State Spying on Activists
This whole thing is kind of chilling. The Maryland State Police infiltrated groups of anti-war and anti-death-penalty activists, logged them as potential terrorists, and kept files on them. There was no evidence that anyone in the groups had any intention whatsoever of doing anything violent or out of line, they were basically going to carry petitions and put up flyers.
Here's what The Post had on Friday:
No, you don't "do what you think is best to protect the general populace," you do what you can to enforce the law. You'd think somebody in a high-ranking position like "state police superintendent" would understand that distinction, wouldn't you?
I think we should note that Governor Ehrlich was not aware of this surveillance, even though it happened under his administration. And as Paul Gordon at Maryland Politics Watch notes, "our current governor is not off the hook. Nowhere does the Washington Post article say that this odious practice has ceased under the O'Malley administration."
The more you read about this, the creepier it gets. I don't mind if the government watches out for terrorists and dangerous people, but obviously we support the rights of people to organize and express their opinions on controversial topics. Can you imagine having to worry that somebody in your group is a spy? I mean, I shudder to think if the Teach the Facts double-secret cross-your-heart mysteries were ever exposed!
The fact is, this is not activity that can be permitted in a free society. No one in the state police should have permitted it or gone along with it.
If you are interested in this story, I recommend following THIS link to MPW, they're all over it.
Here's what The Post had on Friday:
Undercover Maryland State Police officers conducted surveillance on war protesters and death penalty opponents, including some in Takoma Park, for more than a year while Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. was governor, documents released yesterday show.
Detailed intelligence reports logged by at least two agents in the police department's Homeland Security and Intelligence Division reveal close monitoring of the movements as the Iraq war and capital punishment were heatedly debated in 2005 and 2006.
Organizational meetings, public forums, prison vigils, rallies outside the State House in Annapolis and e-mail group lists were infiltrated by police posing as peace activists and death penalty opponents, the records show. The surveillance continued even though the logs contained no reports of illegal activity and consistently indicated that the activists were not planning violent protests.
Then-state police superintendent Tim Hutchins acknowledged in an interview yesterday that the surveillance took place on his watch, adding that it was done legally. He said Ehrlich (R) was not aware of it. "You do what you think is best to protect the general populace of the state," said Hutchins, now a federal defense contractor. Police Spied on Activists In Md.
No, you don't "do what you think is best to protect the general populace," you do what you can to enforce the law. You'd think somebody in a high-ranking position like "state police superintendent" would understand that distinction, wouldn't you?
I think we should note that Governor Ehrlich was not aware of this surveillance, even though it happened under his administration. And as Paul Gordon at Maryland Politics Watch notes, "our current governor is not off the hook. Nowhere does the Washington Post article say that this odious practice has ceased under the O'Malley administration."
The more you read about this, the creepier it gets. I don't mind if the government watches out for terrorists and dangerous people, but obviously we support the rights of people to organize and express their opinions on controversial topics. Can you imagine having to worry that somebody in your group is a spy? I mean, I shudder to think if the Teach the Facts double-secret cross-your-heart mysteries were ever exposed!
The fact is, this is not activity that can be permitted in a free society. No one in the state police should have permitted it or gone along with it.
If you are interested in this story, I recommend following THIS link to MPW, they're all over it.
posted by JimK at 12:22 PM
31 Comments:
Back in the day the FBI used to keep files on queer activists. Not to be overly paranoid, but I wouldn't be enourmously surprised if some government agency were still doing that. There are good reasons why the Supreme Court has asserted a right to privacy for Americans: sometimes people with police and other government powers have their, shall we say, agendas. We all, unfortunately, need to be mindful of what we say in forums which we may perceive as private.
I recall, as an undergraduate, the Dartmouth Review (I believe while Dinesh was a an editor) sending someone as a "mole" to a meeting of the college's nascent LGBT (then only LG) student support group, and recording and publishing the names of attendees. As we know, a number of anti-lgbt organizations monitor this blog and are more than willing to broadcast anything we say. It is incumbent on people who do not adopt anonymity to be always mindful of what they say. Alas for our ever-watchful society.
rrjr
"The more you read about this, the creepier it gets....
