The answer is, of course, that you have not.

Therefore, you are not in a position to opine on whether "the interest of national defense' is a valid reason for their non-disclosure or not.

...all the FBI has to do is cower behind "national security."

It's Occupy, you know, the peeps that slept in parks. National security? Surely you fucking jest?

all the FBI has to do is cite valid concerns about a security risk that might actually exist.

See, works both ways. But you've already made your mind up about which way it "works" for you.

And if you think that this being about 'peeps who slept in parks' means there couldn't be security concerns, you are being naive.

You - meaning the all-inclusive you, not you personally - have expressed your intentions as peaceful protestors, who pose no threat and harbor no one of ill-intent. And I don't doubt for a moment that you are being truthful in that expression (although there is always the chance that some among you are not who you think they are.)

In any event, it is not the job of law enforcement or the FBI to take you at your word. Their job is to ensure that what you're saying you are is indeed exactly who you are.

That's how it works in the grown-up world, where questioning the validity of a group's claims and their goals is equally as important as said group's rights to assemble and speak out.

....instead of invoking the catch-all "national security." Yes, there actually could be security risks, or the FBI could be covering their collective asses because of potential illegal actions.

No we should probably, just trust them. After all, they've never lied to nor misled the American citizen.

After all, that's how it's supposed to work in a "grown-up world."

You have a nice day.

that we should "just trust the FBI" - but you expect them to just trust you.

"there actually could be security risks, or the FBI could be covering their collective asses because of potential illegal actions."

Exactly. But you've already determined which of the two explanations suit your outrage, and will sing THAT song forever, without any facts to support it, nor any consideration given to the alternate version of events - which, by your own admission, is equally plausible.

coveeeeeeeeeeeenient excuse for claiming there's something untoward happening, despite not having any facts to prove it.

The FBI has always kept tabs on dissidents and has often deployed provocateurs and other infiltrators against them. COINTELPRO, the operations against anti-Contra groups in the 1980's, that snitch Brandon Darby who lured a couple of protesters at the 2008 RNC into making Molotov cocktails. For that matter, the FBI just arrested Anonymous spokesperson Barrett Brown for no obvious reason -- or at least none they've deigned to reveal.

So the fact that the FBI thinks it can conceal the fact that it's spying on Occupy is in itself ridiculous.

I could maybe vaguely see that if they think the Oakland protests jeopardized port security there might be documents related to security measures they could legitimately redact. But to say they have only 37 pages related to the request and then withhold half of them? That beggars belief.

and are basing your opinion on what you have seen.

Except that you didn't, and therefore you couldn't.

But that doesn't stop you anyway.

...agency who spies on us for protesting the rich and powerful!

the police. Nor do I advocate the police not questioning the motives and activities of those who claim to be good, peaceful protesters. Answers from both sides should be equally forthcoming.

But when people automatically assume that what is contained in undisclosed documents is something nefarious and untoward, they are apparently more interested in feeling persecuted than dealing in facts.

How about this for an idea: Next protest, no amateurs allowed. If you didn't think you'd be scrutinized by law enforcement and the FBI, you were obviously too naive to be taken seriously in the first place.

It's that it's blatantly obvious the FBI is lying.

It's conceivable there are documents which say, "The ease with which the protesters were able to disrupt port operations point to serious security vulnerabilities that could be exploited by terrorists." But if there are, those could only be speculative afterthoughts -- a few pages at most -- and could not justify the refusal to reveal the much larger mass of documents which presumably concern routine surveillance and infiltration.

Or just possiby the FBI has decided that *all* protests are national security risks because TERRORISM! -- and doesn't want the public to know how badly the Constitution is being subverted.

So many possibilities, but none of them is innocent. And if you're going to assume an innocent motivation, you need to at least offer a plausible scenario.

Do you have any facts to back that up? No, of course you don't.

"If you're going to assume an innocent motivation, you need to at least offer a plausible scenario."

Here's the plausible scenario: The undisclosed documents touch on matters of national security, and perhaps include information about groups (other than Occupy) whose intentions might be less than peaceful and not remotely in the best interests of the citizenry at large.

But of course you did say, "So many possibilities, but none of them is innocent." So your mind is already made up - no point in confusing you with the facts.

