The Maryland Transit Administration has told the Baltimore Sun that it has pulled back its audio surveillance proposal. Sun reporter Michael Dresser credits MPW guest blogger Paul Gordon for helping to generate this decision. Thanks, Paul and Mike!
Update: The Washington Post's article on this fails to mention that MPW broke this story and that the Sun's poking around caused MTA to withdraw its proposal. What class they have!
Showing posts with label Spying. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Spying. Show all posts
Monday, July 20, 2009
MTA Backs Off Spying (Updated)
Friday, July 17, 2009
Maryland Transit Administration Wants to Record Our Conversations
By Paul Gordon.
Imagine you’re sitting on the MARC train, having a conversation with someone you’re close to – your husband, maybe, or a close friend. You’re hardly talking about classified material, but you still don’t want people listening in to your private conversation. So you keep your voices down. You look around to make sure you have some space around you and as much privacy as you could reasonably expect in a public area. It’s the sort of thing that happens every day.
Except this time, without your knowledge, someone is listening in. Someone from the government. Because the state is recording your conversation on the train.
Personally, I find the idea of the state recording people’s conversations on public transportation creepy, something I would expect from the old Soviet Union.
But that’s exactly the scenario that came to mind when I read the Maryland Transit Administration’s request for the opinion of the Attorney General. Last Friday, the MTA submitted a letter asking for an opinion of the Attorney General on the following questions:
1. Can MTA lawfully make audio recordings of the conversations of passengers and employees on board public transit vehicles operated by or under contract to the MTA?
2. Does the Maryland Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act,§§10-401 through 10-403 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, Annotated Code of Maryland, require MTA, when using audio recording devices on board transit vehicles operated by or under contract to it, to obtain the consent of passengers and employees before recording their conversations?
3. If the answer to Question 2, above is in the affirmative, through what means can consent be obtained, e.g. can MTA obtain passengers’ and employees’ consent by posting signage on board its vehicles containing words such as, “This car (or bus) is subject to video and audio surveillance?”
Now I am no expert on Maryland state law in this area. But I am an expert at being an American citizen living in a society where I don’t expect the government to be recording my every word. And from that perspective, I find the MTA letter alarming. The fact that a state agency wants to record passenger conversations – and is even asking if there’s a way to do it without our consent – makes my blood run cold.
Yes, it may help the government detect or prevent crimes. Who knows, it might even stop a terrorist. But that is not the only issue. If it were, we would not need the Bill of Rights. Putting limits on government power has always meant that not every crime will be stopped, and not every guilty person will be punished. That is the price of liberty.
Of course, the Attorney General can only address whether the MTA can record passenger conversations. Whether the MTA should do this is a matter for our elected officials in Annapolis to address.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Anti-Spying Bill Introduced
Senators Jamie Raskin (D-20) and Brian Frosh (D-16) and Delegates Sheila Hixson (D-20), Sandy Rosenberg (D-41), Heather Mizeur (D-20) and Tom Hucker (D-20) introduced a comprehensive bill today to prevent improper spying by the state police. Following is a press release from their offices.
Legislative Leaders Introduce Comprehensive Bill to Ensure Police Spying on Peaceful Activists Never Happens Again
January 22, 2009
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
On behalf of Senators Jamie Raskin; Brian Frosh, Delegates Sheila Hixson; Sandy Rosenberg; Tom Hucker, and Heather Mizeur
ANNAPOLIS – Calling for swift passage for a bill to ban police spying on political activists in Maryland, state legislative leaders today held a press conference to announce their introduction of The Freedom of Association and Assembly Protection Act of 2009. The leaders believe that the First Amendment protects the rights of all Marylanders to organize to advance their political and social views free of the chilling specter of government surveillance and dossiers. However, Maryland now has no law that protects these most basic of rights to organize, peacefully assemble, and petition our government. Lead bill sponsors are Senators Jamie Raskin and Brian Frosh; and Delegates Sheila Hixson, Sandy Rosenberg, Heather Mizeur and Tom Hucker.
