George Orwell R Us.

Can’t wait for some intelligent and honest judge to get hold of this one.

But the Constitution isn’t a suicide pact!(Snark)

-G

I’m actually wondering about the internal discussions going on in the USAO EDNY. People don’t become federal prosecutors b/c they hate the Constitution. They work for a tiny fraction of what they could be making in the private sector, because they believe in public service.

So, I wonder how they are going to define the difference between his free speech activity and whatever accessory conduct?

There is a huge potential for a bad precedent here.

It’s pretty clear the U.S. is a police state, and the judges are in on it.

I am also very concerned about the potential precedent that is being set–and it’s not just bloggers who should worry.

Not all Bloggers and journalist should be worried, just those who lean left on the political spectrum. The right can break laws at will without consequence.

They were doing similar crap before and during the 2008 RNC.

Interesting how the MSM and the rightwing cheered the Iranians for doing similar things with twitter during/after the recent elections.

The only thing missing from the war zone that was midtown Manhattan during the 2004 R convention was tanks.

Me too. Also, I wanna see the contents of the messages. He wasn’t the only one doing it, but he’s the only one busted for it. He may have crossed the line.

We just don’t know enough to throw rocks at the government in this case.

Boxturtle (Lets hope for a good judge)

Those are allegations of derivative crimes. Where’s the underlying crime tied to his actions? Or is it a crime to engage in protected speech, assembly, petition and protest? Don’t answer that.

We are stuck in the Cheynian world of Pretend Pre-Crime. Is it now a crime to communicate electronically, to observe the public actions of our public law enforcement officers – not by name or badge number, but by uniformed battalion?

How is this different from the local MSM affiliate doing the same from its helicopter? Or are allegations of potential crimes still the preferred way in the Bush/Bahma administration to make dissent disappear, the Cheynian way to avoid another massive crime on a politician’s watch, one that might have repercussions for his next election, his pocketbook or the history books?

Cynthia;

A number of other other (though, perhaps, related) “interesting” things happened in Pittsburgh …

The police began a campaign, of what amounted to fear and suspicion, weeks before the “event”, deliberately circulating stories which the police would neither confirm nor elaborate upon, which suggested that a massive invasion of violent, and essentially un-American “protester-criminals” was imminent …

The “event” was a massive show of force, and that message was not lost on anyone who saw the barricades, the torturous traffic “changes”, or the armed helicopters which hovered all over the city and many of its suburbs.

The “event” cost average people in Pittsburgh a significant amount in terms of lost wages, time and restricted access, however, this “cost” will never be calculated in the “official” costs which those same average people will also be expected to cover …

Thank you, Cynthia for noticing that things did go on in Pittsburgh, that deserve some wider notice.

DW

Me too. Also, I wanna see the contents of the messages. He wasn’t the only one doing it, but he’s the only one busted for it. He may have crossed the line

That’s why I am so curious about the content. I found it odd, or maybe the Times was cherry picking, that the only “quotes” are from messages that would not seem to have crossed said line.

If the FBI is releasing quotes, you’d think they would release quotes that justify their position.

Of course, maybe it was the defense that released the quotes? In which case it would be int he defense’s interest to only release quotes that look innocent.

Wait until the search warrant application is released. there should be some clues there

Is this like arresting drivers who flash their lights warning oncoming drivers there’s a speed trap? Or truckers who *breaker breaker* CB where the Smokey is?

Kind of interesting how this individual can get arrested this quickly and Sen Demint can go and consort with a regime that our country has determined to be illegitimate and this is OK.

Those are allegations of derivative crimes. Where’s the underlying crime tied to his actions? Or is it a crime to engage in protected speech, assembly, petition and protest? Don’t answer that

If you read the NYTimes article, there evidently was some window smashing, so it would be possible to define the protest as having crossed over to to a riot.

But the Tweets that are quoted don’t show the defendant trying to obstruct or hinder the arrest of window smashers–see my hypothetical above.

How is this different from the local MSM affiliate doing the same from its helicopter?

Ah, Lord Huntingdon, you have hit the nail on the head. My point exactly!

Armed helicopters? Why were the helicopters armed? Are you sure about that?

yep

“For example, we cannot falsely defame someone…”

I guess that puts Fox “News” right out of business…

Whereever the president goes he is accompanied by a transport that has his limo and armed helicopters.

