FBI Documents Reveal Secret Nationwide Occupy Monitoring | Hacker News Reader

FBI Documents Reveal Secret Nationwide Occupy Monitoring

justiceonline.org

98 pointsmtgx74 comments

What kind of idiocy is this? This is the FBI's job -- to monitor both foreign and domestic groups of national scope that might present some kind of threat to civil order.

They're not like the fire department, where they sit around waiting for something to happen. They're supposed to get out there and get proactively involved in all kinds of things from white supremacists to greens.

As a libertarian I enjoy a good rant about state security as much as the next guy, but I prefer to do so from an informed position. There's enough real things to worry about without going on about the FBI doing what they're supposed to be doing.

The group that poses the biggest threat to civil order in the US are the elites who are looting the country as society collapses around them.

And how exactly do you call yourself a "libertarian" and then support a national intelligence agency monitoring the non-violent political activities of private citizens? If the FBI was monitoring libertarian party members and events that would be kosher with you too, or is it just hippies that deserve the police state treatment?

I am not a libertarian. I am a liberal. I broadly support the goals of the Occupy movement. I also support the principles of this action by the FBI (though almost certainly not all of the details).

Why?

Among other things, it is the job of the FBI to monitor situations that could turn into problems. The Occupy movement, as legitimate as it is, has the potential to attract easily radicalized people. These people could easily coalesce into a radical fringe whose methods would be counter to both the desires of both the majority of Occupy and the legitimate goals of law enforcement. (See the Weathermen for an example of such a group that arose out of broad protests during the 60s.)

If law enforcement can stay abreast of the Occupy movement, and hopefully form connections between their officers and various well connected people, they have the opportunity to better monitor and head off this radical fringe. That is a legitimate goal for law enforcement, and benefits the Occupy movement as well.

The details where I would disagree with this action are any and all where law enforcement seeks to block the rights of reasonable people to political protest. Given what law enforcement is like, I am certain that this has happened to some extent. However my impression is that on the whole the focus really has been to be prepared for illegitimate action, and not to block legitimate protest. Therefore my default position is cautious support of this law enforcement action, even though I recognize the possibility of abuse.

Who decides what's illegitimate? Is it anything the police says like sitting down at the wrong place, wearing a mask not to be identified or just being part of something considered illegitimate?

It's uncommon even in totalitarian countries that the government won't have some justification for its behavior. If people in Quebec would have respected bill 78, maybe there wouldn't have been a change in government there.

In the end, legitimacy is decided by the country as a whole. In a well-working country, laws, courts, and police are a reasonable proxy for that.

Incidentally I had not read about bill 78. The anti-protest portions of the bill I am strongly against. But the tuition hikes that were being protested, well, I was paying more tuition 20 years ago in British Columbia, Canada than Quebec students would have paid. I have little sympathy with the student protests about tuition. Furthermore I am personally of the political belief that the culture of widespread entitlement in Quebec is among the reasons that it is much worse off economically than the rest of the country.

Note, this is coming from someone who, while I was in Canada, was politically fairly far to the left. And Canada is fairly far to the left of the United States. This is not the time or place to debate it, but in the case of Quebec my opinions are shaped in part by the separatist movement there. I grew up with friends whose families left Quebec due to Bill 101, which is likely the most racist law passed anywhere in North America in my lifetime. Before objecting, go read it, and educate yourself on why the Bank of Montreal is now headquartered in Toronto, and what economic impacts that has had on Montreal.

It didn't help that the value of my Canadian sourced scholarship dropped sharply due to the the widespread belief in Quebec during the early 90s that they had the right to take not only their marbles, but all of the marbles that they had been given while abandoning all of the debts that they had run up, on a straight majority vote. (One of those marbles being a lot of land with good hydroelectric power, built on land given under the condition that they take good care of the natives, with natives who voted 99.7% that if Quebec left Canada, they would leave Quebec.) Yes, I am sure that you see things differently and think that Quebec was entitled to do that. But explain to me why the natives were not entitled to leave Quebec, and find an argument that cannot be turned around and be seen by a third party as an argument that Quebec not be allowed to leave Canada.

