Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Iowa Activists Drew Extensive FBI Scrutiny
The FBI's surveillance of a protest group in Iowa City prior to the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minn., two years ago was far more extensive than initially reported, newly obtained FBI documents show.
Agents staked out the homes of political activists, secretly photographed and shot video of them, pored through their garbage, and studied their cell phone and motor vehicle records, according to records detailing the FBI's counterterrorism investigation.
Federal agents and other law enforcement officers also watched and documented the protesters' comings and goings at such places as the Iowa City Public Library; the New Pioneer Co-op natural foods store; the Red Avocado restaurant and the Deadwood Tavern; and the Wesley Center campus ministry of the United Methodist Church.
The FBI's nine-month investigation in 2008 is detailed in more than 300 pages of documents obtained through the federal Freedom of Information Act by David Goodner, a former member of the University of Iowa's Antiwar Committee, and provided to The Des Moines Register.
The heavily redacted records indicate the FBI believed the Iowa City activists were part of a national network of radicals intent on disrupting the Republican convention in St. Paul, as well as the Democratic National Convention in Denver. The agency apparently learned of the Iowa City group, known as the Wild Rose Rebellion, by monitoring its Internet site. Names of most of the activists were deleted from the documents before they were released.
Goodner, 29, of Des Moines, who participated in the St. Paul protests and who is named in the documents, said the records show the federal investigation was a waste of time and taxpayer money.
"There's no evidence presented in hundreds of pages that anybody with either the University of Iowa Antiwar Committee or the Wild Rose collective had any plans for anything other than a nonviolent, if confrontational, direct action street protest at the 2008 Republican National Convention," Goodner said. Most of the Iowa City activists did not attend the Democratic convention in Denver.
About 25 members of Iowa City activist groups participated in the St. Paul demonstrations, but Iowa organizers said they were aware of only one Iowa City demonstrator who was arrested. Those charges were subsequently dropped.
Eugene O'Donnell, a professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice at City University of New York, cautioned that law enforcement faces a balancing act in monitoring political activist groups.
There is a legitimate need for law enforcement to be aware of groups that can potentially cause violence and disruption, said O'Donnell, an ex-prosecutor and former New York City police officer. But at the same time, some law enforcement agencies have had a history of overreaching in such investigations, gathering information on groups that had neither the capacity nor the intent to use violent means, he added.
Click here to read the rest of the article.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
22 Comments so far
Show AllWe are all militant extremists now!
Dissent is considered treason to those who are the true terrorists - The Republicans aka The Nazis
Right now, down it up and up is down and the criminals are in power and the decent people are in prison.
The comment comparing republicans with nazis is wrong and abusive.
It would seem that the antiwar movement has little to fear of the FBI today since so many of its members have decided to remain mute against the militant policies of a Democratic president named Barack Obama.
Federal agents and other law enforcement officers also watched and documented the protesters' comings and goings at such places as:
Iowa City Public Library
New Pioneer Co-op natural foods store
Red Avocado restaurant
Deadwood Tavern
United Methodist Church
-------------------------
OH MY!
Obama should call in a drone strike on these dangerous radicals who wish to end the Empire's wars of peace and democracy!
When is the majority of the left going to get it that there isn't a bit of CORPORATE difference between the Democrats, Republicans and Republican spin offs! Fear is the major motivation for everything in the corporate state, which all the major party's leadership is based.
Well, just vote in the Republicans - and kiss your Social Security good-bye. First moves: raise the retirement age to 70 and privatize the system. (Then watch your SS replicate the losses of your IRA/ Roth/ whatever you may have.)
The Republican Party is a lost cause, but we may be able to reform the Democratic Party. (How well is a question.) There are already some progressives in the Democratic Party, but there's no chance of reforming the Democratic Party while the Republicans have enough power to sway the Congress.
If the Dems go down, you may not have another (non-cataclysmic) chance in your lifetime to contribute to making a greatly improved Congress: Democrats and a 'third party,' (with Republicans continuing to die out).
It's extremely difficult to defend the Dems, but do you really want to give succor to the lunatic Tea Party that is making greater and greater inroads in the Republican Party?
What your are doing, of course, is exactly the rationale that the Democrats used in 2004 and 2008 and that is the ABB [Anybody But Bush] excuse. So in 2012 you are trying to convince the people here that one should vote for a Democrat because that Democrat would supposedly be better than a Republican. Will a Democrat nominee advocate for universal health care? Of course not. Will a Democrat nominee campaign for the immediate removal of all U.S. soldiers and mercenaries from the Middle East? Again, they will not since the only Democrat who would push for those issues would be Kucinich. But then we know [or at least we should know] that when push came to shove Kucinich did not display the courage of his convictions in 2008 and caved in to the corporate wishes and desires of his party.