Yeah. See, he was arrested Sept 24th, likely without a warrant because he was actively engaged in whatever conduct they considered evil. Later, they charge him. This means a prosecutor has looked at the evidence and thinks he can win. And it means that it’s passed muster with politically sensative cops as well. Then two weeks later, they execute a search. That search had a warrant signed by a real judge.

There are any number of places the process could have been stopped and it wasn’t. So either someone is willing to take the political hit to make a point or there’s probable cause there. We dunno who to throw the rocks at yet. I hate people who turn legit protests violent.

Boxturtle (Ready, AIM, fire. Step two is important)

A horde of MSM helicopters once chased a white SUV down the streets of Los Angeles, reporting the every move of a suspected murderer. Refresh my recollection. Was it ABC, NBC, CBS or Fox that was indicted for hindering prosecution, possession of criminal tools and criminal use of a communications device?

Or is the crime here the same as that alleged against peaceful dissenters at Bush and Cheney’s First Amendment-challenged speeches (which would be all of them)? The ones where those who did not meekly tread to supposed Free Speech Zones [sic], miles away and well out of camera shot of our fearless leaders stuttering utterances, were arrested, only to be released by embarrassed prosecutors (though a few ambitious prosecutors refused to give in until federal appellate courts dismissed their claims out of hand).

Like the two bums waiting for Godot, I’m still waiting for Barack Obama’s change. He hasn’t given us any reason to believe it’s coming. He has given us reasons to believe his corruption of the Constitution will be more knowing and institutionalized than George W. Bush’s.

I’m pretty sure I’ve seen a drone hovering over my neighborhood in midtown Manhattan. Probably wasn’t armed, but WTF is it doing there under any circumstances. Nothing special going on, just an ordinary afternoon.

But the Tweets that are quoted don’t show the defendant trying to obstruct or hinder the arrest of window smashers–see my hypothetical above.

That would seem to be an essential element for there to be any crime, without which these allegations are unleavened bread.

Oh, I misunderstoofd you. I thought the armed helios were supposed to be some sort of crowd control.

Are you sure it wasn’t just some hobbyist with a radio controlled model plane? Do you live anywhere near a ballfield or basketball park?

I don’t know what was in the sky over Pittsburg. I was trying to make the point that this is a possible explanation.

A horde of MSM helicopters once chased a white SUV down the streets of Los Angeles, reporting the every move of a suspected murderer. Refresh my recollection. Was it ABC, NBC, CBS or Fox that was indicted for hindering prosecution, possession of criminal tools and criminal use of a communications device?

Reporting the movements of the murderer would be OK, but if you were reporting that the cops had set up a roadblock a mile down he freeway and the murderer used that info to get off at an exit prior to the roadblock–you might have an issue.

But the point you –and I –are making I believe is valid. If it’s just real time reportage–why is this not covered by free speech? Where is the crime?

Unless there is more to his tweets that we don’t know about yet

Historical note: Traditional media journalists were arrested and roughed up at the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago.

It was larger than model planes & smaller than a small plane. It hovered. I live at 53d & Sutton Place (near the East River), and no ball parks or anything else going on that day. The neighborhood is residential.

IOIYAR.

That event has accurately been described as a police riot.

I don’t think there are any predators that hover.

Interesting case.

An order to disperse is not the same as being arrested, so he couldn’t be charged with any kind of aiding and abetting.

I wonder as to the legality of possessing a police scanner, though lord knows I know a bunch of people who have them. Perhaps it varies from state to state.

In order to make any kind of aiding and abetting charge stick, the govt. will have to prove that either the speech, or possibly the location of those making it, was in itself illegal.

Would love more facts.

They got arrested and roughed up at the 2008 GOP convention and we carried you tubes of it in almost real time.

Was it Amy Goodman ? I think it was

Yes and two assistants. Charges were later dropped.

Wow, swanky nieghborhood there. But would not the edge of the east river be a good place for model plane flying?

We have a model plane areodrome a couple towns over and some of them are huge

It could have been flying slowly in a direction that made it look stationary from my POV. They must be able to fly slowly, otherwise the remote controller wouldn’t be able to get a good look at what’s underneath. I was going somewhere so I looked at it for less than a minute.

Which makes the earlier reporting of things like the proposed denial of statutory federal shield law protection to bloggers not employed by the MSM a link in a dismal chain.

Maybe they are now using drones to watch the peasants. It’s likely.

I think that airspace is pretty well controlled. I doubt that it would be legal to fly model planes there. A couple of years ago a private plane with some sort of ballplayer novice at the controls crashed into a building around 72 St near the river and there was a lot of talk at the time about the kind of restrictions in place on flights there and whether there should be more. I don’t remember the specifics, just that there are restrictions.

When I saw it, their U.S. military use was already well reported. I immediately thought that use on civilians was not far behind. Never is.

Not sure how this would work with FAA control in an area that has extensive controls.

Which is why I thought it was official with all necessary clearances.

This looks like part of a pattern to me. Under our rapidly emerging security state, speech about crime is becoming the only crime. Law enforcement has become war, so reconnoitering and reporting police movements is criminal. Policy documents and legal opinions are state secrets. Reporting leaked memos is espionage. And almost any discussion can be charged as a conspiracy.

Police scanners are probably legal everywhere. They have been legal everywhere I have ever lived. I always thought that you were free to receive anything broadcast over the public airwaves.

I really don’t think they are sophisticated enough to fly over Manhattan. They are remotely controled – hitting a thermal could cause all kinds of problems that would take instantaneous reactions.

So what do you think it was?

No idea

When the Iranians do it, the police are thugs and the evaders are freedom fighters. Bring it onto our soil and the police are heroes and the people who try to avoid them in order to continue protesting are terrorist criminals.

Replying to Cynthia Kouril @ 18

Cynthia,

You remind me of the need of proof.

The ”armed helicopters” were described to me by two friends, independently, who said they saw the helicopters at different places in the city. Both are keen observers and neither, in my experience, is given to hyperbole or exaggeration. Both said they were shaken by what they saw, however, neither took pictures.

Thus, I have passed on what may only be termed simple hearsay, for which I apologize.

DW

If he was “directing others, specifically protesters of the G-20 summit, in order to avoid apprehension after a lawful order to disperse,” then the crime was that he was advising protesters who were dispersing like crazy how to avoid apprehension for violating an order to disperse.

Were there any instructions as to where to disperse to.

I witnessed similar protests at a similar meeting in Bologna, Italy in 2002. The police kept the protestors away from the part the city’s center where the meeting was taking place.

It seems to me like the authorities in this case way overreacted in their efforts to control everything, literally. In the end, doesn’t that give the protestors exactly what they want? A story like this just has to be gold for the protestors, doesn’t it?

Doesn’t disperse mean not re-coalescing into a large group somewhere else? To answer your question, from watching videotapes of the demonstration, I’m close to 100% sure there were no instructions to disperse to a specific location, or even in a specific direction. (Kind of defeats the purpose of dispersal.) It sounds like Madison was trying to help people avoid arrest for the grey-area ‘crime’ of not dispersing fast enough. If he had been helping to direct people to a specific location for non-permitted demonstrating, his arrest would be defensible.

“It is not an absolute right to say just anything we want, though.”

Unless you’re a rethug. Then you can say whatever you want.

The “alleged” crime. Don’t assume that the claims are legitimate. We are still innocent until proven guilty, except in the Court of Pre-Crime.

The alleged crimes here assume the order to disperse was legal and that this fellow’s electronic communications aided and abetted the commission of another crime, presumably the crowd’s “unlawfully” failing to comply with a lawful order to disperse.

That, in turn, assumes that the crowd’s actions were not peaceful or that if it was, their presence in a particular location could legitimately be deemed a threat to public safety. In this context, it arguably also requires that the order was not one to disperse, per se, but one that permitted the crowd to assemble in a nearby location where its existence was not, by definition, an imminent threat to public order, and where citizens could assemble peacefully to express their opinions and/or to petition their government.

Dick Cheney’s whet dreams aside, law enforcement must have a valid reason to restrict the constitutional rights of freedom to speak and to assemble, and where restricted, alternate means to express those freedoms must reasonably be available. Telling the crowd to go home and not to reassemble, or instituting an Orwellianly phrased “free speech zone” in Erie – when the actions being peacefully protested are in Pittsburgh – would not be a legitimate order.

