Government Surveillance and Race, Part 1 on CSPAN3 right now.

the watchman

Former Staff
Jul 2011
95,702
63,688
becoming more and more
Last Friday, the Intercept released documents revealing that the Department of Homeland Security had been monitoring the Black Lives Matter movement since protests erupted in Ferguson, Missouri, last August. Emails obtained via the Freedom of Information Act showed that the department had tracked the movements of people at a Freddie Gray-related protest in Washington, DC, and had also monitored cultural events like DC's Annual Funk Parade and prayer vigils in predominately black neighborhoods nationwide. DHS also tracked hashtags and other social media associated with Black Lives Matter.

Nusrat Choudhury, a staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union's Racial Justice Program, says that while this type of surveillance may not be illegal, it may have significant chilling effects that do infringe on people's rights. "There's no question at all that the kind of mapping identified by the documents provided to Intercept chills people's First Amendment-protected activities," she says. "Of course it makes people feel afraid to go to these kinds of protests because of the impact it might have in terms of law enforcement's ability to gather intelligence about them." It may difficult to tell if this has happened, but, Choudhury says, "The line is drawn when that effect takes place.
Homeland Security Is Tracking Black Lives Matter. Is That Legal? | Mother Jones

LAST YEAR THE INTERCEPT REPORT OF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE BLACK LIVES MATTER MOVEMENT FOR BEING MONITORED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY. IF YOU CAN NAME A PROMINENT AFRICAN-AMERICAN CIVIL RIGHTS LEADER OF THE 20th OR 21st CENTURIES, CHANCES ARE SIGNIFICANT THAT HE OR SHE HAS BEEN SURVEILLED AND USUALLY IN THE NAME OF NATIONAL SECURITY. YOU CAN THINK THAT WHEN CONGRESS DEBATED NSA REFORM ALL OF THIS WOULD BE AT THE FRONT OF THEIR MINDS. PARTICULARLY BECAUSE JUST A FEW MONTHS AFTER THE SNOWFLAKES THE NSA REVEALED THAT IN ADDITION TO THE FBI IN THEIR OWN WIRETAP OF MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. THE NSA HAD ITSELF WIRETAPPED DOCTOR KING. AND YET WITH ONLY A FEW IMPORTANT EXCEPTIONS CONGRESS DID NOT TALK ABOUT ANY OF THIS. IN FACT, IT APPEARS THAT DURING THE TWO YEARS OF NSA DEBATES NO ONE EVER SPOKE MARTIN LUTHER KING JR.'S NAME. FRANKLY MOST AMERICANS WERE NOT TALKING ABOUT IT EITHER. INSTEAD, ITINSTEAD, IT SEEMS AS IF WE ARE HAVING TO ALMOST ENTIRELY SEPARATE DEBATES, ONE OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY SURVEILLANCE AND A SEEMINGLY SEPARATE DEBATE ABOUT POLICING IN BLACK COMMUNITIES. FAR TOO LITTLE RECOGNITION THAT FOR MOST OF AMERICAN HISTORY SOME OF THE MOST PROMINENT VICTIMS OF UNJUST NATIONAL SECURITY SURVEILLANCE HAVE BEEN AFRICAN-AMERICAN. NOR IS THERE MUCH RECOGNITION THAT THE PERVASIVE POLICING A BLACK COMMUNITIES IS INCREASINGLY MADE POSSIBLE BY SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGIES AND SOME SURVEILLANCE LAWS. THERE IS A COLOR OF SURVEILLANCE BUT NOT ENOUGH PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT IT.
Discussion Racial Bias Government | Video | C-SPAN.org

so, let's do talk about it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person

Wonderer

Moderator
May 2014
29,732
20,216
Missouri
Interesting topic. Not sure how I feel about it. I can understand a certain (minimal) level of surveillance making sense from a public safety perspective, but this doesn't sit well with my inner libertarian.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person

TNVolunteer73

Former Staff
Nov 2014
34,763
9,351
TN
Last Friday, the Intercept released documents revealing that the Department of Homeland Security had been monitoring the Black Lives Matter movement since protests erupted in Ferguson, Missouri, last August. Emails obtained via the Freedom of Information Act showed that the department had tracked the movements of people at a Freddie Gray-related protest in Washington, DC, and had also monitored cultural events like DC's Annual Funk Parade and prayer vigils in predominately black neighborhoods nationwide. DHS also tracked hashtags and other social media associated with Black Lives Matter.