If you do not mind, I much prefer to heed the advice of Ralph Nader who correctly noted that voting for the lesser of two evils still has one casting one's vote for an evil. My advice to you is to to vote your conscience instead of voting for another representative of the Savage Mules by voting for a third party candidate.. I will not place party over principle as I stupidly did just that when I voted for Kerry in 2004. Never again will I allow myself to make such an incredibly foolish decision.
You completely misinterpreted my comment, though I cannot see how you came to the conclusion that you did. It is obvious, though, that you have idea who I am or what I stand for.
I never suggested that one not vote third party. Indeed, how else would one get to that greatly improved Congress I referred to - with a rehabilitated Democratic Party and a 'third party'? I do, however, believe that this election is different. The Tea Party loonies have got to be stopped. Ignore the danger at your own peril.
Party over principle? I'm not a Democrat. Never have been. And unlike you, I did not vote for Kerry. (Nor did I vote for Obama.)
By the same token, I will not turn my back on any progressive, just because he/she chooses to run as a Democrat. The only way to change the Democratic Party is to elect more progressives, both Democratic and third party. That's principle over party.
Next time, would you try to avoid ridiculous extrapolations - or mind-reading, or whatever led you to comment on my view of the presidential election - and respond to what I actually wrote? Flying off the handle and making unfounded statements/ accusations accomplishes nothing but to damage your credibility.
Your comments here are riddled with contradictions and obfuscation. You become highly indignant at what I had written claiming that I had supposedly "completely misinterpreted my comment" [meaning your comment at 9:46 pm]. Did you actually bother to read what you had written before lashing out at me? You had written "The Republican Party is a lost cause, but we may be able to reform the Democratic Party" because allegedly "there are already some progressives in the Democratic Party..." Would you actually care to tell us who are all these progressives who are lurking in the Democratic party? Exactly who beside Kucinich is calling for universal health care and substantially cutting the military budget and advocating for the rights of the Palestinians and calling for the immediate withdrawal of ALL U.S. soldiers and mercenaries from Afghanistan and Iraq? Who are all these Democrats who are crying out for corporate reform? Since you seem totally oblivious and clueless on this issue, allow me to help you out. There are no alleged progressive Democrats, outside of Kucinich, who are advocating for the issues that I have just mentioned. Zero. Zilch. None.
As I attempted to explain in my earlier comment, before you decided to react emotionally, the Democrats, while being the lesser of the two evils, still in my estimation end up being an evil. The irony is that you did not imply but actually asserted that I was the one was had supposedly flew off the handle because, apparently, I had the temerity to point out what should have been an obvious point.
You become irate at my suggestion that one should vote for a third party claiming that this is not what you had said though practically in the next breath you then say that because this next election will somehow be different one should vote for the Democrats. Again, as I said in my earlier comment, this is exactly what was said in the 2004 election when the Democrats attempted to claim that that election also was somehow different than all the other previous elections. On top of all this you then want us to believe that even though you are not a Democrat ["Never have been"] you are now urging people to vote for the Democrats because in your view, there are supposedly all of these progressives who are so ubiquitous in that party. I think not.
You advise people to vote for BOTH the Democrats and third party candidates while making absolutely no distinction between the two. You do not seem to be able to comprehend that, as I attempted to explain before, anyone who belongs to the Democratic party will always place party over principle. As a way to validate that assertion all one has to do is to see the way that Kucinich succumbed to party pressure when he caved in to the Democrats by backing the Democrats puny and mediocre health care plan and forsaking his own advocacy for universal health care.
As I mentioned before, if you actually wish to see progressives in Washington, D.C., then vote for a third party and NOT the Democrats. My suggestion is that you get your hands on a copy of The Democrats: A Critical History by Lance Selfa which basically, from a perspective of the Left, points out why the Democrats are just as pernicious and just as repulsive as the Republicans.
You really are stuck in a mind-reading mode, aren't you? There's nothing in my comments that suggests that I was indignant.
