[Lerkfish]

F.B.I. Goes Knocking for Political Troublemakers

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/16/po.../16fbi.html?hp

ASHINGTON, Aug. 15 - The Federal Bureau of Investigation has been questioning political demonstrators across the country, and in rare cases even subpoenaing them, in an aggressive effort to forestall what officials say could be violent and disruptive protests at the Republican National Convention in New York.

Advertisement




F.B.I. officials are urging agents to canvass their communities for information about planned disruptions aimed at the convention and other coming political events, and they say they have developed a list of people who they think may have information about possible violence. They say the inquiries, which began last month before the Democratic convention in Boston, are focused solely on possible crimes, not dissent, at major political events.

But some people contacted by the F.B.I. say they are mystified by the bureau's interest and felt harassed by questions about their political plans.

"The message I took from it," said Sarah Bardwell, 21, an intern at a Denver antiwar group who was visited by six investigators a few weeks ago, "was that they were trying to intimidate us into not going to any protests and to let us know that, 'hey, we're watching you.' ''

The unusual initiative comes after the Justice Department, in a previously undisclosed legal opinion, gave its blessing to controversial tactics used last year by the F.B.I in urging local police departments to report suspicious activity at political and antiwar demonstrations.

what I had posted a long while back:

prong two: quell with extreme prejudice the rights of citizens to protest by removing their access to due process,

[OSX Abuser]

Any reason for the other topic getting locked???

[CreepingDeth]

Damn, so they can't, like, destroy property? Or commit crimes?
NEO CON CONSPIRACY JOHN ASHCROFT RUMSFELD WATCHING TEH MOVES OF PEOPLE WITH ONSTAR!

Another worthless thread.

[mo]

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:

Another worthless thread.

And yet, you blessed it with your presence.

[CreepingDeth]

Ok, the post should be +1, but I cover it up with some words.
See, most of Lerk's posts are already covered by another thread. Free points.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
F.B.I. Goes Knocking for Political Troublemakers

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/16/po.../16fbi.html?hp



what I had posted a long while back:

Maybe they have reason to believe Bush's life was in danger. Seems pretty standard to me; check out the bad elements near where the president will be and provide a safer atmosphere.

edit: Oh, almost forgot....



Enjoy.

[Axo1ot1]

thought police.

Oh and they're also harassing elderly black voters in florida and trying to get people worried about going to the polls in November. Oldest trick in Karl Rove's bag.

[necromactastic]

The FBI is probably just familiarizing themselves with what will be going on in New York before the convention. Last I heard, one of the larger planned protests is in limbo after the organizers accepted, then declined the city's deal on where they were allowed to gather.

I live in the area, and I'd think there was a serious problem if law enforcement wasn't getting prepared for what's to come. If some 21-year old organizer in Denver feels intimidated, that's just too bad. Nobody told them not to show up. I'd rather the convention be held somewhere else, things are tense enough here without out of towners coming in to score political points (Republicans) or cause trouble (protesters).

[CreepingDeth]

Originally posted by Axo1ot1:
thought police.

Oh and they're also harassing elderly black voters in florida and trying to get people worried about going to the polls in November. Oldest trick in Karl Rove's bag.

So now it's a RACIST NEO CON CORPORATION CONSPIRACY WATCHING YOU WIT TEH SATELLITES!!!11!!!1!

[Axo1ot1]

They are watching us. You are lucky that liberals, anarchists and libertarians are concerned about it, too.

[CreepingDeth]

Liberals and anarchists? AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
You're paranoid. This government couldn't pull of a conspiracy if they got Tom Clancy to plan it.

[necromactastic]

Originally posted by Axo1ot1:
They are watching us. You are lucky that liberals, anarchists and libertarians are concerned about it, too.

Liberals I can tolerate, libertarians I respect...but anarchists? What are they going to do about it, stick it to the man by breaking some windows at Starbucks? Get pissy about McDonalds and start a street fight?

[CreepingDeth]

Originally posted by necromactastic:
Liberals I can tolerate, libertarians I respect...but anarchists? What are they going to do about it, stick it to the man by breaking some windows at Starbucks? Get pissy about McDonalds and start a street fight?

