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

Yes we can!

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this the hope or the change?

Re:The problem with protests.

[Sponge Bath]

Our Constitution guarantees us a number of ways to work through government for change.

One of those constitutional guarantees is freedom of speech to say you disagree with what the government is doing. Nothing about that "damages" the constitution.

Re:Who Cares?

[Marxdot]

Obviously a scare-term that imbeciles have made up on the spot to 'justify' cracking down on protests & activists who don't cheer about rampant corruption between the government and the financial sector.

Re:The problem with protests.

[joss]

Are you out of your fucking mind ?

Can you name any major political change that happened through normal democratic methods without widespread protests ?

Getting rid of the monarchy, getting rid of slavery, votes for women, civil rights, whatever. None of these happen through people simply going through the motions of voting. "Change must come through the barrel of a gun ..." might be an exaggeration, but it is not far off. Non-violent protest is sometimes sufficient, I hope that this is all it will take to reduce the current "government by Goldman Sachs" but sitting on your backside righting letters to congress or voting for a particular candidate definitely is not going to do it.

Re:Um, what?

[IamTheRealMike]

I think there are several things in the article that are pretty much impossible to defend. Maybe you did not read it, or you have a very different worldview to me.

• Classifying OWS as "domestic terrorists" and having agents in those parts of the FBI investigate them. This flatly contradicts common sense. People protesting against banks are not terrorists, unless you warp the meaning of "terrorist" to encompass any politically motivated crime. It's obviously very convenient if you can classify people you don't like as terrorists, but that doesn't mean they should be allowed to do it.
• The fact that the government apparently lied in response to FOIA requests by claiming no such documents existed, when those documents later turned up. Lying in response to requests for citizens from transparency is a major warning sign of bad things to come.
• The general line-blurring that apparently occurred between state and private security. Law enforcement is the domain of government for a reason!
• The general point made about financing of WikiLeaks is sound. Going via the judicial system, passing laws which are not bills of attainder, building a case, prosecuting it, allowing for a defence etc .... all very messy and inconvenient compared to simply adding the people you don't like to a banking blacklist. Exclusion from the financial system should not be allowed, period - if somebody has broken the law, then it's the judicial systems job to handle that, not the banks.

Re:The problem with petitioning for redress

[davecb]

Our various governments propose ways of "petitioning for redress of grievance", and, as each becomes popular, strive to cut them off.

In British law, as applied to the 13 colonies, a signed petition could be presented to a governing body and it had a duty to respond. As the Yale law journal points out, that was so heavily used in response to slavery that it was withdrawn in the U.S. (see http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/796438?uid=3739448&uid=2&uid=3737720&uid=4&sid=21101604364957) A certain well-known president is trying to bring it back, but that's a different discussion.

With organized petitioning unavailable, personal appeals to one's representative became popular. It soon became impossible to meet your representative, and written letters turned into counts pro and con that their staffs reported.

Groups and companies then banded together and hired lobbyists, to button-hole legislators in the lobby of their building, where the public was allowed. When these became too bothersome, only selected lobbyists were invited to meetings, and the general public was excluded from the buildings.

The press is still allowed in some selected lobbies, but there is always a back corridor available for legislators to use to bypass them.

Groups then started petitioning in person, on the front lawn of the parliament buildings, and occasionally their representatives would come out and meet them. More often, the police closed off access to the building and its vicinity.

No organization, whether legislative or commercial, enjoys hearing criticism. As soon as they get too much from a given channel, that channel will be cut off. Only the occasional brave, duty-oriented legislator will ask their electors for comments.

In my own country of Canada, this last happened when the government of the day asked for broad comments on amending the copyright law, when my local city councilman needed opinions and options on a garbage-collection proposal, and most recently when the CRTC asked for suggestions to moderate the bad practices of cell-phone providers.

Redress of grievance still exists, but it's genuinely rare.

--dave

Re:Who Cares?

[Marxdot]

Yes, precisely like the term "useful idiot". Both are cop-outs that are thrown around to trash entire groups; "they're just [bogeyman term here], ignore them or laugh at them and cheer when they get their skulls split open by police batons".

But it really takes an imbecile to believe that ows could spring into existence fully formed, complete with a slick web site and well orchestrated publicity.

What, is this the same movement that has been criticised a million times for not being organised, having no leadership, and having "no clear message"? Are you sure you know what you're talking about?

Re:Any desent will be quelled

[TheCarp]

I have seen some interesting polls that show clearly, the street level people in OWS and The Tea Party both agreed on a number of issues that totally fly in the face of the media portrayal of either. The sad part is, while each side hates the way they are portrayed in the media and feels it unfair....each seems to buy the portrayal of the other as complete astroturf and ignorance....division is well achieved.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/11/a-majority-of-americans-including-both-ows-and-the-tea-party-agree-on-the-most-important-issues-we-just-dont-realize-it.html

In fact, its the majority of people agree on these issues. OWS and The Tea Party are manifestations of the same outrage, just from different groups, and with different groups of spinsters trying to profit from them.

Re:The problem with protests.

[drinkypoo]

Corporations cant vote, only people can

People can't decide who we get to vote for, only corporations can.

There are exceptions at the low levels of politics, where it doesn't cost so much to get a good percentage of the vote if you're on target. But the higher up the ladder you go, the more it costs to participate, until only corporations can even (effectively) have that much money.