[IP] more on The FBI's Pre-emptive Interrogations of "Possible" Demonstrators: Chilling Political Speech
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Robert J. Berger" <rberger@xxxxxxx>
Date: August 29, 2004 12:38:16 AM EDT
To: Dave Farber <dave@xxxxxxxxxx>, Dewayne Hendricks
<dewayne@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: The FBI's Pre-emptive Interrogations of "Possible"
Demonstrators: Chilling Political Speech
The FBI's Pre-emptive Interrogations of "Possible" Demonstrators:
Chilling
Political Speech
By Bob Barr FindLaw Wednesday 25 August 2004
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20040825_barr.html
The FBI, no longer content with working to maintain order at
political
events, is now preemptively identifying and interrogating
("interviewing")
possible demonstrators. It has summarized this strategy in a memo.
To make matters worse, the Department of Justice blessed the FBI
strategy in its own memo - suggesting that no First Amendment concerns
are
raised by the interrogations.
As I will explain in this column, however, the truth is quite to
the
contrary: The strategy, as outlined in the memo, is a serious threat to
free
speech.
Back When Politics Was Fun, Protest Was Part of It
Throughout the Reagan and Clinton presidencies, and even to some
extent
during the Nixon years, politics was fun. At least, political
protesting had
its lighter moments. (Nothing was really fun during the dour Carter
Administration, and George H.W. Bush's presidency was, well, pretty
boring
except for the First Gulf War.)
Who can forget the great costumes and Nixon face masks that
appeared at
many political rallies and other events during the 1960s and early
1970s?
Reagan and Clinton masks, the latter sometimes adorned with long,
Pinocchio-type noses, added color and a bit of levity to political
demonstrations throughout most of the 1980s and 1990s. There was, in a
word,
tolerance.
Reagan, with his constant good humor, almost always disarmed
protesters
with his wit. Conservatives wearing anti-Clinton T-shirts frequently
showed
up at Clinton rallies. The worst they might face from the
then-president's
supporters were scowls.
This atmosphere didn't mean security was absent; it was very
present.
In the 1960s through the end of Clinton's second term in January 2001,
everyone knew if you caused disruption, Secret Service agents would be
on
you in an instant, as they should be.
But during that period, you didn't feel you were doing something
criminal if you simply decided to show up at a rally with a protest
T-shirt
on, or lugging around a sloppy paperboard sign criticizing the
president.
You didn't feel intimidated.
The Bush Administration: Squelching Disagreement and Dissent
Now, things are very different. The Administration and campaign of
George W. Bush is squelching any possible hint of disagreement or
protest at
every political rally or gathering.
For example, people with T-shirts that hint at disagreement are not
allowed anywhere near the events, nor even on the route traveled by the
presidential motorcade. Think what they'd do to you if you showed up in
a -
shudder -- mask.
But it's gotten even worse than that.
The FBI's Preemptive Interrogation Memorandum
As the New York Times has reported, in an October 2003 memorandum
to law
enforcement agencies, the FBI expressed great concern over the
possibility
that marches and rallies in Washington, D.C. and San Francisco might
become
"violent, destructive, or disruptive."
The memo went on to urge law enforcement to monitor the Internet,
because "protesters often use the Internet to . . . coordinate their
activities prior to demonstrations." It also urged law enforcement to
watch
out for protesters who use cell phones to "coordinate . . . or update
colleagues."
In the memo, law enforcement agencies at all levels of government
are
warned to be aware of "possible indicators of protest activity."
Moreover,
even though the memo does not cite any evidence of violence likely to
take
place at "possible protests," the Bureau's memo concluded by telling law
enforcement agencies to "report any potentially illegal acts to the" FBI
(italics added).
The Department of Justice Memo Blessing the FBI Memo
Doubtless, the Department of Justice, aware of the FBI memo, was
concerned that it would be seen as urging law enforcement to begin
monitoring persons who might be contemplating staging political protests
protected by the First Amendment. So several months later, in April
2004 -
as the New York Times also reported -- the Department of Justice, which
oversees the FBI, issued its own memo - addressing, and dismissing,
these
constitutional concerns.
The memo came from DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC). In the
memo,
OLC concluded, not surprisingly, that the monitoring, interrogating and
gathering of evidence on potential political protesters raised no First
Amendment concerns. In addition, it went on to conclude that even if,
hypothetically, such activities did raise concerns, any "chilling"
effect
would be "quite minimal" and would be far outweighed by the overriding
public interest in maintaining "order."
Evidence Suggests Protesters Are Subjected To Home and Office
Interviews
No chilling effect? In the last few months, evidence has been
mounting
that special agents are showing up at the homes and offices of potential
protesters - casting suspicion upon them in front of bosses, colleagues,
family, friends and neighbors. This activity apparently has increased
as the
Republican Convention and the November election draw near.
If that's not a chilling effect, I don't know what is. The price of
free speech should not be a high-profile FBI visit that makes all who
know
you wonder if you may be a criminal.
During these visits, the special agents "interview" the potential
protesters to determine if they -- or anyone they know -- might be
planning
any political demonstrations. Of course, the "anyone they know" is
especially worrisome - hints of McCarthyism.
Also according to the New York Times, the final question the FBI
agents
ask is this: Does the interviewee know that withholding information on
whether they know anyone else who might be planning a demonstration or
"disruption" is itself a crime?
One can only imagine how this parting shot plays out: "Oh, by the
way,
ma'am, before me and my armed partner here leave your house, we'd like
to
remind you that if you haven't told us if you know someone else who
might be
planning a demonstration, you have committed a crime and we can
prosecute
you for not telling us that. Have a good night, ma'am."
This, of course, is pure intimidation.
DOJ's Absurd Stance: Interrogation in Home or Office Is Not
Interrogation
The FBI, seemingly, takes an absurdly narrow view of what kind of
tactics would, in fact, chill speech - a view that excludes its own
plainly
chilling measures.
For instance, Joe Parris, an FBI spokesman, told the New York Times
that, because "no one was dragged from their homes and put under bright
lights," interviews of potential demonstrators are not "chilling."
So now we know the Administration's new First Amendment standard:
So
long as the government agents don't "drag you from your home" and
interrogate you "under bright lights," you have nothing to complain or
worry
about.
The fact of the matter is, tactics such as those contemplated in
last
year's FBI memo, and approved by the Justice Department this past
spring, do
chill free speech. They do intimidate.
And, self-justifying memos by government lawyers notwithstanding,
such
tactics usher in an era of intolerance and fear that has no place in
American politics.
Bob Barr served in the U.S. House of Representatives from January
1995
to January 2003. He was a senior member of the Judiciary Committee. He
now
practices law, writes extensively, works with the American Conservative
Union, and consults on privacy matters with the ACLU
--
Robert J. Berger - Internet Bandwidth Development, LLC.
Voice: 408-882-4755 eFax: +1-408-490-2868
http://www.ibd.com
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/