French Quebecer here. I've been trying to learn more about why the perception from English Canada is the way it is and posts like yours help a lot.

likely the most racist law passed anywhere in North America

In what ways? Do you feel that it was specifically intended to kick out English Canadians?

It didn't help that the value of my Canadian sourced scholarship dropped sharply due to

I don't follow - how did that happen?

built on land given under the condition that they take good care of the natives, with natives who voted 99.7% that if Quebec left Canada, they would leave Quebec

Both of those facts are new to me. Do you have any source/link? Which territory and treaty are you referring to?

I feel btilly's comment contained more venom than it ought to have, but it does give you some idea of a common viewpoint in English Canada.

>In what ways? Do you feel that it was specifically intended to kick out English Canadians?

The law itself is probably not so bad, but the perception has been that it specifically targets English speaking Quebecois. There have certainly been plenty of news stories over the years about inappropriate and over zealous enforcement. For example, a store owner receiving a fine for a sign saying "leave the air conditioner plugged in" without a French translation. Now, I don't know, he probably won in court, but the fact that he even had to go to court is a travesty.

>I don't follow - how did that happen?

The uncertainty surrounding the referendum in 1995 caused a significant fall in the value of the Canadian dollar.

>Both of those facts are new to me. Do you have any source/link? Which territory and treaty are you referring to?

I think btilly's grasp of history is a bit weak here, but for an idea of what inspired this bit of the rant read this short section on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_referendum,_1995#First_N..., keeping in mind that Jacques Parizeau insisted that Quebec could not be partitioned, "the borders are protected by international law," while at the same time insisting that Quebec could unilaterally leave Canada.

The law itself is probably not so bad...

Until they were forced to change it because of the 1982 Constitution, anglophone children of anglophone parents who had moved to Quebec from elsewhere in Canada were forced to send their children to French only schools. This was in fact the primary reason that the families of children who I met in school gave for having recently left Quebec. (Even after the new Constitution, people who had moved to Quebec from other countries were still impacted.)

I think btilly's grasp of history is a bit weak here...

I misremembered the statistics, but not the gist of the facts. As I pointed out in a separate response, the rest of the history that I'm digging up is that 2/3 of the current boundaries of Quebec were given to it post-Confederation. And the bills which gave those to Quebec came with both rights and responsibilities. With the clear message that if Quebec failed of its responsibilities, it could not retain its rights.

Given that historical fact, Jacques Parizeau's proclamation that Quebec is unpartitionable was incredibly one-sided. And I have no clue why so many in Quebec both did, and continue to, accept that position as being undisputedly correct.

Bill 101 was clearly intended to make Quebec unpleasant for anglophones, and the fact that within several years something like 1/3 of all anglophones living in Quebec had left Quebec is strong evidence that it succeeded in that goal. These were not people who particularly wanted to leave. These were people who lived in Quebec, had jobs, had houses. Yet they abandoned those, and the ones that I knew were very clear that it was entirely because of Bill 101. You can believe what you like about the bill - the level of "voluntary self-deportation" demonstrates a racist effect. And without it there would have been demographically no possibility of a close separation vote in the mid-90s.

To give a random story, I had a friend in high school whose mother was hired as an English teacher at a private school to replace the one who had left the year earlier due to bill 101. The family had just emigrated from Australia for this job. They were shocked upon arriving to find out that their son was not allowed to be a student in the school that his mother taught at, even though they were willing to pay, but would have to take French instruction due to his parents not being able to demonstrate that they had been instructed in English in Quebec. Of course, having grown up in Australia, he did not know any French. As soon as the family figured out a way to afford leaving Quebec, they moved to British Columbia.

On my scholarship, I was living on an NSERC out of country to the USA. In 1991 a Canadian dollar was worth 0.87281 US. As secession stirred in Quebec, the Canadian currency dropped like a rock, reaching 0.72863 in 1995. As a starving grad student, you can be certain that I counted every dollar and noticed every drop. And every time the news stories were full of Quebec separatism being the cause of the continuing decline. (As soon as the vote failed, the currency stabilized then began to creep up. But not fast enough to for me to benefit.)

