Your National Security State at Work

Your national security state at work.

From these operations, run by the department’s “R.N.C. Intelligence Squad,” the police identified a handful of groups and individuals who expressed interest in creating havoc during the convention, as well as some who used Web sites to urge or predict violence.

But potential troublemakers were hardly the only ones to end up in the files. In hundreds of reports stamped “N.Y.P.D. Secret,” the Intelligence Division chronicled the views and plans of people who had no apparent intention of breaking the law, the records show.

These included members of street theater companies, church groups and antiwar organizations, as well as environmentalists and people opposed to the death penalty, globalization and other government policies. Three New York City elected officials were cited in the reports.

In at least some cases, intelligence on what appeared to be lawful activity was shared with police departments in other cities. A police report on an organization of artists called Bands Against Bush noted that the group was planning concerts on Oct. 11, 2003, in New York, Washington, Seattle, San Francisco and Boston. Between musical sets, the report said, there would be political speeches and videos.

“Activists are showing a well-organized network made up of anti-Bush sentiment; the mixing of music and political rhetoric indicates sophisticated organizing skills with a specific agenda,” said the report, dated Oct. 9, 2003. “Police departments in above listed areas have been contacted regarding this event.”

It wouldn't surprise me to find MFA, myself, or people I know in those files. Sometimes thinking about where we're at as a country can get a little abstract. Seeing Bands Against Bush listed in this article today hit me a lot harder than a blog or article about the latest administration scandal ever could.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

The difference between good attention and bad attention...

I always found it kind of egocentric when I met a hippy/boomer activist who claimed that he/she “had a file” at Hoover’s FBI. Now that I’m potentially in that crowd, I see the appeal. It’s like when Frontpagemag lit into Franz for being a communist. Being attacked by the bastards means at least you’re getting notices…

On the other hand, it is a little spooky.

The Times - 3 years past relevance

This drives me crazy. Not that the FBI or the NSA was spying on us in the Tank basement, whatever - what drives me crazy is the extent to which the newspaper of record was complicit in our Republic’s death spiral.

The New York Times sat on this story. Why? And why are they publishing it only now? Easy.

They are publishing it now because The Washington Post published a fantastic, horrifying anonymous Op-Ed yesterday, a concrete, personal account of how Cheney’s government (and he did run the entire government for 6 years) used any and all Federal power to shore up his illegitimate authoritarian regime which was busily dismantling itself while looting the treasury.

Now not to be outdone, the Times shows up two days later and says, “Ooh, ooh, we knew too! We knew the Bush Administration was stomping over civil liberties! [Read our paper for the latest 3 year-old story]. If I remember correctly, they sat on this story during the fall of 2004… wasn’t something happening then that might have been affected by this story? Something like an election?

They also sat on another story about the NSA wiretapping during the Presidential race. Why? Well, because George Bush’s henchmen strongly asked the New York Times to not print a factual story might affect the debate in a detrimental way - detrimental to the contender in that race, who in the factual story, it was revealed to have broken the law 30 times. Remember that one?

Go read how this happened before, the Times did this to us before.

NY Times, can’t go Dodo soon enough for me.