The legislation seeks to codify the recommendations of the report issued in October by former Attorney General Stephen Sachs. Specifically, the bill will mandate that law enforcement use of covert techniques and compiling of criminal intelligence dossiers about Marylanders’ political views and activities be based on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
State Senator Jamie Raskin (D-20): “The State Police are not Maryland's thought police. Marylanders have a right to work for environmental protection, an end to the death penalty, marriage equality, peace, and bike lanes without being spied upon and called terrorists by law enforcement officials. Our bill will forbid covert tactics against our citizens unless there is specific reasonable suspicion that they are engaged in criminal activity. It will also forbid the Orwellian practice of keeping political dossiers on citizens that are not part of actual criminal investigations. At a time of staggering financial crisis, let's stop wasting our money spying on people nonviolently exercising their political freedom.”
State Senator Brian E. Frosh (D-16): "Obviously, we've got to make sure that this kind of surveillance doesn't happen again. Police need the tools to do their jobs in cases of criminal wrongdoing. But surveillance of law-abiding citizens shouldn't be an option."
Delegate Sheila Hixson (D-20): “My colleagues and I were shocked and appalled to learn of the covert police surveillance of our neighbors who were simply expressing their beliefs regarding the death penalty, the war in Iraq and environmental concerns. Still further and inconceivably, we learned that their names were entered on a ‘terrorist’ list. We ask: what has happened to our freedom to express ourselves? For that reason we have crafted legislation to prohibit inappropriate law enforcement that interferes with First Amendment rights.”
Delegate Tom Hucker (D-20): “At a time when the state is cutting health care, transportation, and environmental protection, it boggles the mind to learn our state police were using precious tax dollars to spy on our constituents. We wrote this bill to make sure state tax dollars are never again used for surveillance of peaceful activists. We have a constitutional right to assemble, and we will fight to protect it.”
Delegate Heather Mizeur (D-20): “Takoma Park residents share a proud history of civic engagement and issue advocacy. Sometimes we have to fight to be heard. At other times, we’re being listened to when we least expect it. State sponsored spying on peace activists and death penalty advocates is a mark of shame on Maryland. We are here today to reaffirm the most basic of our rights granted by the First Amendment – that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Here and now, we make our petition: Never again will this be allowed to happen in Maryland.”
Delegate Samuel I. (Sandy) Rosenberg (D-41): “People exercising their First Amendment rights should not be subjected to the chilling presence of undercover police officers.”
ACLU of Maryland Legislative Director Cynthia Boersma: “The ACLU of Maryland applauds the bill’s sponsors for answering the call of Mr. Sachs’ report, which condemned the police surveillance that has taken place as ‘inconsistent with an overarching value in our democratic society—the free and unfettered debate of important public questions.’” Mr. Sachs believes such police conducted ‘ought to be prohibited,’ and we believe that legislation is necessary to ensure that the protection of our most basic rights do not change with changing administrations. This bill establishes clear standards to protect both our First Amendment rights and our public safety by directing that criminal intelligence and counter-terrorism resources are used to respond to suspected criminal activity rather than spying on legitimate political activity.”
Since July 17, 2008, when the ACLU of Maryland uncovered that the MSP engaged in covert surveillance of local peace and anti-death penalty groups for over a year from 2005-2006, we have learned that the Maryland State Police has engaged in a far-reaching program of covert surveillance of political groups in Maryland. Dozens of individuals and organizations have been targeted by the Maryland State Police which maintained criminal intelligence files on their political beliefs and activities, labeling them as suspected terrorists and security threats. According to their own files, the MSP had no evidence or suspicion that any identified target was engaged in criminal activity of any kind.
Go online to learn more about MSP spying on political activists:
http://www.aclu-md.org/Index%20content/NoSpying/NoSpying.html
Thursday, October 23, 2008
State Police Track Environmentalists as Terrorists
The Maryland ACLU reports that the State Police entered the names of Mike Tidwell, founder of the Chesapeake Climate Action Network (CCAN) and Joshua Tulkin, a former Deputy Director of CCAN, into its terrorist database. The dates of the spying are unclear, but the State Police have previously stated that their spying activities stopped in October 2006.
