9 ms·

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 ci

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.

gimbuser 14y ago
You Sir are very sensible, good someone actually thinks twice before going down with hysteria about "yet another big brother"
- pyre 14y ago
  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.]
  - cstejerean 14y ago
    Will a jury of your peers convict you for one of these things that supposedly everyone is violating?
    - pyre 14y ago
      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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
      - jlgreco 14y ago
        > 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.
    - kbolino 14y ago
      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.
  - jeffdavis 14y ago
    "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.
    - pyre 14y ago
      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-unknowingly/ http://blog.themillionairenurse.com/tag/breaking-federal-law... https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/john_whiteheads_commentary/the_overcriminalization_of_america_are_we_all_criminals_now https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/john_white... http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229 http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/...
    - CamperBob2 14y ago
      Citation needed. Here's a few, ranging from the humorous to the heinous. http://www.cracked.com/article_19450_6-laws-youve-broken-without-even-realizing-it.html http://www.cracked.com/article_19450_6-laws-youve-broken-wit... http://mises.org/daily/5759/Decriminalize-the-Average-Man http://mises.org/daily/5759/Decriminalize-the-Average-Man http://www.economist.com/node/16636027 http://www.economist.com/node/16636027 http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229 http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/... The only question is, which laws "count?" And who decides?
      - jlgreco 14y ago
        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.
  - anigbrowl 14y ago
    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.
    - pyre 14y ago
      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_sale_or_import_into_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinder_Surprise#Prohibition_on_...
      - anigbrowl 14y ago
        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.
        pyre 14y ago
        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)?"
        jlgreco 14y ago
        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.
        anigbrowl 14y ago
        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-american-politics/ 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.
jivatmanx 14y ago
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.
- pyre 14y ago
  Terrorist plots are what get the budget money from Congress...
sneak 14y ago
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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO
- rayiner 14y ago
  Did the FBI and DOJ jail MLK?
  - kaonashi 14y ago
    Jailing is the only possible constitutional violation?
    - rayiner 14y ago
      My comment was in reply to the parent comment "dissent: one misunderstanding away from jail".
  - wes-exp 14y ago
    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_martin_luther http://www.democracynow.org/2012/4/4/j_edgar_hoover_vs_marti...
themgt 14y ago
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?
- mseebach 14y ago
  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.
  - webmeist 14y ago
    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.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
- JumpCrisscross 14y ago
  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).
k0nsl 14y ago
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.
- tokenadult 14y ago
  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 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.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
CleanStar 14y ago
Congratulations, you have the Orwellian language down cold. Things done in other countries are a threat to "national security", if I as a citizen, taxpayer and voter want to go to a park and protest the TARP taxpayer bank bailouts, I'm a potential "threat to civil order". Also thanks for telling us all the FBI does is sit by and meekly "monitor" groups that "might present some kind of threat to civil order". After Nixon had a bunch of burglars break into the Democratic parties headquarters at the Watergate hotel as part of a much larger spying operation, his FBI appointee, L. Patrick Gray participated in the coverup by destroying documents given to him by John Dean and Ehrlichman - as well as working to dampen the entire Watergate investigation within the FBI. You can't blame a subordinate - the head of the FBI took an active role in secretly sabotaging efforts of the Democratic party. We don't even have to go into civil rights and peace groups which were part of the Democratic party milieu. The FBI took an active role in this. Hoover sent a memo in 1967 "The purpose of this new counterintelligence endeavor is to expose, distrupt, or otherwise neutralize the activities of black nationalist hate-type organizations". What were the "targets" listen in the memo? Martin Luther King's Southern Christian Leadership Conference, and SNCC, which organized college student protests against segregation. I am acquainted with a programmer who worked at Columbia University until he retired recently. In the 1960s he went to Bard College and became involved in the opposition to the war in Vietnam. He also worked as a programmer, and I believe a database administrator at that time for various corporations. The FBI secretly sent letters "misaddressed" to his bosses, trying to defame him and get him fired. This was found out in a lawsuit later. The court, documentary etc. evidence of FBI abuse is enormous. In fact, the surest way of getting flagged by the FBI - is to attack the FBI. This post is certainly being flagged by the FBI, what I'm typing right now. People criticizing the FBI was one of the top things flagged by the FBI from the 1950s to the 1970s, and why should anything have changed? Of course the above posted who describes himself as a "libertarian" and people like him seem fine with this, and call this active interference by a political police as "monitoring".
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
Karunamon 14y ago
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.
neumann_alfred 14y ago
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.
uvTwitch 14y ago
Yeah, and it's even in their name - the Federal Bureau of Investigations, so of course they investigate.

