For the past three years, Google has attempted to become more transparent by releasing reports about which governments are requesting it to remove content from its search engine or other sites. Their latest report covering the last six months of 2012, shows a significant increase of 26% more requests from governments to remove videos from Youtube, delete blog posts from Blogger, or remove items from Google’s search results, making them harder to find. The reports show that the number of requests have been increasing steadily for the last three years. Since Google controls a significant amount of international internet traffic, its decisions about what to show or restrict access to can have far reaching consequences.

In a blog post, Google wrote:

It’s become increasingly clear that the scope of government attempts to censor content on Google services has grown. In more places than ever, we’ve been asked to remove political content…or blog posts criticizing government officials or their associates.

This latest report also clarified whether videos were taken down for violating Google’s community guidelines or for violating local laws.

(more…)

In addition to President Obama’s second inauguration (on which the People’s Blog for the Constitution will soon post a comment), yesterday was also a national holiday celebrating the life and work of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. In 2008, American Radio Works produced King’s Last March, an insightful documentary by Kate Ellis and Stephen Smith that NPR re-broadcast yesterday.

The program reminds listeners about the life of Dr. King, including not only his inspiring civil rights work, but also the disturbing examples of state surveillance and “neutralization” to which he was subjected for years preceding his untimely death.

With the FBI’s ressurrection of its war on the Constitution, BORDC’s 2011 video, COINTELPRO 2.0, offers a timely reminder of this unfortunate history:

According to American Radio Works, the “FBI’s War on King” included “an extensive program of surveillance and harassment…[u]nder the guidance of FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover – and with the permission of Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy….”

(more…)

Army surveillance, like Army regimentation, is at war with the principles of the First Amendment. . . There can be no influence more paralyzing of that objective than Army surveillance. When an intelligence officer looks over every nonconformist’s shoulder in the library, or walks invisibly by his side in a picket line, or infiltrates his club, the America once extolled as the voice of liberty heard around the world no longer is cast in the image which Jefferson and Madison designed . . .

While originally written in dissent from the Laird v. Tatum in 1979, Supreme Court Justice William Douglas could have been describing Panagacos v. Towery. The Towery case was decided just a few weeks ago by the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, arising from the infiltration of activist groups in Tacoma and Olympia, WA. From 2007 to 2009, John Towery, a criminal intelligence analyst for the army, infiltrated and spied on these groups, going by the name John Jacob.

Unfortunately, Justice Douglas’ statement is from the dissent in the Supreme Court’s ruling in Laird v. Tatum, a 1979 case in which the Supreme Court ruled that the fear of surveillance, leading to chilling of First Amendment activity, was too speculative to support a claim. This precedent, along with other obstacles, has made it almost impossible to sue the Pentagon for domestic spying.

However, one National Lawyers Guild attorney, Larry Hildes, is hoping to change that. A December 17 ruling by the Ninth Circuit breathed new life in his efforts.

Towery’s identity was discovered almost by accident. Brendan Maslaukas Dunn, an activist with Students for a Democratic Society, Port Militarization Resistance, and the Industrial Workers of the World made a Freedom of Information Act request for any communications between the Olympia police and the military concerning anarchists. He recounts:

One of the documents was an email that was sent between personnel in the military, and the email address that was attached to this email was of John J. Towery. We didn’t know who that was, but several people did a lot of research to find out who that was, and they identified that person as being John Jacob.

It is unclear exactly how much information John Towery shared with law enforcement and the military, but there are at least 133 pages of intelligence documents, including Towery’s spying contract with the Pierce County Sheriff’s Department, available online.

(more…)

It has been said that within every artist lies an activist, as the creation of art, by its very nature, is a radical act.

Embedded deep within that provberb is the provocative idea that to be an artist entails refusing to accept something for what it is, rather than for what it could be. This ceaseless inclination to push back against the status quo is not only interwoven into the fabric of artistry, but it also happens to be essential to the American character; we are indeed a nation of skeptics. For many, art is medium through which that skepticism is expressed. 

