A press release from the ACLU announces that it has just released
an FBI document that designates a Michigan-based peace group and an affirmative action advocacy group as potentially “involved in terrorist activities.”
According to the ACLU,
“This document confirms our fears that federal and state counterterrorism officers have turned their attention to groups and individuals engaged in peaceful protest activities,” said Ben Wizner, an ACLU staff attorney and counsel in a lawsuit seeking the release of additional FBI records. “When the FBI and local law enforcement identify affirmative action advocates as potential terrorists, every American has cause for concern.”
I wonder how many “affirmative action advocacy group[s]” that do not have a history of violence and whose name does not call for “any means necessary” have been targeted by the FBI.
My favorite sentence in the ACLU release is the following:
The FBI acknowledges in the report that the Michigan State Police has information that BAMN has been peaceful in the past.
Occasionally? From time to time?
LMAO. That certainly sounds like BAMN.
yup, it does mean occasionally
http://www.nathannewman.org/bamn/BAMN-LAtimes.htm
I don’t know if my comment is welcome, I just sort of stumbled on your site from google and found it interesting, so I kept reading, and then I saw this:
‘I wonder how many “affirmative action advocacy group[s]” that do not have a history of violence and whose name does not call for “any means necessary” have been targeted by the FBI.’
I’m not familiar with BAMN in particular, but the article you linked mentions no history of violence. Regardless, the FBI has a long (violent) history of targeting explicitly non-violent activists (as well as self-designated revolutionaries, but that isn’t what you’re asking about) for surveillance or what, in counter-intelligence terms, is called “neutralization”. Pick up the books “The COINTELPRO Papers” and “Agents of Repression” from your library.
gnosis – Your comment is welcome.
Thanks for your comment. I have cited BAMN’s history in several other posts over the years, and I apologize for the tendency to think every reader,
even new ones, remembers everything I’ve ever written.
I’m also quite familiar with the FBI’s history, and agree with you about it. In fact, I was once a plaintiff in a lawsuit against the FBI dealing with the
destruction of records, and in my former life as a historian actually spent quite a bit of time on the FBI’s mistreatment of civil rights, civil liberties,
and similar groups.
The FBI’s sordid history doesn’t change BAMN’s sorry recent history, and present. For what it’s worth, I don’t believe they’re a terrorist group, but
I do believe (actually, “believe” is too weak) they like to incite violence, have done so with some frequency, and tend to brag about it rather than try
to disguise it. Do you think “By Any Means Necessary” means carrying a placard in a protest demonstration?
In any event, I hope you keep reading and keep commenting.
I just noticed the LA Times article above, and it raises some questions about the standards of “violence” as applied to activists as compared to how they’re applied to police. It also raises some questions, for me, about the credibility of the police report. I can’t claim to know what happened in the referenced event, but having been part of too many similar events to count, I am very skeptical of the police perspective of the story. I’ll respond to parts of the article to explain…
‘Police in riot gear were called in to quell the protest.’ Where I live, police in riot gear are called to quell every protest attended by more than 20 people, regardless of the actions in the protest. That police were called in, in riot gear, is more a demonstration of business as usual than any indication of the actual actions at the protest.
‘Four other students were also arrested and received probation after pleading guilty to lesser charges.’ This is how the “justice system” works. Plead guilty and avoid a case, it’s called a deal. Most activists can’t afford the costs of these types of court cases. They’re usually drawn out over months, and competent lawyers are expensive.
‘Vasquez, a junior at UC Berkeley, is accused of throwing 2-pound rocks at police officers who held back the noisy crowd.’ Accusation is not proof. I can recall a particular protest in Seattle, where police accused protestors of “rioting” and “throwing mason jars and ball bearings”, but photographic evidence proved the police had taken violent action first, the violence was not reciprocated, and there was no evidence of mason jars or ball bearings being present at the demonstration.
I’m not trying to project my experience onto this case, but it seems to me that the article, which seems to favor the point of view of the police, would have presented some shred of evidence that any such action had occurred.
‘Gutierrez is charged with grabbing the reins of a mounted police officer’s horse.
The officer said he clubbed Gutierrez in the head because the student refused to move. Gutierrez received 17 stitches and his bloodied face dominated newspaper and TV coverage in the protest’s aftermath.’ Again, my experience leads me to question this: police horses are trained to be aggressive. If Gutierrez had grabbed the reins, he would have been unable to hold on for long. If Gutierrez did, indeed, refuse to move, that is not a violent action, and it doesn’t warrant an injury requiring 17 stitches.
‘In his closing statement Monday, Deputy City Atty. Robert J. Fratianne said the two men, allied with a student group called the Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action By Any Means Necessary, were “militants” who knew that their actions would provoke police retaliation.’ If that is the case, why were police not ordered to use restraint?
* * *
Returning to your post, ‘The FBI’s sordid history doesn’t change BAMN’s sorry recent history, and present.’ The FBI’s “sordid history” extends right into the present, as there are reports of church groups under surveillance by the FBI. It is hard for me to condemn a civil rights group for refusing to compromise in defense of their rights against an agency with the full force of the state, known to have committed crimes from its inception, straight through the present.
‘For what it’s worth, I don’t believe they’re a terrorist group, but I do believe (actually, “believe” is too weak) they like to incite violence, have done so with some frequency, and tend to brag about it rather than try to disguise it.’ I think it all comes down to semantics. What is “terrorism”? As far as I can tell, it’s a meaningless term anyway. “Violence”, likewise, is a loaded term, and it seems to me it masks the reality of intent, which, not being a pacifist, I’m very interested in. Is BAMN interested in using “any means necessary” to extract a profit from a defenseless population? To torture or murder innocents? Or are they committed to using any means that turn out to be necessary to prevent the erosion or reversal of their rights? If the latter is their intent, and I think they would say so, I can’t see to condemn them. Certainly not in the face of what appears to be a case of deliberate state violence against them.
‘Do you think “By Any Means Necessary” means carrying a placard in a protest demonstration?’ No, I don’t think it means that. And I think it should be obvious that carrying a placard in a protest demonstration is almost totally devoid of utility or meaning, except as a demonstration that the “system works,” while the legitimate demands of protestors can be conveniently put aside, the “system” knowing there will be no material challenge to business as usual.
Notherbob2 writes:
>>>When anyone interferes with a police officer in the performance of his duties, unless there is a good reason for the interference, the person interfering asks for whatever he gets, up to and including death if that is the only way the officer can carry out his duties.”
What’s your definition of “a good reason?” What you claim in this statement is that cops can act as judges, juries and executioners on the street at their discretion.
–Cobra