Activists or terrorists?

Activists or terrorists?

By A Times Editorial
Published December 20, 2004

The FBI seems to have trouble telling the difference between the two groups. Let's hope our nation's next attorney general won't have that problem.

There is a world of difference between terrorist activities committed by Osama bin Laden and Sheikh Omar Abdul Rahman and the civil disobedience occasionally committed by activists in the animal rights and antiglobalization movements. But the FBI can't distinguish between them.

The FBI's joint terrorism task forces pair agents and local law enforcement in 100 cities around the world. The task forces employ FBI surveillance of peaceable activism is likely to chill the legitimate exercise of dissent. It is a throwback to the dark days of the J. Edgar Hoover regime and COINTELPRO, when civil rights leaders and those opposing American involvement in Vietnam were targeted by the FBI for investigation.... Beyond the intimidation that activists must feel, the use of law enforcement for this purpose wastes resources that already are stretched.

thousands and are supposed to root out serious threats to America's national security. But it appears some of these employees see their duty as also investigating Americans who have the audacity to question the established order.

Over the past few years, the FBI task forces have collected files on a variety of peace groups, animal rights activists, labor organizers and other political demonstrators. Evidence suggests the FBI also has infiltrated such groups as the National Lawyers Guild and student peace organizations.

This surveillance of peaceable activism is likely to chill the legitimate exercise of dissent. It is a throwback to the dark days of the J. Edgar Hoover regime and COINTELPRO, when civil rights leaders and those opposing American involvement in Vietnam were targeted by the FBI for investigation.

Following those excesses, strong FBI guidelines limited the agency's ability to investigate people and groups based on their ideology. But Attorney General John Ashcroft set those limits aside, and in an October 2003 memorandum to 15,000 local law enforcement agencies, the FBI encouraged police to aggressively monitor antiwar protest activities. "(B)e alert to these possible indicators of protest activity and report any potentially illegal acts to the nearest FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force," the memorandum instructed.

The result has been an unleashing of law enforcement against the activist community. For example, in February at Drake University in Iowa, federal prosecutors subpoenaed records of attendees at a student antiwar forum. The subpoena was dropped after an uproar. In another incident, the American Civil Liberties Union in Colorado uncovered a fax listing license plate numbers and the corresponding names. They were environmental protesters who attended a peaceful rally outside a lumber industry association meeting. The fax was provided to the local FBI task force by Colorado Springs police.

It is unclear how extensively political activists are being targeted for surveillance, but similar examples have been discovered around the country. The American Civil Liberties Union has filed Freedom of Information Act requests with FBI offices to gain an accurate gauge.

Beyond the intimidation that activists must feel, the use of law enforcement for this purpose wastes resources that already are stretched. The relatively small civil disobedience problems that erupt at some protests should not be diverting the government's counterterrorism resources. And the First Amendment and our right to dissent should not be sacrificed in the name of fighting terrorism. We hope the next attorney general will be more sensitive to these issues.

[Last modified December 20, 2004, 04:48:47]