBI did not get involved. How does this fit with your assertions?

                Let us all have the strength to see the humanity in our enemies, and the courage to let them see the humanity in ourselves.

                by Nowhere Man on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 04:37:11 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Would the spontaneous use of identical (5+ / 0-)

                  tactics and responses in several cities across the nation in the same week or two be more likely a coincidence, then?

                  Especially after Federal agencies meet with local agencies in the preceding time.

                  What are the odds? I'd think astronomical.

                  You are aware that there has been a systematic message coming from our political establishment, in the form of laws and policy, to treat protest as an Enemy of the State.

                  The absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, after all. Things, especially political things which threaten the established order, do happen in a context.


                  The Internet is just the tail of the Corporate Media dog.

                  by Jim P on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 05:00:44 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  What about the fact (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Shuruq, indubitably

                    that of the dozens (hundreds?) of cities that had Occupy encampments, the use of extraordinary force was limited to a much smaller number of cities? (AFAIK; maybe I'm wrong about that.)

                    And... what does it really mean that some cities used the same kinds of extraordinary force on the same day? What advantage would they gain through that kind of coordination? If I were coordinating that kind of effort, I might have preferred to have them take place on different days, so that the experiences from each could be applied elsewhere.

                    I think it's at least as likely that the mayors and/or police chiefs were reading the press reports from the other cities, and these reinforced their own beliefs as to how to respond. Perhaps also, they had received certain kinds of training from DHS that were not intended to be applied to protests such as OWS; but they each, individually, had the idea to use OWS as a way to exercise such training. That would hardly be the first time such misjudgments have been made.

                    Let me be clear, again, that I am angered by the violent police attacks, and I do not and will not try to justify them. However, I think it's entirely possible that these actions were not the result of some larger conspiracy to put down Occupy. And I have yet to see any substantial evidence in support of such a coordinated effort.

                    Let us all have the strength to see the humanity in our enemies, and the courage to let them see the humanity in ourselves.

                    by Nowhere Man on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 05:25:32 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Well, in life I find when I have to bend over (10+ / 0-)

                      backwards to avoid conclusions which experience and history shows to be true -- for example, collusion between business and state security apparatuses, which extends back to the 1880s and the Pinkertons/Industrialists/Government suppression of labor protests (including agents provocateur)...

                      ...if I have to get ahistorical to uphold the "open mind" stance, I usually turn out wrong.

                      I mean, I'd really have to hear a reason more substantial than "such things can't happen." The FBI, DHS, maybe other agencies hold conference calls and meetings with mayors and police and then suddenly, in the next week or so, most of OWS is met with violence across the nation. Certainly in the larger cities, universally.

                      When there was perhaps a bit of violence in a few locations before such calls and meetings.

                      Seems a pretty strained stance to hold there's not a connection.

                      I'd really have to wonder if such a stance is more about wanting to keep the President/Administration free from taint, however removed, than plain objectivity.


                      The Internet is just the tail of the Corporate Media dog.

                      by Jim P on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 05:57:40 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  You didn't hear me say that it can't happen (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Jim P, Shuruq, WB Reeves

                        I acknowledge the history of government interference in political activity, including Pinkertons, COINTELPRO, etc. But I'd also say that history and human nature seem to show that conspiracies of any sort are difficult to maintain for very long in secret.

                        However, there's no need to establish -- or hypothesize about -- a conspiracy when mutually aligned interests will drive people to act as if they're conspiring. This could easily explain what happened in those cities that used riot-style tactics to evict Occupations: They learned from and were inspired by each other, perhaps indirectly. No direct conspiracy or Federal involvement needed. If you wish to link the crackdowns to the aforementioned meetings, the link could be as simple as this: it got those local leaders together in the same room, which got them talking directly to each other, which led them to share ideas...

                        Given that there's no solid evidence of a conspiracy, and given that no one has even provided a good motivation for this kind of conspiracy (particularly, why would they bother coordinating down to the level of tactics to be used? And if they would bother, why wasn't that even more widespread?), I'll tend towards explanations that don't require conspiracies. If a razor was good enough for Occam, it's good enough for me.

                        Let us all have the strength to see the humanity in our enemies, and the courage to let them see the humanity in ourselves.

