Government
Jun. 26, 2002
Keeping a Close Eye on Authority
Forum Column - By Mark Schlosberg - On June 9, following a 17-year legal battle to obtain information under the Freedom of Information Act, the San Francisco Chronicle published a detailed analysis of FBI abuses committed at the University of California, Berkeley, during the 1950s and 1960s.
By Mark Schlosberg
On June 9, following a 17-year legal battle to obtain information under the Freedom of Information Act, the San Francisco Chronicle published a detailed analysis of FBI abuses committed at the University of California, Berkeley, during the 1950s and 1960s.
The Chronicle report documented how the FBI worked with the CIA to undermine the free speech movement, oust Clark Kerr, the university's president, and "thwart the ever increasing agitation by subversive elements on the campuses."
The documents obtained reveal shocking abuses of power by federal law enforcement officials - abuses that are consistent with other FBI activity during that time period, including attempts to infiltrate and disrupt the civil rights movement.
While some may view the report as an interesting account of a shameful period long since past, the revelations demonstrate the very real dangers of an unchecked FBI. They show how free-ranging FBI investigations can be used to suppress dissenting opinions, and they provide a context through which to look at Attorney General John Ashcroft's recent decision to unilaterally eliminate many key protections that were put in place as a result of the civil rights abuses of the 1960s.
In the latest attack on civil liberties by Ashcroft, he announced, without prior consultation with key congressional members, sweeping revisions to the guidelines that govern FBI investigations. Key changes in the new guidelines allow federal agents to freely infiltrate mosques, churches and synagogues and political meetings without any information linking the particular organizations to terrorism or any other criminal act and without approval from FBI headquarters in Washington, D.C. Agents also are allowed to conduct generalized research on political and religious groups without any link to criminal activity.
These changes are not necessary in protecting the United States against terrorism. Before the changes, federal agents could open a preliminary inquiry based solely on "information or an allegation ... whose responsible handling required some further scrutiny."
The increasingly well-documented intelligence failures before Sept. 11 were widely acknowledged as not the result of a lack of information but rather a failure to connect and act on information agents already had.
One need only to look at the FBI's record in the recent past and the current focus of the Justice Department investigation to predict how these new powers will be used. They undoubtedly will be used to gather information and investigate innocent Arabs and Muslims as well as groups advocating unpopular political views. They will produce fear in those communities and will be used to quash dissent.
The FBI has a long track record, not limited to the gross abuses of the 1960s, of spying on politically active individuals and organizations. Over the last three decades, federal agents have gathered extensive information on activists advocating for changes in U.S. policy toward Central America, Amnesty International members and civil rights activists. The recent jury verdict in Oakland against three FBI agents for violating the First and Fourth Amendment rights of Earth First activists Judi Bari and Darryl Cherney is proof of the danger posed by FBI overreach.
Given the direction that the Justice Department investigation is taking, there is little doubt how these new powers will be used. The Justice Department has made it clear that racial and ethnic profiling will be a tool in the war against terrorism. Shortly after Sept. 11, 5,000 men from Middle Eastern and South Asian countries who recently had come to the United States were targeted for questioning despite the lack of any evidence linking them to any crime.
None of those questioned were found to have any connection with terrorism. In fact, the two most highly publicized arrests connected to terrorism since Sept. 11 have been Richard Reid, a British citizen, and Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen of Puerto Rican dissent who was born in Brooklyn, N.Y.
Leading intelligence officials in a memo titled "Assessing Behaviors" also have argued that racial profiling is ineffective and counterproductive in combating terrorism.
Despite this assessment, on March 20, Ashcroft announced that an additional 3,000 men of Middle Eastern and South Asian heritage were to be questioned. And on June 5, Ashcroft announced that thousands of lawful visitors, including those in the country from mostly Middle Eastern nations, would be required to provide fingerprints on arrival and register with the Immigration and Naturalization Service within 30 days.
The focus of the Department of Justice investigation makes clear who will be the target of the FBI's newfound powers. It certainly would not be surprising to see religious and cultural centers such as mosques and temples frequented by FBI agents.
Political groups advocating changes in U.S. foreign policy toward the Middle East or an end to U.S. military action may be targeted in the same way that civil rights activists and anti-war demonstrators were in the 1960s. Allowing such investigations threatens to chill dissent at a time when political debate is most needed.
Fortunately, the changes in the FBI guidelines have not gone without congressional criticism. Immediately after they were announced, the new guidelines were sharply criticized by members of Congress. Criticism did not only come from liberal Democrats but conservative Republicans, as well. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wisc., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, called for congressional hearings, citing the agency's history of civil rights abuses.
Congress must take its oversight function seriously and work to ensure that the public is protected - not just from terrorism but also from unwarranted intrusions into religious and political organizations.
The recent changes in the FBI guidelines were an unnecessary expansion of power that allows federal agents to gather information about innocent and peaceful religious and political organizations without any evidence or suspicion of criminal activity. The recent exposé about the FBI abuses at the University of California, Berkeley, provides an in-depth look at one of many instances when the FBI used its broad powers to disrupt political activity and quash dissent.
Now more than ever, it is imperative that Congress vigorously exercise its oversight function and ensure that the FBI is not allowed to abuse these vast powers.
Mark Schlosberg is the Police Practices Policy director of the ACLU of Northern California.
Columnist
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
Jeremy_Ellis@dailyjournal.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 213-229-5424
Send a letter to the editor:
Email: letters@dailyjournal.com