FBI investigates peace protest
News |
The Pittsburgh-based Thomas Merton Center for Peace and Justice (TMC) has long been part of the movement for finding solutions in the War on Terror. Now subject to repeated FBI investigations, the group is encountering more problems resulting from the war effort than solutions.
The FBI has been investigating the group because of its political opposition to warfare and reports of a person of “investigative interest,” according to FBI special agent Jeff Killeen and a document released by the TMC on March 14.
Two documents released by the FBI on March 14 confirmed for the first time that the FBI is targeting the TMC specifically because the group opposes the war in Iraq, according to a press release by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).
FBI presence as a result of both the release of these documents and surveillance at the group’s anti-war protest on March 18 outraged the TMC.
On March 21, the left-wing activist group staged a “spy-in” at the federal building in downtown Pittsburgh. A crowd of approximately 30 people donned spy gear and stood outside the government building to “protest government spying and intimidation,” according to the Thomas Merton Center’s
Anti-War Committee website.
“We want to publicize the fact that our government is spying on peace activists, and we want to let the public know that this is their tax dollars at work,” said Mary B. O’Malley, a spy-in participant.
“Something is seriously wrong in how our government determines who and what constitutes terrorism when peace activists find themselves targeted,” stated the ACLU in the press release.
Activists have been infuriated by repeated FBI surveillance that they believe is “completely unwarranted,” according to Dave Meieran of the Thomas Merton Center.
“It’s just ridiculous,” said Colby Tarnauskas, a senior biology major and intern for the TMC. “Why would you waste taxpayers’ money spying on us?”
According to Killeen, TMC meetings and sponsored events, which the FBI has been monitoring since 2002, have been targeted not because of the Thomas Merton Center itself, but because of a person “of investigative interest” who may have been present at those events.
“The FBI cannot investigate any person without predication. There has to be a connection between that activity and that person,” Killeen said. “If [the TMC] is out there doing peace activist work, fine. But if there’s someone there who is suspected of a crime, we have to watch them.”
Activists feel their First Amendment rights are being infringed upon, which prevents them from protecting their civil liberties.
“Do we threaten the current administration’s erosion of civil liberties by exercising our democratic rights?” asked Tom Vining, a target of FBI spying and author of an additional ACLU press statement also released on March 14. “I would hope so. Taking action to defend human and civil rights is a time-honored tradition in this country.”
The FBI also feels they are protecting human and civil rights.
“We have to be careful to protect everyone’s civil liberties,” Killeen said. “We do everything to make sure that we don’t encroach on anyone’s constitutional rights. Our paramount concern is to make sure that lives and property are protected.”
One concern of the TMC was that its members of Middle Eastern descent were being particularly targeted.
“During a time when religious differences often lead to so much violence and war, we feel it is more important than ever to build relationships and solidarity across lines of religion,” Vining stated.
Though an FBI document dated November 29, 2002 mentioned specifically that a TMC event was held at the Islamic Center of Pittsburgh, gave the home telephone number of the Muslim contact person for the event, and stated that “there are more than a few Muslims and people of Middle Eastern descent” present, Killeen maintained the FBI does not target specific racial groups.
“[The FBI] cannot and will not investigate because of someone’s religious or ethnic background,” he said.
Protesters are also concerned that the FBI activity has been allowed to occur legally because of the October 2001 adoption of the Patriot Act.
“It takes away more of our privacy each time it’s extended,” Tarnauskas said. “Without the Patriot Act, this FBI activity would be illegal.”
Killeen pointed out that the Patriot Act was enacted to open channels between government agencies for information sharing and collaboration after 9/11. “Many extremely important and helpful tools to help us gain information about possible terrorism have been made possible by the Patriot Act,” he said.
The FBI documents, dating back to 2002, were released because of Freedom of Information Act requests by the TMC and the ACLU. Under any other circumstances, the FBI would not have released those documents, Killeen said. Under that act, a group may request any documents on record which mention their organization in any way.
The TMC also suspects that an informant actually affiliated with the FBI is posing as a member of the center, according to a March 14 letter from the TMC to friends and members of the organization. Killeen said he could not comment on this matter.
“This spying is obviously a reaction to the good, hard work of Pittsburghers working against the war,” stated the March 14 letter released by the TMC.
“This is only the beginning of our efforts to shut down spying programs that target Americans and foreign nationals because of their political beliefs.”