The fact is, this is not activity that can be permitted in a free society. No one in the state police should have permitted it or gone along with it."
It's creepy alright. When the government abuses its power, it's just downright scary.
It's like the County Councilman who sends out her paid staff to bully store owners into throwing anyone protesting her legislation off the store's property. In a abuse of power, this representative for the county government marches up and tells everyone that the petitions are illegal.
A free people can't tolerate this suppression of the people's right to petition for redress of grievances.
And you don't think Bush has abused his power, AnonBigot?
Stop trying to be so divisive... apparently that is what your religious right friends are all about lately.
United we prevail. Divided we fall.
“A free people can't tolerate this suppression of the people's right to petition for redress of grievances.”
Here, here! A free people can’t tolerate this suppression of the people's right to suppress other people's rights!
Uh, slobby, the victims of this governmental abuse were not suppressing anyone's rights. They were organizing a veto of a bill proposed by the Council to grant special protected status to a favored group.
The Council didn't appreciate anyone disagreeing with them and decided to throw their weight around in an attempt to prevent their opponents from organizing. This is commonly how fascist governments start out. We need to be vigilant to protect our real rights, as enumerated in the Constitution.
"And you don't think Bush has abused his power, AnonBigot?"
So typical of Derrick.
The you-too defense.
Problem is that it doesn't work when your side started the accusations.
We were simply pointing to the hypocrisy of TTF.
Bringing up fascists again Anon? Don't forget it's fascists who pass laws to strip minority groups of their ability to obtain housing, jobs, transportation, which is exactly what homophobes like you hope to accomplish by recalling Bill 23-07.
pointing to the hypocrisy
You must be talking about the hypocrisy of people who claim they're christian yet would never open their hearts and homes, let alone a public bathroom, to some of their least loved brothers and sisters.
"Bringing up fascists again Anon? Don't forget it's fascists who pass laws to strip minority groups of their ability to obtain housing, jobs, transportation, ...."
Twisted manipulation of the language. No one is doing that here. Typical of fascism. Those who are attempting to enact a law are those promoting 23-07. To say not approving a law is the equivalent of passing a law is Ultimate Orwellianism.
You really are a dangerous and inflammatory extremist, Bea.
Obviously, attempting to use governmental power to suppress dissent, as a TTF director has done, is also fascist.
It's frightening to think what TTF might do if they thought they could get away with it.
"You must be talking about the hypocrisy of people who claim they're christian yet would never open their hearts and homes, let alone a public bathroom, to some of their least loved brothers and sisters."
A little hard to decide where to begin with this ludicrous statement but probably the first obvious thing is that the person making it is surely a hypocrite.
Isn't that right, Bea?
Here's the Washington Post take on the foreign trip of the inexperienced, flip-flopping Obama. Barack the Bumbling Idiot apparently thinks we should desert Iraq at any cost and send troops to Afghanistan. Why is that? Bin Laden is in Pakistan and the Pakistani government opposes any activity by us in its borders. Does Obama favor invading Pakistan? Has he really put any thought into his proposals? :
"THE INITIAL MEDIA coverage of Barack Obama's visit to Iraq suggested that the Democratic candidate found agreement with his plan to withdraw all U.S. combat forces on a 16-month timetable. So it seems worthwhile to point out that, by Mr. Obama's own account, neither U.S. commanders nor Iraq's principal political leaders actually support his strategy.
Gen. David H. Petraeus, the architect of the dramatic turnaround in U.S. fortunes, "does not want a timetable," Mr. Obama reported with welcome candor during a news conference yesterday. In an interview with ABC, he explained that "there are deep concerns about . . . a timetable that doesn't take into account what [American commanders] anticipate might be some sort of change in conditions."