About the natives, the tribes involved were the Cree and the Innuit. Google immediately turned up http://www.spokesman.com/stories/1995/oct/22/tribes-want-no-... which verifies that the vote happened, but does not give results. (However it does state the results to be a foregone conclusion.) As for the treaty, you misunderstand. I am not talking about a treaty. I am referring to the terms of the Quebec Boundaries Extensions Acts of 1898 and 1912 where large amounts of land obtained from Hudson's Bay in 1871 became part of Quebec. The grant of land was far from unconditional, and constitutes about 2/3 of the present borders of Quebec.

The specific term that I am thinking of is: (e) That the trusteeship of the Indians in the said territory, and the management of any lands now or hereafter reserved for their use, shall remain in the Government of Canada subject to the control of Parliament. Which indicates to me that if Quebec were to leave Canada, it would not have a strong claim to the land that the Cree and Inuit lived on. (Particularly since the people living there virtually unanimously did not want to be part of an independent Quebec.) Of course that land is about half the province, and is the location of hydroelectric power plants that are very important for the province's finances.

Thank you for the detailed answer.

You're welcome.

Over the years I've had a number of friends from Quebec. Invariably my views on Quebec separatism came as a surprise - they'd never seen it presented from any point of view but their own.

The courts, that's why we have them. You might also like to recall that at least some of the occupy movements involved violent and wholly unecessary destruction of private property, eg Occupy Oakland. Sure, that was only a few fringe anarchists who had attached themselves to the ideologically pure movement, but that's little different from the 'few bad apples' excuse that is sometimes advanced to forestall criticism of police misbehavior.

You are absolutely right about it being the responsibility of the courts. But when government, police and courts are all lined up against the people, then that which was formerly unthinkable - such as armed revolt - should become seriously considered options. When, and only when.

In the case of Occupy Oakland, it is worth noting that the Oakland police were the first to escalate to violence. This is one of the central paradoxes of policing. It is the job of the police to see that the peace is kept. Surprisingly often, preemptive force is an ineffective means to that end.

Incidentally the phrase "a few bad apples" originally meant the opposite of what it means now. Originally it was a recognition that a single bad apple would spoil the whole barrel, so if you found a few bad apples your default assumption was that the whole barrel was at risk. It, therefore, was an argument that if you find some bad apples, there is cause for increased scrutiny.

But when government, police and courts are all lined up against the people, then that which was formerly unthinkable - such as armed revolt - should become seriously considered options. When, and only when.

I've visited several totalitarian countries. We have a hell of a long way to go before I take such suggestions seriously in the context of the US.

In the case of Occupy Oakland, it is worth noting that the Oakland police were the first to escalate to violence.

I live in Oakland and paid careful attention to the Occupy protests. The local anarchists did not attack the police first, but they were perfectly happy to trash buildings from coffee shops to convenience stores in furtherance of their disbelief in the idea of private property. Earlier last year, similarly minded people were perfectly happy to protest the shooting by police of a wanted criminal who produced a gun while running away from a transit fare inspector by trashing a subway station in San Francisco and smashing the ticket and fare machines: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2P5LIrFDXc

The person who got shot was on the run from Washington state, where he had raped and killed his ex-girlfriend. When challenged by a fare inspector he ran from the bus, produced and brandished a gun, then tripped and shot himself in the neck. The resulting protests, though ostensibly about police brutality (non-existent in this case), were organized by the same people who oppose any kind of transit fare increase ever and are continually trying to gin up civil disobedience actions with slogans such as 'can't pay - won't pay.'

I'm more familiar with their ideology than I want to be because they make a habit of plastering my neighborhood in Oakland with their 'revolutionary' agit-prop (using plaster makes them almost impossible to remove and creates an eyesore as the paper rots away over a period of a year or so). They also like to plaster and spray-paint their views on top of local community art projects like murals, on the theory that their revolutionary messages are 'more important.'

