[anigbrowl]

No. You have a second-hand, uncorroborated report that someone within the FBI and/or DHS referred to the Occupy movement as terrorists, with no context whatsoever.

First, without context or a link to the source the report is meaningless. The documents that are cited in this report make no such characterization. Second, these two organizations are huge. It's entirely possible that someon in the FBI wrote a report describing the Occupy folks as potential terrorists - I can easily believe that occurred. That's not the same as the entire organization or even its leadership holding that position.

Context matters a lot, and so do primary sources. This sort of political free-association that you seem to enjoy quickly ends up in conspiracy-theory territory because it's not falsifiable. This is why it's so hard to talk to people who buy into UFO conspiracies; possibility is continually treated as probability, and eventually it starts to look to them like everything revolves around an attempt to conceal Aliens Among Us. You can't talk them out of it, because that's just sort of thing a PsyOps operative would do, right?

Do you remember the shitstorm in 2009 when DHS came up with a report on 'rightwing extremism'? That was a fairly dry and dispassionate overview of one type of possible domestic terrorism (http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf), but to look at the reaction in the blogosphere you'd think the Obama administration was about to carry out the bloodiest purge since Stalin. Forgive me if I don't give random extrapolations based on a single word a great deal of weight.

[fnordfnordfnord]

>No. You have a second-hand, uncorroborated report that someone within the FBI and/or DHS referred to the Occupy movement as terrorists, with no context whatsoever.

Here is the ~~100 page document obtained from the FBI through FOIA request detailing activities conducted by the Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/549516-fbi-spy-files...

Most items in the documents indicate that people associated the Occupy movement are the primary focus of investigations. Ironically, at lease one of the incidents named "terrorism" by FBI agents is a report of pretty minor violence directed at Occupy protesters (a Drano bomb). It doesn't give the appearance that field agents spam the word terrorism as much as their press spokesperson counterparts. I suspect many field agents are just as tired of the word as I am.

So here is your context. There is a large group of groups within State and local law enforcement agencies named "Joint Terrorism Task Force" (JTTF), which has money, and other resources; and a broad mandate and expanded authority, which spends its time spying on and policing what are obviously peaceful groups of citizens protesting social and political issues. It stores its reports in a database under a heading named "counterterrorism".

The whole thing smells too much like a better organized and better funded version of the COINTELPRO program under Hoover's FBI, which I would expect was begun in a similar manner and spirit.

[anigbrowl]

So here is your context. There is a large group of groups within State and local law enforcement agencies named "Joint Terrorism Task Force" (JTTF), which has money, and other resources; and a broad mandate and expanded authority, which spends its time spying on and policing what are obviously peaceful groups of citizens protesting social and political issues. It stores its reports in a database under a heading named "counterterrorism".

/Facepalm

Most of the documents in here consist of observations that OWS events were peaceful and harmless, or that where there was violence it was the exception and was rejected by most protestors.You're complaining about a JTTF coming to the conclusion that this or that OWS event is a false positive, because the JTTF has 'terrorism' in its name.

This is like arguing that doctors consider everyone to be sick because they are trained to be on the lookout for disease. I can't have a serious conversation with you if you think this way.

[grey-area]

Though I'm not sure I agree that a counter terrorism task force should be in any way connected to investigating Occupy protests without credible and specific threats of real terrorism, here's an even better example of the misuse of powers against terrorists:

When defending the liberty of unsavory characters, I usually write of my native England. Not this week, alas. In the state of Texas, a 19-year-old man named Justin Carter sits in prison, ruthlessly stripped of his freedom for making an offensive joke. After a Facebook friend with whom he played video games described him as “crazy” and “messed up in the head,” Carter replied — sarcastically, one imagines — “Oh yeah, I’m real messed up in the head, I’m going to go shoot up a school full of kids and eat their still, beating hearts.” He added “lol” and “jk” for good measure. For this he was arrested by Austin police, charged with making a “terroristic threat,” and thrown into prison. He may languish there until the start of the next decade. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/352432/free-justin-car...

I imagine half the male population of the US could be jailed for making similar remarks at some stage in their life.

If you give police special powers against terrorists, gradually all suspects will be considered a terrorist, because it's just easier that way. Recently a 19 year old boy has been jailed for years for one sarcastic comment, in the name of fighting terror.

[grey-area]

It's entirely possible that someon in the FBI wrote a report describing the Occupy folks as potential terrorists - I can easily believe that occurred. That's not the same as the entire organization or even its leadership holding that position.