So, if you are told to disperse, at what point does getting advice on how to leave and go away from the police become an aid to dispersal, vs. and aid to evading arrest?

TDS had a funny-sad piece on the G-20 protestors v. the Townhall protestors. Apparently the G-20 protestors lacked the guns, death threats and Fox News support that you need to have a dispersal free protest.

It’s funny that the feds organized the raid, since these would appear to be state law claims, not federal, except possibly for the electronic communications related crimes (and possibly “interstate flight”, which here would be a thin bootstrap).

I don’t suppose the feds raiding a protester’s home would have a chilling effect on all protests or the organizing of people peaceably opposed to the policies of the current administration? As in the Middle East, is it possible that violent overreaction under color of law will have an affect on radicalizing protest, in part serving as after the fact justification for this level of over-control?

We should all be thankful, in contrast, that Congress has assured the telecoms industry that it can’t possibly be liable should its members violate the law when they assist the Gubmint in whatever it chooses to do. Not.

In addition, as others have said, this looks a lot like a fishing expedition, in order to populate the database with more names and numbers of protesters. You never know when one of them might fail to return a library book or pay a parking ticket. Good to know where they are and how, um, to reach them.

The following wasn’t conditional enough for you:

It sounds like Madison was trying to help people avoid arrest for the grey-area ‘crime’ of not dispersing fast enough.

But I agree, the entire story of what Madison was doing could be made up. And whether the order to disperse was legal is in dispute.

Tut! The right wing would never incite anyone to riot.

The seeds were planted in the fall of 2003 that blurred protest activities with terrorism. Check out the legal, first Amendment protected activities (in bold below) that were described in FBI Intelligence Bulletin 89 which was sent to all police departments nationwide in advance of anti-war and FTAA marches that year purporting to provide law enforcement with “current relevant terrorism information developed from counterterrorism investigations and analysis.”

I made a complaint to the DOJ Inspector General about this improper blurring but the FBI whitewashed my complaint and then retaliated against Eric Lichtblau at the NY Times for writing about it. See Bush’s Law book, beginning at bottom of pg 121.

FBI Response to Media Misinterpretation of its Law Enforcement Sensitive Intelligence Bulletin, dated 10/15/2003.

A November 23rd article in the New York Times raised grave issues about information sent by the FBI in its sensitive weekly information-sharing bulletin to the U.S. law enforcement community.

Accordingly, we are taking the unusual step of posting for public scrutiny both the FBI’s response to the Executive Editor of the New York Times about these issues and also the full text of the Bulletin itself, as follows.

Letter to the Executive Editor of the New York Times:

In his November 23, 2003, article “FBI Scrutinizes Antiwar Rallies,” Eric Lichtblau cites a recent FBI intelligence bulletin as evidence that the FBI has begun to target antiwar protesters and to gather intelligence on peaceful demonstrators in a coordinated, nationwide initiative. Nothing could be further from the truth, and we feel it is important to set the record straight.

Mr. Lichtblau acknowledges at one point that the FBI has focused on “identifying anarchists and ‘extremist elements’ plotting violence, not at monitoring political speech of law-abiding protesters,” but then creates several misimpressions about the true nature of the FBI’s efforts.

First, nowhere in the bulletin cited in Mr. Lichtblau’s article does it suggest that the FBI is conducting “a coordinated, nationwide effort to collect intelligence regarding demonstrations.” The bulletin is not focused on political protesters or others who exercise their first amendment rights to protest the policies of the government, but simply cites the fact that anarchists and others have used violent tactics to disrupt otherwise peaceful demonstrations. The bulletin then discusses the tactics that state and local law enforcement departments may encounter when policing large marches and rallies. The bulletin does not suggest that state and local law enforcement should collect information on peaceful demonstrators.

Second, Mr. Lichtblau incorrectly implies that the issuance of new Attorney General Guidelines that permit agents to attend political rallies and other events that are open to the public has resulted in improper domestic intelligence gathering. The Attorney General Guidelines permit agents to attend such rallies only “[f]or the purpose of detecting or preventing terrorist activities,” and explicitly prohibit “maintaining files on individuals solely for the purpose of monitoring activities protected by the First Amendment.” We scrupulously follow those limitations, and we do not investigate or maintain dossiers on persons because of their “political activities.”