Nusrat Choudhury, a staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union's Racial Justice Program, says that while this type of surveillance may not be illegal, it may have significant chilling effects that do infringe on people's rights. "There's no question at all that the kind of mapping identified by the documents provided to Intercept chills people's First Amendment-protected activities," she says. "Of course it makes people feel afraid to go to these kinds of protests because of the impact it might have in terms of law enforcement's ability to gather intelligence about them." It may difficult to tell if this has happened, but, Choudhury says, "The line is drawn when that effect takes place.
Homeland Security Is Tracking Black Lives Matter. Is That Legal? | Mother Jones

Discussion Racial Bias Government | Video | C-SPAN.org

so, let's do talk about it.
This is not new, OMG Remember Clinton in 1994 wire tapped Public housing homes in Chicago (Without warrants) to find out which families owned guns.

Dereliction Of Duty: The Constitutional Record of President Clinton



Warrantless Searches of Public Housing

In the spring of 1994 the Chicago Public Housing Authority responded to gang violence by conducting warrantless "sweeps" of entire apartment buildings. Closets, desks, dressers, kitchen cabinets, and personal effects were examined regardless of whether the police had probable cause to suspect particular residents of any wrongdoing. Some apartments were searched when the residents were not home. Although such searches were supported by the Clinton administration, Federal District Judge Wayne Anderson declared the Chicago sweeps unconstitutional. [55] Judge Anderson found the government's claim of "exigent circumstances" to be exaggerated since all of the sweeps occurred days after the gang-related shootings. He also noted that even in emergency situations, housing officials needed probable cause in order to search specific apartments. Unlike many governmental officials who fear demagogic criticism for being "soft on crime," Judge Anderson stood up for the Fourth Amendment rights of the tenants, noting that he had "sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution" and that he would not "use the power of [his] office to override it, amend it or subvert it." [56]



The Clinton plan was roundly criticized by lawyers and columnists for giving short shrift to the constitutional rights of the tenants. [58] A New York Times editorial observed that the president had "missed the point" of Judge Anderson's ruling. [59] Harvard law professors Charles Ogletree and Abbe Smith rightly condemned the Clinton proposal as an open invitation to the police to "tear up" the homes of poor people. [60]
 

the watchman

Former Staff
Jul 2011
95,702
63,688
becoming more and more
pretty sure the Clinton administration falls within the 20th and 21th century time frame mentioned in the OP.
 

TNVolunteer73

Former Staff
Nov 2014
34,763
9,351
TN
pretty sure the Clinton administration falls within the 20th and 21th century time frame mentioned in the OP.
Lets not forget JFK and his AG RFK wire tapping searching mail, and intimidation of MLK with threats of releasing evidence of his affairs.
 

the watchman

Former Staff
Jul 2011
95,702
63,688
becoming more and more
the conference in the OP deals with surveillance of the African American community after the creation of the Black Lives Matter movement and the events in Ferguson. We know , that there was surveillance prior to that.
 

TNVolunteer73

Former Staff
Nov 2014
34,763
9,351
TN
the conference in the OP deals with surveillance of the African American community after the creation of the Black Lives Matter movement and the events in Ferguson. We know , that there was surveillance prior to that.
my point is.. WHEN WASGOVERNMENT EVER NOT SURVEILLING AFRICAN AMERICANS
 

the watchman

Former Staff
Jul 2011
95,702
63,688
becoming more and more
my point is.. WHEN WASGOVERNMENT EVER NOT SURVEILLING AFRICAN AMERICANS
I guess, I just don't understand why you felt it was necessary to make that point. King is mentioned at the conference as well as a bit of a history of surveillance of African Americans. No one is saying this is anything new.
 

metheron

Former Staff
Nov 2006
14,266
4,166
MI
The Ferguson protests costs taxpayers millions, were violent and costs some their businesses, why wouldn't we keep the groups behind it under surveillance?
 

the watchman

Former Staff
Jul 2011
95,702
63,688
becoming more and more
The Ferguson protests costs taxpayers millions, were violent and costs some their businesses, why wouldn't we keep the groups behind it under surveillance?

you want Homeland Security to monitor the high school students that rioted too? Also, if you blaming BLM, doesn't it pretty much prove that's a false claim given no BLM members have been charged with inciting a riot - even though, they're being monitored?
 
Last edited: