OPINION

F.B.I. Spying On A.C.L.U., Greenpeace

Written by Neal Gardner
Published July 18, 2005

In a story today, the New York Times reports that the F.B.I. has reports on the A.C.L.U., Greenpeace, the American Indian Movement of Colorado, and United for Peace and Justice. There are a reported 2,400 pages of information on Greenpeace which has protested the Bush administration's environmental policies and the war in Iraq. There are 1,200 pages on the A.C.L.U.

nytimes

Isn't freedom wonderful? You know they hate us for our freedom. Freedom like Judith Miller has. Freedom like 150 groups who were critics of the war in Iraq who apparently have thousands of pages in F.B.I. files.

It turns my stomach. The hypocrisy, the myth of land of the free, the lies which justified the war in Iraq. This administration is right out of Kafka, or Brazil.

Keep reading for information and comments on this article, and add some feedback of your own!
F.B.I. Spying On A.C.L.U., Greenpeace
Published: July 18, 2005
Type: Opinion
Section: Politics
Writer: Neal Gardner
Neal Gardner's BC Writer page
Neal Gardner's personal site
Spread the Word
Like this article?
Email this
Submit to del.icio.us Save to del.icio.us
RSS Feeds
All RSS Feeds (240+)
Comments on this article
BC articles by Neal Gardner
All Politics Articles
All Opinion articles
All BC articles
All BC Comments

Comments

#1 — July 18, 2005 @ 09:06AM — bhw [URL]

You know they hate us for our freedom.

I wonder if any right-wing activist groups are on the FBI watch list or if it's just the lefties.

#2 — July 18, 2005 @ 09:17AM — andy marsh [URL]

bhw - I would guess the answer to that question would be yes...I mean...why else was there a ruby ridge or a waco incident with the FBI?

#3 — July 18, 2005 @ 09:52AM — bhw [URL]

Those aren't activist groups. The ACLU is a group of lawyers, for pete's sake.

#4 — July 18, 2005 @ 10:05AM — Nancy

Not to worry; they spy on everyone. Rumor has it they even have files on Star Trek & other fan groups. You also have a file if you're any sort of ex-federal security agency employee. My phone line occasionally emits little clicks & squeaks. My take on it is, that FBI agents being severely disciplined are forced to listen by way of penance to the incredibly boring, inane babble. Heh, serves them right. ;)

#5 — July 18, 2005 @ 10:13AM — John Bambenek [URL]

Yes there are Nancy. Say pro-lifers, for instance.

You know what would be a fun project, now that I think about it. All of us should FOIA our FBI files. I'd be interested to see how many have them.

#6 — July 18, 2005 @ 10:59AM — Nancy

'Yes there are, Nancy' what? Disconnect? What are you referring to, John?

#7 — July 18, 2005 @ 11:03AM — John Bambenek [URL]

I guess bhw posed the question, my bad... there are files on "right-wingers"

#8 — July 18, 2005 @ 11:15AM — andy marsh [URL]

and somehow because the aclu is full of lawyers that makes them what??? over-educated idiots???

#9 — July 18, 2005 @ 11:18AM — John Bambenek [URL]

I think any organization full of lawyers is suspect...

That's why I don't like Congress either.

#10 — July 18, 2005 @ 11:18AM — andy marsh [URL]

bhw - the us congress is a bunch of lawyers and somebody outta be watching them too!

#11 — July 18, 2005 @ 11:23AM — John Bambenek [URL]

I concur

#12 — July 18, 2005 @ 11:27AM — bhw [URL]

bhw - the us congress is a bunch of lawyers and somebody outta be watching them too!

That's our job.

#13 — July 18, 2005 @ 11:58AM — dietdoc [URL]

John writes: "now that I think about it. All of us should FOIA our FBI files. I'd be interested to see how many have them"

Reply: Now, that is a most excellent idea! It would be kinda fun to see if my college activism is still lurking in some FBI file 30 years later. Lordy, I would hope they have better things to archive, but, it is the government!

Cheers,

Ron

#14 — July 18, 2005 @ 12:01PM — andy marsh [URL]

I have heard that if you do a FOIA for your records and there are none...there soon will be...

#15 — July 18, 2005 @ 12:31PM — bhw [URL]

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean nobody's watching you.

#16 — July 18, 2005 @ 13:03PM — andy marsh [URL]

bhw - I think we're doing a terrible job!

#17 — July 18, 2005 @ 13:26PM — John Bambenek [URL]

Andy,

Maybe, but who cares... I mean really. I know the FBI has a file on me, but that's because I had clearance and did the whole background check.

Do you really care if the FBI knows what your favorite breakfast cereal is?

#18 — July 18, 2005 @ 13:32PM — Dave Nalle [URL]

The FBI has a file on me originating when I worked against the draft registration, but I doubt it's been updated, and if it has it's probably awfully boring.