                        by Nowhere Man on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 07:12:51 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  After the Seattle WTO demonstrations a group of (12+ / 0-)

                          police from the area went around consulting with city police forces across the country, and formed a large police network of cities that held regular coordinating phonecalls, discussing tactics, news, etc.  So the coordination could have come from any level, or more, or all of them.

                        •  You have a point. Still, (8+ / 0-)

                          it would be better if this kind of thing would go away from our discussions:

                          But I'd also say that history and human nature seem to show that conspiracies of any sort are difficult to maintain for very long in secret.
                          We took on 20,000 Nazis after WWII, a thousand or so coming directly to the US, and this was kept secret for 30 years (the imported Nazis) and 50 years (the ones who stayed in Europe.)

                          The US marched 100,000 men through nuclear blast sites minutes later, and that was kept secret for over 40 years.

                          CIA across the nation released bacteria into cities (mild strains of cold-related stuff), had to involve a hundred or more actors, and this was kept secret for almost 30 years.

                          We just saw the LIBOR rate-fixing business come out. Some reports are saying this has been going on since the 1980s. Thirty years, hundreds if not thousands of participants.

                          These are not the only examples of literally hundreds to tens of thousands of people knowing something and keeping it out of the public eye. So the "hard to keep big things secret" argument is much more fluff than it is compelling.

                          As to possible motive: Well, police states always have a stake in exerting control, even all the way down to the block and even building and floor level. It's pretty hard to ignore that laws and executive orders and court actions in the US for the last 11 years have all been aimed at greater monitoring of the population. That we can speak of "American Suspects" interchangeably with "American Citizens." We are inarguably more monitored and recorded by the State than Stalin, Goebbels, or the Stasi ever dreamed possible. Hell, even more than Orwell.

                          What's the motive there? Terrorism threats from Quaker grandmothers in wheelchairs?

                          In matters of the poor against the rich; armed agents of the state versus restless citizens; paranoia (informed by both long and recent history) strikes me as more prudent than a "well, I'll believe it when I'm dragged out of bed" stance.

                          And while you can make a case for it all being chance, one has to strain to believe that
                          .


                          The Internet is just the tail of the Corporate Media dog.

                          by Jim P on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 09:37:31 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  On much of this, we agree (0+ / 0-)

                            To put it a little too blithely, the government does bad things and tries to keep them secret. I don't deny that.

                            On the other hand, it's a little too easy to make things look like a conspiracy simply by including them in a single generalized statement, such as:

                            The US marched 100,000 men through nuclear blast sites minutes later, and that was kept secret for over 40 years.
                            This may actually illustrate my point. To the best of my (far from complete) knowledge, this was not the result of a single planned action by an elite group of high-level officials. It is, instead, a summary of hundreds, if not thousands, of separate actions made by many individual leaders over more than a decade. And it's worth noting that for much of that time, many of The Powers That Were had been keeping themselves in blissful ignorance about the dangers of atomic radiation. For example:
                            In a June 27, 1951, memorandum to high DOD officials, Dr. Richard Meiling, the chair of the secretary of defense's top medical advisory group, the Armed Forces Medical Policy Council, addressed the question of "Military Medical Problems" associated with bomb tests. The memorandum made clear that troops should be placed at bomb tests not so much to examine risk as to demonstrate relative safety.

                            "Fear of radiation," Dr. Meiling's memorandum began, "is almost universal among the uninitiated and unless it is overcome in the military forces it could present a most serious problem if atomic weapons are used." In fact, "[i]t has been proven repeatedly that persistent ionizing radiation following air bursts does not occur, hence the fear that it presents a dangerous hazard to personnel is groundless." Dr. Meiling urged that "positive action be taken at the earliest opportunity to demonstrate this fact in a practical manner."

                            (If Dr. Meiling did not believe his own claims about the safety of exposure to nuclear blast radiation, he was extremely good at faking it.)

                            So to say that there was a conspiracy to expose 100,000 soldiers to nuclear blast sites seems to be premature, at best; I don't think there's any evidence of coordinated activity at that level -- and to the extent that there was coordinated action, the participants may have been totally unaware that what they were doing was, in fact, evil. There may be a number of genuine conspiracies inside this history, but that's kinda my point too: they would have been smaller conspiracies, which gave them more likelihood of success.