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who has a history of tailoring his public statements for political purposes, made headlines by saying he would support a withdrawal of American forces by 2010. But an Iraqi government statement made clear that Mr. Maliki's timetable would extend at least seven months beyond Mr. Obama's. More significant, it would be "a timetable which Iraqis set" -- not the Washington-imposed schedule that Mr. Obama has in mind. It would also be conditioned on the readiness of Iraqi forces, the same linkage that Gen. Petraeus seeks. As Mr. Obama put it, Mr. Maliki "wants some flexibility in terms of how that's carried out."
Other Iraqi leaders were more directly critical. As Mr. Obama acknowledged, Sunni leaders in Anbar province told him that American troops are essential to maintaining the peace among Iraq's rival sects and said they were worried about a rapid drawdown.
Mr. Obama's response is that, as president, he would have to weigh Iraq's needs against those of Afghanistan and the U.S. economy. He says that because Iraq is "a distraction" from more important problems, U.S. resources devoted to it must be curtailed. Yet he also says his aim is to "succeed in leaving Iraq to a sovereign government that can take responsibility for its own future." What if Gen. Petraeus and Iraqi leaders are right that this goal is not consistent with a 16-month timetable? Will Iraq be written off because Mr. Obama does not consider it important enough -- or will the strategy be altered?
Arguably, Mr. Obama has given himself the flexibility to adopt either course. Yesterday he denied being "so rigid and stubborn that I ignore anything that happens during the course of the 16 months," though this would be more reassuring if Mr. Obama were not rigidly and stubbornly maintaining his opposition to the successful "surge" of the past 16 months. He also pointed out that he had "deliberately avoided providing a particular number" for the residual force of Americans he says would be left behind.
Yet Mr. Obama's account of his strategic vision remains eccentric. He insists that Afghanistan is "the central front" for the United States, along with the border areas of Pakistan. But there are no known al-Qaeda bases in Afghanistan, and any additional U.S. forces sent there would not be able to operate in the Pakistani territories where Osama bin Laden is headquartered. While the United States has an interest in preventing the resurgence of the Afghan Taliban, the country's strategic importance pales beside that of Iraq, which lies at the geopolitical center of the Middle East and contains some of the world's largest oil reserves. If Mr. Obama's antiwar stance has blinded him to those realities, that could prove far more debilitating to him as president than any particular timetable."
Malaki now predicts that U.S. troops will only be needed in Iraq for seven months longer than Obama now says he will leave them. There is evidence that Maliki, a politician, tends to tell everyone he meets with what they want to hear. Some of Maliki's past statements predicting when U.S. troops could leave:
"There is some irony in the fact that Democrats, after years of deriding Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki as a hopeless bungler and conniving Shiite sectarian, are now treating as sacrosanct his suggestion that Iraq will be ready to assume responsibility for its own security by 2010. Naturally this is because his position seems to support that of Barack Obama.
A little skepticism is in order here. The prime minister has political motives for what he's saying -- whatever that is. An anonymous Iraqi official told the state-owned Al-Sabah newspaper, "Maliki thinks that Obama is most likely to win in the presidential election" and that "he's got to take preemptive steps before Obama gets to the White House." By smoothing Obama's maiden voyage abroad as the Democratic nominee, Maliki may figure that he will collect chits that he can call in later.
Keep in mind also that Maliki has no military experience and that he has been trapped in the Green Zone, relatively isolated from day-to-day life. For these reasons, he has been a consistent font of misguided predictions about how quickly U.S. forces could leave.
In May 2006, shortly after becoming prime minister, he claimed, "Our forces are capable of taking over the security in all Iraqi provinces within a year and a half."
In October 2006, when violence was spinning out of control, Maliki declared that it would be "only a matter of months" before his security forces could "take over the security portfolio entirely and keep some multinational forces only in a supporting role."
In January 2007, with the surge just starting, Maliki predicted "that within three to six months our need for the American troops will dramatically go down."