Don’t Think For A Moment—You Can Talk To The FBI Off The Record.
If you are questioned by the FBI and truthfully answer “No” to a question, you might be charged for making a false statement under 18 U.S.C. § 1001. For example, if someone (unbeknownst to you) had proposed committing an act of violence or other crime at an activist meeting you attended—then later the FBI questions you about having knowledge of that proposal, by answering “No” the FBI might charge you for providing a misleading answer or lying to a federal agent under18 U.S.C. § 1001. This law is a trap for the innocent, because how can you prove you didn’t know something? Even answering, “yes” under this law can be hazardous. Consider the U.S. Supreme Case BROGAN v. UNITED STATES No. 96—1579. Argued December 2, 1997 Decided January 26, 1998: James Brogan was indicted on federal bribery charges and for making a “false statement” within the jurisdiction of a (federal agency) in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001. Note under the law, that any person questioned by the FBI or other Federal Agency can be imprisoned up to 5-years and fined $10,000 for every “misleading or false answer”; that includes false or misleading statements made to the FBI when questioned about a crime the Government can’t prove you committed. Under BROGAN v. UNITED STATES, Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg noted that when the FBI questions someone about an old crime after the Statute of Limitations past for criminal prosecution, and the questioned person denies having committed the crime, their fresh denial may involuntarily waive their right to assert in their defense—the statute of limitations has past for criminal prosecution e.g., a 20-year old crime. Consequently if you are ever questioned by the FBI or other federal agency about a past crime or about having knowledge of anything illegal happening in the future, the smart thing to do might be to remain silent and if necessary state to the FBI “Before I answer any of your questions I first need the benefit of an attorney.” Keep in mind that there is no such thing as talking to an FBI Agent or any federal agency off the record. Re: James Brogan, the FBI came by Brogan’s office and gave the appearance their visit was informal, then after asking a few questions indicted Brogan for lying to the FBI.
Below is a brief summary of the U.S. Supreme Court decision BROGAN v. UNITED STATES No. 96—1579 and Website access to learn more about the Brogan Case and 18 U.S.C. § 1001.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
BROGAN v. UNITED STATES
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
No. 96—1579. Argued December 2, 1997–Decided January 26, 1998
Petitioner falsely answered “no” when federal agents asked him whether he had received any cash or gifts from a company whose employees were represented by the union in which he was an officer. He was indicted on federal bribery charges and for making a false statement within the jurisdiction of a federal agency in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001. A jury in the District Court found him guilty. The Second Circuit affirmed, categorically rejecting his request to adopt the so-called “exculpatory no” doctrine, which excludes from §1001’s scope false statements that consist of the mere denial of wrongdoing.
Held: There is no exception to §1001 criminal liability for a false statement consisting merely of an “exculpatory no.” Although many Court of Appeals decisions have embraced the “exculpatory no” doctrine, it is not supported by §1001’s plain language. By its terms, §1001 covers “any” false statement–that is, a false statement “of whatever kind,” United States v. Gonzales, 520 U.S. ___, ___–including the use of the word “no” in response to a question. Petitioner’s argument that §1001 does not criminalize simple denials of guilt proceeds from two mistaken premises: that the statute criminalizes only those statements that “pervert governmental functions,” and that simple denials of guilt do not do so. United States v. Gilliland, 312 U.S. 86, 93, distinguished. His argument that a literal reading of §1001 violates the “spirit” of the Fifth Amendment is rejected because the Fifth Amendment does not confer a privilege to lie. E.g., United States v. Apfelbaum, 445 U.S. 115, 117. His final argument that the “exculpatory no” doctrine is necessary to eliminate the grave risk that §1001 will be abused by overzealous prosecutors seeking to “pile on” offenses is not supported by the evidence and should, in any event, be addressed to Congress. Pp. 2—8.
96 F.3d 35, affirmed.
Scalia, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and O’Connor, Kennedy, and Thomas, JJ., joined, and in which Souter, J., joined in part. Souter, J., filed a statement concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.
Ginsburg, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Souter, J., joined. Stevens, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Breyer, J., joined.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/96-1579.ZS.html
Comment guidelines
If you provide an email address, it will be displayed. This may make you more vulnerable to spammers.
HTML is not allowed. Paragraphs are automatically created by leaving a blank line. Links are created from URLs automatically.
Off-topic or inappropriate (e.g. obscene, libelous) comments are not permitted and will be removed.