                            Incidentally, the LIBOR scandal, if I remember right, actually illustrates my point to some extent: I'm remembering news stories which describe the banks as acting in ways that fit the "aligned self-interests" paradigm. In other words, there wasn't a so much an actively coordinated conspiracy, as there was a set of bad actors who tacitly understood the advantages of mutual cooperation (even if that cooperation were illegal, which may or may not have been obvious to them at the time.) I don't have time to research this now, but I may be able to come back to it later.

                            It may seem like I'm quibbling, but I don't think I am: As I see it, when we call a "conspiracy" something that was not actively coordinated among the various players, we're wasting time and energy trying to hunt down and expose a boogieman who doesn't exist. Looking for evidence of something that didn't even happen is at best an exercise in futility; it can also seriously damage our credibility. We may be experiencing both of these kinds of losses right here and now.

                            Let us all have the strength to see the humanity in our enemies, and the courage to let them see the humanity in ourselves.

                            by Nowhere Man on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 06:15:09 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  No man, the 100,000 marched through (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            bronte17

                            kept the secret, and on orders. They saw the blast, they marched through, they kept the secret. So 100,000+ x-hierarchy. That's the point to take.

                            Look, all of political history is nothing but the result of men (mostly) gathering to conspire.

                            There has not been a year in American history since the Pinkertons were hired to suppress labor, and officials brought out troops to the same end, where the powers that be haven't actively and consciously sought to suppress popular movements. It's lunacy to claim otherwise.

                            What you'd have to explain is why that tendency would suddenly disappear right before the Occupy suppressions of last year. About the time the FBI & DHS coordinated meetings with the mayors and police.

                            If you can't do that, that's where you lose credibility.


                            The Internet is just the tail of the Corporate Media dog.

                            by Jim P on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 08:18:07 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Do you have a source for that? (0+ / 0-)

                            Because I've been unable to find anything to substantiate the claim that 100,000 men were marched through a blast site at one time, or as part of one operation/program.

                            As for your claim that

                            There has not been a year in American history since the Pinkertons were hired to suppress labor, and officials brought out troops to the same end, where the powers that be haven't actively and consciously sought to suppress popular movements. It's lunacy to claim otherwise.
                            I think we are going to continue to disagree here. Other than the documented cases of this happening -- and I acknowledge that there are many --  I don't see evidence of a coordinated, ongoing, and sub rosa effort to bring Federal forces to bear against popular movements.

                            To me, this is significant, because the fact is that we have had popular movements in this country that have succeeded -- or at least, were not crushed by any obvious Federal government involvement. Put another way, if the Federal government were so determined, it would have had the power to stop the Civil Rights movement and the Vietnam War-era peace movement in its tracks. Yet, even though there were powerful individuals in the government who were opposed to these movements (most notoriously, J. Edgar Hoover), the movements happened. They even accomplished some of their goals. The Civil Rights movement even gained support -- belatedly, reluctantly, but real support -- from the federal government. It's hard for me to reconcile this with the model of an (apparently) powerful conspiracy in the federal government to suppress all popular uprisings.

                            It seems to me that a more realistic picture says that there have been, and possibly always will be, powerful people in the federal government who will oppose popular movements; but there are other forces -- some political, some legal, some bureaucratic, some pragmatic, some occasionally even virtuous -- that tend to resist that abuse of power.

                            In other words, I don't see a bipolar struggle of Manichean forces in which one side or the other must come out ahead. I see a complex interplay in which Manichean evil entities are usually not directly wielding power, although they may do so from time to time and place to place. Hence to say that at a given time and place the forces of evil must have been in charge, simply because they could have been -- well, for me that strains credulity.

                            I dunno. Maybe I'm wrong. But I've found that historical events are rarely so simple.

                            Let us all have the strength to see the humanity in our enemies, and the courage to let them see the humanity in ourselves.

                            by Nowhere Man on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 08:52:49 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                •  Lot's of meetings (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Creosote, bronte17, glitterscale

                  with teh banks. Lot's of training sessions provided for the goon squad's they siced on OWS. There were photos here in Portland of Homeland Security vehicles and personnel clearly marked consulting with the robocops in full regalia.

                •  You would have to be working at it (0+ / 0-)

                  to think there was no coordination (unless you weren't following any of the livestreams or news reports or diaries.) But we know there WAS coordination through those "fusion" centers.