Lol.
Anarchists exist to be humorous to people who aren't high enough to become one. All they wanna do is kick a capitalist with their surplus army boots.

[John G. Smith]

lerkfish is a good example of the types of ideologues (on the right and the left) that have taken over politics in the last few years.

[CreepingDeth]

Agent Smith! They know where you are! There are TEH SPY SATELLITES OF TEH APOKOLYPTIK DOOMEDNESS!
Ask ax and lerk.

[Axo1ot1]

Originally posted by necromactastic:
Liberals I can tolerate, libertarians I respect...but anarchists? What are they going to do about it, stick it to the man by breaking some windows at Starbucks? Get pissy about McDonalds and start a street fight?

Nonono not the idiot anarchists that pretend to be terrorists while they're in college and then go to work for AT&T selling long distance plans. You have been given a warped impression of what anarchists believe by someone.

[CreepingDeth]

The ones who hate government but pay taxes?
The ones who hate Bush but use their cuts to buy stuff?
The ones who bash capitalism with a t-shirt made by capitalists?

[Zimphire]

OMG!!1 The Gov plans on stopping people from breaking the law!

THE INJUSTICE!

This country will never recover from this ever!


24/7

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Axo1ot1:
Nonono not the idiot anarchists that pretend to be terrorists while they're in college and then go to work for AT&T selling long distance plans. You have been given a warped impression of what anarchists believe by someone.

You mean like Genesis P-Orridge (friend of mine) formerly of Throbbing Gristle and Psychic TV? They're just nutters who've finally experienced their psychotic break... and reveled in it. Mostly harmless and largely humorous.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
The ones who hate government but pay taxes?
The ones who hate Bush but use their cuts to buy stuff?
The ones who bash capitalism with a t-shirt made by capitalists?

He shoots, he scores.

[CreepingDeth]

The anarchists that mull around in Hot Topic?
The anarchists with the Dropkick Murphys shirt?
The anarchists that bitch on online forums?
The anarchists with credit cards?
The anarchists that drive?
The anarchists that go to church?
The anarchists with bank accounts?
The anarchists who have money in general?

Please, go on. This will be amusing.

[necromactastic]

Originally posted by Axo1ot1:
You have been given a warped impression of what anarchists believe by someone.

Primarily by self-proclaimed anarchists in hoodies and bandanas.

I know one sincere, level-headed anarchist. He has yet to convince me that people will take turns playing garbage collector of their own free will when there's no government, laws, or payment for services. The whole deal sounds like a giant step backwards to me, even if its simplicity is a little alluring.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by necromactastic:
Primarily by self-proclaimed anarchists in hoodies and bandanas.

I know one sincere, level-headed anarchist. He has yet to convince me that people will take turns playing garbage collector of their own free will when there's no government, laws, or payment for services. The whole deal sounds like a giant step backwards to me, even if its simplicity is a little alluring.

Yeah, I think we all find Fight Club interesting on certain levels, but NOT as a way of life.

[CreepingDeth]

We're anarchists! But those capitalist pigs get us our jobs!

[Shaddim]

Anarchy simply produces a different kind of tyrant, the biggest and strongest then becomes "leader". There'll always be structure, some structures are just better than others. The hunter/gatherer model looks great on certain points, for the 30 short years the average person would survive.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by John G. Smith:
lerkfish is a good example of the types of ideologues (on the right and the left) that have taken over politics in the last few years.

I'm waiting for this to be on topic.

[brachiator]

On topic, Lerk, Bob Herbert's column today (Mon.) in the NYTimes discusses a creepy campaign by Florida officials to show up and "investigate" predominantly African-American, elderly activists and other voters. And I don't think that the use of the "felon purge" lists by the FL election authorities has yet been settled, either.

[Sven G]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Anarchy simply produces a different kind of tyrant, the biggest and strongest then becomes "leader". There'll always be structure, some structures are just better than others. The hunter/gatherer model looks great on certain points, for the 30 short years the average person would survive.

(Sorry for being off-topic, but yet again there are completely incorrect statements about "anarchism"...)

Primitivism has nothing to do with anarchism (IMO): it's just yet another (mainly in the US) distortion of some of the basic principles. If you really want to know what anarchism is in its classical meaning, you should read something by the classical anarchists, such as Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Malatesta, and so on; there's also an excellent FAQ on the web, and many very informative web sites.

