Search News


Browse Archives

News

Was Big Brother Watching?

September 9, 2005

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Ever since September 11, civil liberties groups have expressed fear that law enforcement agencies would use the fight against terror groups as an excuse to monitor the activities of non-violent campus groups that oppose administration policies. And ever since 9/11, Bush administration officials have said that the civil liberties groups have nothing to fear and that law enforcement is focused on real terror threats.

Documents released by the Michigan branch of the American Civil Liberties Union, however, suggest that some campus groups that have never engaged in terrorist activities have been monitored as if they were terror threats.

Using the Freedom of Information Act, the ACLU obtained a Federal Bureau of Investigation report on a 2002 meeting involving the FBI, the Michigan State police and other law enforcement agencies to discuss groups in Michigan "thought to be involved in terrorist activities."

Among the groups monitored was By Any Means Necessary, a University of Michigan group (also active elsewhere) devoted to defending affirmative action. The group has been active throughout the long legal debate over whether the university's approach to affirmative action was constitutional, and in the two years since the Supreme Court upheld affirmative action, the group has continued to go strong. It is currently fighting a referendum to ban affirmative action in the state of Michigan.

In the FBI document, a detective whose identity was redacted reported on rallies organized by By Any Means Necessary. The report also noted that past activities by the group "have been peaceful," and did not explain why the group was included in a report about groups that could be terrorist organizations. Another group in the report, the Direct Action Group, has many student members opposed to U.S. foreign policy.

The ACLU, in releasing the information, condemned law enforcement groups for monitoring the activities of legal campus groups.

"Labeling political advocacy as ‘terrorist activity’ is a threat to legitimate dissent which has never been considered a crime in this country," said Kary Moss, executive director of the Michigan ACLU. She added that "spying on people who simply disagree with our government’s policies is a tremendous waste of police resources."

By Any Means Necessary has never been accused of being a terrorist group. Its name comes from  Malcolm X, and while it has organized many protests, it has never been charged with violence of any sort and its Web site mentions very traditional, legal ways of achieving its goals (through the courts and elections, for example).

The group released a statement denouncing law enforcement groups for watching their activities. "The American people do not want their government spying on its own citizens," the statement said. "The outrageous offense to basic civil liberties in spying on BAMN is highlighted by the fact that the FBI report itself admits that BAMN has no history of violence. We have held hundreds of peaceful demonstrations and organized intensive litigation aimed at the defense of affirmative action and civil rights generally."

The Michigan State Police released a statement of its own, defending the monitoring of the activists groups as necessary to assure that protests that they were planning were conducted peacefully. The police statement said that there was no "spying," but rather information was gathered from public sources.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Comments on Was Big Brother Watching?

  • Anger begets anger
  • Posted by R.A.S. on September 9, 2005 at 7:14am EDT
  • Those of us from the political middle in Michigan have watched with concern, the action of BAMN. Not their constintutional right to free speech -- what sometimes happens at their demonstrations (which may, or may not, involve their members).

    Shouting. Screaming. Fist-shaking. Pushing. Shoving. I've personally witnessed BAMN's demonstrations and I've wondered if violence is going to break out.

    Another view of BAMN --

    http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/dick200508180831.asp

    Further -- the report in question also included groups involved with animal rights.

    http://www.freep.com/news/statewire/sw120509_20050830.htm

    Given the major campus arson involving criminal animal rights groups ..

    http://www.statenews.com/article.phtml?pk=23918

    is it any wonder, the average person can be nervous and uncomfortable about animal rights groups?

  • welcome to the USA
  • Posted by Larry on September 9, 2005 at 10:08am EDT
  • RAS, So what ? Shouting and fist-shaking (especially in the air) are generally protected by the US Constitution and have long been considered a normal form of political expression. Indeed, if “wonder[ing] if violence is going to break out” is the test for protection of political activity just about any political activity could be constitutionally banned: from an Anne Coulter-love/hate fest to the Black Israelites to AARP seminars to a televised political debate. Fortunately in my country (USA) people get to yell and scream as much as they want.

    Although, I am not taking a position on whether what the FBI did was good (or legal), you seem to live in a rose-colored world where people will either only thing that you agree with or say things very quietly and never express any anger at all.

  • Terrorist
  • Posted by Kevin , Undergraduate on September 9, 2005 at 10:23am EDT
  • I don't think that BANM could be classified as a terrorist group. However, the FBI and other law enforcement agencies have a duty and responsibility to watch for groups that may be involved - and they can and should investigate suspicions of terrorist actions, even in politicallly correct groups.

    I suspect that once the FBI finds the group is not engaged in terrorist activities, it will redirect its resouces elsewhere. This is no longer the 70s, and campus groups are no longer the danger they once were. The FBI has higher standards for monitoring in the modern era, and conspiracy theories aside, they have been very restrained up until now in their investigations of terrorism in the United States.

  • BAMN Deserves Close Scrutiny
  • Posted by Chuck on September 9, 2005 at 10:41am EDT
  • R.A.S. is on the mark with his reminders and scooops on BAMN.

    What do you think the name itself (derived from a remark by Malcolm X) stands for or means?

    I have watched BAMNsters in action in Berkeley and SF and they are anything but "peaceful." They rip up others' signs, spit at people, block passageways, scream obscenities, refuse to let people speak at public forums who disagree with them, and generally throw temper tantrums wherever they go.