                  American Television is a vast sea of stupid. -xxdr zombiexx

                  by glitterscale on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 10:27:33 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Please see my other comment (0+ / 0-)

                    here.

                    As for the fusion centers: We don't know exactly what they're doing with them in general. The FBI documents make very limited reference to them, and those references don't strike me as particularly scare-worthy, e.g. from p. 94 (where the subject is actually Anonymous, not Occupy) :

                    (U) This information is being provided for situational awareness. It is requested that any positive intelligence related to similar or emerging trends, tactics or schemes occurring in Virginia be forwarded to FBI Richmond and the Virginia Fusion Center (VFC).
                    Seriously, in its full context (which I won't try to recapitulate here), this doesn't appear to be anything more than the FBI performing due diligence.

                    Vigilance is good. Certainty is not. There may be evidence for FBI abuses of our civil liberties, but this does not appear to be it.

                    Let us all have the strength to see the humanity in our enemies, and the courage to let them see the humanity in ourselves.

                    by Nowhere Man on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 11:05:41 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

              •  "coordinated" is the salient point, exactly. (8+ / 0-)

                Hoover's FBI ran protest suppression schemes, sometimes with local police help, and the authorities have done it since the Pinkerton's against labor since the 1880s.

                This is a new level of coordination between Big Money, and Federal and Local Police. That it happens in a context where every single electronic communication each and every American Citizen Suspect is monitored chills democracy to an unprecedented extent.

                Goebbels, Stalin, and the Stasi all weep in hell from envy at what our Security State can do to democracy now.


                The Internet is just the tail of the Corporate Media dog.

                by Jim P on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 04:54:21 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  First off, saying 'As Naomi Wolf notes..' (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            sviscusi, JT88

            is like asking to not be taken seriously.  Naomi Wolf is an idiot who lets ideology trump facts every time.  I have absolutely no respect for her.

            Secondly, how could the FBI "lead off with" anything, given that they're a series of disjoint documents?

            Third, there are no documents related to "infiltration" of OWS released.  Do you see any sort of "infiltration" going on in any of the linked documents?  This was not COINTELPRO.

            Fourth, what the heck is wrong with the FBI doing what is described doing with banks in these documents:

            The fifth report is from Colorado.  It's a meeting with the states Banking Fraud group.  They are concerned about reports of proposed hacking by people on the Internet.

            The tenth report is the FBI informing the security team at Zionist Bank in Utah of hacking incidents done by the group Anonymous.  CEO's for GS and JP Morgan had been "doxed" by a member of Anonymous.

            The seventeenth report is from Mississippi.  A bunch of banks meet to discuss OWS chaining their doors shut.  They also discuss other financial fraud issues that have nothing to do with OWS.

            Do you want your bank hacked?  Is it out of line for the FBI to listen when banks approach them about their doors getting chained shut and to hear their complaints about fraud?  

            There is no classifying OWS as a "terrorist group".  There were concerns that there might be terrorists or others planning violence subverting the protests - including those opposed to OWS's aims.  How is it out of line to not follow up on that?  Despite what you may want to believe, terrorists are real, and the FBI does regularly foil domestic terrorism plots.  

            How is it out of line for the FBI to follow up on evidence of an assassination attempt?  What evidence is there that the person who was targetted was never informed?

            How is it out of line to let museums, malls, etc know when there's protests coming their way?  How is it out of line to follow up on reports of violence or suspicious white powder or threatening faxes or throwing a flare onto the White House lawn?  How is it out of line to let OWS know when someone making sniper threats is exploiting them?  How is it out of line to listen to people who come with complaints?  How is it out of line to leave policing to local law inforcement?  

            The FBI has done some awful things in its time.  This is not among them.

          •  READ THE DOCUMENT AGAIN!! (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ballerina X

            The FBI doesn't call it Arab Spring...They quote the website that is planning the protest.  THE WEBSITE that is planning the protest is calling it the US version of Arab Spring.  

            Half that report is quoting directly from the planners website using THEIR words not the FBI's.  

            They also note that one of the organizers is an anarchist group but are not calling for any violence.

            It tells local law enforcement to on alert for possible public safety and security issues.

            They were expecting 20,000 people to flood lower Manhattan and warning the authorities.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site