gimbuser 14y ago

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

pyre 14y ago
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.]
- cstejerean 14y ago
  Will a jury of your peers convict you for one of these things that supposedly everyone is violating?
  - pyre 14y ago
    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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
    - jlgreco 14y ago
      > 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.
  - kbolino 14y ago
    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.
- jeffdavis 14y ago
  "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.
  - pyre 14y ago
    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-unknowingly/ http://blog.themillionairenurse.com/tag/breaking-federal-law... https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/john_whiteheads_commentary/the_overcriminalization_of_america_are_we_all_criminals_now https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/john_white... http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229 http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/...
  - CamperBob2 14y ago
    Citation needed. Here's a few, ranging from the humorous to the heinous. http://www.cracked.com/article_19450_6-laws-youve-broken-without-even-realizing-it.html http://www.cracked.com/article_19450_6-laws-youve-broken-wit... http://mises.org/daily/5759/Decriminalize-the-Average-Man http://mises.org/daily/5759/Decriminalize-the-Average-Man http://www.economist.com/node/16636027 http://www.economist.com/node/16636027 http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229 http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/... The only question is, which laws "count?" And who decides?
    - jlgreco 14y ago
      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.
- anigbrowl 14y ago
  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.
  - pyre 14y ago
    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_sale_or_import_into_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinder_Surprise#Prohibition_on_...
    - anigbrowl 14y ago
      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.
      - pyre 14y ago
        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)?"
        jlgreco 14y ago
        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.
        anigbrowl 14y ago
        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-american-politics/ 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.

jivatmanx 14y ago

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.

pyre 14y ago
Terrorist plots are what get the budget money from Congress...

sneak 14y ago

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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO

rayiner 14y ago
Did the FBI and DOJ jail MLK?
- kaonashi 14y ago
  Jailing is the only possible constitutional violation?
  - rayiner 14y ago
    My comment was in reply to the parent comment "dissent: one misunderstanding away from jail".
- wes-exp 14y ago
  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_martin_luther http://www.democracynow.org/2012/4/4/j_edgar_hoover_vs_marti...

themgt 14y ago

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?

mseebach 14y ago
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.
- webmeist 14y ago
  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.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
JumpCrisscross 14y ago
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).

k0nsl 14y ago

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.

tokenadult 14y ago
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 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.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]

CleanStar 14y ago

Congratulations, you have the Orwellian language down cold. Things done in other countries are a threat to "national security", if I as a citizen, taxpayer and voter want to go to a park and protest the TARP taxpayer bank bailouts, I'm a potential "threat to civil order". Also thanks for telling us all the FBI does is sit by and meekly "monitor" groups that "might present some kind of threat to civil order". After Nixon had a bunch of burglars break into the Democratic parties headquarters at the Watergate hotel as part of a much larger spying operation, his FBI appointee, L. Patrick Gray participated in the coverup by destroying documents given to him by John Dean and Ehrlichman - as well as working to dampen the entire Watergate investigation within the FBI. You can't blame a subordinate - the head of the FBI took an active role in secretly sabotaging efforts of the Democratic party. We don't even have to go into civil rights and peace groups which were part of the Democratic party milieu. The FBI took an active role in this. Hoover sent a memo in 1967 "The purpose of this new counterintelligence endeavor is to expose, distrupt, or otherwise neutralize the activities of black nationalist hate-type organizations". What were the "targets" listen in the memo? Martin Luther King's Southern Christian Leadership Conference, and SNCC, which organized college student protests against segregation. I am acquainted with a programmer who worked at Columbia University until he retired recently. In the 1960s he went to Bard College and became involved in the opposition to the war in Vietnam. He also worked as a programmer, and I believe a database administrator at that time for various corporations. The FBI secretly sent letters "misaddressed" to his bosses, trying to defame him and get him fired. This was found out in a lawsuit later. The court, documentary etc. evidence of FBI abuse is enormous. In fact, the surest way of getting flagged by the FBI - is to attack the FBI. This post is certainly being flagged by the FBI, what I'm typing right now. People criticizing the FBI was one of the top things flagged by the FBI from the 1950s to the 1970s, and why should anything have changed? Of course the above posted who describes himself as a "libertarian" and people like him seem fine with this, and call this active interference by a political police as "monitoring".

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

Karunamon 14y ago

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.

neumann_alfred 14y ago

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.

uvTwitch 14y ago

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