Fuck these people. This isn't armed revolt against a just cause, it's malicious vandalism.

...the Oakland police were the first to escalate to violence...

What was the first act of violence by the Oakland police against Occupy Oakland assemblies?

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Occupy_Oakland it was the use of tear gas and beanbag rounds on Oct 25. This resulted in Scott Olsen (ex-marine and Iraq veteran) suffering a skull fracture and needing to be hospitalized.

That timeline gives Nov 2 as the first truly violent act by protestors, namely the setting of a police barricade on fire while the police were attacking the protestors with tear gas, etc. (I'm not counting the tearing up of deposit slips on Oct 22 as violent - and the protestors cleaned up the mess that they caused on that occasion.)

The courts, that's why we have them.

Meh... courts have no real intrinsic authority. All political power ultimately derives from the people, and their consent.

...whose sovereignty is what backs a constitution, which is what courts derive their authority from. Devoid of institutions, 'the people' are no more than a mob, which lacks anything more than a pretense of moral authority.

From the point of view of the minority, that's still all "the State" is: a mob. "majority rule" is just a euphemism for "tyranny of the majority" or "mob rule". And even a representative republic system still can't guarantee that the majority don't violate the rights of the minority.

Let's say you were an innocent man, wrongly convicted of murder by a jury. Would you feel that the State truly was justified in imprisoning you for life or executing you? I mean, the "institution" of a court and judge and a jury decided to do it, so does that make it OK?

That's the popular belief in this day and place.

Previously, "the divine right of kings" was frequently invoked. Or simply the biggest brute in the squad.

What goals? Seriously.

As much as they are in the news I hear 1,000 different complaints and I still have no idea what they want other than everything. No focus.

The Occupy movement may have been nominally non-violent, but in practice many people involved with it also engaged in violent property damage, and not just towards the property of banks or other ideological targets; there was also abundant violent and tinpot revolutionary rhetoric to go around.

I have zero sympathy for such tactics, whether practiced by Occupy or the Tea Party; the people who manipulate populist sentiment for political advantage are irresponsible jerks. And for those who suggest that this represents some sort of new totalitarianism, I invite you to go read the Wikipedia article on the Whiskey Rebellion of 1791.

You can be your ass that the FBI was monitoring the tea party movement. Especially the bits of it that kept reminding everyone that the second amendment was meant to keep the government afraid of the citizens.

I think the Tea Party movement was an invented astroturfed hoax to reel in disgruntled GOPers. And the Ron Paul "No Tax" libertarian movement as well.

Everyone is non-violent until they're not and there is a rational trade-off between civil liberty and security (the risk/reward balance ranges from the U.S. to Singapore to Stalin's Russia). There is a proper way to do this - peeking into suspects' lives for suspicious activity, and if nothing is found, to hide away the file. While most protesters in Benghazi weren't bad it created a predictably attractive environment for violence-biased individuals.

As a personal aside and a New Yorker, I've been concerned by the sometimes violent proclamations of OWS protesters (as well as thoroughly pleased by the coherence of a diminishing minority's arguments). I would be dismayed to the point of taking action if NYPD CT weren't monitoring the group (once an individual leaves the group the civil liberties side weighs in higher as a temporary phenomenon indicating an elevated risk profile has passed).

"trade-off between civil liberty and security"

What specific civil liberties were being violated, that were not known before these documents were revealed by the FOIA request? I don't even really see what the trade-off is here.

And how exactly do you call yourself a "libertarian" and then support a national intelligence agency monitoring the non-violent political activities of private citizens?

As a libertarian myself, I am definitely not completely comfortable with this, but I can see where @DanielBMarkham is coming from. From a strict libertarian perspective, if they're not initiating force against anyone, they aren't doing anything really wrong. Passive monitoring may be distasteful (and I worry about the eventual repercussions of it), but it's not necessarily something a libertarian would find to be inherently wrong.

"support a national intelligence agency monitoring the non-violent"

What's wrong with "monitoring"? It sounds bad, but from the article, it seems like they are just keeping their eyes on a potential problem. Given that OWS was a public protest movement, monitoring it is hardly an unreasonable search.

