From the NY Times- Spying on protesters

[IBC]

For at least a year before the 2004 Republican National Convention, teams of undercover New York City police officers traveled to cities across the country, Canada and Europe to conduct covert observations of people who planned to protest at the convention, according to police records and interviews.
From Albuquerque to Montreal, San Francisco to Miami, undercover New York police officers attended meetings of political groups, posing as sympathizers or fellow activists, the records show.
Potential troublemakers were hardly the only ones to end up in the police files. In hundreds of reports stamped "NYPD Secret," the Intelligence Division chronicled the views and plans of people who had no apparent intention of breaking the law, the records show.
These included members of street theater companies, church groups and anti-war organizations, as well as environmentalists and people opposed to the death penalty, globalization and other government policies. Three New York City elected officials were cited in the reports.
Police records indicate that in addition to sharing information with other police departments, New York undercover officers were active themselves in at least 15 places outside New York -- including California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montreal, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oregon, Tennessee, Texas and Washington, D.C. -- and in Europe.

[IBC]

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/03/25/80/

[IBC]

Thats the whole article there. Talks about spying on the anti-war movement. Why is that necessary? What country do I live in now? What the hell happened to the 1st amendment? I guess I am just not a "Patriot".

[Vegas]

Thats the whole article there. Talks about spying on the anti-war movement. Why is that necessary? What country do I live in now? What the hell happened to the 1st amendment? I guess I am just not a "Patriot".

At what point would you agree with the government gathering data on citizens when it comes to terrorism? What would one have to do before you'd be OK with the government watching them? I hope this doesn't sound sarcastic. It's a serious question.

[BoredWithNoSB]

At what point would you agree with the government gathering data on citizens when it comes to terrorism? What would one have to do before you'd be OK with the government watching them? I hope this doesn't sound sarcastic. It's a serious question.

In my view in order to do this the person should have either have committed a crime or have shown probable cause to have committed a crime. Same as searching a car.

[Vegas]

In my view in order to do this the person should have either have committed a crime or have shown probable cause to have committed a crime. Same as searching a car.

I think most would agree, but when you try to tie down the rules for probably cause in this case, it gets pretty sticky.

[BoredWithNoSB]

Not to be too elementary, but:
Probable cause exists when "the facts and circumstances within the arresting officer's knowledge are sufficient to warrant a prudent person to believe that a suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime." United States v. Hoyos, 892 F.2d 1387, 1392 (9th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 825 (1990) (citing United States v. Greene, 783 F.2d 1364, 1367 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1185 (1986)).

So, if an organization has posted publicly their desire to commit a crime of if something about the organizations charter, name, or past method of operations would suggest a crime, go for it. Based on this, the silly Green people who light Hummers on fire are fair game in my opinion. Most of the groups listed in the article, I would say not so much. I guess my beleif is a prudent person wouldn't think an anti-war group or an anti-death penalty group is going to engage in an act of violence. A paranoid person, yes, but not a prudent one.

[IBC]

At what point would you agree with the government gathering data on citizens when it comes to terrorism? What would one have to do before you'd be OK with the government watching them? I hope this doesn't sound sarcastic. It's a serious question.
Well, I suppose that this reeks of spying for political reasons. I am not sure that is what it is, but I can't see why these groups were considered a threat. I also am appalled that we are keeping phone records and the such now. I agree with Bored that there needs to be some sort of probable cause to do what has been done. There is none here.

[Vegas]

Well, I suppose that this reeks of spying for political reasons. I am not sure that is what it is, but I can't see why these groups were considered a threat. I also am appalled that we are keeping phone records and the such now. I agree with Bored that there needs to be some sort of probable cause to do what has been done. There is none here.

If there are people connected with terrorist groups involved in the anti-war efforts, it would be a great neglect for the government not to gather data.

[IBC]

If there are people connected with terrorist groups involved in the anti-war efforts, it would be a great neglect for the government not to gather data.
Agreed, there never has been though, to my knowledge anyway.

[IBC]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/26/nyregion/26infiltrate.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin