By Raquel Ronzone, ACLU of Massachusetts communications content specialist
Boston Police say (B), according to records the ACLU of Massachusetts and National Lawyers Guild Massachusetts Chapter obtained and released yesterday.
Thanks to “cooperation and information-sharing” with other local departments and through partnership with the federally funded Boston Regional Intelligence Center (BRIC), Boston Police have monitored protests, tracked activists and labeled groups and individuals as “extremists,” “homeland security” threats and civil disturbances.
Zinn, along with groups such as Veterans for Peace, United for Justice with Peace and CodePink, have records in the Boston Regional Intelligence Center–records that should have been purged after 90 days, in accordance with BRIC’s policies, were it not for an “error in computer software.”
But why did the files about peaceful, lawful protestors exist in the first place?
As a so-called “fusion center,” BRIC was created to fight terrorism and crime–not to keep track of political assemblies or the people participating in them. Moreover, this information-gathering violated both BRIC’s own policies, which prohibited information-gathering “solely on the basis of religious, political or social view or activities” or participation in “noncriminal organization(s) or lawful events,” and federal guidelines, which prohibited information-gathering unless “there is reasonable suspicion that the individual is involved in criminal conduct or activity.”
Unfortunately, BRIC is not alone in either its track record or its disregard for the policies that govern it–and the main reason for its existence in the first place.
Perhaps BRIC’s greatest value is in illustrating the continuing 21st-century value of 18th-century documents like the Constitution, Bill of Rights and Massachusetts Declaration of Rights–and challenging us to work towards legislation to enforce and protect the rights and liberties enshrined in those documents.
we are all on someone’s list, I guess.
I’m having a hard time getting worked up about activity happening in broad daylight with no expectation of privacy being “monitored”. Likewise, police have no business getting upset when civilians record them doing their job, again in public.
You really don’t understand the difference?
One is the citizenry attempting to hold authorities accountable, the other is the authorities using an enterprise created to fight terrorism to target certain citizens because of totally legal political activities.
If authorities were keeping track of all public displays (not just protests) then your complacency would be less dangerous (though I would still disagree with it).
But authorities were NOT keeping track of ALL displays — instead, they were tracking specific groups and individuals. Further, they were not just “monitoring” these individuals, they were labeling them as “criminal acts”! If you are not disturbed by police departments receiving federal funding to compile and maintain such dossiers, then I suggest you need to re-examine your criteria for what disturbs you.
Just as a micro-example of how such abuses get a life of their own, I call your attention to the history of the Montgomery County Student Alliance and Normon Solomon. I was a member of that group, I grew up with Mr. Solomon and knew him from grade school. The result of being in those illegal FBI dossiers is that none of us were able to get security clearances years later, despite the illegality of the entire monitoring operation.
Are you similarly unconcerned about entries in credit bureau reports? It seems to me that any such monitoring, with the attendant risks of long-term harm to the reputation of the individuals, should be rigorously restricted. Surely if we recognize the importance of such protections for credit reports, then we should be even more sensitive about government monitoring.
{sarcasm}it isn’t just Menino and his “crew” who can see you when your sleeping, and know when your awake, and know when you’ve been bad or good…
Otherwise, I might think that Boston City Hall was paranoid.{/sarcasm}
At first we were not watched; now we are watched. Carry on.
I met Howard Zinn when he came to speak to CRLS’ Amnesty International Club and help give us an anti-war pep talk, I definitely had my disagreements with him on certain issues and his interpretation of history, but the only extreme view he had was a total and complete commitment to pacifism. So much that he regretted the US fighting WWII. Clearly our anti-terror funds were well used when directed against pacifists.
Also these ‘fusion centers’ were not only a terrible invasion of privacy as the ACLU rightly points out, they were a giant waste of money. And they were the brain child of our former Governor who wants to take our program nationally.
The Huffpost article I link to below took Mitters to task on yet another blunder.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/03/mitt-romney-homeland-security_n_1935308.html
Because I think Zinn’s interpretation of history is fully substantiated, but I’m glad to hear that this is not an extremist view.
I was joking about the extremism, he was a kind and gentle old man who dedicated his life to the cause of peace and justice, I was being incredulous about his being a threat. That said, I disagree with the idea of teaching Zinn by itself as a textbook, I think it does a lot to correct mistakes that mainstream textbooks make, but it also has a very marxist class conflict view of history that oversimplifies the cause and effect of different events. He also argued that WWII was unjust which I disagree with, arguably had WWI been settled more equitably WWII could have been averted, but the idea that Hitler could have been defeated by wide scale passive resistance as Zinn claimed he could have is laughable.