FBI agents improperly opened investigations into Greenpeace and several other domestic advocacy groups after the September 11, 2001, attacks.
The agents also put names of some Greenpeace members on terror watch lists with evidence that turned out to be “factually weak”.
A Department of Justice review released yesterday did not find that the FBI deliberately targeted the groups, as many civil liberties advocates had charged after anti-Iraq war rallies and other protests during the Bush administration.
Rather, Inspector-General Glenn A. Fine said, the FBI tactics appeared “troubling” in singling out some of the domestic groups for investigations that ran for up to five years, and were extended “without adequate basis”. He also questioned why the FBI continued to maintain investigative files against the groups.
“In several cases there was little indication of any possible federal crimes,” Inspector Fine said. “In some cases, the FBI classified some investigations relating to non-violent civil disobedience under its Acts of Terrorism classification.”
Besides Greenpeace, groups investigated included People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and anti-war groups the Catholic Worker and the Thomas Merton Centre in Pittsburgh.
FBI deputy director Timothy P. Murphy defended the investigations, saying they were launched after tips suggested potential criminal activities. “We are pleased the report concludes the FBI did not target any groups for investigation on the basis of their First Amendment activities,” Mr Murphy said. He conceded that some “inaccurate information” gleaned from the investigations was passed up to FBI director Robert S. Mueller III, who used it in congressional testimony regarding a 2002 anti-war rally held by the Thomas Merton Centre.
Michael Drohan, president of the board of directors of the centre, founded in 1972 to oppose the Vietnam War, said they believed the FBI targeted them to scare others from joining their cause.
“It is somewhat troubling that in the name of combating terrorism, they would choose an organisation that they know is bent on the principle of non-violence,” Mr Drohan said. “That they would use taxpayer money to surveil us (is) a bit outrageous.”
Be the first to comment