Police Infiltrating, Spying on Leftist Groups : Dispatches from the Culture Wars

Profile

Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of Michigan Citizens for Science and co-founder of The Panda's Thumb. He has written for such publications as The Bard, Skeptic and Reports of the National Center for Science Education, spoken in front of many organizations and conferences, and appeared on nationally syndicated radio shows and on C-SPAN. Ed is also a Fellow with the Center for Independent Media and the host of Declaring Independence, a one hour weekly political talk show on WPRR in Grand Rapids, Michigan.(static)

Search

Other Information

Ed Brayton also blogs at Positive Liberty and The Panda's Thumb

Ed Brayton is a participant in the Center for Independent Media New Journalism Program. However, all of the statements, opinions, policies, and views expressed on this site are solely Ed Brayton's. This web site is not a production of the Center, and the Center does not support or endorse any of the contents on this site.

Ed's Audio and Video

Declaring Independence podcast feed

YearlyKos 2007

Video of speech on Dover and the Future of the Anti-Evolution Movement

Audio of Greg Raymer Interview

E-mail Policy

Any and all emails that I receive may be reprinted, in part or in full, on this blog with attribution. If this is not acceptable to you, do not send me e-mail - especially if you're going to end up being embarrassed when it's printed publicly for all to see.

My Ecosystem Details

« Day 5 Report | Main | Balko Nails Homophobic Oklahoma Politician »

Police Infiltrating, Spying on Leftist Groups

Posted on: July 22, 2008 9:02 AM, by Ed Brayton

AP reports on new documents released by the ACLU of Maryland that show that the Maryland state police have been infiltrating anti-war and anti-death penalty groups undercover and spying on them.

Undercover Maryland state police officers infiltrated meetings of peace and anti-death penalty groups for more than a year, according to documents released Thursday by the state chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.
Police also included the name of at least one prominent peace activist in a federal database for tracking terrorists and drug dealers.

ACLU attorney David Rocah said documents released Thursday show state police violated federal laws prohibiting departments that receive federal funds from maintaining databases with information about political activities and affiliations. The ACLU obtained the documents after suing the state police.

The police response:

Maryland state police Col. Terrence B. Sheridan said in a statement that his agency has never taken illegal action against citizens or groups that have lawfully exercised their right to free speech and assembly.
"Only when information regarding criminal activity is alleged will police continue to investigate leads to ensure the public safety," the statement said.

Great, then I'm sure they won't mind making public the evidence on which they determined that there was probable cause for such infiltration. Right? Anyone? Bueller? Not likely, I know. But there is a way to fix this: a federal law requiring that any agency at any level of government that wants to send in people undercover to an organization must meet the 4th amendment's probable cause standard and get permission from a court before doing so.

Find more posts in: Politics

Share this: Facebook Twitter Stumbleupon Reddit Email + More

Comments

More at the Baltimore Sun:

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/politics
/bal-te.md.spy22jul22,0,3154060.story

"[Governor Martin] O'Malley, who took office in January 2007, is confident that the state police will not undertake surveillance without evidence of wrongdoing during his administration and that legislation isn't necessary at this point."

Yeah, right...

Posted by: anon | July 22, 2008 10:01 AM

My dad was on a "cruise" on Lake Ontario a couple years ago and struck up a conversation with someone (which he invariably does). When he told the guy his name, the guy said "I know". Turns out the guy was a retired FBI agent who, c. 1970, used to "investigate" (stake out/wiretap/etc) the community organization my parents were involved in (my dad was president for a year or two).

My dad joked with the guy about how they used to bring coffee to the agents in the car and invite them into the meetings.

Posted by: rpsms | July 22, 2008 10:47 AM

And when the next big terrorist act kills a lot of Americans on US soil, will these cops take ANY blame for wasting their resources on people who were doing nothing even remotely threatening? Probably not -- they'll only say it's OUR fault for questioning them and not letting them do what their gut feelings (a.k.a. "prejudices") told them to do.