Finally, the last paragraph of the article is wrong to suggest that the FBI is targeting “civil disobedience.” Civil disobedience did not cause millions of dollars in damage from fires set during the World Trade Organization meeting in Seattle. Nor was it civil disobedience to prepare molotov cocktails in preparation for an IMF meeting in Washington, D.C. Those activities, and not the peaceful expression of political dissent, are the focus of our efforts.

The FBI is committed to protecting the constitutional rights of all Americans, including those who oppose current policies of the government. In order to do so, we must make law enforcement aware of the tactics of those who wish to impinge on those rights by violently disrupting otherwise peaceful marches and assemblies. The bulletin described in Mr. Lichtblau’s article was intended to do just that.

* * *

Full Text of the FBI Intelligence Bulletin #89, 10/15/2003:

THREAT LEVEL UNCHANGED: YELLOW (ELEVATED).

THE FBI INTELLIGENCE BULLETIN, DISSEMINATED ON A WEEKLY BASIS, PROVIDES LAW ENFORCEMENT WITH CURRENT, RELEVANT TERRORISM INFORMATION DEVELOPED FROM COUNTERTERRORISM INVESTIGATIONS AND ANALYSIS. THE INTELLIGENCE BULLETIN DOES NOT CONTAIN THREAT WARNING INFORMATION.

HANDLING NOTICE: Recipients are reminded that the Intelligence Bulletin is designated “Law Enforcement Sensitive,” and should not be disseminated beyond law enforcement circles.

ITEM: TACTICS USED DURING PROTESTS AND DEMONSTRATIONS

On October 25, 2003, mass marches and rallies against the occupation in Iraq are scheduled to occur in Washington, D.C. and San Francisco, California. While the FBI possesses no information indicating that violent or terrorist activities are being planned as part of these protests, the possibility exists that elements of the activist community may attempt to engage in violent, destructive, or disruptive acts. Most protests are peaceful events; however, a number of demonstrations, including the biannual International Monetary Fund and World Bank meetings, are more likely to be violent and disruptive and to require enhanced law enforcement security. Several effective and innovative strategies are commonly used by protestors prior to, during, and after demonstrations. The following tactics have been observed by U.S. and foreign law enforcement agencies while responding to criminal activities conducted during protests and demonstrations.

Protestors often use the internet to recruit, raise funds, and coordinate their activities prior to demonstrations. Activists may also make use of training camps to rehearse tactics and counter-strategies for dealing with the police and to resolve any logistical issues.

If a demonstration is going to take place in a secure facility, activists may seek to gain access to the site using false documentation. Surveillance of sites prior to demonstrations can allow activists to identify locations of command posts and law enforcement personnel in order to plan effective countermeasures.

Traditional demonstration tactics by which protestors draw attention to their causes include marches, banners, and forms of passive resistance such as sit-ins. Extremist elements may engage in more aggressive tactics that can include vandalism, physical harassment of delegates, trespassing, the formation of human chains or shields, makeshift barricades, devices used against mounted police units, and the use of weapons–such as projectiles and homemade bombs. Even the more peaceful techniques can create a climate of disorder, block access to a site, draw large numbers of police officers to a specific location in order to weaken security at other locations, obstruct traffic, and possibly intimidate people from attending the events being protested.

During the course of a demonstration, activists often communicate with one another using cell phones or radios to coordinate activities or to update colleagues about ongoing events. Other types of media equipment (video cameras, photographic equipment, audio tape recorders, microphones, and computer and radio equipment) may be used for documenting potential cases of police brutality and for distribution of information over the internet.

Extremists may be prepared to defend themselves against law enforcement officials during the course of a demonstration. Masks (gas masks, goggles, scarves, scuba masks, filter masks, and sunglasses) can serve to minimize the effects of tear gas and pepper spray as well as obscure one’s identity. Extremists may also employ shields (trash can lids, sheets of plexiglass, truck tire inner tubes, etc.) and body protection equipment (layered clothing, hard hats and helmets, sporting equipment, life jackets, etc.) to protect themselves during marches. Activists may also use intimidation techniques such as videotaping and the swarming of police officers to hinder the arrest of other demonstrators.