So, does this article offer new evidence that some unreasonable searches, seizures, or harassment took place? If not, then I don't see what it has to offer.

And no, I don't care whether they "monitor" the ELF, or the Tea Party, or the libertarian party rallies, or Ron Paul, or Richard Stallman; except to the extent it wastes the FBI's time (which we all pay for).

What is your tolerance threshold for surveillance? What percentage of the population can they 'monitor' until it makes you feel uncomfortable?

Monitoring many people is of course cause for concern, but it has little to do with what the article was talking about. The article was talking about the monitoring of specific, fairly small groups of people.

I would object to any attempt at widespread monitoring of public spaces by the government (though I don't see an obvious constitutional problem there). I don't object to using their existing monitoring capabilities to focus on certain groups.

Dissent: just one misinterpreted statement away from jailtime.

...because the FBI and DoJ have such a long and varied history of making sure that the free and legal exercise of one's first amendment rights are upheld.... riiiight.

This is the same FBI that tapped the phones of MLK Jr. Fuck them.

To DanielBMarkham: what fucking world do you live in where this is your reasonably-considered view?! Please go read some history.[1]

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO

Did the FBI and DOJ jail MLK?

No, they just "... ordered agents to wiretap and spy on his hotel rooms and his private home; ... pushed newspapers to publish sordid details about King’s relations with women other than his wife just before he won the Nobel Peace Prize". Oh yeah and sent him a letter urging him to commit suicide.

http://www.democracynow.org/2012/4/4/j_edgar_hoover_vs_marti...

Jailing is the only possible constitutional violation?

My comment was in reply to the parent comment "dissent: one misunderstanding away from jail".

Lately, their primary job seems to be creating fake terrorist plots and finding 16-year old illiterate Somali immigrants to execute them, and than applauding themselves.

Never once have I heard of a similar sting operation being done for insider trading or other kind of financial crime.

Terrorist plots are what get the budget money from Congress...

How, exactly, do you define "civil order"? Quiet robbery on large scale, while the nation watches TV? And have you ever heard of COINTELPRO? Seriously, wtf did I just read? You offered not one argument why you think Occupy might be a "threat to civil order" -- so your argument boils down to "since it's their job to monitor potential threats, anything they monitor is a potential threat". Well wow, isn't that quite the model citizen. Informed position? Then make with the info.

Seriously, listen to this man. The FBI is actually doing their Goddamned job and you all freak out over it.

Call me when they're actually violating civil liberties or actually doing something they shouldn't be. This is a non story.

You Sir are very sensible, good someone actually thinks twice before going down with hysteria about "yet another big brother"

You are both missing the plethora of articles about how every breaks at least 3 federal laws a day (unknowingly). We are rapidly approaching a state where everyone is a criminal, and all it takes it putting your life under a microscope to cart you off to jail.

If the FBI are creating a file on everyone that goes to a protest, then fewer people will be willing to go to protests to avoid having their life under the microscope. This has a chilling effect on a free speech.

[Note: This is the result of a system in which very few people are looking at the bigger picture, rather than a system of some 'elite evil masterminds.' Also, no one in power is incentivized to fix it.]

"Creating a file"

This is not a problem.

"You are both missing the plethora of articles about how every breaks at least 3 federal laws a day (unknowingly)."

Citation needed.

However, it's a general problem anyway. I agree that laws should be simpler, fewer in number, and more evenly enforced. But I don't see what this has to do with the article in question, which doesn't offer much.

Creating a file by definition 'puts you on their radar.' In many cases, this may be enough to draw the ire of people in power. It doesn't have to happen to everyone. As long as enough people are made examples of, others will think twice before voicing their opinions.

Edit:

  > "You are both missing the plethora of articles about
  > how every breaks at least 3 federal laws a day 
  > (unknowingly)."
  >
  > Citation needed.

http://blog.themillionairenurse.com/tag/breaking-federal-law...

https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/john_white...

http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/...