Posted by: Raging Bee | July 22, 2008 11:42 AM

Curious how they are spying on leftist groups when all the trouble is coming from the faith-based rightwing crazies.

Posted by: Globle Warren Terrism | July 22, 2008 12:56 PM

The spirit of COINTELPRO lives on.

Posted by: Sadie Morrison | July 22, 2008 1:13 PM

Where is Frank Church when we really need him.....again.

Posted by: NJ Osprey | July 22, 2008 1:18 PM

And when the next big terrorist act kills a lot of Americans on US soil, will these cops take ANY blame for wasting their resources on people who were doing nothing even remotely threatening?

On the contrary. One of the reasons law enforcement ignored the future 9-11 hijackers taking flying lessons and so on was because they didn't want to run afoul of post-COINTELPRO laws/rules against spying on people who weren't breaking any laws.

Now I'm not defending Maryland State Police in this case, or illegal/unnecessary surveillance in general. And I absolutely agree with Ed they should have to show their evidence to a judge. But if you're going to complain when they pay attention to people you don't think are dangerous, it's a little disingenuous to in the same breath complain that they didn't pay enough attention to someone else who in hindsight turned out to be dangerous.

Posted by: WScott | July 22, 2008 1:44 PM

Curious how they are spying on leftist groups when all the trouble is coming from the faith-based rightwing crazies.

Oh, I have no doubt they're watching the right-wing nuts as well. But leftist groups as a rule tend to be more sensitive to civil rights violations (justifiably so) and quicker with the FOIA requests.

Posted by: WScott | July 22, 2008 1:48 PM

i've met tim hutchins, the redneck who was state police commander when this got started and it's not surprising in the least. the stereotype of the small town, rural cop is all too true sometimes.

Posted by: khefera | July 22, 2008 1:58 PM

yes, virginia, there really is a right wing conspiracy...

Posted by: commiepinkoliberal | July 22, 2008 2:05 PM

WScott:

But if you're going to complain when they pay attention to people you don't think are dangerous, it's a little disingenuous to in the same breath complain that they didn't pay enough attention to someone else who in hindsight turned out to be dangerous.

Considering that anyone could, in hindsight, turn out to be dangerous, this statement amounts to a suggestion that everyone's activities should be closely monitored by the police-- and if you have a problem with it, you're being disingenuous. Somebody in my mother's bridge club might turn out to be dangerous. Send in the undercover police!

Posted by: Gretchen | July 22, 2008 2:32 PM

WScott: there's nothing "disingenuous" about expecting law-enforcement officers to a) make a distinction between people they don't like and people who they have probable cause to believe might be a threat; and b) get a goddamn warrant to spy on the latter, not the former, group(s).

We made the same mistake during the Red Scare of the '50s: spying on old women for no reason other than their "leftist" political views (relative to the far right hysterics, that is) and accomplishing, at best, nothing. And like them, you've learned absolutely nothing from that costly failure, and automatically assume that cops are always right and their civilian critics are always wrong.

So, WScott, since you're so much more enlightened than us librul wusses, why don't you tell us what on what probable cause the cops base their surveillance of anti-death-penalty groups? Was 9/11 masterminded by people opposed to lethal injection?

Posted by: Raging Bee | July 22, 2008 2:55 PM

Somebody in my mother's bridge club might turn out to be dangerous.

Thank you for the tip citizen. But our agents are already in place... I fear I've said too much.

Posted by: Federal Bureau of Intimidation | July 22, 2008 3:00 PM

"But if you're going to complain when they pay attention to people you don't think are dangerous, it's a little disingenuous to in the same breath complain that they didn't pay enough attention to someone else who in hindsight turned out to be dangerous."

WScott, on the contrary this is precisely the point. You maintain that they were afraid to break the laws prior to 9/11. So when they break the laws post 9/11 and do so to spy on non-threats it somehow means a complaint is disingenuous? If they break the laws now, they could have broken them then. That they chose to do so now to spy on non-threats makes this doubly bad. They ARE wasting resources AND breaking the law AND not spying on possible threats. If they are going to ignore the law I would rather they did it with an intent to catch a real threat.

Posted by: B8ovin | July 22, 2008 3:06 PM

The warning flag that was ignored in the pre 9/11 case was that those in "pilot training" were all too interested in learning how to fly these jumbo jets, but expressed no interest in learning how to take-off and land.

As a former USAF pilot, this sounds down right suspicious to me. Flying the plane once airborne is the easy part, let me assure you.

Posted by: Bill Ware | July 22, 2008 8:36 PM

They need to bring back The Wire for this.

Posted by: Hari Narayan | July 23, 2008 12:36 AM

Considering that anyone could, in hindsight, turn out to be dangerous, this statement amounts to a suggestion that everyone's activities should be closely monitored by the police

I guess you skipped the part of my post where I agreed with Ed that the police should have to show cause before a judge why such surveillaince is justified? My point was that it's easy for Monday Morning Quarterbacks to say "They should've been watching those guys!" It's much harder to know in advance who's truly a threat. The "warning flags" that seem so blatant when looked at in isolation after the fact aren't always so obvious when buried in a sea of data.

We made the same mistake during the Red Scare of the '50s: spying on old women for no reason other than their "leftist" political views (relative to the far right hysterics, that is)

I agree completely. My objection is that some people here seem to be displaying the exact same prejudice from the other side, ie leftist groups are all peaceful, it's the right wing kooks we have to watch. Try Googling eco-terrorism, black bloc anarchists, etc.

And like them, you've learned absolutely nothing from that costly failure, and automatically assume that cops are always right and their civilian critics are always wrong.

Wow, we're just jumping to conclusions all over the place here! On the contrary, my objection is to some people here assuming that the cops are always wrong. If it's all the same, I'd just as soon you respond to my actual words instead of the strawman ones you're putting in my mouth, kay?

So, WScott, since you're so much more enlightened than us librul wusses

...and straight to the personal insults. Yawn.

why don't you tell us what on what probable cause the cops base their surveillance of anti-death-penalty groups? Was 9/11 masterminded by people opposed to lethal injection?

I already said the Maryland case smells fishy at best. I also already said the police should have to show their evidence. But this is exactly what I'm talking about: you seem to want to believe that leftist groups you agree with can't possibly be planning to break the law. That's prejudice on your part, plain & simple.

Consider: There are a large number of activist groups -- left, right, center, and all over -- planning to protest the Democratic and Republican National Conventions later this summer. The majority of these protests are (we hope) going to be peaceful & legal. But we know from statements they've made in public and on their own websites that some of these groups are going to Denver/Minneapolis with the specific intent to break the law, by obstructing traffic, trying to prevent delegates from reaching the convention, damaging public property, etc. These actions will cost the taxpayers of those cities millions of dollars in overtime, response, repairs, legal fees, etc. Then there are the Black Bloc Anarchists who want to turn Denver 2008 into Seattle 1999 and hope to cause millions of dollars worth of property damage.
Should the police be able to monitor those groups' plans so they (the police) can better respond to the planned illegal activities of the minority of activists, while minimizing the disruption to the legal protests? (And yes, as I've already said repeatedly, I think they should have to get a warrant to do so.)

Posted by: WScott | July 23, 2008 10:52 AM

Dang that was a long response - sorry.

Posted by: WScott | July 23, 2008 11:10 AM

Try Googling eco-terrorism, black bloc anarchists, etc.

Do they blow up abortion clinics? Encourage harrassment and worse of doctors who practice abortion? Bomb black churches? Lynch anyone? I've heard of many instances of what you call "eco-terrorism," and guess what -- they never (IIRC) kill anyone, but are overwhelmingly property crimes. That's "sabotage" and "vandalism," not "terrorism." Calling those people "terrorists" is just as stupid -- and just as bigoted and cowardly -- as calling all liberals "Communists."

On the contrary, my objection is to some people here assuming that the cops are always wrong.