The ACLU has not posted their press release on their website as of this writing. When we see it, we'll update this post.
We have previously reported on the ACLU's new wave of FOIAs to the State Police on behalf of 32 advocacy groups and more than 250 individuals. What on Earth are we going to learn next?
Update: Here is the ACLU's press release with the details.
Thursday, October 09, 2008
Ehrlich Police Chief is Second-Worst Person in the World
When you've made Olbermann's Worst Person list, you really have nothing left in life to achieve!
Now when is Keith going to find out about conservative blogger Mark Newgent, who said the victims of the police spying had a "shady past"?
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
ACLU Issues Tidal Wave of FOIAs on Police Spying
The Maryland ACLU dramatically upped the ante on the police spying scandal today, issuing new FOIAs for documents related to 32 advocacy groups and more than 250 individuals. This scandal is about to get a lot bigger, and no one – including the current Governor – is safe.
In a conference call with the press (and bloggers) today, ACLU lawyer David Rocah described an “overwhelming response” from fearful activist groups in the aftermath of the state police spying scandal. The ACLU chose to file FOIAs on behalf of groups and individuals involved with large rallies on the theory that the police offered the need to monitor potentially “violent or disruptive” demonstrations as a reason for their prior spying. The groups represented by the ACLU span the ideological spectrum and include ACORN, Amnesty International, Casa de Maryland, Children 1st, Christian Peace Witness for Iraq, Defend Life, Equality Maryland, the Maryland NAACP, Maryland NOW, Maryland NARAL, Peace Action Montgomery, PETA and Progressive Maryland.
Two factors threaten to mushroom the scandal out of control:
1. The ACLU’s FOIAs are not merely directed to the state police. They are also directed to any local police departments holding jurisdiction over the rallies sponsored by the ACLU’s clients. So if a group that demonstrated in Baltimore suspected spying, the Baltimore City Police would receive a FOIA along with the state police. Since the ACLU’s FOIAs cover the period of 2000 to the present, a lot of local officials – including former Baltimore Mayor Martin O’Malley – might have some explaining to do.
2. On the press call, two group leaders directly challenged police units under the control of an O’Malley administration for their surveillance practices. Dr. Tyrone Powers, head of education activist group Children First of Baltimore, alleged that city detectives visited his residence prior to a rally he was planning. His wife and daughter directed the detectives to a hotel where Dr. Powers was giving a speech. At the hotel, the detectives asked Dr. Powers to cancel the rally and told him they had opened an intelligence file on him. Dr. Powers, a former FBI agent, told the city detectives they were wrong to maintain a file on him and held the rally anyway. The rally took place in 2003, during then-Mayor O’Malley’s first term.
Jack Ames, leader of anti-abortion group Defend Life, describes his group as “Fighting the Culture of Death.” Ames related a police action against a demonstration by his group in Harford County. According to his account in Defend Life’s newsletter, state police troopers demanded a permit (when none was required), arrested all 18 demonstrators (including 2 juveniles) and held some of them overnight. When one protestor asked, “Why am I being arrested?” the officer responded, “That’s not relevant.” The incident occurred in August 2008.
The ACLU is preparing legislation to crack down on police surveillance on lawful demonstrations and other expressions of First Amendment rights. Their Legislative Director said the O’Malley administration had “no reaction” to their proposal. If the new wave of FOIAs upholds Dr. Powers’ and Mr. Ames’ allegations about O’Malley’s law enforcement agencies, the Governor will have to get out in front of this issue or risk offending yet another part of his base.
Friday, August 01, 2008
Conservatives Circle Wagons, Abandon Principles on Spygate
Spygate is the ultimate example of big, arrogant government seeking power over law-abiding citizens. So we would expect the Free State’s conservatives to condemn it, right? Wrong.