Classical anarchism (and the modern variants derived from it) has its roots in the philosophy of Enlightenment and in syndicalism, and is, thus - potentially! - one of the most "modern" existing political philosophies: a modernity (fully compatible with industrialism, but more decentralised) based on liberty and solidarity, instead of authority and selfishness.

Anyway, that was just FYI: I'm not trying to convince anyone that anarchism is the non plus ultra, but it certainly has some very good points (IMO), fully compatible with an evolved, ethical (wo)mankind, which doesn't quite exist - yet...

[Sven G]

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
The anarchists that mull around in Hot Topic?
The anarchists with the Dropkick Murphys shirt?
The anarchists that bitch on online forums?
The anarchists with credit cards?
The anarchists that drive?
The anarchists that go to church?
The anarchists with bank accounts?
The anarchists who have money in general?

Please, go on. This will be amusing.

BS & FUD!

Again, read something about serious anarchism, maybe...?

[Zimphire]

People give themselves extreme but unrealistic labels to make themselves feel more "important"

Most of the time, it just comes off as pretentious silliness.

[Sven G]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
People give themselves extreme but unrealistic labels to make themselves feel more "important"

Most of the time, it just comes off as pretentious silliness.

Do you mean the punk-like, etc. "anarchists"? Then I partially agree with you.

OTOH, anarchism as a political philosophy isn't extreme in any way (except for being revolutionary, maybe: but so were also capitalism and "communism", at their origins), but is, rather, quite balanced between individual freedom and social responsibility: one could even say that it is approximately the libertarian (with no state) equivalent of social democracy (which is authoritarian, even if its state has a "human face").

(OK, just to try to explain things yet another time...)

[phoenixboy70]

Originally posted by Sven G:
Classical anarchism (and the modern variants derived from it) has its roots in the philosophy of Enlightenment and in syndicalism, and is, thus - potentially! - one of the most "modern" existing political philosophies: a modernity (fully compatible with industrialism, but more decentralised) based on liberty and solidarity, instead of authority and selfishness.

and may i add that, to me, anarchy also has a lot to do with a personal attitude towards authority and decisionmaking.

as much as the conservative idiots like to make it seem that "anarchists" (and liberals) refuse to work and become a productiv members of society, - that is simply not true.

it's more about being your own person and not being intimidated. believing in cooperation rather than competition (for limited resources). not leading, not following but just doing whatever you believe in.

authoritarianism, based on subordination, degradation and competition for limited resources, is, on an individual level, far less productive than people following their "way".

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by brachiator:
On topic, Lerk, Bob Herbert's column today (Mon.) in the NYTimes discusses a creepy campaign by Florida officials to show up and "investigate" predominantly African-American, elderly activists and other voters. And I don't think that the use of the "felon purge" lists by the FL election authorities has yet been settled, either.

it becomes increasingly "creepy" what is made a priority. The term "prior restraint" comes to mind.

[bygimis]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
F.B.I. Goes Knocking for Political Troublemakers

"Through counter-intelligence it should be possible to
pinpoint potential trouble-makers...And neutralize them"

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Sven G:
(Sorry for being off-topic, but yet again there are completely incorrect statements about "anarchism"...)

Primitivism has nothing to do with anarchism (IMO)

Sure it does. Without adequate structure it all devolves to primitivism. I've seen the models, I understand where they're coming from (I've had a lot of conversations with Genesis regarding it), I just don't agree.

[Sven G]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Sure it does. Without adequate structure it all devolves to primitivism. I've seen the models, I understand where they're coming from (I've had a lot of conversations with Genesis regarding it), I just don't agree.

No: the free commune, the syndicate and the federation, which are some of the foundations of (classical) anarchism, are far from structureless, instead being very organised structures (and quite successful when there was the possibility to apply their principles, such as in the Spanish civil war, especially in Barcelona); it's just that organisation isn't achieved through coercive institutions from the top down, but is built from the bottom up, by free agreement in a solidal context: it's this context that should be built in everyday life, day after day, patiently. Anarchism is, essentially, about forming more or less complex, self-managed networks - see also the Internet, for example, which is largely based on anarchistic, decentralised principles. Federations could be at any level: from the local district to the commune to the region, etc., up to the worldwide/universal federation - in a network-like way, indeed.