And that objection is itself flat-out wrong. We're not "assuming" anything; we're OBSERVING that cops are far more likely to be wrong when there are no checks or balances in place to keep them honest.

Remember Chandra Levy? Her murderer got away because the cops got too focused on the wrong suspect and ignored some very crucial early leads.

...you seem to want to believe that leftist groups you agree with can't possibly be planning to break the law.

And I will continue to believe this unless and until I see evidence that they ARE breaking the law, AND that their lawbreaking is as dangerous to innocent people as that of the loony right (both "Christian" and "Muslim"). Innocent until proven guilty, remember?

But we know from statements they've made in public and on their own websites that some of these groups are going to Denver/Minneapolis with the specific intent to break the law, by obstructing traffic, trying to prevent delegates from reaching the convention, damaging public property, etc.

Do any of their intended actions involve KILLING PEOPLE? If not, then maybe the cops (and you) have your priorities a bit misplaced.

Besides, you don't need to infiltrate the groups to prevent this sort of crime; just go to their stated venue and monitor their actions on the spot, which the cops would be doing anyway. Infiltration is a waste of resources.

(And yes, as I've already said repeatedly, I think they should have to get a warrant to do so.)

(And the main thrust of this post was that cops were spying on people -- and arbitrarily listing them in a database reserved for "terrorists" and "drug dealers," for purpuses of political smearing, not crime-prevention, without sufficient probable cause.)

Posted by: Raging Bee | July 24, 2008 10:41 AM

Just this week, I was reading about Maryland State Police spying on World Federalists groups in the 1950s.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.spy21jul21,0,2928606.story

World feds always have been involved in the fight for government accountability. Then, it was civil rights; today, we're celebrating having led the fight for the International Criminal Court that robust enough to dare issue warrants for sitting heads of state for war crimes.

http://iccnow.org/?mod=about

Posted by: Tony | July 24, 2008 5:22 PM

Do they blow up abortion clinics? Encourage harrassment and worse of doctors who practice abortion? Bomb black churches?

Yes, they do all those things. Just not against targets you care about, so apparently that makes it okay in your book.

they never (IIRC) kill anyone, but are overwhelmingly property crimes.

Mostly correct, granted. But you do understand that the police investigate (and attempt to prevent) crimes other than murder, right?

Calling those people "terrorists" is just as stupid -- and just as bigoted and cowardly -- as calling all liberals "Communists."

I agree with you that the word "terrorist" is fast becoming the new "Communist" (or "Nazi" depending on who's slinging it). Nonetheless, terrorism has for decades been defined as the use or threat of criminal violence to promote a political agenda. It is completely accurate to apply the term to people who burnt $12 million of forest in Vail in order to "save the environment." You seem to be okay with calling it terrorism when right-wingers blow up abortion clinics, but when left-wingers blow up genetic research labs, it's merely "sabotage." Yet you accuse me of bias?

we're OBSERVING that cops are far more likely to be wrong when there are no checks or balances in place to keep them honest.

This just in: power has been known to corrupt. This phenomenon is by no means unique to law enforcement. And for the umpteenth time, I am all in favor of checks & balances, including the specific warrant requirement Ed proposed at the start. Why do you have such a hard time grasping that?

And I will continue to believe this unless and until I see evidence that they ARE breaking the law,

Wikipedia is your friend.

AND that their lawbreaking is as dangerous to innocent people as that of the loony right (both "Christian" and "Muslim").

I didn't realize it was a contest. If we learned that the FBI/CIA/etc were putting more resources into chasing ALF/ELF than Al Queda, your point would be valid. But we're talking about the Maryland State Police, who by definition are primarily focused against local, domestic threats. Yes, even those that "only" want to destroy millions of dollars worth of public and private property.

Besides, you don't need to infiltrate the groups to prevent this sort of crime; just go to their stated venue and monitor their actions on the spot, which the cops would be doing anyway. Infiltration is a waste of resources.

I'm sorry Bee, but now your just showing your ignorance.

Posted by: wscott | July 25, 2008 1:19 PM