In April 2007, when most of Baghdad was still out of control, the prime minister said that Iraqi forces would assume control of security in every province by the end of the year."
It's as plain as the printing on this webpage who brought fascism back into the conversation on this thread. You can play ring-around-the-rosy spinning your lies all you want. It won't alter reality.
I stand behind my statement "You must be talking about the hypocrisy of people who claim they're christian yet would never open their hearts and homes, let alone a public bathroom, to some of their least loved brothers and sisters." Every CRWacko I've ever spoken with, and I've spoken to quite a few, fits this description to a T. They loudly profess some twisted version of a Christian faith at the same time as they express their lack of understanding, fear, and loathing of their LGBT brothers and sisters.
Back to the topic of this thread:
Salon has an interesting article today about domestic spying on the federal level, Exposing Bush's historic abuse of power It appears the Airhead administration was simply following their National leader.
Excerpts:
"...July 23, 2008 | WASHINGTON -- The last several years have brought a parade of dark revelations about the George W. Bush administration, from the manipulation of intelligence to torture to extrajudicial spying inside the United States. But there are growing indications that these known abuses of power may only be the tip of the iceberg. Now, in the twilight of the Bush presidency, a movement is stirring in Washington for a sweeping new inquiry into White House malfeasance that would be modeled after the famous Church Committee congressional investigation of the 1970s.
..."You have to go back to the McCarthy era to find this level of abuse," says Barry Steinhardt, the director of the Program on Technology and Liberty for the American Civil Liberties Union. "Because the Bush administration has been so opaque, we don't know [the extent of] what laws have been violated."
...A prime area of inquiry for a sweeping new investigation would be the Bush administration's alleged use of a top-secret database to guide its domestic surveillance. Dating back to the 1980s and known to government insiders as "Main Core," the database reportedly collects and stores -- without warrants or court orders -- the names and detailed data of Americans considered to be threats to national security.
According to several former U.S. government officials with extensive knowledge of intelligence operations, Main Core in its current incarnation apparently contains a vast amount of personal data on Americans, including NSA intercepts of bank and credit card transactions and the results of surveillance efforts by the FBI, the CIA and other agencies. One former intelligence official described Main Core as "an emergency internal security database system" designed for use by the military in the event of a national catastrophe, a suspension of the Constitution or the imposition of martial law. Its name, he says, is derived from the fact that it contains "copies of the 'main core' or essence of each item of intelligence information on Americans produced by the FBI and the other agencies of the U.S. intelligence community."
...Some of the former U.S. officials interviewed, although they have no direct knowledge of the issue, said they believe that Main Core may have been used by the NSA to determine who to spy on in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. Moreover, the NSA's use of the database, they say, may have triggered the now-famous March 2004 confrontation between the White House and the Justice Department that nearly led Attorney General John Ashcroft, FBI director William Mueller and other top Justice officials to resign en masse...
"It's as plain as the printing on this webpage who brought fascism back into the conversation on this thread. You can play ring-around-the-rosy spinning your lies all you want. It won't alter reality."
Reality:
Jim posted a gripe about governmental abuse of power. TTF recently wormed one of their directors into a position of influence in the local government. The next thing you know, this individual is engaging in a governmental abuse of power.
The hypocrisy is breath-taking in its shamelessness.
"I stand behind my statement "You must be talking about the hypocrisy of people who claim they're christian yet would never open their hearts and homes, let alone a public bathroom, to some of their least loved brothers and sisters." Every CRWacko I've ever spoken with, and I've spoken to quite a few, fits this description to a T. They loudly profess some twisted version of a Christian faith at the same time as they express their lack of understanding, fear, and loathing of their LGBT brothers and sisters."
Are you opening your home to anybody in the "least loved" category?
What's this "brothers and sisters" thing?
CRW isn't all Christians.
Judeo-Christianity denounces homosexuality so opposing it wouldn't be hypocrisy for a Christian in any case.