Primitivism is a completely different beast, with many irrational, pseudo-religious aspects, too.

The problem is that the word "anarchy" or "anarchism" has become completely misused, especially in the US, often with meanings which are almost opposite to the original ones - just like the words "socialism" and "communism", for that matter...

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Sven G:
No: the free commune, the syndicate and the federation, which are some of the foundations of (classical) anarchism, are far from structureless, being very organised structures indeed (and quite successful when there was the possibility to apply their principles); it's just that organisation isn't achieved through coercive institutions from the top down, but is built from the bottom up, by free agreement in a solidal context. Primitivism is a completely different beast, with many irrational aspects, too.

The problem is that the word "anarchy" or "anarchism" has become completely misused, especially in the US, often with meanings which are almost opposite to the original ones - just like the words "socialism" and "communism", for that matter...

I didn't say they were structureless, I said the strutures aren't adequate (and would devolve into primitivism). My assertion is, that at this stage of social evolution, mankind is too stupid, greedy, and opportunistic for that system to work as well as the predominant model we already have in place.

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by brachiator:
On topic, Lerk, Bob Herbert's column today (Mon.) in the NYTimes discusses a creepy campaign by Florida officials to show up and "investigate" predominantly African-American, elderly activists and other voters. And I don't think that the use of the "felon purge" lists by the FL election authorities has yet been settled, either.

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...hreadid=224469

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

The part of the article Lerkfish should have bolded:

They say the inquiries, which began last month before the Democratic convention in Boston, are focused solely on possible crimes, not dissent, at major political events.

Also, of course I wouldn�t expect the usual knee-jerk conspiracy crowd to have been paying attention when it was reported,(or if they were they just conveniently ignored it as usual) but many of these �possible crimes� are well documented as the groups involved are quite open about their tactics. We�ve already heard they plan to get chemicals on themselves designed to foil bomb-sniffing dogs in subways, thereby endangering the lives of average New Yorkers that have nothing what-so-ever to do with the convention, that they plan on crippling horses used by mounted police by tossing marbles under their hooves, and that they plan major disruptions not just in and around the convention center, but all over New York as well.

None of this stuff was any secret- the groups involved were blatant enough about their plans to publicize them!

Of course the �sham� left that loves to pretend that this kind of crap=�legitimate protest� wouldn�t be adult enough to realize that the cops aren�t going to sit back and not investigate people making threats to come to their cities and endanger their citizens. No, it�s much more fun to pretend that there are just peaceniks like Gandhi, and that *sniffle* *sniffle* stopping criminals that hide behind the guise of political protest is some sort of �fascism�.

More of the left manufacturing its own crisis and then pretending to be martyrs that everyone is out to get when caught at it.

[OldManMac]

Of course they're going to say it's about investigating possible crimes! Do you think they're going to come out and say, "Yes, we're here to stifle dissent and infiltrate groups of peace-loving people."?

[Sven G]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
My assertion is, that at this stage of social evolution, mankind is too stupid, greedy, and opportunistic for that system to work as well as the predominant model we already have in place.

Ah, now I understand better: well, sadly, you are partially right on that - but some of the past experiences show that through education towards solidarity, etc. people can become much better than they are on average. In the short season of anarchy in Barcelona (1936), for example, they managed to improve things to an excellent degree (which would have been almost impossible both under capitalism and Russian "communism"), showing that those principles are quite valid in practice, if applied in favourable conditions.

Sadly, such things tend to happen only in "revolutionary" periods, sofar: so, to see this in normal life, one must essentially have hope in the perfectibility of human nature (but, first of all, culture), and in a more modern concept of both evolutionary and revolutionary change at the same time...

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by KarlG:
Of course they're going to say it's about investigating possible crimes! Do you think they're going to come out and say, "Yes, we're here to stifle dissent and infiltrate groups of peace-loving people."?

"Also, of course I wouldn�t expect the usual knee-jerk conspiracy crowd to have been paying attention when it was reported,(or if they were they just conveniently ignored it as usual) but many of these �possible crimes� are well documented as the groups involved are quite open about their tactics."

