FBI Documents Reveal Secret Nationwide Occupy Monitoring

[sabrina 1]

FBI Documents Reveal Secret Nationwide Occupy Monitoring

Just as everyone suspected.



Any discussion of OWS is incomplete without a photo of the armies that were sent out to try to crush them.

FBI documents just obtained by the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund (PCJF) pursuant to the PCJF’s Freedom of Information Act demands reveal that from its inception, the FBI treated the Occupy movement as a potential criminal and terrorist threat even though the agency acknowledges in documents that organizers explicitly called for peaceful protest and did “not condone the use of violence” at occupy protests.

The PCJF has obtained heavily redacted documents showing that FBI offices and agents around the country were in high gear conducting surveillance against the movement even as early as August 2011, a month prior to the establishment of the OWS encampment in Zuccotti Park and other Occupy actions around the country.

“This production, 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 protestors organizing with the Occupy movement,” stated Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, Executive Director of the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund (PCJF). “These documents show that the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security are treating protests against the corporate and banking structure of America as potential criminal and terrorist activity. These documents also show these federal agencies functioning as a de facto intelligence arm of Wall Street and Corporate America.”

“The documents are heavily redacted, and it is clear from the production that the FBI is withholding far more material. We are filing an appeal challenging this response and demanding full disclosure to the public of the records of this operation,” stated Heather Benno, staff attorney with the PCJF.

The police, working for Wall St. Who would have thought such a thing. Well, except for Bloomberg who did, to give him credit where it is due, tell us the NYPD was 'his army'. And he IS Wall St. He bought himself into Gracie Mansion, changed his party affiliation at twice, maybe three times, just so he could protect the interests of Wall St.

OWS scared them though. He did have to be a bit careful after NYC polls showed over 80% support for OWS's right to be where they were.

I don't know how anyone can support this, even if you don't like a particular group, no citizen of this country should condone these Government tactics no matter who the group may be.

[Warren Stupidity]

1. dont worry it isn't a police state

see: "no hitler!"

So shut up and stop protesting and then there is no problem.

[Downwinder]

2. Haven't the corporate and banking structures of America

shown themselves to be potential criminal activities?

[sabrina 1]

3. Yes, but who's going to prosecute them? They've bought enough of Congress

by now that rather than prosecute them, we reward them.

We KNOW they have committed crimes, however our leaders have told us they did not, that they may be 'immoral' but they are not criminal.

So, what can be done to restore some law and order for those who currently are above the law? That is the question.

[Downwinder]

5. I wonder if a RICO case could get any traction and

who could pursue it.

[sabrina 1]

6. How about the people incorporate? We would then be even bigger than the too big to fail

Banks. Once incorporated, maybe we COULD file some RICO suits?

[rhett o rick]

4. The reason people hate OWS, true journalists, protesters, and whistle-blowers, is that these

groups disturb the comfortable status quo. People that have blinders on and don't recognize the millions of Americans that are struggling, are fearful (and selfish) that their comfortable little world will be disrupted.

When they came for whistle-blowers I didn't do anything because I wasn't a whistle-blower.

When they came for OWS, I did nothing because I wasn't OWS.

When they came for investigative journalists, I did nothing because I wasn't an investigative journalist.

When they came for the bloggers ....... oh shit. I gotta go.

[sabrina 1]

7. They already came for the bloggers. See Glenn Greenwald!

[rhett o rick]

8. Maybe I should have broken it down into "important bloggers" and "weeny bloggers" like me.

[sabrina 1]

9. True, but at the time that HB Gary was working on a contract bid for BOA, Greenwald wasn't

hardly known outside of liberal blogs. And if you remember, that contract bid was making suggestions to include in who to go after, 'bloggers LIKE Greenwald' and they included other 'Liberal Organsations' like many of the blogs we were familiar with at the time.

So even the teeny weeny blogs need to be careful. If they start getting a little following they are going to be considered a threat. These powerful people are very, very sensitive it seems.

[rhett o rick]

10. I guess I'm safe. My only "followers" are my two cats and they only follow me when I have their food

[sabrina 1]

11. Lol, I wouldn't count on that. Not the cats, I mean 'followers'.

Greenwald always was a good writer. I first came across him when he was posting on DK like everyone else there. He did have his own blog which was always 'lively' since he allowed right wingers to participate and you can imagine what they had to say to him.

It was a good idea in many ways though, because his comment sections grew as a result of allowing them to post there.

It was fun to watch to be honest.

However, he was hardly known outside the closed political junkie world.

[rhett o rick]

12. I really like the idea of hearing both sides of a discussion. It's very hard to

regulate as we see here in DU.
Thom Hartman has guests that will argue the conservative view and I find it very informative. And don't laugh, but I applaud The View for having views from both sides. Jon Stewart will enter mild debates with the right when they have a book to sell. But that's about it.
The problem is that in DU some feel that because they are defending goodness (by their definition) they have the right to do what they want, including rudeness, ridiculing, mocking, and the gang attacks. They get away with this because they stand tightly together and defend each other on juries. The passion to hide and lock those that disagree with you is also a problem.
I never agreed with dkf but appreciated hearing his side of issues. Too many here will disagree with you but never offer a decent argument as to why.

[sabrina 1]

13. I absolutely agree. There is nothing more guaranteed to produce blind loyalty to a group leader even

when that leader is horribly wrong, than never allowing a pov other than that of the group.

When I first got involved in online discussion forums I was on one that had zero moderation and everyone was free to participate. It was dominated by right wingers who banded together like schoolyard bullies against the 'liberals'. At first I was horrified at how nasty they were. I had never experienced anything like that before.

I was going to leave, as others did, but then I got mad. No one was going to drive me off so I stayed for a couple of years. So did several other liberals. During that time I found a big, Liberal forum. I was so accustomed to being attacked for slamming Bush that when I got there I was shocked that people were so nice.

But they too allowed Conservatives so long as they were respectful and abided by the community standards, which they did. I learned a lot on that forum and the other one. Being challenged on your positions forces you not to be lazy, just say what you THINK and know you will get agreement.

I look back at what I thought was the meanest group of people I ever met on that first forum, and realize, I have been attacked as much on this forum, for expressing liberal views, as I was there. Only now it doesn't phase me.

I discovered the partisan forums around 2003 and after years of participating on them, I have seen more nastiness on them, than any others I was on. I think with the Social Media now, partisan forums are going to be a thing of the past, mainly because of that. I meet a lot of great DUers on Social Media who are no longer posting here. It is far more open and will continue to draw people from forums where namecalling and personal attacks are all that seems to happen, no discussion is possible in such an atmosphere.

[Scuba]

14. So the FBI works for Wall Street. And this with a Democrat in the White House.

[sabrina 1]

15. Yes, so did the NYPD. It is fascinating what you find out about our entire

system when you start paying attention.

Eg, the NYPD sends some of its members to Israel for training, Bahrain also. Now what are our civilian police doing in these countries learning war tactics?

And who would THEIR enemy be? Civilian police deal with American communities. Are WE the enemy to them?

[99th_Monkey]

16. "“documents are heavily redacted & it's clear from the production that FBI is withholding far more"

“The documents are heavily redacted, and it is clear from the production that the FBI is withholding far more material."

Among the things redacted, I'm guessing includes false-flag ops by faux-"anarchist" undercover officers posing as black block.

I'd bet money on it.