Skip to comments.
FBI publicly denies spying on protesters
AP ^
| 11.25.2003
| CURT ANDERSON
Posted on 11/25/2003 5:00:46 PM PST by SolidSupplySide
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:44:59 AM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
Senior FBI officials took the unusual step Tuesday of publicly declaring that agents are not using the war against terrorism as a cover to collect information on people who demonstrate against the government.
John Pistole, assistant FBI director for counterterrorism, told The Associated Press in an interview that recent allegations by civil liberties groups and some members of Congress about such an intelligence effort are "flat-out wrong."
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: antiwar; counterterrorism; denial; fbi; privacy
Well, I'm glad that's cleared up.
To: SolidSupplySide
I am actually impressed with this statement. The Assisstant Director of Antiterrorism has actually strongly gone on the record to deny these accusations. Rarely do bureacratic weasals put their hides on the line with such clear statements. I give the FBI the benefit of the doubt now.
2
posted on
11/25/2003 5:10:42 PM PST
by
Burkeman1
((If you see ten troubles comin down the road, Nine will run into the ditch before they reach you.))
To: Burkeman1
Senior FBI officials took the unusual step Tuesday of publicly declaring that agents are not using the war against terrorism as a cover to collect information on people who demonstrate against the government. Well, that's nice. Of course, they have not denied that they are spying on political dissidents, they have only denied that they are using the war on terror as a cover for this spying.
3
posted on
11/25/2003 5:37:38 PM PST
by
coloradan
(Hence, etc.)
To: coloradan
Weasal words. Perhaps I was mistaken. Good call.
4
posted on
11/25/2003 5:44:49 PM PST
by
Burkeman1
((If you see ten troubles comin down the road, Nine will run into the ditch before they reach you.))
To: Burkeman1
It would be nice if one could expect honesty and transparency from one's government. Sadly, this is not the case - especially not from the FBI.
5
posted on
11/25/2003 5:48:04 PM PST
by
coloradan
(Hence, etc.)
To: coloradan
Considering that the leading "antiwar" group, ANSWER, has allied itself unconditionally with the Iraqi "resistance," I'd be disappointed if the FBI were not investigating them.
6
posted on
11/25/2003 5:52:17 PM PST
by
kristinn
To: coloradan
I used to think- naively- that the Feds were incorruptible or nearly so while local police were far more corrupt. After the disgusting local episodes of Boston FBI corruption by the Irish mob- even to the point of aiding and abetting murders- I think the FBI should be abolished. Mass State Police actually were close to bagging the entire Irish Mob leadership in Boston when they managed to get wires into the Leader's HQ- James WHitey Bulger- but their buddies in the FBI tipped them off to the wires and they got nothing. See- The FBI wanted headlines. And Headlines meant going after the popular perception of the Mafia- the Italians in the North End even though they were nickel and dime and didn't have half the strength of the Irish Mob. After Waco and Ruby Ridge and the failure of 9/11? I wonder what our tax dollars pay for?
7
posted on
11/25/2003 5:56:45 PM PST
by
Burkeman1
((If you see ten troubles comin down the road, Nine will run into the ditch before they reach you.))
To: Burkeman1
I wonder what our tax dollars pay for? Chinese double agents dating FBI agents. Robert Hanssen. Railroading of gun owners. The harassment of Steven Hatfill. The bombing, framing, and prosecution of Judi Barri. MOVE. The coverup of TWA 800. The coverup of the OKC bombing. The bungling of the first WTC bombing case. The smearing of Richard Jewell.
Shall I go on?
8
posted on
11/25/2003 6:03:59 PM PST
by
coloradan
(Hence, etc.)
To: coloradan
Nope. No need.
9
posted on
11/25/2003 6:11:21 PM PST
by
Burkeman1
((If you see ten troubles comin down the road, Nine will run into the ditch before they reach you.))
To: kristinn
10
posted on
11/25/2003 9:04:09 PM PST
by
StriperSniper
(The "mainstream" media is a left bank oxbow lake.)
To: StriperSniper
Let's hope they are.
11
posted on
11/25/2003 9:15:27 PM PST
by
kristinn
To: SolidSupplySide
"We have to have some type of predicate, some foundation, some basis for saying, 'This person poses some type of threat . . . The endgame is to prevent terrorism or criminal activity." Liberalism is the predicate. Treason is the criminal activity. Go with that. It's sound.
To: SolidSupplySide
Some members of Congress are calling for hearings into an FBI bulletin sent to more than 17,000 state and local police agencies on Oct. 15. It warned about anti-war protests being planned for later that month in Washington and San Francisco and urged authorities to report suspicious behavior to the FBI. "This report suggests ...that I read into this report... that federal law enforcement may now be targeting individuals based on activities that are peaceful, lawful and protected under our Constitution," Sen. John Edwards, a North Carolina Democrat who is running for president, said in a letter sent Monday to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch, R-Utah.
How far a leap is it from being able to say that the U.S. deserved 911 to taking part in the next one? Maybe the FBI wants to catch future terrorists before the go bigtime. I'm sure lots of terrorst start small.
One report in one small town give you the picture of a protestor that just got caught up in the violence of the mob. 10 or 100 reports from other towns/cities on the same protestor paints an entirely different picture.
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson