The Federal Bureau of Investigation, you will be glad to know, has been on the lookout for signs of terrorist activity, and it has found people doing some alarming things–organizing demonstrations against U.S. policy in Iraq, spreading the word and raising funds on the Internet, using video cameras to document alleged police brutality against protesters, and wearing scuba masks to protect against tear gas. In extreme cases, an FBI memo recently said, protesters may engage in sit-ins, form human chains, commit vandalism or throw objects.
You may wonder where to find the part about terrorism. Good question. The FBI bulletin, sent out to some law enforcement personnel across the country, is advertised as providing “current, relevant terrorism information developed from counterterrorism investigations.” But it deals largely with peaceful protests, which are not criminal. And the possible illegal acts it envisions, though disruptive and even violent, have nothing obvious to do with terrorism, and everything to do with expressing political beliefs.
So why does the agency suggest its scrutiny of past protests has some terrorism angle? It claims terrorists might take advantage of the attention given to large demonstrations to carry out an attack, or that they might even target protest groups. But those notions are just speculation. There is no more reason to think that Al Qaeda would see a terrorism opportunity in an antiwar rally than in, say, a Republican presidential campaign event. Yet the FBI is not known to be monitoring how the GOP tries to mobilize supporters or spreads its message.
In the unmourned days of J. Edgar Hoover, the agency had an unhealthy habit of conducting surveillance and collecting data on Americans merely because they publicly opposed government policy. So it’s a bit alarming to learn that it has been examining the conduct of groups that drew attention largely because they were engaged in constitutionally protected political activity–expressing political views and petitioning the government.
The FBI insists, “We do not investigate or maintain dossiers on people because of their `political activities.’ ” But it has been keeping an eye on many perfectly legal political activities that have no discernible connection to terrorism. The fact that the FBI feels obligated to monitor antiwar activities suggests that there is something illegitimate about them. Mere government surveillance of political demonstrations could deter some Americans from exercising their 1st Amendment rights for fear of attracting unwelcome attention.
The bulletin suggests that the agency may not be keeping its eye on the terrorism ball. Why does it need to warn local police that camcorders and tape recorders “may be used for documenting potential cases of police brutality”? Why does it label videotaping by protesters as one of their “intimidation techniques”? There is nothing suspicious about efforts to discourage police from breaking the law.
If the government can’t distinguish between ordinary political protest and terrorism, it’s likely to have two bad effects: scaring law-abiding citizens, and sparing terrorists.