No, I won't bother to give you any names: you are already convinced that just wearing a 'D' renders every candidate a corporatist, so why would I bother? By the way, I said there were progressives in the Democratic Party, not that there were already many progressives in Congress. They are candidates. Therefore the comment about **electing more progressives**. (Sorry, if you cannot name a single progressive candidate, that is your deficit, not mine.) You see, you don't objectively read my comments and/or the failure of comprehension is yours.
'You advise people to vote for BOTH the Democrats and third party candidates while making absolutely no distinction between the two.' No, I advocate voting for progressives, regardless of whether they are Democrats or belong to a third party. I see no distinction to be made between progressives who register as third party candidates and those who do not feel they are ready to leave the Democratic Party which is already huge and can offer greater support and increased likelihood of winning. That's a matter of strategy, and does not necessarily reflect party loyalty. Winning is the goal, not just running. There were progressives who lost primary elections, perhaps in part because of the attitude you display here: they are Democrats, and therefore they are bad. (I do see a difference *at this point* between voting for viable and doomed candidates.)
'You become irate at my suggestion that one should vote for a third party claiming that this is not what you had said though practically in the next breath you then say that because this next election will somehow be different one should vote for the Democrats.' Sorry, I don't use mind-altering drugs, and therefore couldn't begin to decipher that. *If* I had become irate, (which occurred only in *your* mind), at your suggestion to vote third party, how would my (supposed) support for Democrats contradict that?
I do believe that this election is different: the Tea Party loonies have got to be stopped. They've already gained too much traction. I advise you to read about a particular (supposedly) inconsequential, little kook who was widely laughed at and open disparaged in early 1920s Germany. (Do a search for Beer Hall Putsch. Then ask a German how much he/she wishes that the Germans of that era had paid attention.) Hard times tend to bring out the worst in far too many people.
There are a lot of bills you've never heard of that were passed by the House and 'went to the Senate to die,' killed by the stop-all-legislation-at-all-costs Republicans - (and, yes, aided and abetted by the Democratic 'leadership'). They weren't as strong or progressive as I would have wanted, but they were definitely far above anything a Republican-majority House would have passed.
These crazies want to shut down the government. That doesn't scare you? No Social Security checks, no Medicare or Medicaid payments, no paychecks for federal government employees, no money for the schools, for anything other than the military. What will your precious principles do for the nation, if that occurs? I hope they're edible.
I think we are still heading in the wrong direction (empire, corporatism, etc), but at least we're doing so more slowly, and that gives us a bit longer to work on reform - including building up a **viable** third party. Presently, all the 'third parties' combined can't deliver more than a handful of wins, at the very most. That's a fact. Even if it weren't, why would anyone object to increasing the progressive bloc by electing some progressive Democrats? And if there is no viable progressive candidate, **at this point** I'd vote for any viable candidate against a Republican. This is (I hope) a short-term necessity. While it definitely contradicts my previous voting stance, (which is something you wouldn't know), it poses no current contradictions.
No one who can't name a progressive candidate is in any position to recommend reading matter to anyone. (And why do you assume I am unaware of any specific book (or article, etc.)?
My comments 'are riddled with contradictions and obfuscation'? You haven't supported either of those assertions. Suggesting that you flew off the handle is not responding emotionally. Sorry, but when you misinterpret and exaggerate you prove that the indignant feelings and the failure to comprehend are on your part.
You just sit there, thinking that voting for doomed candidates because you are so certain that every Democrat is evil is the right thing to do, even when it means the election of a majority of crazies intent upon outright, accelerated destruction of the republic. But don't come back here whining about how awful the new Republican majority is, or how evil it is that they are dismantling the social safety net, or that your job was lost and/or your retirement funds (including Social Security) have tanked. You will have earned it. The only problem is that the rest of us would suffer, too.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
- Santayana
Your long rant ends up looking like a perfect exercise of delusion. You claim to be confused when I stated that your previous comments are riddled with contradictions and obfuscations. Perhaps it was my error when you stated that you are not a Democrat but nonetheless you are advising people to still vote for an [alleged] progressive Democrat. You still have not told me which candidates are calling for the immediate withdrawal of all U.S. forces and mercenaries from Afghanistan and Iraq. Or which candidate. Or which candidates are advocating for universal health care in this country. Or which candidates are speaking out, not for the Israelis, but rather for the rights of the Palestinian people.