The problem is not necessarily their information gathering, but what they do with it.

Dave

#19 — July 18, 2005 @ 13:32PM — andy marsh [URL]

well...honestly...I don't eat breakfast...but I'm sure they have one on me...I still hold a security clearance...and I really don't care about any files they have on me...they can't be that bad...I've had my clearance for almost 30 years!

#20 — July 18, 2005 @ 13:42PM — balletshooz

Truly scary, namely because the ACLU is a peaceful organization that, as far as I can tell, has never fire-bombed an abortion clinic. While these other "right-wing" groups that have records have them for valid reasons. I would like to find out in hte future exactly why the FBI is spying on the ACLU?

#21 — July 18, 2005 @ 13:45PM — John Bambenek [URL]

99+% of pro-lifers don't firebomb clinics. As I'm sure that 99+% of protestors don't bomb government offices. Point?

#22 — July 18, 2005 @ 13:54PM — Dave Nalle [URL]

I imagine the FBI keeps tabs on the ACLU because it's a good way to spot certain types of criminals who are looking for a lawyer - for example child pornographers.

Dave

#23 — July 18, 2005 @ 14:07PM — John Bambenek [URL]

Heh

#24 — July 18, 2005 @ 14:34PM — Nancy

That would be kind of after the fact, tho, wouldn't it? I mean, no one would need a lawyer if they weren't already in trouble...altho I have to admit the ACLU would probably be screwy enough to defend a child porn maggot, or one of those ghastly man-boy-love slimebags. I think, tho, they're missing the boat in spending so much time keeping files on people who dont' matter, while the ones who do all seem (from recent reports on the FBI) to somehow get under their sights.

#25 — July 18, 2005 @ 15:33PM — bob

That's interesting about files on organized fan groups such as Star Trek ...wonder if they also have files on Whovians?

#26 — July 18, 2005 @ 16:21PM — Nancy

Probably. Especially if they're not sure 'who' (yuk yuk) they are, or they sound even vaguely threatening, or the lead character is somehow a non-conforming, antiauthoritarian type they're afraid someone could rally round or make a 'hero' of. I kid you not, you wouldn't believe what they keep files on. Someone dressed as a Klingon could, after all, be antigovernment.

#27 — July 18, 2005 @ 21:11PM — RJ [URL]

GreenPeace has engaged in what could be described as eco-terrorist actions in the past. Same with some Native American radicals.

#28 — July 18, 2005 @ 21:13PM — RJ [URL]

Didn't the ACLU defend NAMBLA, which is an organization dedicated to teaching its members how to procure pre-teen boys for anal sex?

#29 — July 18, 2005 @ 21:23PM — Dave Nalle [URL]

That they did, RJ. That's what I was referencing in my original comment.

Dave

#30 — July 19, 2005 @ 08:51AM — Nancy

The ACLU is so screwed up. One would think they'd exercise a LITTLE judgement in who or what they defend. Do they have any criteria?

#31 — July 19, 2005 @ 09:19AM — ClubhouseCancer

The ACLU's criteria is quite clear: They defend the Constitution.

They have defended the free-speech and other rights of members of organizations like the Nazis, NAMBLA, the Santeria church, Nike, and even some Christian churches.

They are non-partisan and post their agenda publicly on the Internet at ACLU.org.

One of their founding principles in defending free speech rights is the obvious fact that nice, happy speech needs little Constitutional protection. It is speech we disagree with that most needs protection.

CC (proud to be card-carryin')

#32 — July 19, 2005 @ 09:42AM — Nancy

But speech advocating criminal activity is not protected in the constitution, let alone activity that is criminal, so why are do they work for people like the man-boy love group, etc?

#33 — July 19, 2005 @ 11:37AM — ClubhouseCancer

You're misinformed re: the Constitution and its free-speech protections.

Of course the idea of child sex is repulsive to me, but so is the restriction of free speech. People can't be punished for advocating criminal activity unless the court has said their speech is intended and likely to incite imminent lawless actions. This is the "fire in a crowded theater" argument, and is perfectly sensible standard.

If you examine the facts of the case (it was in 2000, in Mass.), you'll see the ACLU is right.

#34 — July 19, 2005 @ 12:04PM — Nancy

So...I can go out & advocate online that people should sell their kids into prostitution, & it's protected?

#35 — July 21, 2005 @ 22:39PM — RJ [URL]

The ACLU will gladly support (pro bono) a group whose entire purpose is to anally rape little boys. But they ATTACK the Boy Scouts because they won't allow open homosexuals to take little kids into the woods alone at night.

Yeah...non-partisan...

Want comments emailed to you? No spam, promise! Address:

Add your comment, speak your mind

(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/32759)

Personal attacks are not allowed. Please read our comment policy.





Remember Name/URL?

Please preview your comment!

Fresh
Articles
Fresh
Comments