Saying something is wrong isn't the equivalent of "lack of understanding, fear, and loathing".
"Back to the topic of this thread:
Salon has an interesting article today about domestic spying on the federal level, Exposing Bush's historic abuse of power It appears the Airhead administration was simply following their National leader."
Surveillance of suspicious characters isn't abuse of power. It also isn't illegal. They aren't trying to stop citizens from exercising their democratic rights as TTF's government plant has done. They are simply watching suspicious groups.
Historic? Hardly.
Truth is any neighbor with internet access can develop a vaster "amount of personal data" than anything in an NSA file.
Welcome to the 21st Century!
Now, go back under your rock and eat some raw reptiles.
TTF recently wormed one of their directors into a position of influence in the local government. The next thing you know, this individual is engaging in a governmental abuse of power.
You like to rant about the infamous 8 second video that shows Steina Walter and Henrietta Brown going about their business unimpeded. So tell us, how is the investigation going into your imagined "abuse of power" and when will formal charges be filed?
Are you opening your home to anybody in the "least loved" category?
Well, anyone who tells me "Now, go back under your rock and eat some raw reptiles" is not very far up on my list of people I love and even you are welcome in my home. Let me know how to contact you and I'll send you a formal invitation.
What's this "brothers and sisters" thing?
Apparently it's an alien concept to you. In my faith, we believe every person is a sibling in the human family.
Now, go back under your rock and eat some raw reptiles.
Anon, I don't know Aunt Bea (yet) but I picture her as more of the tea and crumpets type. She has been sweet and patient with you, and it steams me to see you insult her like this. If you have a difference of opinion with someone, that's one thing, but this kind of comment does nothing to advance the discussion. The fact is, she's smarter than you and beats you in every argument.
I know you're a little sensitive, Merle. We've had to call you what you are before. Here's the dictionary definition of an ass:
"a stupid, obstinate, or perverse person"
I believe I recall we were discussing a few weeks ago whether this applied to you because you were asserting that referendums are outside of the our law-making process.
Bea has now made a similar assault on democracy and common sense by asserting that opposing a law giving special privileges to a certain group is the equivalent of fascists passing a law persecuting minorities.
This is dangerous demagoguery of the type that leads to conflict and division in society.
To compare her to the slimy things living in dark places is charitable.
"I don't know Aunt Bea (yet) but I picture her as more of the tea and crumpets type."
Oh, don't fall for that. These people are good at the name game. I don't think she's baking any pies for Gomer and the guys. More like Johnny in the basement, mixing up the medicine.
If she ?) ever meets you for that cuppa, do give us a report.
Be careful. You can tell if a snake is venomous by the shape of its head.
"Anonymous" - I am waiting for your other shoe to drop! When are you going to start your Petition drive to negate the signed MoCo "Nanny" law? (See: Washington Post, Wednesday, July 23 - p.B4) After all, it's just another example of your "government excess" philosophy. How dare the Council and Executive enact a measure that determines such things as a decent contractual living wage, designated hours of employment, a safe, secure living space (within the home of the employer) with access to kitchen privileges, laundry, and a private bathroom? Everybody knows these "nannies" are just illegal immigrants anyway, so why do we insist on giving them rights and protections? And in keeping with your general elitist philosophy, shouldn't the folks who hire "these people" have the right, in their own homes for heaven's sake, to treat these employees in any way they choose? According to you...that's "the good old American Way". It will be interesting to see you reconcile your position on this issue with the discriminatory treatment of transgendered citizens.
You won't be able to because you are a mass of illogical contradictions and bigotry.
An "Anonymous" fan
"In my faith, we believe every person is a sibling in the human family."
Really? And what faith is that?
"It will be interesting to see you reconcile your position on this issue with the discriminatory treatment of transgendered citizens."
