The FBI overstepped its authority in investigating left-wing domestic groups after the September 11, 2001 attacks and then misled Congress about its actions, an inspector general's report has said.
The report said the FBI improperly used the cover of "terrorism" to investigate a number of domestic activist groups from 2001 to 2006 including Greenpeace, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and the pacifist Thomas Merton Center.
The Justice Department inspector general's report, requested by Congress four years ago, said the FBI classified these investigations as "domestic terrorism cases" but had little to back this up.
It said this was based on "potential crimes" including trespassing and vandalism "that could alternatively have been classified differently."
The report also said the FBI "made false and misleading statements to Congress" about the investigations including surveillance of an anti-war rally, and said that the agency should review whether "administrative or other action is warranted" for this.
The inspector general concluded that these were a number of specific cases rather than a bureau-wide policy.
"The evidence did not indicate that the FBI targeted any of the groups for investigation on the basis of their First Amendment activities" or expressed political beliefs, the report said.
"We concluded that in several cases, the FBI predication was factually weak and in several cases, there was little indication of any possible federal crime as opposed to local crime."
It said that the FBI went to observe a 2002 protest by the Merton Center, a group based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania that says it is dedicated to peace and social justice.
"We found no evidence that the assignment was made pursuant to a particular investigation or in response to any information suggesting that any particular terrorism subject might be present at the rally," the inspector general stated.
"The FBI stated in a press response and (FBI) Director (Robert) Mueller stated in congressional testimony that the FBI's surveillance at the event was based on specific information from an ongoing investigation and conducted to identify a particular individual. These statements were not true."
The American Civil Liberties Union said the report showed the FBI "improperly spied on American activists involved in First Amendment-protected activities and mischaracterized nonviolent civil disobedience as terrorism."
ACLU policy counsel Michael German said the FBI "has a long history of abusing its national security surveillance powers, reaching back to the smear campaign waged by the American government against Dr Martin Luther King."
He added that "we are all in danger of being spied on and added to terrorist watch lists for doing nothing more than attending a rally or holding up a sign."
FBI spokesman Paul Bresson said however that the lengthy review "did not uncover even a single instance where the FBI targeted any group or any individual based on the exercise of a First Amendment right."
Bresson added that the report "disagreed with a handful of the FBI's investigative determinations over the course of six years, (but) it has not recommended any significant modifications to the FBI's authority to investigate criminal conduct or national security threats."
33 comments:
I think that the FBI does have the authority to investigate these public events. A crowded protest would make a perfect target for any terrorist. Its not a violation of the First Amendment because the FBI did not stop the rallies. However the use of the word "terrorism" to describe the investigation is too extreme and therefor should not be used.
The FBI's extravagent or unwanted advances and assistance toward the goverment right after 9/11 starts this off with something that could be understandable. Our country was attacked quickly without notice so irrational decisions and jumping to conclusions is almost expected when something so drastic and unprepared for happens. On the other hand, since then the FBI has been poking their heads into places they have not been invited or even have legitimate reason to purseu. When I think of the words "Greenpeace", "Ethical", and "pacifist" terrorism is definitely not the first word that comes to mind. Repeatedly they have left their studies with no evidence that any concerning behavior was used during these events. With this to note it is hard to see any alternate motives for the FBI. Would you want the FBI spying on you friendly work groups or events?
I don't want to say that they are abusing their power, but it's not right to label things as "terrorism" if they are dealing with domestic activist groups such as Greenpeace. I don't think Greenpeace is going to run a plane into a building. I also don't think that trespassing and vandalism are considered as terrorism, they should label them as something else.
p.s misleading congress = not good idea
This is probably not one of the first things the FBI shouldn't have done. Although they seem to get away with quite a bit, and don't provide much evidence for their beliefs and actions they ultimately are just trying to protect the nation. As far as explaining the terrorist allegations I immediately thought about Senator McCarthy and his communist accusations. During that time, people were terribly afraid of communism just like we are today of terrorism. The FBI blaming people for terrorism could actually just be paranoia, which in this case is better than complete confidence.
They have no right to do any of that stuff, that is illegal and they should have to pay for smearing these groups. That is called Libel and it's a crime. What just because they are th FBI they are immune from the laws? That is supid, They didn't just i vade their privacy but they took their first amendment rights and their fourth amendment rights. isnt there any kind of justice, Obama's like, "Oh I'm gonna change this. I'm gonna change that." Do your job man!!! Enforce the justice of these groups, this isn't fair!!!
