New Documents Detail FBI, Bank Crack Down On Occupy Wall Street

jvillain writes "The Guardian has up a story detailing the crack down on Occupy Wall Street (OWS). It goes on to show how the FBI, DHS, Terrorist Fusion Centers and the banks all worked together to stifle dissent. From the article: 'This production [of documents], which we believe is just the tip of the iceberg, is a window into the nationwide scope of the FBI's surveillance, monitoring, and reporting on peaceful protesters organizing with the Occupy movement These documents also show these federal agencies functioning as a de facto intelligence arm of Wall Street and Corporate America.' The next question is how many Americans are now listed as part of a 'terrorist group' by the government for their support of OWS?"

Comments

"Stifle descent?"

[Joehonkie]

Really? "Stifle descent?" You couldn't have corrected that to something that makes sense?

Re:"Stifle descent?"

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet you all the people on the doomed Concorde flight wished someone could have stifled their descent.

Re:"Stifle descent?"

[Anonymous Coward]

Well it is based on an article from The Grauniad

Re:"Stifle descent?"

[shking]

The editors fell down on the job

Re:"Stifle descent?"

[Presto Vivace]

death to typos!

Re:"Stifle descent?"

[Culture20]

The editors fell down on the job

If only there was someone who could stifle descent for them.

Re:"Stifle descent?"

[cvtan]

I thought "stifle" was not that obscure, but I didn't get the reference to Descent when Descent 2 has been out for quite some time.

Re:"Stifle descent?"

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't fall for it : the FBI has hacked the above summary, in an attempt to ridicule the above truth about their operation.
The reasoning is simple : If it's full of typos, no one will take it seriously.

Re:"Stifle descent?"

[TheGratefulNet]

"stifle" is a relatively obscure word

we used to think so, but then edith and the meathead helped us learn the true meaning of this word.

Re:"Stifle descent?"

[hendersj]

And there's a huge difference between "detailing the crack down on [OWS]" and "detailing the crackdown on [OWS]".

Re:"Stifle descent?"

[mystikkman]

Slashdot summaries are dissending into chaos.

Stifle descent?

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as they don't stifle dissent, we'll be ok!

Re:Who Cares?

[haruchai]

You're confusing them with the Tea Party protests.

Perhaps you forgot

[mozumder]

that "Descent is the highest form of Patriotic"?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/unpossibles/3462246191/

Re:Who Cares?

[daem0n1x]

They're not comparable.

The poor bankers and oil companies behind the "grassroots" Tea Party don't have a chance against the overwhelming financial might of the tree-hugging hippies!

Lets see what 'our' President has to say

[Giant Electronic Bra]

http://wh.gov/UCL9 sign on folks! I can hardly wait to see the mealy mouthed BS answer to this... Oh, and expect to be on some FBI troublemaker list, if you're not yet. Consider it a badge of honor. ;)

Re:Yes we can!

[RR]

Just the best option with an actual chance of winning, which is practically the same thing.

And who decided that these particular idiots were the ones with an actual chance of winning?

So far, from the limited times I was paying attention, my most ridiculous experiences were in the Democratic primary of 2004 and the Republican primary of 2012.

In 2004, Howard Dean had enough personal conviction to yell out his passions. Suddenly, he's labeled a lunatic, no chance of winning. Let's go with the silver-haired and tall John Kerry. Never mind that he has no positions worth writing about.

In 2012, Ron Paul was immediately labeled The Other and given no chance of winning. Even when he won 2nd place in Minnesota and Maine, it was treated as an anomaly, "The Other" has won 2nd place, not a real candidate with a name. Let's go with the steady-voiced and rich Mitt Romney. Never mind that he has no positions worth writing about.