"None of this stuff was any secret- the groups involved were blatant enough about their plans to publicize them!"

Pay attention.

[OldManMac]

I am paying attention. Take off your rose colored glasses.

-----------

Published on Monday, August 16, 2004 by the Minneapolis Star Tribune

Muzzling Free Speech

by Dahlia Lithwick


So it has come down to this: You are at liberty to exercise your First Amendment right to assemble and to protest, so long as you do so from behind chain-link fences and razor wire, or miles from the audience you seek to address.

The largely ignored "free-speech zone" at the Democratic convention in Boston last month was an affront to the spirit of the Constitution. The situation will be only slightly better when the Republicans gather this month in New York, where indiscriminate searches and the use of glorified veal cages for protesters have been limited by a federal judge. So far, the only protesters with access to the area next to Madison Square Garden are some anti-abortion Christians. High-fiving delegates evidently fosters little risk of violence.

It's easy to forget that as passionate and violent as opposition to the Iraq war may be, it pales in comparison with the often bloody dissent of the Vietnam era, when much of the city of Washington was nevertheless a free-speech zone.

It's tempting to say the difference this time lies in the perils of the post-9/11 world, but that argument assumes some meaningful link between domestic political protest and terrorism. There is no such link, except in the eyes of the Bush administration, which conflates the two both as a matter of law and of policy.

It started with Attorney General John Ashcroft's declaration, shortly after 9/11: "To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists." This was an early attempt to couple disagreeing on civil liberties with abetting terrorists. And while I'm not reflexively opposed to the entire Patriot Act, two provisions do serve more to quell protest than terrorism.

One section invented a broad new crime called "domestic terrorism" -- punishing activities that "involve acts dangerous to human life" if a person's intent is to "influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion." If that sounds as if it's directed more toward effigy-burning, or Greenpeace activity, than international terror, it's because it is. International terror was already illegal.

A second provision, already deemed unconstitutional in one federal court, was used to prosecute Sami Omar al-Hussayen, a Muslim graduate student at the University of Idaho who was charged with using the Internet to offer "expert advice or assistance" to terrorists by posting fatwahs and hyperlinks to a Hamas Web site. He was acquitted by a jury this summer, partly because the judge warned jurors that speech -- even speech advocating the use of force or the breaking of laws -- is constitutionally protected, unless directed toward inciting imminent lawless action.

An even more pernicious use of the federal law enforcement power to quash protest has been observed at presidential speeches, where the Bush team has used the Secret Service at public events to create "free-speech zones" that keep dissenters away from the president.

In 2002, Brett Bursey, a South Carolinian, was arrested for holding a "No War for Oil" sign near a hangar where Bush was speaking. The West Virginia police reported that the Secret Service had directed them to arrest a couple sporting anti-Bush T-shirts at a public speech this year. And an account by Justin Rood in Salon last week revealed that at a recent rally in Duluth, Secret Service checkpoints were festooned with photos of men posing some ostensible physical danger to the president: One was a professor active in the Green Party, another a pacifist homeless activist. Both had plans to protest the war during Bush's visit.

Michael Moore's cookie-wielding Fresno peace activists look almost dangerous in comparison. Without evidence that pacifist protesters plan to violate their own credos and bludgeon the president with their Birkenstocks, the use of the Secret Service to silence them is an abuse of executive power.

Enormous national events will inevitably be terror targets. So will the president. But before we single out the anarchists and the environmentalists and the puppet-guys for diminished constitutional protections -- before we herd them into what are speech-free zones -- we might question whether they represent the real danger. If we don't recognize the distinction between passionate political speech and terrorism now, it may be too late to protest later.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by KarlG:
I am paying attention. Take off your rose colored glasses.

...the judge warned jurors that speech -- even speech advocating the use of force or the breaking of laws -- is constitutionally protected, unless directed toward inciting imminent lawless action.

Take off your blinders.

Nothing you posted addresses the fact that various groups have made threats (even publically) to commit crimes when they come to New York, and that of course the police aren't going to sit back and ignore that so idiots can pretend that committing criminal acts and endangering New Yorkers= 'legitimate protest'.

Grow the F up already.

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
Take off your blinders.