It is no wonder why then, at every seminal moment of social and political enlightenment in our country’s history, so too has there been a complementary surge in cultural liberation and ‘resistant creativity’. The counterculture of the 1960’s remains the high watermark of this confluence, but strewn throughout America’s existence are tales of citizens who have employed art to spur radical change or introspection in the body politic. Protest songs, political cartoons, and poignant poems are staples in our cultural lexicon.

And while every socio-artistic movement was necessarily unique in time and place, the tie that binds them has been their ability to ingrain themselves into the American psyche through their public consumption. This idea, that in America, one is entitled to publicly air out  grievances, whether in an artistic fashion or in plain speak, seems so intuitive — and yet, today more than ever, it is under assault from many angles.

(more…)

Last week, we wrote about the three Northwest May Day activists who had been jailed for refusing to testify, and the way grand juries can be and are used as tools for political repression. Since then, there have been two major developments. First, Leah Lynn Plante has been released from jail, although Matt Duran and Kteeo Olejnik have not. Second, FBI documents have been uncovered that make it clear that this grand jury is, indeed, being used to target a political movement

As we noted in our last article, grand juries are problematic because they do not afford the same constitutional protections as criminal trials, they can lead to jail time for civil and criminal contempt, they can sow suspicion in political movements, and they are highly secretive. The current Seattle grand jury is flexing all of these destructive muscles.

While there has been speculation that it was convened in order to investigate property destruction in Seattle on May Day, there are indications that it is a far more complex investigation. The Seattle Post-Intelligencer broke a story about unsealed court documents which reveal that the FBI was tailing Portland anarchists the day before May Day. As the Committee Against Political Repression(CAPR) states in their blog:

The FBI’s treatment of anarchism as evidence of criminality in the affidavit quoted in the P-I supports the conclusion that the ongoing investigation is more about politics than law. The political nature of this investigation is also demonstrated by the scale of the state’s attack and the seizure of “anarchist literature” in armed raids.

This is nothing less than guilt by association, clearly demonstrated by the affidavit CAPR refers to. It includes a statement from an FBI Agent that:

Although many anarchists are law-abiding, there is a history in the Pacific Northwest of some anarchists participating in property destruction and other criminal activity in support of their political philosophy.

This conclusion is also supported by Kteeo’s statements about the lines of questioning she has been subjected to:

They weren’t trying to figure out from me who did a certain thing. They wanted to know who knew who, who was connected to who . . . They’re asking us who believes in things.

Moreover,  a public records act request by the Civil Liberties Defense Center (CLDC) revealed that  the Grand Jury was empaneled on March 2^nd, 2012, far before May Day activities.

What exactly this means remains to be seen.  The grand jury is ongoing. In the meantime, Lauren Regan, CLDC Director & Staff Attorney has some very good advice for the anarchist community, and for all involved in social justice movements:

It is extremely important not to speculate about what a grand jury investigation may be looking for—you may give the government an idea that it was unaware of.

Perhaps even more importantly, instead of allowing the government’s tactics to scare communities into disarray:

The most effective way to counteract that is to do the opposite; not be scared into submission and not disassociate yourself from people based on their political beliefs.

On September 24, the ACLU of Northern California obtained 13 pages of documents detailing the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s surveillance of Occupy protesters leading up to planned direct action at the Oakland docks last December. Contained in the documents was the unsettling admission that the FBI consorted with private corporate security officials before the demonstrations in an effort to mitigate their effectiveness.

The documents represent a small part of what is likely a trove of dossiers created by federal law enforcement officials since the rise of the Occupy movement last fall. But even more troubling to proponents of civil liberties is the two-thirds of the documents that remain classified.

For its part, the FBI denied any “unnecessary intrusions into the lives of law-abiding people” but cited “the interest of national defense or foreign policy” in keeping the remaining documents secret. Exactly why a political protest amounts to a national security threat remains dubious.

Collusion between governmeand agencies and the corporate sector

While scrutiny of domestic political organizations by the FBI is nothing new, the collusion of domestic law enforcement with the private sector, the military, and other government agencies whose missions, on paper at least, are strictly foreign, to suppress civil disobedience is a particularly disturbing trend.

In April, the Associated Press won a Pulitzer Prize for its coverage of the NYPD’s collusion with the Central Intelligence Agency to establish an all-powerful intelligence unit (Intel) within the department aimed at infiltrating the city’s ethic communities. The very same unit was instrumental in gathering ‘intelligence’ on Occupiers at the movement’s symbolic headquarters, Zuchotti Park.

Disturbing techniques to limit dissent

In their efforts to squelch political dissent, government agencies are increasingly relying on questionable tactics and specious justifications to neutralize what it perceives as threats to governmental, and in cases such as above, private interests. These include widespread surveillance, group infiltration, and the use of federal grand juries as tools for political repression.

Above all, the frequent application of the label (potential) ‘terrorist’ or ‘terrorism’ to activist groups and political activity provides the pretext for law enforcement to employ pervasive, intrusive, and often unconstitutional measures.

On October 10, 24-year-old Portland activist Leah Lynn Plante was the last of three Occupy activists sentenced to 18-months in federal prison for her refusal to provide a grand jury testimony regarding fellow activists in the region. Plante was never accused of a crime but was active in the Northwest anarchist scene. During their July 25 raid, 40 agents from the FBI and the Joint Terrorist Task Force held her and her roommates at gunpoint while they seized black clothing, books, artwork and other various literature as “evidence”.

(more…)

Update: Leah Lynn Plante was released.  Matt Duran and Kteeo Olejnik remain in custody.  

Last week, on October 11, grand jury resister Leah Lynn Plante of Portland, OR, was jailed for refusing to testify in front of a grand jury. She is the third individual who has been jailed in connection with a grand jury convened in Seattle early last month, purportedly to investigate May Day protests in Seattle. Kteeo Olejnik of Olympia, WA, was jailed on September 28, 2012 and Matt Duran, also of Olympia, was jailed several weeks earlier. They are the targets of a profoundly troubling tool for political repression, the secretive grand jury system.

In the federal legal system, grand juries are used to determine whether someone should be indicted for (charged with) a crime. A United States Attorney presents evidence to 16-23 jurors, and can subpoena witnesses, as well as documents and physical evidence. What most people do not know about grand juries, however, is the lack of almost all the constitutional protections provided in a regular trial. As Kimberly Gordon, attorney for Matt Duran, states, what stands out about grand juries is:

…how powerless you are as a subpoenaed party. As a defendant, there are tools that you have to be able to defend yourself. ..none of those tools exist in this circumstance.  You are far more vulnerable than someone charged with a crime. There is very little that you can do.

Unlike a normal criminal trial, grand juries are not subject to the rule that unconstitutionally obtained evidence be excluded. Grand juries are not screened for bias. Witnesses who have been subpoenaed to appear in front of a grand jury do not have the right to counsel. Jenn Kaplan, attorney for Kteeo, explains:

If a person refuses, or is expected to refuse to testify on the basis of Fifth Amendment privilege, the United States Attorney can seek a compulsion order granting the witness immunity and requiring them to testify.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, anyone called before a grand jury who is given immunity can be jailed for contempt for the court if they still refuse to testify, without being charged of any other crime. Even worse, they can then be charged with criminal contempt, thus effectively providing a court and prosecutor with a tool to institute “double jeopardy.”

In addition to the lack of tools, grand juries are also deeply secretive. Ms. Gordon noted that:

In the criminal system due process provides so many ways of figuring out what the government wants and why they want it so that you can make informed decisions. In the grand jury, no attorneys are allowed- they have to wait outside.  The client taken in alone.  Sometimes, they can take notes- this is  up to each individual judge.  The client does not know  what they are going to be asked about until they walk in.