I agree that this is not something to be outraged about, but it is something to be watchful of and to be called out - government agencies should not refer to peaceful or even violent protesters as terrorists, and our laws should not distinguish between terrorists and other suspects in terms of the rights we give them. In this particular case I agree we need more evidence to say anything meaningful, but there are plenty of examples of misuse of powers given to our states to deal with terrorists for other purposes.

Context matters a lot, and so do primary sources. This sort of political free-association that you seem to enjoy quickly ends up in conspiracy-theory territory because it's not falsifiable.

That is mostly my objection to the use of the label terrorist - the meaning of the term has been stretched to encompass so many acts (from giving money, to riots, to bombing a market), and the judgement calls required to choose between freedom-fighter and terrorist are so subjective, that use of the term limits the horizons of any debate to a narrow exchange of slogans. It is similar to the epithet traitor when applied to Edward Snowden. It's simply a way to shut down debate without further thought, and classify others as in a group you could never parley with or understand.

What's interesting about both the Snowden case and terrorism when it comes to the US is that in both cases the government sees some acts as good, and others as bad a priori, when in character they are exactly the same. This administration leaks classified secrets all the time, but those are good leaks, whereas Snowden's leaks to journalists are bad leaks. Obama stood in the former jail cell of a terrorist at the weekend and contemplated freedom and the terrorist's struggle to end Apartheid.

These issues are complex and shouldn't be reduced to sound-bites or slogans, and the label of terrorist is particularly dangerous in the west at present as it has been used to justify ignoring our laws on human rights, privacy, and justice for whole swathes of people. As soon as you are associated (even a few degrees removed) from activity deemed terrorist, your rights no longer exist. That's extremely dangerous.

[jasonlotito]

> government agencies should not refer to peaceful or even violent protesters as terrorists

You mean "potential terrorists."

And, I for one am fine with people in government speculating and planning. There is a vast difference in research and study, speculation and planning. After all, all it would take is a few OWS people to go blow up a bank or something to escalate the entire matter. Sure, it's just a few members, a splinter group, but then what do you do. Ignore the entire movement? Did the cover of OWS help them achieve some other goal, or did OWS unwittingly help them escalate the matter further.

None of this is to lay blame to OWS, but maybe something like this should have been considered, so when bad things do happen, we are more prepared.

And it's all speculation. But the minute you start holding to account speculation at the same level you hold official policy, you start serious restricting our ability to plan.

I'd hope that our government has plans on how to invade Canada should the need arise. I hope that need never arises, but I'd rather have the plan and not need it then need it and not have it.

There is a vast difference in planning something, and intending to follow through (which is always why the conspiracy laws are not just applied for planning, otherwise thriller writers the world over would be in jail).

> and the judgement calls required to choose between freedom-fighter and terrorist are so subjective

People are fond of reminding us that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom-fighter. They forget that for that statement to be true, that freedom-fighter must also be a terrorist.

[jackbravo]

Wait what? Hope that the government has plans to invade Canada? Maybe you meant defend from Canada, Prevent war with Canada, nullify Canada Army. But invade? I sure hope they don't have plans for that.

[tptacek]

It's funny, I read the first part of Jason's comment, thought to myself "not only does the government plan, but they plan so much that they even have a plan to invade Canada", found the link, and posted it upthread". I didn't even notice him considering later on in the comment whether we did.

We do indeed have a plan to invade Canada. We've had it since the 1920s.

[jasonlotito]

I know we have plans for Canada (It's one of those humorous things you hear about as an American living in Canada). Canada isn't even the point. It's that we have plans just in case we need them. Planning doesn't mean you expect things to happen.

So yes. The Government should plan, and I'd be disturbed if they didn't.

[jasonlotito]

> Hope that the government has plans to invade Canada?

My wife is Canadian. My children are Canadian. I live there for 10 years. I'm not hoping that the government is planning to invade Canada. However, I hope they've planned it out, just in case.

Maybe that "in case" is a part of defending ourselves, or nullifying an aggressive act.

No, I don't hope they have active plans to invade Canada. However, if we needed to enter Canada to stop something bad from happening, I hope they wouldn't be making things up on the spot.

[tptacek]

The US military has a plan to invade Canada:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12...

Somehow, Canada seems to manage not to hyperventilate about it.

[jcromartie]

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2012/12/fbi-treated-...