Constant's pations

If it's more than 30 minutes old, it's not news. It's a blog.

Wednesday, July 20, 2005

DoJ apparently targeting ACLU to dissuade public opposition to White House

There are some subtle inconsistencies in the stories about FBI interest or non-interest in the ACLU. This note shows how the stories don't add up.


A guest on the O'Reilly show said that the ACLU was not under investigation.

Small problem, the guest then later said that there were people that were using ACLU lawyers.

Here's how it works. Anyone can get a lawyer.

The problem is if the lawyer is advocating violence.

They way the guest leaves the discussion, is that there is the potential question as to whether the ACLU is doing more than giving legal advice, but is allegedly engaging in unlawful advocacy of violence.

Either way, the point is that there's a mixed signal coming out about why DoJ/FBI/JTTF have documents relating to the ACLU.

Who cares about these little nuances between what the ACLU is or is not involved? Well, take a look at this piece outlining the subtle nuances involving Rove.

The point is this: When the FBI investigated Rove, it noticed very subtle inconsistencies in what Rove was saying:

  • First Rove said that he got information from a source, but he can't remember;

  • Then Rove said he got the information from a reporter

  • Then Rove apparently said it was he, Rove, who contacted the reporter

  • Finally, Cooper comes out and says that he was the one that spoke to Rove.

    The point is that the FBI appears to believe that it is not credible for Rove to have said, "He couldn't remember who he spoke to," while at the same time being able to remember the name of the agent.

    Yet, we now find out that the apparent original source of the information isn't necessarily either Rove or Cooper, but a State Department Memo which Judith Miller somehow got a hold of, and apparently allowed that information to go to a third party that apparently helped neutralize a US intelligence effort.

    Key point: Is that there are subtle things in what people are or are not saying that raise questions about what the real truth is.

    Getting back to the ACLU Documents, if in fact the ACLU "wasn't under investigation" then there would be no reason to discuss whether the ACLU was or wasn't representing a client that allegedly was planning X, Y, or Z.

    If that was true, then the FBI wouldn't be able to release any documents related to an ongoing investigation.

    In this case, we have the opposite. The FBI is now the subject of the investigation and, by commenting publicly, has released some information. This means that there is no ongoing lawful investigation into the ACLU.

    Rather, the opposite: The real possibility that there is ongoing and potentially unlawful JTTF-DoJ-FBI-CIFA surveillance, monitoring, and harassment of people lawfully discussing issues with their attorneys.

    It appears as though DoJ doesn't want the documents released. DoJ has several objectives:

  • What non-sense can they spew forth to justify whatever they want;

  • How can they dissuade the ACLU from giving legal advice to anyone DoJ arbitrarily decides is "not on the RNC nice-person list"

  • Who can the DoJ accuse this week as planning some "vague activities" in order to use the accusation as some sort of pretext to go after legal counsel.

    Obviously I am speculating and have no clue what the FBI is or is not actually doing.

    But I do find it curious that a subtle nuance in and FBI investigation in re Rove, actually sheds some light on a subtle nuance about the FBI: How they want to distract attention from what they are looking at; all the while engaging in the same slight of hand and "non credible statements" coming from Rove.

    Those who practice magic are good at detecting it. Indeed, those who are good at detecting it the reason why the FBI is going after the ACLU.

    ACLU knows there is someone sophistry here. And the FBI is more likely to be going on a fishing trip than the defendant is engaged in actual criminal activity.

    Rather, what is more likely is DoJ is using some vague nexus, has a concern, but not enough to get a conviction.

    Great. Then perhaps they are doing something.

    But the problem DoJ runs into is when it uses the FISA as a justification to then engage in domestic surveillance using NSA, while at the same time targeting lawyers simply because people to exert their rights.

    DoJ wants America to be safe. But who is going to keep America safe from DoJ? The very people who DoJ is going after: The ACLU.

    Indeed, the lesson hear is that subtle and seemingly minor points can tip the balance for a grand jury or a court.

    The evidence doesn't have to be as large as an elephant. But it does have to be something that tends to tip the balance more than one way than an other. The smallest inconsistency can undo a defense.

    Even when that defense is the FBI.

    Going forward it remains to be seen whether the FBI fully complies with the ACLU FOIA request. DoJ does have a habit of not being able to find things. Despite software upgrades, their personnel have a hard time of creating search strings to find relevant documents.

    Credibility problems

    It's reasonable to question the veracity of FBI agents, especially when they appear to be used to dissuade the public from engaging in lawful activity and interacting with legal counsel.

    Public confidence is tenuous. FBI agents need to fix their credibility and public relations problems. The public is less inclined to believe you. At the critical juncture when you may need real help, the public is more likely to believe you're crying wolf; at worst, the public has a reasonable belief that you are no better than AlQueda, intent on destroying American values.

    What you can do is ask your local FBI agents to choose: Are you going to preserve the Constitution or preserve tyranny.

    Yet, America has larger problems than whether DoJ is [a] intimidating lawful protestors against unlawful government action; or [b] monitoring legal counsel to interfere with legal efforts to assert rights in the wake of DoJ intimidation.

    Most worrisome, is FBI agents still haven't figured out how to use a search engine.

    Loss of public support

    Those who abuse and mistreat a civilian population deserve to be shunned. In this case, American law enforcement deserves to be more than mocked. It deserves greater public oversight and accountability.

    To that end, DoJ would prefer the opposite. Hence, we are not surprised why DoJ and JTTF have the ACLU under surveillance.

    It is not nice to target those who lawfully assert themselves. These are the same abuses which prompted the American Revolution and Constitution.

    The FBI playground-Academy in Quantico still has a hard time drilling that little lesson into the small little minds of the tiny little agents. Thank goodness we still have a constitution. No thanks to the DoJ.

    Yes, DoJ you have a credibility problem. And you are reasonably compared to AlQueda. You made a poor choice.

    Have a bad day.