Nothing you posted addresses the fact that various groups have made threats (even publically) to commit crimes when they come to New York, and that of course the police aren't going to sit back and ignore that so idiots can pretend that committing criminal acts and endangering New Yorkers= 'legitimate protest'.

Grow the F up already.

Here's the entire article Lerk first posted in this thread. There's nothing in it about any groups publicly making threats to commit crimes. All it points to is speculation by federal agencies that groups are going to commit crimes. All there is in this article is a lot of "maybe," and "might," and "possibly," from federal agencies, regarding their fears of activitiy at the convention. Not any specifics.

August 16, 2004

F.B.I. Goes Knocking for Political Troublemakers
By ERIC LICHTBLAU


WASHINGTON, Aug. 15 - The Federal Bureau of Investigation has been questioning political demonstrators across the country, and in rare cases even subpoenaing them, in an aggressive effort to forestall what officials say could be violent and disruptive protests at the Republican National Convention in New York.

F.B.I. officials are urging agents to canvass their communities for information about planned disruptions aimed at the convention and other coming political events, and they say they have developed a list of people who they think may have information about possible violence. They say the inquiries, which began last month before the Democratic convention in Boston, are focused solely on possible crimes, not on dissent, at major political events.

But some people contacted by the F.B.I. say they are mystified by the bureau's interest and felt harassed by questions about their political plans.

"The message I took from it," said Sarah Bardwell, 21, an intern at a Denver antiwar group who was visited by six investigators a few weeks ago, "was that they were trying to intimidate us into not going to any protests and to let us know that, 'hey, we're watching you.' ''

The unusual initiative comes after the Justice Department, in a previously undisclosed legal opinion, gave its blessing to controversial tactics used last year by the F.B.I in urging local police departments to report suspicious activity at political and antiwar demonstrations to counterterrorism squads. The F.B.I. bulletins that relayed the request for help detailed tactics used by demonstrators - everything from violent resistance to Internet fund-raising and recruitment.

In an internal complaint, an F.B.I. employee charged that the bulletins improperly blurred the line between lawfully protected speech and illegal activity. But the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, in a five-page internal analysis obtained by The New York Times, disagreed.

The office, which also made headlines in June in an opinion - since disavowed - that authorized the use of torture against terrorism suspects in some circumstances, said any First Amendment impact posed by the F.B.I.'s monitoring of the political protests was negligible and constitutional.

The opinion said: "Given the limited nature of such public monitoring, any possible 'chilling' effect caused by the bulletins would be quite minimal and substantially outweighed by the public interest in maintaining safety and order during large-scale demonstrations."

Those same concerns are now central to the vigorous efforts by the F.B.I. to identify possible disruptions by anarchists, violent demonstrators and others at the Republican National Convention, which begins Aug. 30 and is expected to draw hundreds of thousands of protesters.

In the last few weeks, beginning before the Democratic convention, F.B.I. counterterrorism agents and other federal and local officers have sought to interview dozens of people in at least six states, including past protesters and their friends and family members, about possible violence at the two conventions. In addition, three young men in Missouri said they were trailed by federal agents for several days and subpoenaed to testify before a federal grand jury last month, forcing them to cancel their trip to Boston to take part in a protest there that same day.

Interrogations have generally covered the same three questions, according to some of those questioned and their lawyers: were demonstrators planning violence or other disruptions, did they know anyone who was, and did they realize it was a crime to withhold such information.

A handful of protesters at the Boston convention were arrested but there were no major disruptions. Concerns have risen for the Republican convention, however, because of antiwar demonstrations directed at President Bush and because of New York City's global prominence.

With the F.B.I. given more authority after the Sept. 11 attacks to monitor public events, the tensions over the convention protests, coupled with the Justice Department's own legal analysis of such monitoring, reflect the fine line between protecting national security in an age of terrorism and discouraging political expression.

F.B.I. officials, mindful of the bureau's abuses in the 1960's and 1970's monitoring political dissidents like the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., say they are confident their agents have not crossed that line in the lead-up to the conventions.

"The F.B.I. isn't in the business of chilling anyone's First Amendment rights," said Joe Parris, a bureau spokesman in Washington. "But criminal behavior isn't covered by the First Amendment. What we're concerned about are injuries to convention participants, injuries to citizens, injuries to police and first responders."