(more…)

• 10/2, Burgess Everett and Adam Snider, Politico, ‘Defeat Jihad’ ads cause stir in D.C
• 10/2, Aaron Cynic, TruthOut, Free Speech Scores a Hat Trick
• 10/2, Spencer Ackerman, Wired, Not From the Onion: Army Says ‘Social Network’ Use Is a Sign of Radicalism
• 10/1, Public Radio International, Despite differences, Guantanamo prison out-of-sight, if not mind, in presidential election
• 10/1, Adam Serwer, Mother Jones, The Drone Unknowns
• 10/1, Brendan Sasso, The Hill, OVERNIGHT TECH: Court to hear arguments in cellphone tracking case
• 9/28, Ethan Bronner, New York Times, Citizen Held After 9/11 Wins Right to Be Tried

The words civil rights mean a lot of things, depending on one’s perspective.  To people in the Muslim, Arab, and South Asian community civil rights may invoke first amendment rights to practice their religion, or the right to privacy in their home.  For Occupy, peace and justice, and environmental activists the words may call to mind the first amendment right to free speech.  As the government ramps up its use of Cointelpro style tactics, surveillance without criminal suspicion or warrants, planting agent provocateurs within political movements, and collecting massive amounts of intelligence, these rights are increasingly threatened.

That being said, there is no question that the term civil rights is intimately linked to the struggles and victories of African-Americans to be treated as equal citizens.  Some may see these struggles as distinct from the types of abuses mentioned above.  However, the systems of political oppression in place today, especially for communities of color, shows that they are not new. They reflect the ways in which African-Americans were targeted in the 60s and 70s.  Most famously, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was targeted by these tactics.  He was followed, taped, and sent harassing letters.  The FBI even (unsuccessfully) attempted to break up his marriage by

“taping personal moments he shared with friends and women and then sending edited versions of these engagements to King’s wife.”

In addition to Dr. King, the Black Panther Party was targeted by surveillance and harassment, which included encouraging street violence between Panthers and street gangs.

Clearly, the tactics used by the FBI and other government agencies in the name of homeland security are a chilling echo of these tactics.  Even worse, African-Americans continue to be targeted.  As former FBI agent turned ACLU policy advisor Mike German writes, the FBI is using flawed training materials, based on dated material and irrational associations, to paint an imaginary picture of “black separatist terrorists.”  In fact,

“the ACLU released a 2009 FBI Atlanta Intelligence Note that purported to examine this “threat,” in part by charting the growth of the black population in Georgia from 2000 through 2015.”

Thus, the same apparatus that is conducting racial mapping of muslim, Arab, and other communities collects is focusing on African-Americans, even those that are not associated with any political movement at all.  Instead of turning its attention to other communities, then, the government has simply expanded its reach, which has always included African-Americans.

On Friday, the US Department of State decided to drop the Iranian opposition group Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) from its list of foreign terrorist organizations (FTO). The MEK has been the focus of intensive lobbying for removal from the list for several years and has been vocally supported by a number of prominent politicians, including US Senators and Representatives, as well as former administration officials.

Not limited to one party, supporters of the MEK range from Rudolph Guliani to Howard Dean. The terrorist status of the group has proved an uncomfortable situation for many of these politicians, who may have committed material support of terrorism by accepting fees and travel reimbursements to speak at rallies on behalf of the MEK when it was designated as a terrorist organization.

Under the interpretation of laws prohibiting material support to terrorism, expanded by the USA PATRIOT Act and upheld by the Supreme Court in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project (2010), it is illegal for a person to provide “expert advice or assistance,” humanitarian aid, or even to advocate lawful non-violent activity, if it is coordinated with a group on the FTO list.

The severe ramifications of this law have resulted in solitary confinement and a fifteen year sentence for US citizen Fahad Hashmi, who allowed a suitcase of raincoats at his apartment, and a 17 year sentence for Tarek Mehanna, who translated a text by a Saudi religious scholar. The removal of the MEK from the FTO list demonstrates not only the double-standard for enforcement of material support laws, but also the over-broad and heavy-handed criminalization of constitutionally protected activity.

When the overbroad law resulted in investigations of prominent politicians and former officials, the law was not modified to address First Amendment concerns, but instead maintained, while a specific organization was removed from the terrorist list to accommodate those politicians’ activities. The material support law should be changed so that it doesn’t criminalize association, expression, or other activity protected by the First Amendment, or efforts aimed to advance humanitarian goals.