Friends,
Many of you have had a chance to read the “review” by Steve Sachs of the
The report confirmed our earlier concerns were quite valid. So at a meeting on Saturday, we agreed to send another letter to Gov. O’Malley seeking an investigation of this scandal. We intend to deliver the letter on Tuesday, October 7 to the governor’s office in
If your organization would like to sign on to the letter we deliver on Tuesday, please let me know ASAP. We are determined to get a complete accounting of this scandal, including such information as to who ordered it, why it was done and how extensive was the infiltration. Thank you.
Kagiso,
Max
6 October 2008
Governor Martin O'Malley
State House
Dear Governor O'Malley:
We are providing our initial response to the recently-issued Report by Stephen H. Sachs on surveillance by the
As we indicated in our initial letter when Mr. Sachs was appointed to conduct this investigation and present a Report, we looked forward to the Report for whatever additional light it might shed on this surveillance activity. At that time, we expressed the hope that the Report would echo our deep concerns about this covert surveillance and, among other things, demand legislative action to prohibit this type of surveillance in the future.
In the main, we are appreciative of the comprehensive scope of the Report regarding MSP's surveillance activity spanning 14 months, especially given the very short time frame permitted for completing the Report. The Report recites that more than 30 interviews were conducted and more than 3,000 pages of documents reviewed. The Report indeed is very frank and unsettling in its specific descriptions of the internal MSP process by which the covert surveillance was generated and the particulars of that surveillance. We commend the considerable time and effort that the Report represents.
Among the statements or observations in the Report:
--The First Amendment rights of groups and individuals who were subjects of the surveillance were "implicated" and "affected" by the surveillance, the Report clearly criticizes the surveillance activity although the Report comes short of directly declaring the activity an outright First Amendment violation.
--The covert surveillance involved infiltration of groups by at least two undercover MSP officers, which included attending more than two dozen meetings, both large and small, of the targeted groups, corresponding by email in a friendly and familiar manner with group core members, and participating in numerous group activities.
--The surveillance appeared to have no specific legal rationale and seemed to operate under a mere "better safe than sorry" approach, an approach without legal foundation-- a situation never directly examined by the MSP itself as the surveillance continued.
--The surveillance did not follow standards of available federal guidelines or similar guidelines adopted by local law enforcement agencies, and its necessity was never internally assessed, to the point that the surveillance "took on a life of its own" and became subject to "aimless drift" and so continued for months even though the stated purpose of the surveillance-- to determine if the groups or individual members were planning criminal acts which could be a threat to public safety-- was long since satisfied.
--The MSP covert surveillance was initiated and was conducted even though there was no reasonable suspicion of criminal activity being planned or conducted by these groups or its members.
--The MSP showed "lack of judgment" in entering data about the surveillance in an internal MSP computer system in which, due to system restrictions, the surveillance data was given "terrorism" labels.
--Some of this data was then transferred into federal criminal databases and was shared by local law enforcement agencies.
--Most of the information obtained by the surveillance could have been obtained through publicly-available sources.
The Report makes four recommendations:
1 The MSP should internally develop regulations, drawn from available federal or other law enforcement regulations or guidelines, for covert surveillance or investigation of protest groups, and these regulations should place strict limits on this sort of surveillance including a "finding" that there is reasonable suspicion that the surveillance is essential to investigate possible criminal conduct.
2 The MSP should adopt clear standards for collecting information from this surveillance including a requirement for reviewing and purging this information.
3 The MSP should use a new database software for entering data collected by this surveillance that allows more flexibility in characterizing and collating the data.
4 Anyone identified in the database used for this surveillance, and who were labeled "terrorists," should be notified by the MSP of this fact, should be permitted to view the data involved, and should be allowed to request that the data be purged.
The Report is broad in its review of the 14 month surveillance, and bold in its criticism of MSP practices and methods. Aside from its assessments, the Report stands as a warning that no law enforcement agency is above skirting the First Amendment in pursuit of its goals, however justifiable those goals may seem. The Report also stands as yet another revelation in what, unfortunately, has been a virtually unbroken chain, stretching back more than 50 years, of federal and local law enforcement investigation into peaceful protest groups nationwide.