F.B.I. officials would not say how many people had been interviewed in recent weeks, how they were identified or what spurred the bureau's interest.

They said the initiative was part of a broader, nationwide effort to follow any leads pointing to possible violence or illegal disruptions in connection with the political conventions, presidential debates or the November election, which come at a time of heightened concern about a possible terrorist attack.

F.B.I. officials in Washington have urged field offices around the country in recent weeks to redouble their efforts to interview sources and gather information that might help to detect criminal plots. The only lead to emerge publicly resulted in a warning to authorities before the Boston convention that anarchists or other domestic groups might bomb news vans there. It is not clear whether there was an actual plot.

The individuals visited in recent weeks "are people that we identified that could reasonably be expected to have knowledge of such plans and plots if they existed," Mr. Parris said.

"We vetted down a list and went out and knocked on doors and had a laundry list of questions to ask about possible criminal behavior," he added. "No one was dragged from their homes and put under bright lights. The interviewees were free to talk to us or close the door in our faces."

But civil rights advocates argued that the visits amounted to harassment. They said they saw the interrogations as part of a pattern of increasingly aggressive tactics by federal investigators in combating domestic terrorism. In an episode in February in Iowa, federal prosecutors subpoenaed Drake University for records on the sponsor of a campus antiwar forum. The demand was dropped after a community outcry.

Protest leaders and civil rights advocates who have monitored the recent interrogations said they believed at least 40 or 50 people, and perhaps many more, had been contacted by federal agents about demonstration plans and possible violence surrounding the conventions and other political events.

"This kind of pressure has a real chilling effect on perfectly legitimate political activity," said Mark Silverstein, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado, where two groups of political activists in Denver and a third in Fort Collins were visited by the F.B.I. "People are going to be afraid to go to a demonstration or even sign a petition if they justifiably believe that will result in your having an F.B.I. file opened on you."

The issue is a particularly sensitive one in Denver, where the police agreed last year to restrictions on local intelligence-gathering operations after it was disclosed that the police had kept files on some 3,000 people and 200 groups involved in protests.

But the inquiries have stirred opposition elsewhere as well.

In New York, federal agents recently questioned a man whose neighbor reported he had made threatening comments against the president. He and a lawyer, Jeffrey Fogel, agreed to talk to the Secret Service, denying the accusation and blaming it on a feud with the neighbor. But when agents started to question the man about his political affiliations and whether he planned to attend convention protests, "that's when I said no, no, no, we're not going to answer those kinds of questions," said Mr. Fogel, who is legal director for the Center for Constitutional Rights in New York.

In the case of the three young men subpoenaed in Missouri, Denise Lieberman, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union in St. Louis, which is representing them, said they scrapped plans to attend both the Boston and the New York conventions after they were questioned about possible violence.

The men are all in their early 20's, Ms. Lieberman said, but she would not identify them.

All three have taken part in past protests over American foreign policy and in planning meetings for convention demonstrations. She said two of them were arrested before on misdemeanor charges for what she described as minor civil disobedience at protests.

Prosecutors have now informed the men that they are targets of a domestic terrorism investigation, Ms. Lieberman said, but have not disclosed the basis for their suspicions. "They won't tell me," she said.

Federal officials in St. Louis and Washington declined to comment on the case. Ms. Lieberman insisted that the men "didn't have any plans to participate in the violence, but what's so disturbing about all this is the pre-emptive nature - stopping them from participating in a protest before anything even happened."

The three men "were really shaken and frightened by all this," she said, "and they got the message loud and clear that if you make plans to go to a protest, you could be subject to arrest or a visit from the F.B.I."

---

BTW, don't tell me to "Grow the F up already."

[Troll]

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
Another worthless thread.

Which makes your NINE replies what? Worth less than worthless?

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by Troll:
Which makes your NINE replies what? Worth less than worthless?

**SMACKDOWN**

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by KarlG:
**SMACKDOWN**

Pretty low standards for a "Smackdown"...

[Zimphire]

Yes smackdowns are not petty immature personal jabs.

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Pretty low standards for a "Smackdown"...

As if anyone else's have any validity. I'm sorry you don't approve.