In his column last week, the Gazette’s Blair Lee begins by saying, “...Last week’s revelations of Maryland State Police surveillance and infiltration of peace groups and anti-death penalty organizations should alarm every Marylander. A basic American freedom is our right to assemble and protest without becoming targets of police investigation — no ifs, ands or buts. End of discussion.” Fair enough. But he pivots rapidly to the real villain of Spygate – Martin O’Malley. That’s right, according to Lee, the current Governor is the bad guy because he is telling “the big lie” – namely, that Spygate occurred during the Ehrlich administration. I hope Mr. Lee will write a future column elaborating on how a chronological fact can be considered a “big lie.” (Mr. Lee is up a second time commenting on this blog, claiming, “Ehrlich’s position on Spygate differs little from the O’Malley administration’s.” I beg to differ.)
On Red Maryland, Mark Newgent justifies the spying because the anti-death penalty protestors may have included members of the American Friends Service Committee, a left-wing Quaker-affiliated group. Yes, whenever pacifist Quakers get together with people who think the death penalty and the Iraq War are wrong, there is bound to be violence. And in the middle of the scandal, Red Maryland blogger Last Reporter showcased the “Bring Back Ehrlich” bumper sticker below and promoted it again while cheering on Governor Ehrlich’s self-exonerating radio interview last weekend. Mysteriously, conservative blogger Brian Griffiths has not posted on the issue.
The response from the left has been more complicated. While conservatives have unquestioningly backed a former Republican Governor, liberals have stood up to the Democratic incumbent even though the spying did not happen on his watch. For example, while I have gone after Governor Ehrlich, I have also said about then-Mayor O’Malley, “If the city police used information passed on by the state police to launch their own investigation, then former Mayor O’Malley bears as much responsibility for them as former Governor Ehrlich has for the state police.” Paul Gordon has said that the current Governor “fails civics 101” for not supporting any legislation to prevent another Spygate. Eric Luedtke disagreed with the Governor’s position against legislation, saying “This situation has proven that the current system is vulnerable to abuse. It isn't enough to say sorry, blame it on the last guy, and promise it will never happen again. There needs to be a law, period.” ACLU lawyer David Rocah has also stated a preference for legislation over reliance on promises from the current Governor to prevent future spying.
Spygate is not merely a concern of liberals. In fact, at least three important principles of conservatism have been broken during the scandal:
1. Personal responsibility
Governor Ehrlich has spread the blame to former Attorney General Joe Curran and even former Baltimore Mayor O’Malley for Spygate. He could have said, “Even though I did not know about the investigation, I accept responsibility for all acts committed under my administration and I am as eager to get to the bottom of it as anyone else.” But so far he has not.
2. Government accountability
Governor Ehrlich has also said that the Governor should not monitor the state police and neither should the legislature. This would create an unaccountable state police force – something that would have repulsed our founding fathers.
3. Individual freedom from government control
When asked repeatedly by conservative WBAL talk show host Bruce Elliott whether there was anything wrong with the spying, Governor Ehrlich ducked the issue. Most real conservatives presume that individual freedoms should trump government power except in the most dire of circumstances. Non-violent protestors do not qualify.
So why are these conservatives refusing to stand up for conservative principles? The obvious reason is to protect Governor Ehrlich, whom some on Red Maryland are encouraging to run again. With Governor O’Malley’s poll numbers in the 30s, the economy in difficulty and the General Assembly’s billion-dollar tax hikes now taking effect, Governor Ehrlich is an attractive candidate for the right. Now it appears that he is more attractive than the very principles of conservatism itself.
Red Maryland blogger Brian Griffiths recently said, “...The problem with Republican politics in the 21st century is not the ideology of conservatism, but leadership that itself is not conservative. Once we figure out how to fix that, Republicans will reassume the mantle of ascendancy that we lost when Congressional leadership went native a few years back.” Whether you agree with Griffiths or not, he has a point: politics without principles is an empty pursuit of raw power for its own sake. Conservatives who blindly follow Governor Ehrlich will lose what they believe in.
So what should genuine conservatives do? Perhaps they should start paying their dues to the one organization that stands up for their constitutional rights – the ACLU!
Monday, July 28, 2008
How Low Can Bob Ehrlich Go?
In an astounding interview on WBAL last Wednesday, former Governor Bob Ehrlich blamed former Maryland Attorney General Joe Curran for the state police spying scandal and went on to tell state legislators not to “micro-manage” the police!
Following are excerpts from an interview of Governor Ehrlich by conservative talk show host Bruce Elliott on 7/23/08:Elliott:
A spokeswoman for current Attorney General Doug Gansler immediately denied that the state police asked the Attorney General’s office for an opinion on the investigation. Here is more from the former Governor:
On this issue, somebody authorized 288 hours of spying on peace and anti-death penalty groups. I personally would like to know who and why. The implication from Martin O’Malley yesterday was somehow it’s the responsibility of the former administration. Thus, he is, it seems to me, kind of implying that a piece of paper crossed your desk and you signed off on this.
Ehrlich:
Yeah, which of course is silly. There’s not a whole lot to add to what I guess Superintendent Hutchins has already told the press. Police agencies are paid to protect us, Bruce. They make discretionary decisions regarding their operations. Governors do not get involved in those operations quite obviously. There are however Assistant Attorney Generals that they report to. Assistant Attorney Generals are assigned to every agency in state government. And so if Martin O’Malley has an issue with regard to the Attorney General’s actions during our administration, he should probably talk to his father-in-law [former Attorney General Curran].Elliott:
But the former Governor is not done yet.
OK Bob, do you have a problem with this? Knowing what you know now.
Ehrlich:
I don’t know a whole lot. I know this Bruce – here’s what I do know – that if there would be a danger to the public or a public official or something or some element occurred within these groups, the Martin O’Malleys of the world, talk radio folks of the world would be the first to ask me why weren’t the state police or the agency involved doing their job? So it’s a very interesting issue, obviously. I have no problem with the oversight. As I’ve said, that’s what Assistant Attorney Generals do. But if you really want to get into the state legislature micro-managing the state police agency, I’ve got a big problem with it...Elliott:
Blair Lee has criticized this blog in his Gazette column this week:
OK now, Jim Brochin, a Senator you know from Baltimore County, Democrat, said the whole thing is disturbing. He is somewhat comforted by assurances made by [current Superintendent of State Police] Sheridan and O’Malley and is not considering legislation. Now that does raise an interesting question, Governor. The indications from Governor O’Malley are, well, this just took place under the previous administration and somehow stopped as if on cue when you left Government House.
Ehrlich:
It would be interesting to ask, again I’m not [unintelligible] but, what similar operations were performed by Baltimore City Police during his tenure as Mayor. But again the issue here is, Bruce, the press is doing its job, I think the Attorney Generals really need to be talked to and we need to find out exactly what they said, what interaction there was between the state police in this case and the Attorney General assigned to that agency. But the last thing I want is the Brochins or the [Senator Brian] Froshes of the world getting involved in the day-to-day operations of the state police agencies or defining probable cause. I mean, these are not exactly people I want making those decisions. I’d rather have the people we pay to make those decisions make those decisions.
Elliott:
Yeah, but somebody has to sign off on it, gov. I mean, somebody has to say, yes, this is a good thing. And if it was Curran who signed off on it or somebody in his office, I think that the public would like to know who did, and why, and who authorized the continuation of this kind of surveillance…
Ehrlich:
Well, where do you draw the line? Bruce, my main question, and I’m not necessarily disagreeing with you, but where do you draw that line on a day-to-day basis?
Elliott:
Look, I think it’s perfectly justifiable to say that if you might have a problem here, yeah, you better take a look at these groups. But somewhere within the first, you know like, hundred hours, in other words, the first two-and-a-half solid weeks of surveillance, assuming this is a forty-hour work week, that somebody would say, “You know what? These people are creampuffs…”
Ehrlich:
Well, I think it’s an appropriate thing for the last three, four, five, whatever, State Superintendents of Police and the Attorney Generals assigned to the police to give you, provide the parameters. But again, I’d be very careful about going beyond that, because I don’t want the Brian Froshes of the world telling the state police what they can and cannot do on a daily basis.And, of course, the liberal bloggers went into lynch mob mode. Maryland Politics Watch launched a four-part series, ‘‘Inside Ehrlich’s Secret Police” and went completely over the top with this: ‘‘If you want to surrender your liberties to tyrannical government, vote for Bob Ehrlich in 2010.”
While we appreciate Mr. Lee’s regular reading of our blog, we would like to point out that we ran a five-part series, not four. Let no one claim that we devote too little attention to civil liberties here! And we will concede that at the time we made the statement he cites, it may have been premature. But we now know the following about Governor Ehrlich’s views from both his statements in the Sun and the above interview on WBAL:
1. He declines to say that there was anything wrong with the investigation.
2. He blames the former Attorney General for the spying without a shred of evidence to back up his view.
3. He believes that the state police should not be monitored by either the Governor or the legislature. In other words, the state police should be accountable only to themselves.
So now I will say it again:
If you want to surrender your liberties to tyrannical government, vote for Bob Ehrlich in 2010.
Friday, July 25, 2008
State Police on Spying: Unfortunately, More of the Same
According to the Washington Post, Maryland State Police Superintendent Terrence B. Sheridan has reviewed the circumstances of the political spying that occurred under his predecessor. Sheridan's comments, like so many out of the administration on this issue, sound great ... but any hope of reassurance falls apart upon a closer examination.
But before we get to implications for the current administration's activities, there's the question of 2005-2006. Who ordered the spying that occurred during the Ehrlich administration? According to the Post article, Sheridan reports thatthe commander of the special operations division at the time made the decision to spy after receiving a request from a department preparing to monitor protests related to the scheduled execution of Vernon Lee Evans.
No evidence has been reported that Governor Ehrlich ordered it or even knew about the spying that occurred during his administration.Ehrlich said in an interview on WBAL-AM this week that he was not asked to approve the spying. Sheridan's predecessor, Thomas E. Hutchins, has said Ehrlich was not aware of the program.
I trust that investigations by Congressional committees and the MD Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee will get more information about exactly what happened in 2005-2006, and why.
Now, what about today? What about this administration?
The Post reports Superintendent Sheridan's assertion that "Law enforcement has no right or authority to infringe on citizens' rights to free speech or public assembly." (emphasis mine)
I'd agree with that. In fact, it's in the Constitution.
Nevertheless, Sheridan also says the surveillance was lawful.
That means that, in Sheridan's view, spying by the Free State Stasi on yours and my peaceful political activities without a scintilla of evidence of criminal activity or national security danger is not a violation of our rights to free speech or assembly. That's a pretty damn narrow interpretation of free speech and assembly - one that Comrade Stalin would have heartily agreed with, I'm sure. And unless Governor O'Malley contradicts Sheridan, it would appear that this frighteningly cramped view of our First Amendment freedoms is the official position of the O'Malley administration.
Sheridan's statement has other implications, as well. If the surveillance was lawful, then clearly the State Police does have "the right and the authority" to do exactly what it did. So Sheridan's statement that "law enforcement has no right or authority to infringe on citizens' rights to free speech or public assembly" is a meaningless distractor, obviously referring to something other than the what he's being asked about.
It's a statement meant to fool people into feeling complacent, like the other statements we've heard from the administration over the past week. And the distraction seems to be working, judging from the general lack of interest in the mainstream media or among elected officials to find out what's going on NOW, in the O'Malley administration, and not just during the Ehrlich administration.
The Post reports Sheridan's belief that the spying was simply bad judgment, adding his assurance that "this method will not continue." But given his less than candid use of misdirection make it look like he was saying something he wasn't, his assurance is not enough.
And I find chilling his assertion that we should rely on the judgment of those in power, rather than the force of law, to protect our right - a belief shared by Governor O'Malley.
I will be urging my District 18 legislators to sponsor legislation next session to address this issue. I put my faith in the rule of law, not the kind hearts of governors and police superintendents.
Inside Ehrlich’s Secret Police: Part Five
Among other things, the state police spying scandal reveals immense differences between Governor O’Malley and former Governor Ehrlich. Voters would be wise to remember their contrasting reactions in 2010.
Governor O’Malley has said that his administration “does not and will not use public resources to target or monitor peaceful activities where Maryland citizens are exercising their First Amendment rights.” Nevertheless, Paul Gordon faults him for not pushing corrective legislation. That could be a mistake because legislation might be an effective way to keep the state police from causing further trouble on the current Governor’s watch. Even so, Governor O’Malley has a powerful incentive to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past: political survival. He has fragile relations with some parts of his base and if he sanctions another police investigation of peaceful protestors – especially after promising not to do it – his relationship with the left will be irreparably damaged.
Former Governor Ehrlich, on the other hand, is unburdened by relationships with the left or any concern for civil liberties. The Baltimore Sun reports: Friday, Ehrlich said on WJZ-TV that he was “sympathetic” to the principle that police should not spy on groups when there no evidence of wrongdoing.
Put aside for a moment whether the non-violent death penalty activists were a “cell” that “put people at risk.” Governor Ehrlich could have said what his former State Police Superintendent Thomas E. Hutchins had the decency to say: “Whatever occurred during my tenure I obviously am responsible for.” Instead, the Governor’s statements hint that he would tolerate, and maybe even encourage, these sorts of activities if he were ever re-elected. That provides a compelling rationale for why he should never be allowed to hold elected office again.
But he added, “We pay state police to make decisions, and obviously they bring discretion with them to their jobs every day, so their job on a daily basis obviously is to weigh the relative value of intelligence they've received and to make decisions accordingly.”
A governor or police chief risks being blamed for not doing his job if an activist “cell” or organization takes actions that put people at risk, Ehrlich said. People could ask, “‘Why weren't you doing your job? Weren’t you supposed to have intelligence operations out there to monitor this sort of situation?’” he said in the television interview.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Inside Ehrlich’s Secret Police: Part Four
The Maryland State Police file on anti-death penalty protestors contains a chronological record of the state’s spying on liberal activists but little else. There is much, much more to this story that must be discovered.
1. Who Ordered the Investigation?
Former Superintendent of the State Police Tim Hutchins claims that Governor Ehrlich did not know about the investigation. If that is true, then who targeted the anti-death penalty protestors? Was it Hutchins or someone closer to the Governor? Did anyone on the Governor’s staff know about it or condone it?
2. Why Go After Anti-Death Penalty Activists?
On page 14 of the file, even one of the spies admits, “Most death penalty protests in the past have not been violent.” And yet the state labeled the investigation “Terrorism: Anti-Government.” No allegation was ever made that these activists were linked to al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, the Taliban or any other terrorist group. If the police wanted to investigate a violent group, what about anti-immigration activists? After all, the Gaithersburg day laborer center was set aflame a year ago and Casa de Maryland has been targeted with bomb threats. Did the police simply prefer to investigate liberal groups?
3. What Was the Involvement of Other Organizations?
The spies regularly shared their findings with other law enforcement organizations including other branches of the state police, the Department of General Services Police, the Baltimore City Police Department Intelligence Unit, and the Annapolis City Police. What did these agencies do with the information? The involvement of the Baltimore City Police is especially important because Martin O’Malley was the Mayor of Baltimore at the time. If the city police used information passed on by the state police to launch their own investigation, then former Mayor O’Malley bears as much responsibility for them as former Governor Ehrlich has for the state police.
4. Were There Other Investigations?
The spying on anti-death penalty protestors began in March 2005, well after 9/11. Were there other investigations in the interim or did the state police wait three-and-a-half years before deciding that terrorism was a problem? If peaceful anti-death penalty activists were targeted, was any liberal group safe?