Citation needed.

Here's a few, ranging from the humorous to the heinous.

http://www.cracked.com/article_19450_6-laws-youve-broken-wit...

http://mises.org/daily/5759/Decriminalize-the-Average-Man

http://www.economist.com/node/16636027

http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/...

The only question is, which laws "count?" And who decides?

The idea is less "which laws count?" and more "which man counts?". Most people will never be picked up for breaking the laws that they break, the few who are will be selected not for which laws they accidentally broke that day, but for who they are.

The purpose of everyone being a criminal is not to allow the arrest of everyone, but rather anyone.

Exactly. That's what I meant by "And who decides?"

the plethora of articles about how every breaks at least 3 federal laws a day

...which are mostly not founded in fact, but designed to tell you what you want to hear in order to sell advertising.

In Canada, there is a product called Kinder Surprise. It's illegal in the United States, but it's just a hollow chocolate egg with a toy inside. The FDA says you can't put a toy inside of food. If you buy one at a convenience store in Canada, and come back across the border with it? Federal offence:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinder_Surprise#Prohibition_on_...

That doesn't support your argument very well. We've had this conversation before, and in it I suggested you stop focusing on anecdata and isolated examples and employ some statistical rigor instead.

What statistical rigor do you suggest? How do you gather stats on "people that unwittingly were convicted of Federal crimes that most normal people wouldn't know about (or wouldn't think are crimes)?"

Even more importantly, since the idea is not to arrest everyone but rather to be able to arrest anyone, how do you gather statistics on how many people are breaking laws without knowing it, and not being arrested for it?

Because that is, by design, what will happen the majority of the time.

Data on number of actual prosecutions and convictions. you're arguing like someone who finds a bug in a piece of software and decries the entire computer industry as a conspiracy to part him from his money. Of course the law fails on occasion, look at how many lines of code are in it.

But the idea that everyone is breaking 5 or 6 federal laws every day and is at risk of financial ruin or indefinite incarceration at the whim of an indifferent judiciary (or as jlgreco asserts below, as part of an evil plot to render us legally helpless) is utter nonsense. You could, theoretically, break numerous laws in one day and place yourself in substantial legal jeopardy...but only via a sequence of unlikely coincidences. Stop taking the linkbait for fact: the reality is that young black men or ex-felons bear a far, far higher burden of extralegal discrimination than anyone does as the result of ham-fisted federal rulemaking.

This essay is from 1964, and no less relevant today: http://harpers.org/archive/1964/11/the-paranoid-style-in-ame... I urge you to read it and consider the possibility that the federal government does not, in fact, exist for the purpose of making your life miserable.

There is no doubt that the legal system is institutionally unjust in statistically significant ways to certain groups of people. And there is also no doubt that it is short-sighted and selfish for people not in those groups to expend more effort decrying infrequent injustices instead.

But two wrongs do not make a right. You are not likely to fall into a situation where you are arrested/convicted/imprisoned for an act that most people perform on a regular basis and do not consider a crime. But such laws do exist, real people have been arrested/convicted/imprisoned because of them, and it is still wrong.

Also, every person is subject to more jurisdictions than just the Federal government. I presume that we elide them from most discussions because of the wide variation from place to place, but they are no less able to arrest, convict, and imprison people (some can even execute).

Furthermore, one can recognize the effect of something--e.g., the existence of frivolous laws enables abuses of the justice system--without attributing it to willful intent. It may not be an "evil plot" by an all-knowing mastermind, but that doesn't mean it's not happening (also known as, unintended consequences).

It's still wrong, but so is the assertion that everyone is breaking 3 federal laws a day, and the implicit assertion behind that the federal government is therefore a Bad Thing.

Will a jury of your peers convict you for one of these things that supposedly everyone is violating?

Many judges will not allow mention of jury nullification[1] in court. The jury is instructed at as long as you broke the law, they must find you in violation.