This is ridiculous that the FBI can get away with spying on groups under such a flimsy excuse. And as the article states, the FBI"has a long history of abusing its national security surveillance powers". But if this is true, shouldn't they be watched more carefully to make sure they do not overstep their boundaries?
I think the FBI somewhat abuses the power they have to find out what they want or need but it’s always better to be safe than sorry. We’ve proved we would rather be safe. Nobody likes having to go through metal detectors or take off their shoes at airports but we all do it to ensure our safety. That however doesn’t make it right to suggest people are terrorists or spy on people just because they may feel that that person or group might possibly commit an act of terrorism.
wow... this is pretty intense. I think that the FBI has just become so paranoid and they think that we're the first on other country's "attack list" that we freak out and blame "Greenpeace" for all the bad stuff that has happened to us. It really isn't right of the FBI to just blame anyone, but it does make sense if a group of Iranians controlled Greenpeace and were planning on taking over the world. Then i would see the need for the FBI to spy on those organizations. Until we actually find out what "Greenpeace" is plotting (and other organizations that the FBI is spying on) will we actually know if those organizations are a terrorist threat.
This is a clear case of abusing power and authority. The FBI came in for 'potential crimes' that MAY have ended as 'terrorism'? I understand the paranoia and the fear of terrorism, and if its not that its communism, and if its not that its early morning traffic. A hunch is not a valid excuse for Federal action during a protest.
Even though the FBI seems to overstep their power on certain public events, I feel theses are necessary steps in the protection of our country from domestic attacks. Terrorism is a constant threat to the well being of the United States, and the only way to counter that is with high security. As long as the FBI does not violate First Amendment rights, I feel the steps that they are taking towards national security are necessary.
I get that there is more paranoia after 9/11, and that certain actions need to be taken to protect our nation and our safety, but spying on groups that have absolutely nothing to do with terrorism is not one of them. And, I think that the FBI probably had other reasons for spying on these groups other than our protection. Maybe they're testing their limits and how much they can get away with in an attempt to eventually gain more power and to see just how much of American citizens' lives they can control.
This is wrong that the FBI was able to get away with this type of thing for so long. They shouldn't be taking advantage of September 11 in this way. They can investigate these groups, but they shouldn't be lying about it.
What is the FBI expecting to find at all the events they investigate? If there isn't any possible threat of terrorism, nevertheless barely local violations, why are the wasting time? I think the government is terrified of another Woodstock event, and that's why they're all in the 'pro-peace/anti-war' gatherings that are universally know as 'Hippie Thinking'. That's the only explanation I can figure.
WOW! That picture is so creepy! It reminds me of the Huns in Mulan.
I can understand why the FBI would want to investigate, but September 11 is a very sensitive subject to most Americans and to label these acts as "domestic terrorism cases" is probably stepping over the line.
When i think of the FBI, i automatically think of government, so it is interesting to see how the two are clashing in this article.
If national security is really being threatened of course the FBI needs to step in. Though they claim they have justifiable reasoning for these investigations, it's seems like they're being oversensitive to public opinion. It's wrong to oppress any person exercising his/her First Amendment rights, so I think the FBI needs to calm down a little and put their investigatory energies into real matters concerning national security.
I don't think this is outlandish at all. They're the Federal Bureau of Investigation. They investigate. Following an unexpected attack on the country, they were doing exactly what their job was by searching groups and individuals. It isn't "spying" when it's their job.
Considering the circumstances I believe that the FBI should be able to moniter these public events if they are suspicious of the group's actions, if the groups are doing things that should be consider terrorism or a danger to society the FBI will know. Wouldnt you rather them over step there boundaries and be overly precautious, then us get hurt because we didnt look into the smaller things.
The FBI's actions, although they might not have seemed right, seemed necessary after what happened with 9/11. We, as a nation, were scared and felt like we should figure out all we needed to know about who was behind the attack and why they did it. But I feel that the FBI should have given more insight in their reasons for investigations to Congress.
I think the FBI is doing their job. Would you rather be accused of abusing power or be at fault for the death of U.S citizens? Sure it is a invasion of privacy but it what needs to be done to keep us safe. Rather be safe then sorry always.