The Sachs Report, despite its comprehensive approach and legal analysis, leaves room for considerable further discussion on this MSP surveillance. In our initial letter, we urged:
--A longer time frame to complete the Report,
--Subpoena power in conducting the investigation.
--An investigation must go beyond the 14 month time frame of the surveillance indicated by documents so far available,
--The Report must detail what other methods or activities were part of the MSP covert surveillance,
--The Report must reveal the full scope of information sharing of data collected through the surveillance,
--The Report must demand that any current surveillance of these groups or individual group members be halted, and
--The Report must demand the removal from databases of any names of any group members who were identified as "terrorists."
Several of these fundamental matters were not addressed by the Sachs Report. The Report notes that the investigation was limited by the 60 day time frame and the lack of subpoena power. At least one high ranking MSP official declined to be interviewed by the Sachs investigation, and the investigation clearly also was limited by fact that it could proceed only on information which MSP officers who were interviewed, decided to provide.
There was no effort by the Sachs investigation to consider that the MSP surveillance surely lasted longer than 14 months and involved other protest groups. There was no effort to examine whether the surveillance itself, involved more than personal infiltration of the groups by undercover MSP officers. And while the Report criticized the surveillance activity as unwisely initiated, possibly unnecessary, overlong, and poorly managed, it indicated that surveillance of this type can be justified if it follows certain available guidelines.
Therefore, we state:
--A wider investigation of this surveillance must be conducted, perhaps by a legislatively established task force with subpoena power, to determine who initiated this scandal and reveal all government officials who were involved.
--There must be full accountability within the MSP for this surveillance, which in our view amounted to an outrageous violation of the First Amendment rights of these groups and individuals beyond being a disturbing invasion of privacy.
--Internal guidelines developed within the MSP, which would be known and followed only by the MSP, are not sufficient. Instead, legislatively established guidelines must be developed, applicable to all law enforcement agencies in the State, and drawn from available guidelines. These guidelines must make clear that covert surveillance of the First Amendment activities of peaceful protest groups is prohibited, and surveillance of any kind can only be conducted upon the reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
--Guidelines must be crystal clear concerning the storage, dissemination, and retention of any information obtained by this surveillance, especially concerning individuals.
--The guidelines must reiterate the very specific circumstances under which any person can be labeled a "terrorist."
Beyond this, as we declared in our initial letter, we condemn these MSP surveillance activities, including the months-long infiltration of peaceful protest groups by MSP undercover operatives, as gross violations of basic rights including First Amendment rights of freedom of association, freedom of assembly, and freedom of legitimate and non violent activity.
We reiterate our demand for a public written apology from the State Police and from any official of the State government involved in initiating and maintaining this surveillance, to all groups and persons named in the surveillance documents.
We reiterate that this covert surveillance of non-violent activists is among the most insidious and disturbing activity a supposedly civil society can initiate against its citizens. The Sachs Report confirms our statement that there was no basis, whatsoever, for the State Police or any other law enforcement agencies to undertake covert surveillance of meetings and activities of local organizations interested only in peace, justice, and non-violent social change.
While the Sachs Report has brought considerable and commendable clarity and precision to the discussion surrounding this MSP surveillance, it is a discussion and a review that is not yet completed. We urge you to support legislative activity regarding this surveillance, and to demand full accountability from the MSP officials involved.
cc: Steven Sachs
State Police
SIGNED AND ENDORSED BY THE FOLLOWING GROUPS:
Ellen Barfield
Campaign to End the Death Penalty – Mike Stark
International Socialist Organization – Ben Dalbey
National Campaign for Nonviolent Resistance – Michelle Grise
Pax Christi-Baltimore - C. William
Pledge of Resistance-Baltimore – Max Obuszewski
Viva House Catholic Worker – Willa Bickham and Brendan Walsh
Donations can be sent to the
"The master class has always declared the wars; the subject class has always fought the battles. The master class has had all to gain and nothing to lose, while the subject class has had nothing to gain and everything to lose--especially their lives." Eugene Victor Debs
No comments:
Post a Comment