Friends,
At a meeting attended by representatives of groups which were infiltrated by the Maryland State Police, participants expressed a concern that an “independent review” of the situation by Stephen Sachs, appointed by Gov. Martin O’Malley, might not go far enough. So it was decided to write a letter to the governor and to hold a press conference/rally on Tuesday, August 12 at noon outside Maryland State Police headquarters, 1201 Reisterstown Road , Pikesville , MD 21208 .
If your organization would like to sign on to the letter, please let me know ASAP. Also indicate if a representative of your organization intends to attend the press conference. Thanks.
Kagiso,
Max
12 August 2008
Governor Martin O'Malley
Officer of the Governor
State House
Annapolis, Maryland 21401
Dear Governor O'Malley:
As you are well aware, the public and the activist community in Maryland were startled by the recent revelations, as the result of an ACLU lawsuit and request for public documents, that investigative units of the Maryland State Police conducted covert surveillance in 2005 and 2006 of antiwar and anti-death penalty groups. This surveillance, as far as is currently known, included members of a State Police investigative unit covertly attending meetings and public activities of these groups, such as the Pledge of Resistance-Baltimore, the Campaign to End the Death Penalty, and the Baltimore Coalition Against the Death Penalty. This surveillance also included investigating core membership of these groups, taking down names of persons present at meetings and events, and filing investigative reports.
We condemn these activities as utterly gross violations of basic rights including First Amendment rights of freedom of association, freedom of assembly, and freedom of legitimate and nonviolent protest. Since the surveillance was revealed, other commentators and observers have condemned these activities. The revelations have produced calls for legislative hearings, demands from activists and from the public for more information, and have generated a statement from the State Police. According to the State Police, these covert activities are no longer being conducted.
To further examine these revelations, you have appointed Stephen H. Sachs, former United States Attorney for Maryland and former Attorney General, to conduct an investigation into these surveillance revelations ("Investigation"). The Investigation supposedly is to be limited in scope to the 14-month time period of covert surveillance activity, as reflected in the documents so far obtained by the ACLU. The Investigation's report is expected in 60 days.
There may be some value in an "independent" investigation into these surveillance actions by State police authorities. We look forward to the Investigation report. However, any comprehensive report, and any confidence to be given to its conclusions, can result only from a broad, independent, non-politicized, and careful examination of these activities which is persistent and which is determined to get to the bottom of this situation.
Therefore, given your authority over this Investigation, we urge you, and Mr. Sachs, to consider the following items:
--The time frame for the Investigation report must be immediately extended to 90 days rather than 60 days. Given the importance of this issue and given that there is doubtless more surveillance activity and more documents to examine and review, than so far released, a 60 day period is simply not enough time to investigate this matter and to prepare and submit a report which would be of any value and in which the public can have any confidence.
--The time frame of this covert surveillance, so far as is known, is reflected only by surveillance documents so far released. We are convinced that this surveillance activity was conducted in a much larger time frame, both before and after the time period indicated by documents so far known. As to the death penalty, for example, surveillance of anti death penalty groups may reach back to 1997 and 1998 as executions in Maryland re-commenced, and may include other groups (such as Maryland CASE) and individuals. The Investigation therefore must have the authority to demand from the State Police, a complete release (for later release by the Investigation to the ACLU), of all surveillance documents and reports--to the extent any of those documents still exist--which are in the possession of the State Police or of any other similar law enforcement unit.
--The Investigation should speak to or be in contact with persons named or otherwise identified in all surveillance documents, and with representatives of organizations named in those documents. A comprehensive investigation clearly would involve contact by the Investigation of individuals or groups so named, or opportunity for these individuals and groups to submit statements to the investigation.
--Since this surveillance was conducted after 2001, it is likely, especially following the information-sharing requirements and the joint cooperative law enforcement efforts undertaken after the 2001 USA PATRIOT Act, that information in these surveillance reports has been shared with or has been provided to other local or federal law enforcement agencies. These other agencies perhaps would include the FBI, DEA, DHS, and Maryland 's Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) or Fusion Center . It is critical to know the scope of this information sharing. The Sachs Investigation must have the authority to demand from the State Police a list of all local and federal law enforcement agencies who were provided summaries or copies of these surveillance activity reports, and to further require documentation from those agencies.
--So far, surveillance report documents released to date indicate that the nature of the surveillance was direct, personal infiltration by State Police of meetings and activities. However, surveillance could have taken other forms. It therefore is also critical to know if this surveillance also involved other police activities, such as: reviewing personal mail, electronic surveillance of various types including wiretaps or interception of emails, surreptitious covert searches conducted under non-physical search warrants, and investigation of bank records such as through any version of a national security letter. The Investigation must demand an accounting from the State Police concerning details of all surveillance conducted as part of this State Police covert project, of any sort whatever.
--The Investigation should demand, to the extent that the names of persons identified in surveillance reports may have been shared with other law enforcement agencies such as FBI, DHS, TSA, DOT, or similar agencies and therefore to the extent those names may also have been placed on "terrorist watch lists" or any other "of-interest" lists maintained or shared by these agencies, that these names be immediately removed from such lists and that the agencies involved supply written verification, either publicly or to those involved, that the names have been removed.
--The Investigation should be given subpoena power to obtain documents and statements from the State police or other agencies, to whatever extent necessary to complete its objectives, rather than rely upon grudging cooperation of law enforcement agencies who clearly do not wish to be investigated.
--The Investigation should provide to the Maryland Attorney General, a list of all administration officials, government employees, or law enforcement personnel suspected of authorizing or of directly engaging in these illegal surveillance activities.
--The Investigation should verify whether this surveillance is continuing (despite State Police statements to the contrary) and must require, as one of its primary recommendations, that any covert surveillance which may still be underway be immediately halted.
--When the Investigation issues its report, the report and conclusions should be made public.
In addition, regardless of any report issued by this Investigation, we demand from the State Police and from any official of the State government involved in initiating and maintaining this surveillance, a public written apology to all groups and persons named in the surveillance documents. We also demand public accountability and explanation from these persons, some of whom are yet to be known, who initiated and maintained this surveillance.
We reiterate that state police covert surveillance of nonviolent activists is among the most insidious and disturbing activity that a government of a supposedly civil society can perpetrate against its citizens. The right to protest and the right to assemble are protected and recognized rights. 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 nonviolent social change.
We expect that this Investigation Report will clearly and comprehensively establish the length, breadth, scope, and specific details of this odious surveillance. We further expect that the Report will declare, in no uncertain terms, that this type of undercover infiltration of peaceful groups cannot and will not be tolerated. We further expect that the Investigation will recommend or lend its support to, legislative changes prohibiting or imposing strict requirements for any surveillance of this type ever conducted in the future.
cc: Steven Sachs, Maryland State Police
SIGNED AND ENDORSED BY THE FOLLOWING GROUPS OR INDIVIDUALS:
GROUPS:
Pledge of Resistance-Baltimore
Campaign to End the Death Penalty
Baltimore Coalition Against the Death Penalty
Maryland CASE
Pax Christi-Baltimore
Maryland Green Party
INDIVIDUALS:
Max Obusewski
C. William Michael s, Esq.
Terry Fitzgerald, M.D.
Mike Stark
Maria Allwine
No comments:
Post a Comment