Understand -- all indications are of extensive FBI surveillance of Occupy which would generate a considerable amount of paperwork.

But the FBI has only released a tiny number of pages and insists that all the rest has to be kept secret for reasons of national security.

So your "plausible scenario" amounts to saying that only about 5-10% of what Occupy Oakland was doing actually involved carrying out the public agenda of of the group as expressed on websites, on Facebook, in interviews, etc. And the other 90-95% was the doing of "groups (other than Occupy) whose intentions might be less than peaceful and not remotely in the best interests of the citizenry at large."

So where are these "groups (other than Occupy)"? Can you name them? Point to any evidence of their activities? Suggest what agenda they might have in taking over the Occupy movement and how they did it with nobody noticing, including the Occupiers themselves? Explain why the FBI hasn't been hitting protesters with terrorism charges instead of the usual crap like obstructing traffic?

I'd say you've got a long way to go to make this one not stink like something three days dead.

Terrorists working for US tyranny of state terror. The evidence is plentiful and in the open.

And who knows, maybe also DU is infiltrated by similar terrorists...

(or glaring lack thereof) that illustrates why Occupy isn't to be taken seriously.

How do you go from the FBI surveilling other groups as meaning "about 5-10% of what Occupy Oakland was doing actually involved carrying out the public agenda"?

I realize that OWSies think they are the top priority for the FBI and law enforcement - but they're not.

You DO realize that both are watchful of all kinds of groups in the US - Occupy being just one of them. Therefore, internal documents could include information on those other groups' activities - things that have nothing whatsoever to do with Occupy.

I said nothing about anyone 'taking over' Occupy - that's a figment of your own paranoia, along with the persecution complex so many OWSies enjoy clinging to.

Others would say negating it is proof that there isn't a problem. Can you tell who is whom in this thread?

Last edited Sat Sep 15, 2012, 08:56 PM - Edit history (1)

doing to us, their citizens.

You know, transparency in democracy, and that quaint stuff?

Whether we already knew we were going to be scrutinized by our "regulators" or not?

means just disclosing everything, whether disclosing it is detrimental to protecting the citizenry or not?

Like I said, next protest - no amateurs. Either you understand the rules of engagement, or you go home.

and FBI entrapment untrue?

That's rhetorical. You have no basis of an argument whatsoever except for the need to argue against the Occupy movement. You are however welcome, from those fighting for your very freedoms which are quickly disappearing. I do note you do not scream about what they are doign to the Constitution but instead fight those calling out those doing the stealing. Occupy is working for the betterment of this country. Those who fight Occupy are pitting themselves directly against the betterment of our very lives. Congratulations.

I am simply stating the fact that undisclosed documents are just that - undisclosed. Which means you don't know what's in them, and whether a claim of withholding them "for national security reasons" is a valid one or not.

You simply make assumptions, and then adopt those assumptions as fact.

"Those who fight Occupy are pitting themselves directly against the betterment of our very lives."

Occupy takes itself far too seriously, and with an unfounded sense of self-importance. And the persecution complex is completely out of control.

When anyone poses a question about Occupy, they are "attacking" it. When someone says they are indifferent to Occupy, they "hate it" and "want it to fail". Same old/same old.

on positive things.

ever participated in state terror against people or aided and abetted state terror in any way?

Bankster fluffer, big time.

that would back up that assertion, would you?

Of course you don't. You never do.

Last edited Fri Sep 14, 2012, 07:45 PM - Edit history (1)

and I will return to OU.

Occupy fights corruption and corporate ownership of the political system and rampant income inequality. Those who attack Occupy are exceedingly suspect at minimum. This may indeed be an absolute; "Don't fight corruption! Don't fight CEO bonuses taken from our tax dollars! Don't fight the banks and wall street who took some $16 trillion taxpayer dollars and tanked the economy!"

It does indeed become tedious, but don't leave due to it. Alert it if it bugs you, and better, call it out for the Anti-(insert hotbutton issue) it obviously is. Better yet, hit Ignore

has helped lots of families; sometimes moral support makes all the difference, especially when outcomes can't be changed.

I was being snarky, not good for the cause, my apologies.