After demonstrations, activists are usually reluctant to cooperate with law enforcement officials. They seldom carry any identification papers and often refuse to divulge any information about themselves or other protestors. Post-demonstration activities can include fundraising in support of the legal defense of accused protestors and demonstrations of solidarity calling for the release of the accused.

Law enforcement agencies should be alert to these possible indicators of protest activity and report any potentially illegal acts to the nearest FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force.

ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE: LAW ENFORCEMENT RESPONSE

Information contained in the FBI Intelligence Bulletin is Law Enforcement Sensitive and intended for official use only. No portion of this Bulletin should be released to the media, the general public or over non-secure Internet servers. Release of Law Enforcement Sensitive material could adversely affect or jeopardize investigative activities.

Departments are requested to contact the nearest FBI field office or resident agency in their area should additional information be developed related to the above matter. Questions regarding the content of these Bulletins should also be directed to the nearest FBI field office or resident agency.

Wow. Thank you for coming in with this. Now to pour over it.

Many thanks! Is there a link to that FBI intelligence bulletin online somewhere?

Peterr: The FBI was forced to respond and post its “Intelligence Bulletin 89″ so you can find it and their response on their website and on-line. There’s a hard link to it on the “Federation of American Scientists” in my post above.

What happened was that almost immediately after Bush launched his war on Iraq, a strange, twisted logic took root among law enforcement but with encouragement from highest levels of the Bush Administration: that since we were fighting a “war on terror” and Iraq was part of that war, those who opposed war on Iraq were somehow aligning themselves with the terrorists. The FBI immediately began to monitor the anti-war and other marches that prior to that time, were seen as none of the FBI’s business. At most, the marches and rallies, prior to that time were seen as the concern of local and state police. But all of a sudden, the marches and protests literally became a federal issue. An exam given by the Department of Defense equated protest with “low level terrorism”.

DOJ IG Glenn Fine, who I’m guessing was just pre-occupied with complaints of round-ups and other infringements he considered more serious, punted the issue of the legality of the advice in the FBI’s Intelligence Bulletin 89 back to, of all entities, the FBI! So of course the FBI found there was no problem with their own impermissible blurring of the legal with the illegal as you can see in their public response. Then the FBI went after the messenger: NY Times writer Eric Lichtblau. His Department of Justice press pass was yanked. Read the pages of Lichtblau’s book, beginning at pg 121, that I linked to above.

By the way, this constituted, at the very least, less than the clear, helpful legal guidance for the hundreds of thousands of police officers in this country that the FBI Bulletin was sent to. When they should have been getting good legal training from attorneys like former assistant U.S. Attorney Khouril who wrote this article on how to make the distinction between what’s protected under First Amendment with what constitutes criminal action, they instead got this inflammatory and confusing warning with the list of legal actions they were encouraged to report to the FBI. The Bulletin was worded to lead most people (certainly the average police officer) to believe there’s something illegal and wrong with protest activities, that it’s the first step to more serious terrorism.

It’s hard to go back now to how the idea of treating protesters as low-level terrorists got started because we’ve all become so desensitized to the issue after the 2004 and 2008 political conventions and other “National Special Security Events”. But EarlofHuntingdon is totally right when he asks: “I don’t suppose the feds raiding a protester’s home would have a chilling effect on all protests or the organizing of people peaceably opposed to the policies of the current administration? As in the Middle East, is it possible that violent overreaction under color of law will have an affect on radicalizing protest, in part serving as after the fact justification for this level of over-control?”

The over-reaction and framing of protesters as terrorists has ultimately served to radicalize and alienate normal citizens. In other words the FBI and law enforcement, in ratcheting up the “us vs them” attitude and moving away from the more public-safety oriented “community policing” model, has ended up creating what they said they were against. Of course the statistics the FBI is able to submit in the wake of arrests and convictions at “National Special Security Events” keeps them looking like the FBI is making progress in the domestic “war on terror” when in fact they are at least in part responsible for creating the underlying problem.

It’s mind boggling how counter-productive this internal “war on dissent” has become.