    Of course they are not "terrorists," because they are patently too unsubtle and too juvenile for that sort of thing.

    But their appalling antics in defense of unending racial and gender double standards have helped smear affirmative action.

  • None of these groups was so designated, anyway.
  • Posted by Larry on September 9, 2005 at 2:38pm EDT
  • It is worth noting that none of these groups actually was “designated” as a terrorist group under Sec. 219 of the INA (codified at 8 USC 1189).

  • BAMN
  • Posted by Kevin , Psychologist on September 9, 2005 at 2:40pm EDT
  • I think the FBI and the Michigan State Police should monitor some of the people who posted these comments. They seem to be subverting free speech....

  • Posted by Gerry Mats , Professor at University of Calgary on September 9, 2005 at 2:41pm EDT
  • Ah and so it goes. As our liberties are drained away little by little, the educated elite stand by and say, well, they were "pushing" and "shoving." Why not bring the entire police and military apparatus to bear on the issue of affirmative action? After all, they might be harboring some terrorist sympathies.

  • Who's paying for this?
  • Posted by B.J. on September 9, 2005 at 2:42pm EDT
  • IMHO (and I still have a constitutional right to have one), when you have pushing-and-shoving matches at taxpayer-owned colleges, it is the taxpayer and students who pick up the bill.

    The simpletons in the crowd yell, "free speech." Well, speech isn't free, when the threat of physical assaults exists.

    The campus police cost $$. Attorneys for both sides cost $$. Security cost $$. Administrators' time cost $$. Maintenance costs $$.

    And those of us, poor working schulbs paying these bills, really resent it. That's one reason why there is support to privatize public areas -- reduce payments to unproductive parasites.

  • Posted by michael , Secretary-Treasurer at AFSCME Local 207 on September 9, 2005 at 6:47pm EDT
  • I wish some of BAMN's critics would stop talking "process" and admit that their own views are either anti-affirmative, or that their "commitment" to integration & equality are strictly limited to impotent polite whining designed to allow them to "be on the right side" and then lose. BAMN is fighting to win, and to move us toward a "more perfect union." Viva La BAMN!

  • Commitment to integration?
  • Posted by larry , Right Wing Blogger on September 10, 2005 at 9:42am EDT
  • In response to michael of AFSCME's post:

    I support the MCRI. I oppose many of the policies called "affirmative action." I have no commitment to integration, especially if it would mean having to live next door to people with the horrid manners and weird mentality of a typical BAMN member. I support equality under law. I believe that schools and other government agencies should treat citizens without regard to race.

    I also believe that if any outfit, left-wing, right-wing or whatever, announces an intention to pursue its goals "by any means necessary," then law enforcement is simply doing it's job by paying some attention to their public statements and activities. The ACLU and BAMN seem reluctant to state the plain facts of this issue.

    Finally, BAMN is not moving us "toward a 'more perfect union.'" Equality under the law is the only reasonable unifying concept we have. It is the concept to which BAMN is most rudely opposed.

  • What is BAMN fighting for?
  • Posted by Bob S. on September 10, 2005 at 9:42am EDT
  • http://www.freep.com/news/politics/bytes25e_20050725.htm

    What a admirable bunch of principled "fighters." And these BAMNers didn't even have to spit on anyone. How can I include their socially-inspiring methods in my teaching? Let me think ..

  • Process vs. Theory
  • Posted by Kevin , Undergraduate on September 10, 2005 at 4:13pm EDT
  • I don't agree with the concept of affirmative action at all. However, if a group wishs to responsibly and rationally present a case why I should agree, I am more than happy to listen - and I do. When they resort to actions that go beyond protesting (which in a democratic society is little more than throwing a temper tantrum - we have the ballot box to make our stands known), and on into violence and begin to pose a threat to the community, they still have a right to make their views known, but not in a manner than threatens others.

    Given the low threshold that many campuses set for something being determined a threat when it eminates from a conservative, it is an unfair double standard on speech that these far more threatening actions are left undelt with.

    Local, State and Federal governments have different responsibilities, but they all must cooperate in the prevention of terrorism. BANM does not appear to meet the strict definition of a terrorist group, but their actions merited a limited investigation before being dismissed as a protest group.

  • What does the statute say?
  • Posted by Michael McCanles on September 10, 2005 at 7:06pm EDT
  • It strikes me as odd that none of the comments nor the story itself bothers to cite the precise language of the section of the Homleland Security Act under which this surveillance was carried out. Wouldn't that be a reasonable place to begin the debate?

  • Posting it one more time
  • Posted by Larry on September 12, 2005 at 1:07pm EDT
  • Michael, I have tried repeatedly to post the relevant sections of the statutes that people seem to be referring to, but none of my posts make it because people think my ideas are too dangerous. Or something. Instead, the post that personally insult me (or who people think I am) make it.

    Anyway, Michael, none of these groups is even eligible to be designated as a terrorist organization. The process to designate groups as “Foreign Terrorist Organization” is found in the INA (though it was amended) by the 411(c) PATRIOT Act. The statute is currently codified at 8 USC 1189. You can read it here: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=8&sec=1189

    Groups can challnege such designations in court, though some have argued that that process is not searching enough.

    There is no process to designate a group a "domestic terrorist organization."