Does Counter-Intelligence Violate the Right to the Freedom of Assembly?
So, between 1956 and 1971, the Federal Bureau of Investigation waged a counter-intelligence program against more or less the protest movement as a whole, originating as anti-Communism. I posit that their having done so violated the freedom of assembly, which is protected by the First Amendment. They could always, in turn, claim that counter-intelligence is a form of free speech, but I doubt that that would hold up in a court of law.
The FBI claims to no longer be engaged in such operations, however, Defending Rights and Dissent has alleged that they have recently devoted disproportionate resources to the targeting of "civil society groups", such as "racial justice movements, Occupy Wall Street, environmentalists, Palestinian solidarity activists, Abolish ICE protesters, and Cuba and Iran normalization proponents". Notably omitted from this list, but mentioned in the Wikipedia article are "numerous anti-war movements". Were someone to be able to provide evidence of this, could they wage a civil suit for their violation of the First Amendment?
The FBI claims to no longer be engaged in such operations, however, Defending Rights and Dissent has alleged that they have recently devoted disproportionate resources to the targeting of "civil society groups", such as "racial justice movements, Occupy Wall Street, environmentalists, Palestinian solidarity activists, Abolish ICE protesters, and Cuba and Iran normalization proponents". Notably omitted from this list, but mentioned in the Wikipedia article are "numerous anti-war movements". Were someone to be able to provide evidence of this, could they wage a civil suit for their violation of the First Amendment?
Comments (16)
No comment. Chuckles and guffaws, but no comment.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/03/politics/dhs-partner-private-firms-surveil-suspected-domestic-terrorists/index.html
I think it is safe to say that the FBI (and who knows who else) infiltrates and spies upon radical movements. Such spying didn't prevent several groups from disrupting congress on January 6, so one wonders how hard the FBI is trying -- at least with respect to right wing groups.
Whether an individual ends up in the crosshairs of surveillance depends, to some unknown degree on credibility. There are a lot of people out there with some very screwy ideas who, frankly, do not pose much threat to the status quo--however dangerous they might like to think they are. And there are people out there who are a threat, no doubt about it.
Domestic spying, without good cause, violates one's freedom of assembly; freedom of speech; right to privacy. For good cause, domestic spying protects Americans from subversion. That's the theory, anyway.
That was what I was referencing. I'm kind of like a pool shark, in a way. It always seems like I'm just kind of out there, when I can be fairly perceptive. I am also just kind of out there, though. It could just be a delusion of grandeur or persecutory complex, but I kind of feel like nearly everything that I either do or say has a tendency to either backfire or inspire responses in worlds that I have no contact with. I also kind of have that Klaus Kinski complex, though, where I can never quite tell if things seem to revolve around me or if I'm just kind of schizophrenic. It's all very strange, I think. That's all that I'll say.
There are other circles and sets of society for the word to travel in, though. Perhaps, I'm just being overly defensive?
Let's hope that it doesn't become another legend of Ruby Ridge.
Just look at how they categorize Domestic Violent Extremists (DVEs):
- Racial hate groups
- Animal rights & Environmental Violent extremists
- Abortion related violent extremists
- Anti-government / anti-authority extremists
- others
(see: https://www.odni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/UnclassSummaryofDVEAssessment-17MAR21.pdf )
And as the saying goes, the most bellicose member urging people to take drastic action and being the most paranoid is likely the FBI informer (or plant) in any activist group.
Yeah, I suppose that's the case. I'm, perhaps, just ultimately a little too paranoid.
Let's hope. The government wants to label everyone who dissents a "white supremacist." It's not true, but it's an example of the Big Lie. We'll have to see how this plays out over the next few years.
The zealotry with which the American Left pursues the Right can actually get out of hand. The FBI tried to entrap that guy into selling weapons to the far-Right, which he refused, and they later waged a full-blown military operation against him in more or less his shack. It gave birth to the American Militia Movement and, by proxy, kind of a lot of existent far-Right groups today. There was an Anarchist in Aufheben who got a lot of flak for conceptualizing some sort of "soft-policing powers". I doubt that he was taken at his word, but such measures would seem to be a lot more effective in countering the far-Right than the heavy-handed measures of Ruby Ridge or Waco, Texas.
Personally, I'm of the theory that, should law enforcement regulate the drug trade in such a manner to where it is nonviolent and not Fascist, the far-Right will just simply dissolve. Good luck convincing a single other person of that, though.
I don't think that you see what my conundrum is. I should like to do away with the cult pathology generated by police informants within any number of activist circles, but kind of suspect that I have actually been isolated from activist circles as part of a campaign by law enforcement. If they're going to incite fanaticism and wait for actions to erupt in violence so as to have a negative example, how can I, when I want not to be thought of as such, and am primarily concerned with my political community not becoming like that not care to counteract such measures. If they seriously want to counter terrorism, then, they shouldn't do such things. I can't prove that I have, but I just feel as if things are that way.
Not entirely sure what that means. The CIA is the world's greatest drug trafficker, has been for decades.
Yes and vice versa. Back in the day it was right wing zealots pursuing the left. Now it's reversed. Not much better. Human nature is awful.
I thought that once, too, but they just have a network of influence within the drug trade. They don't really orchestrate it.
What I'm saying is that focusing on countering on drug violence and leaving it out of the monetary interest of anyone in the drug trade to be affiliated with the far-Right will have the effect of just kind of dissolving the far-Right as a whole. The control they have secured within the drug trade is what is keeping them alive.
People just pin the police on whoever it is that they don't like. The utilization of lawfare within politics is an unfortunate atomic fact. Often, people don't even realize as to how it is that they do this. In so far that they're going to be following anyone, and they will be following someone, it does seem to make the most sense to me for them to actually counter violence, and it is the far-Right and their affiliates who are the greatest purveyors of it, but how to do this is not through heavy-handed punitive measures. There are a lot of other ways to deescalate situations, as well as that going about things as such often hazards the opposite.