There's also the fact that you went through a trial that counts against you, even if it shouldn't count against you. Even being accused of a crime is a crime in and of itself in the court of public opinion. Being accused of paedophilia is an extreme example of this (i.e. doesn't matter if you are or not, the claim makes you 'tainted' and people will always wonder).

[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

> There's also the fact that you went through a trial that counts against you

Quite right. Even more concerning: merely being arrested, even if all charges are dropped a few hours later, can count against you.

Will a jury of your peers...

There are many objections that can be made to this line of argumentation.

1. You will not, in fact, sit before a jury of your "peers", especially if you are knowledgeable about the law. Juries are generally selected to find the most pliant, least informed individuals.

2. Juries are not immune to the problems of group mentalities. You could easily be in a situation where a majority of the jurors, if asked on the street, would never consider such an act criminal, but when placed in an isolated group with one or more authoritative-sounding busybodies, will agree to convict (see the Milgram experiment).

3. Jurors are specifically instructed to evaluate the case on its merits (does the law as written apply to the act committed by this individual?), and to disregard personal opinions and feelings about the nature of the law itself. This is related to the discussion on "jury nullification" by other posters.

4. A trial is an exhausting, humiliating, and possibly financially devastating process. You will not even get the opportunity to present your case, if you are under duress from the circumstances created by the prosecution and agree to a plea bargain instead.

Yeah, and it's even in their name - the Federal Bureau of Investigations, so of course they investigate.

It's also funny to see the same Americans rake down on the RSHA of the Third Reich. America is ten times worse than Germany ever was. Actually, in comparison, the German Reich under Hitler appears to be more like a paradise. It's time for Americans to admit that they're doing precisely everything they ever accused the Germans of doing. But the Germans are always wrong and you are always right. Its nice, its a system.

Actually, in comparison, the German Reich under Hitler appears to be more like a paradise.

You have violated the advice in the Hacker News welcome message

http://ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html

"Essentially there are two rules here: don't post or upvote crap links, and don't be rude or dumb in comment threads."

and I have downvoted accordingly.

The presumptuous labeling is definitely questionable, but the coordination and communication seems applaudable.(for a government organization)

If there was a movement of people planing to protest Google or Facebook, I would expect the FBI to warn them if they had solid information it was going to happen. In fact if they were aware of large scale protests again an all but convicted child killer, they still have a responsibility to inform and protect. We protect criminals and saints equally in this country.

Second in my mind there is no question that on both "sides", police and protesters, individual people broke laws. Protests bring out the worst in some of the police officers under pressure and some of the protesters. So the FBI and the agencies they coordinated with would have been failing at their job to not monitor and report in an effort to protect the employees of the businesses.

You might not like the protection big banks got but they should receive it. Just like the most heinous criminal receives a lawyer to defend themselves, access to protection from danger (vigilanties), etc

So if we can step the emotions back a bit and use a critical eye on both sides of the protests I think we will see a FBI that jumped to conclusions but did their job.

And finally, I find it surprising in a start up forum that promotes agility and a lack of bureaucracy as the ideal that we are so quick to suggest more of it to an already bureaucratic, slow government.

Is anyone surprised at all by this? It's not like this is new or something. Despite the various documented incidents of physical violence and intimidation inflicted by law enforcement officers on Occupy protesters, it comes nowhere near the sorts of horrors suffered by protesters during the Civil Rights Movement, for example. Especially in the South, where protesters were often being attacked by the police.

Of course they did. Let's ignore for a moment that protest groups (like PETA) are usually considered some of the highest risks for terrorism; it would be irresponsible of the bureau to take the protest at face value and assume they have completely peaceful intentions.

"irresponsible ... [to] assume they have completely peaceful intentions"

Who is the "they" here? Protest groups in general? Or just PETA? You seem to be painting all protest groups with a single color.

There are oodles of protests groups in the US, ranging from anti-red-light-camera groups, anti-computerized-voting-machines and anti-waste-in-local-government to anti-abortion and anti-pot-prohibition to boycott-Israel, anti-nuke, and anti-anyone-who-isn't-white. Some of these have national scope.