This is just another example of how the US has been very cautious- maybe a little too much- of terrorism after 9/11. Why not be? This is not a very big surprise to me. On Sixty Minutes there was a lady who got an 'okay' from an airline company to bring food on board for her 93 year old mother, and then was denied once she got there. If drastic measures are taken publicly to insure national security, then surely there are things going on behind the scenes. Watching is a whole lot different than intervening, and I don't think this should be a cause for concern.
Something that we all need to find out is that many of our government led groups are shady. America is not always the shining country that we are brought up believing it is. I agree that the groups that were investigated were groups that didnt exactly stick out as terrorist groups. But in a turbulent time as it was after 9/11 I believe that the FBI was looking for any leads to how we allowed such a tragedy to happen. Even if it meant looking in unlikely places. I also believe that 9/11 gave them a perfect excuse to investigate groups who are different in their thinking and who might have been a risk to the current administration. Now this is not an issue because these peaceful groups go right along with our current administrations policy of lay down to everyone.
The FBI is definitely crossing some boundaries. It's understandable to be highly cautious after an attack like 9/11 but Greenpeace and PETA? I doubt a terrorist would use an organization like that to operate.
Personally, I believe the FBI is abusing their power. Not only has it been almost a decade since 9/11, Greenpeace seems the least likely to plan a terrorist attack and they didn't even find anything significant! The FBI gave the worst excuse, if they can't tell the truth then what/who is the general public supposed to trust?! In that case, why even give the FBI the authority they have if they're going to take advantag of it in such a way?! Although I can understand the pain everyone went through after 9/11 and we should definitely make investigations especially when things look suspicious, but using terrorism as an excuse is unacceptable.
I think the FBI did somewhat abuse the power in this particular situation. Sure the FBI has the right to make sure there is no threat of terrorism especially in crowded protest considering those are main targets but i don't think it was necessary to "attack" organizations such as "Greenpeace" when they had little or no information to back up their actions.
I think the FBI does have rights to investigate certain situations to prevent terrorist attacks. However i don't think it is necessary to investigate on certain groups such as "Greenpeace" when the FBI has little or no information to back up their actions
I think the FBI have the right to do what they want. They are not police, there isn't a line saying what they can do and what they can't. And since we have no idea what they really are doing. We can't really say that they are doing something bad. Everyone has they need to do and have to do it. Theres always something that you did right and some thing you did wrong.
9/11 was used for the government(s) to do A LOT of unnecessary searching and investigation. Like doing "random bomb searches" when going to airports. Y'know we could just discriminate and pick out the suspicious people. "no no.." say the politicians.. "We have to be politically correct.."
Maybe they WANT to search everyone, maybe they WANT to investigate ALL organizations and other groups illegally under the guise of "we're simply protecting you."
Large crowds of people can cause a great amount of attention. Which can go bad if not handled properly. At such events the FBI should be on the look out in case any threats could be brought up. Though they took it to a whole different level by calling every little get together a "terrorism", we should not be upset by their efforts to protect us from another disaster. They should be taught another way to deal with such situations, and to not use the word terrorism quite so often as not to frighten the people. FBI should be smart about decisions before their power is gone.
I'm angry at what they are doing and its totally against the law and Obama's doing anything to fix it because since he got elected he hasn't done one good thing in my opinion. This made me mad, its great to see what our FBI is up to time to time. Ugh
The FBI does have the authority and the right to be able to investigate these kind of protests and rallis because after what happened on 9/11 i would want to investigate these kind of things as well but i wouldn't use "terroism" to describe it.
The FBI should have the authority to investigate whatever is necessary to protect our country; however, classifying things as "terrorism" when there is no evidence to support such a claim is a little over the line. If the word terrorism is used too often, people become desensitized to it and it no longer carries the same weight. If we allow this to happen, when there actually is something terrorism-related to investigate, it will not raise as much alert. We shouldn't interfere with investigation, but we can't let our FBI cry wolf.
The FBI definitely should not overstep their bounds. It's a bit upsetting that they can conduct investigations on such weak foundations. Although I agree that they are trying to protect the nation, they should not hurt it by misjudging domestic groups. Especially since they do not have substantial evidence to back up their investigations. Not only does the FBI's abuse of power reflect poorly on them, but the fact that Congress was misled also looks bad on it's ability to regulate the FBI.
I completely disagree with Chin Lin. If all that a person is doing is holding a mere protest sign then he or she should not be targeted as terrorists. Everyone has rights that should not be violated dispite past events. And I do think that they violated the first amendment rights because of the fact that most of these people were being spied on without their permission.
Post a Comment