Documents Reveal that FBI Openly Targets the Innocent

Charlie Savage at the New York Times has a piece up from yesterday citing declassified documents revealing that the Federal Bureau of Investigation often keeps suspects on their terrorist watch list even if they have been found not guilty in a court of law.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation is permitted to include people on the government’s terrorist watch list even if they have been acquitted of terrorism-related offenses or the charges are dropped, according to newly released documents.

…The database now has about 420,000 names, including about 8,000 Americans, according to the statistics released in connection with the 10th anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks. About 16,000 people, including about 500 Americans, are barred from flying.

…The 91 pages of newly disclosed files include a December 2010 guidance memorandum to F.B.I. field offices showing that even a not-guilty verdict may not always be enough to get someone off the list, if agents maintain they still have “reasonable suspicion” that the person might have ties to terrorism.

Normally, it is explained, a not guilty verdict will result in getting off the terrorist watch list, but that in “exceptions” the FBI keeps a separate special file for people who, regardless of what the courts say, stay on the list anyways. These people, the FBI decides, “pose a national security risk even though they are not the subject of any active investigation.”

Reading this piece from AlterNet, the picture seems even starker. It explains the national security surveillance state,

pumps out some 50,000 intelligence reports every day into the FBI’s Terrorist Screening Database (which contains over a million names, including aliases). This error-ridden “master list” is not to be confused with the National Counterterrorism Center’s Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment (TIDE)system, which held 640,000 identities in March 2011. There arereported to be about a dozen terrorism watch lists or databases, and a single tip from a credible source is all it takes to get into one or more of them, while there is no reliable way to get out.

How can this be? If individuals pose a national security risk, there should be sufficient evidence to prosecute them for it, no? This is pretty perplexing, until we use the longstanding definition that the government has used for “national security risk” (n. 1. one who is disliked and who may hold dissenting views. 2. one who is a threat to power.). That was certainly the definition used to claim that Julian Assange and WikiLeaks are a national security risk. Not a single case has been pointed to in which any individual either in government or outside of it has been put in danger as a result of their leaked material. Instead, they fall under “national security risk because Julian Assange and WikiLeaks provided a conduit through which the truth was able to get out. The truth is a check on government power and abuse, thus it’s a threat.

The presumption of innocence is not only an antiquated principle merely serving as a nuisance to federal government henchmen, but it is so prevalent and matter-of-fact that they feel fine about releasing the details of this practice through a FOIA request. Plainly, the government doesn’t care if you’re innocent. They have other reasons for monitoring you or keeping you on watch lists.

Frequent readers will be well aware that has been subject to such unjustified scrutinyat least in a preliminary way (we’re still digging into it). The FBI mentioned us in a threat assessment memo which was issued to FBI counter-terrorism offices throughout the country for the high crime of holding dissenting views, and more specifically in one case, publishing a publicly available government document. Coincidentally, a terrorist watch list.

I’ve written previously about government surveillance and even infiltration of peaceful, nonviolent activists. In the midst of all this, the FBI is pressing to loosen what little constraints are left on them in terms of surveillance.

Which brings us back to that AlterNet piece:

In his 2010 report, “A Review of the FBI’s Investigation of Certain Domestic Advocacy Groups,” Glenn Fine, the (now retired – and not replaced) inspector general of the Justice Department, concludes that the FBI had “little or no basis” for investigating many advocacy groups and individuals, and that it made false and misleading statements to the public and Congress to justify its surveillance of an antiwar rally organized by a peace and social justice organization, the Thomas Merton Center of Pennsylvania. Not only did it routinely classify actions involving nonviolent civil disobedience as “Acts of Terrorism matters,” it also, “relied upon potential crimes that may not commonly be considered ‘terrorism’ (such as trespassing or vandalism)” to get people placed on watch lists and their travels and interactions tracked.

Last year, the FBI “raided the homes and seized computers, cell phones and files belonging to peace and justice activists in Illinois, Minnesota and Michigan. Twenty-three of them have been issued with grand jury subpoenas, some for allegedly giving ‘material support‘ to a foreign terrorist organization by meeting with groups in Colombia and Palestine.” In the secret memos the FBI wrote up on, they were suspicious that we might be funded by foreign entities. Turn the dial just slightly and it’s not so hard to see us being victim to what those activists in Illinois, Minnesota, and Michigan endured. If you throw out the real definition of “national security risk” and use the government’s Orwellian definition, virtually anybody can be victimized in this way. Even if you’re found not guilty.

As former FBI agent and contributor Coleen Rowley has said “We’re conflating proper dissent and terrorism.”

17 thoughts on “Documents Reveal that FBI Openly Targets the Innocent”

  1. But but, if one dissents from the "official" dogma well, that surely proves the point. Doesn't work or play well with others. WATCH LIST!

  2. Nobody cares anymore. If they did this would be a HUGE story in the major media but it's not. And never will be.

  3. "national security," is one of those phrases by which the State pilfers it's outward identity from it's Country, Nation, etc. E.g. notice that governments talk about -and to -each other by names such as "US," "UK," etc. These are names so conflated with the people in these Countries -that is, the Countries themselves -that it strikes me as arrogant (every time) that they even use them. It's like you've got a doppleganger on your back -not just taxing you, but stealing your name (and dragging it through the mud).. Now, if Mz. Rowley sez they're mixing up terrorism with proper dissent…and if terrorism is violent dissent; maybe even improper…then perhaps it's a good thing terrorists liberated this section of the continent from King George before she came along <a href="” target=”_blank”> … Definitely warming to John's writing here –it's like the persnipoles-kind of Bread and Circus…

  4. The problem is that in mainstream culture, the average citizen thinks that the government has in place checks and balances to prevent such abuses.

    Take an extreme case like that of Jose Padilla's. Despite no evidence to support such an allegation, Padilla was tarred with the "Dirty Bomber" moniker.

    And the mainstream media rarely bothers to actually report that Padilla was never charged nor convicted of anything related to "Dirty Bombs".

    See Glenn Greenwald's piece here:

  5. most of you think how great the USA is but one night they will kick in your door and lock you away with no charges,maybe because you went and read a book about muslims or russia or china,soon they will use a city as a prison as no more room in normal ones,a prison state the US has become and remember they will come for you on day

  6. If there are still good people in elected office they will make sure people are not arrested without evidence that is proff of a crime.But I think almost all people in office are bought and paid for with some exeptiuons one being Ron Paul.

  7. The piece quoted at length was from Alternet. NOT "AlertNet." That's a big ol' embarrassing typo that end up being quite rude to the original publisher. Please fix it.

  8. Not only do they target the innocent, but if you are innocent they can make you 'guilty' real quick.

  9. Home security and personal safety is important to all homeowners. Having the proper locks on a door can help improve home security. Statistics show that intruders tend to choose houses that have door which look easy to break into. With a view to this reason we are offering people our door locks.To see more by-

Comments are closed.