Don't have any problem with a law for working conditions for anyone working in the county?
drop that ?
typo
Oh, "Anonymous"...before I forget - you are going to say there is no comparison between a law that grants equal protections and rights to "nannies" is not the same thing as a law that grants equal protections and rights to transgender citicens. But, as usual, you will be wrong. In your eyes, granting equal protections and rights for anybody who is not like you is akin to destroying your cherished democratic beliefs. You are so full of .... Today's word to describe you is: "ignoramus".
An "Anonymous" fan
"Oh, "Anonymous"...before I forget - you are going to say there is no comparison between a law that grants equal protections and rights to "nannies" is not the same thing as a law that grants equal protections and rights to transgender citicens. But, as usual, you will be wrong. In your eyes, granting equal protections and rights for anybody who is not like you is akin to destroying your cherished democratic beliefs."
You're wrong. If you have a valid point you might want to try harder to articulate it because what you've said makes no sense.
Go ahead. Sputter. You can get it out. You can do it!
"The fact is, she's smarter than you and beats you in every argument."
Don't know if you're just trying to increase your chances of a blind date, derrick, but let's examine how Bea approaches arguments:
anon-deluxe opines:
"The Council didn't appreciate anyone disagreeing with them and decided to throw their weight around in an attempt to prevent their opponents from organizing. This is commonly how fascist governments start out."
Bea hisses:
"Bringing up fascists again Anon? Don't forget it's fascists who pass laws to strip minority groups of their ability to obtain housing, jobs, transportation, which is exactly what homophobes like you hope to accomplish by recalling Bill 23-07."
You'll note that instead of defending the Council's attempts to suppress democratic activity, she simply asserts that the opposition is also fascist.
anon-deluxe cleverly remarks:
"We were simply pointing to the hypocrisy of TTF."
Bea expectorates:
"You must be talking about the hypocrisy of people who claim they're christian yet would never open their hearts and homes, let alone a public bathroom, to some of their least loved brothers and sisters."
Again, we see Bea chooses not to argue that TTF isn't hypocritical but that same other unidentified group is.
Over and over, Bea's rhetorical strategy is you-too-ism. She never addresses any point that any anti-TTFer makes.
You call that winning?
I call it cutting your losses.
"Anonymous" - Scintillating response! Not as good as your usual, but above average for you.
Your fan
I don't argue with straw men arguments like "Council didn't appreciate anyone disagreeing with them and decided to throw their weight around in an attempt to prevent their opponents from organizing."
If the County Council interfered with anyone's attempts to organize against the Council's duty to pass County legislation, where are the criminal charges documenting the weight you claim they threw around? There are no charges, you are making a bogus argument. County Council did not interfere with anyone. The CRWackos turned in plenty of petition signatures.
Really? And what faith is that?
The person who can't even select a single alias sure seeks a lot of personal information.
Oh and BTW, you don't see all of God's children as part of the same family and yet you call yourself a Christian. That's hypocrisy.
Oh, and thanks, Merle. It's good to know chivalry is not dead.
The pleasure is mine, Aunt Bea. So, you live in Montgomery County, I take it? Where?
Sir Oswald the Anonymous accuses Dana of governmental abuse of power, likens TTF (an admittedly liberal group of people) to fascist governments, derides Aunt Bea for ad hominem arguments, and calls Merle an ass. All in one day.
To paraphrase the ancient Romans: Cum lunaebovibus non est disputandum : "There's no arguing with mooncalves."
rrjr
Don't forget telling the bombastic Bea to return to her dark lair and feast on slimy creatures.
"accuses Dana of governmental abuse of power"
This, btw, is not an accusation but a fact. The only open question is the degree of the offense.
The doctor may have simply gotten carried away and not realized what they were doing.
Fascists may have no choice and there is no proof therapy is effective.
a new poll from NBC News and the Wall Street Journal shows that, despite the McCain campaign's push against discussing or setting a timeline for U.S. withdrawal from that country, by a wide majority Americans are in favor of a timetable. Sixty percent of respondents think a timetable is a good idea, NBC's First Read blog reports; only 30 percent disagree.
Post a Comment
<< Home