If you were completely honest with yourself you would have to admit that there absolutely no candidates who will be running in the Democratic party in the next election that will be standing up for the issues that I had just written about. Instead you want to claim that there are progressives who will supposedly be running in the upcoming elections as Democrats. Considering how so many liberals ended up being fooled by that alleged progressive called Barack Obama, it would then seem that you are the perfect example of that expression which says that hope springs eternal. What is bizarre about your comments is that you claim that you did not vote for Obama but yet you apparently have learned little if anything about the Democrats as Obama and his party have proved to be just as venal and just as mendacious as the Republicans.
Ho-hum...
This has been going on for decades. Who knows how many of us are on the FBI's lists. As far as I am concerned it is an honor to be on a list of people who want to protect the constitution and international law by protesting illegal wars, torture, sanctions, pollution, illegal spying, the death penalty, food insecurity, lack of fair housing,inadequate disability benefits for the disabled,inadequate affordable day care for children and elderly, lack of affordable health care, Although both parties are guilty at times,it seems like the political party that is most likely to approve policies that do more harm than good is the Republican party.
Same as the 1960's, when the FBI investigated anti-war and peace groups. When it became known that the government was spying on legitimate dissent groups, a huge uproar ensued.
Supposedly those abuses were ended by new rules in the 1970's.
But now we have the Patriot Act, the ending of Habeas Corpus, approval of unlimited spying on everyone and Presidents who can order the execution of anyone at their whim.
I'm sure what is coming out is the tip of the iceberg and unlike in the past, this trampling of our rights by the secret police won't end.
Far from it, they simply will do a better job of keeping their activities out of the press.
So, where's Obama and the Democrats? Fighting the good fight to protect us from out of control abusers of our fundamental rights? Strangely quiet over there in Democrat-land. What guarantees do we have that secret police aren't investigating everything that goes on here, hmmm?
Oh I'm so-o-o sorry, I am not supposed to criticize the President lest I turn into a "Professional Left Wing Extremest Whiner"
I am so happy that the Democrats are in power instead of those nasty, evil Republiklans.
This is not surprising. The corporate media and war-mongers who support them don't want anyone speaking out against their agenda. I expect that wearing my "don't attack Irag" or "Uncle Sam the Oil Junkie" Tshirt will get me on the FBI's list too. And I didn't even have to go to Iowa.!! No further than TheLiberalStore.com Much easier.
Under the threat of terrorism we are violating the first amendment rights of many Americans now too. A slippery slope.
"There is a legitimate need for law enforcement to be aware of groups that can potentially cause violence and disruption"
True enough, but what does that have to do with this case? To claim that these guys were planning to be terrorists is so ludicrous that it doesn't pass any smell test whatsoever. It's sort of like when law enforcement works to fit evidence around someone they want to convict instead of actually looking for the real perpetrator. In both cases an innocent person is victimized and actual evildoers are left alone to continue doing their thing.
"the federal investigation was a waste of time and taxpayer money"
3/4 of all activities in the USA are a total waste of time/energy/resources. This includes 3/4 of all Pentagun activities. 3/4 of all healthcare activities, and 3/4 of all transport-related activities.
3/4 of all energy/materials consumed in the USA are beyond the world average. Considering that USans hold no monopoly whatsoever on happiness in this world, one may safely assume that the 3/4 of energy/materials is utterly wasted.
So the FBI is only one of MANY agencies, institutions, and enterprises of gargantuan waste/plunder in the USA.
Notice how Follywood glamorized the cop/spy role, relentlessly, over the past few decades. With the expansion of the surveillance state, there are no complaints from either ideological faction of elites. Expansion of plunderlous economic activities only distract from the people's better interests, keeping the people enslaved building the walls of their own prison.
Was it a slow work day, as it was in Pittsburgh back in 2002? Were the Fibbies bored out of their skulls and needing something to justify their very existence?
>>The heavily redacted records indicate the FBI believed the Iowa City activists were part of a national network of radicals intent on disrupting the Republican convention in St. Paul, as well as the Democratic National Convention in Denver
What is a "Disruption" ? Is this people gathering to petition their Government?
This demonstrates who the FBI work for. They do not work for the people or the Citizens of the United States of America. They are not there to ensure the "security" of the same.
Their purpose is to protect the ESTABLISHMENT and the "Ruling Class".
Do they also spy upon "Radicals who might disrupt elections by voting for parties other then the Republicans and Democrats"?
They did this in '68. They will continue to do it. I think people join the "Fibbies" (I love that label!) because they don't think very well in specifics, only in labels with a lot of emotional energy attached. That being said, how do we counter that thought(?) process?
Also, we DO have a major unemployment problem in this country--these folks need the jobs. What could we do to help them sound more sane?