Are all of them in the highest risk for terrorism? Assuming there were enough resources, would it be irresponsible for the police if there were a few protest groups which they did not monitor and/or infiltrate?

If the police hear of a group planning to protest the high sugar tariff, with organized demonstrations in DC, Hawaii, and Florida, should they monitor the group on the assumption that it's "one of the highest risks for terrorism"?

It's people actually peacefully protesting injustice and corruption that scare the powers that be. A bunch of rowdies can be arrested or shot easily and to the relief of many. Old and young people singing songs and what not, that's much trickier.

Ever read War Is a Racket? What makes you think Wall Street has peaceful intentions? What makes you think Wall Street doesn't cause a lot of death? What makes you think it's reasonably to project that evil on those who protest it? No wait; do you think, at all? Your bit about "the highest risks for terrorism" makes me wonder. Also, why bring up PETA? Why not bring up all the wonderful people who protest a lot of evil shit and make the world better; there is no day without that happening. You make it seem like all protest groups are out to destroy, which makes it rather obvious you wish they were. Would make it seem less crappy to, you know, not be out there protesting. Since protesters are potential terrorists (not my words, that's what you basically said), people who just sit at home are basically like the firefighters of 9/11 and the armed forces combined, but with a healthier lifestyle and pets 'n shit.

Yes, I'm at the border of flamebaiting, mod me down. This self-righteous stating if BS ("are usually considered some of the highest risks for terrorism" -- by whom? that's like "some people say", the staple of any hit piece) really really ticks me off. And I'm not even American, I'd be breathing fire otherwise.

> "No wait; do you think, at all?"

Frankly, I'm offended and disappointed that you've decided to turn this into a pointless personal attack. You already know you're being rude and belligerent, so moderate yourself instead of throwing out a condescending rant.

Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco-terrorism for a few groups that the FBI has historically monitored (PETA IS on that list). Given that all of these organizations have been accused of actions that endanger the safety and property of other American citizens, the FBI isn't doing its job if it doesn't monitor them. The Occupy movement could easily have spawned destructive or violent protests, and being unprepared would have been irresponsible of the Bureau.

How much power do these scary bureaucratic agencies FBI, CIA, NSA actually yield in comparison to our elected politicians, anyway? Do they have any real accountability?

No, not really. If they are in danger of having a lawsuit against them, they can usually just brush it off with the "state secrets" privilege, and if they are actually found guilty of doing illegal things, well...nothing happens to them. The worst that happens is that they need to change their methods, if that.

Now, if they get themselves in a sexual scandal, they are expected to present their resignation immediately. Because obviously that matters much more than doing something unconstitutional.

They answer to the President, and partially to Congress (as they hold the purse-strings). How much they answer to the President is anyone's guess.

Surprised no one has posted this, it's a Rolling Stone article about Anonymous hacks that touches on Occupy movement monitoring. A good read if you have a minute. http://m.rollingstone.com/entry/view/id/34125/pn/all/p/0/?KS... Edit for bad link.

For those of you that think the FBI is doing a wonderful job by doing this, I suggest looking up Brandon Darby and decide if that was tax dollars well spent and good government.

Some are, I see, already mocking the ideological presumptousness of this, from a law enforcement agency. Gee Mulder, there's also this report of blah blah blah.

Well, why is PREVENTING some citizens from changing the ALWAYS "pro-business" status quo their job?

Socialism is coming anyway (not the socialism-for-the-rich-kind), esp if you consider socialized medicine to be a trojan horse of socialism.

The reason America fought socialism is not that it was bad, it was that it was foreign (Soviet domination) and undemocratic in that form. Via democracy you can have it any time you vote for it, and even press mogul Republican billionaires can't stop you.

(See my record.) I never comment these days anyway, since I worked out that this is not a board of intellectuals (and I allow that there are conservative intellectuals), it is a board of (inherently capitalist and "selfish") Silicon Valley VCs and startup people. And here come the some people to argue with me, and some Randroids among them.

This is interesting. Are you saying socialism is coming because of a current trend in policies the US population is voting for, or because of a different reason? I'm legitimately curious.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com