All of these questions and more require a thorough public investigation. The Church Committee played a vital role in curbing abuses by the CIA and FBI after the excesses of the 1950s and 1960s. Perhaps Senate Judiciary Chair Brian Frosh will subject the state police to similar scrutiny in his upcoming hearings.
There is one last dimension to this story: what does it say about Governor O’Malley and former Governor Ehrlich? We will explore that in Part Five.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Inside Ehrlich’s Secret Police: Part Three
In November 2005, the spies became concerned that death warrants signed for Wesley Baker and Vernon Evans would stir the protestors to increased militancy. After a meeting of the Baltimore Coalition to End the Death Penalty on November 15th, an agent of the Secret Police wrote this:There were approximately 30 people at the “emergency” meeting which was called because of several pending executions. Gov. Ehrlich signed a death warrant for Wesley Baker for the week of December 5th and a death warrant is likely to be signed for Vernon Evans soon with a possible execution date in early 2006. Crips founder Stan “Tookie” Williams is also scheduled to be executed in California on December 13th. Attendees at the meeting included family and friends of Baker and Evans, people from Amnesty International, the National Socialists, students from Goucher College and members of the public. Emotions were high at the meeting with increasing inflammatory rhetoric about “making noise” to try and stop the executions.
Intelligence indicates that attendance at the below listed events is likely to be large with some events drawing several hundred people. Information about the events is being widely posted on the Internet, at many college campuses, in area churches and through leafleting sessions around the state. Although most death penalty protests in the past have not been violent, the potential for disruptions and problems continue to exist due to the strong emotions the issue illicit from people on both sides of the debate. Members of the family of Baker’s and Evans’ victims have not been outspoken in the past about either their support or anti-death penalty feelings.
Finally, eight months of hard work by the Secret Police would pay off. The anti-death penalty activists were set to launch possibly violent protests and the spies had a list of them. To date, the spies had put in 144 hours of investigative work. They had attended 17 events and meetings on a covert basis, using secret email accounts and false identities. At last they were poised to jail Max Obuszewski and his socialist allies once and for all.
Unfortunately for the spies, the protests would happen but the violence would not. At a November rally outside the Governor’s Mansion, the spies reported, “There were no disturbances at the protest and no problems were detected by the covert troopers. The protestors left the scene without incident."
At a November meeting held to discuss plans for Wesley Baker’s execution, the spies reported, “No plans were discussed at this meeting to cause any civil disruptions during the run-up or during the week that Baker is scheduled to be executed.”
At a December rally at Supermax, the spies wrote, “There were at least 100 people at the protest which lasted approximately 1 ½ hours. The group held signs and marched in circle in front of Central Booking before walking around the prison and then ending with speeches by activists and politicians who are against the death penalty. Traffic was not disrupted and no protestors caused any problems.”
All told, the Secret Police attended seven meetings and five rallies between November 2005 and May 2006. They found no violence, no disruptions and no illegal activity of any kind. The file does not state why the investigation ultimately ceased, but it may have been due to simple boredom. The spies attended 28 different events and invested 288 hours of time with no return.
The 46-page file from the hidden vaults of the Secret Police generates more questions than answers. We will ask those questions in Part Four.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
O'Malley Fails Civics 101
Through a spokesperson, Governor O'Malley assures us that no legislation is needed to prevent a recurrence of the political spying undertaken by the State Police when Bob Ehrlich was governor (and which he says isn't happening under his watch).
Why does he say we don't we need any legislation? Because we can be assured that his administration won't engage in that kind of conduct.
According to the Baltimore Sun:O'Malley spokesman Shaun Adamec said the governor . . . is confident that the state police will not undertake surveillance without evidence of wrongdoing during his administration and that legislation isn't necessary at this point.
Oh, okay.
We don't need to rely on laws to protect our most basic rights when we can instead trust in the good nature of the governor.
What Governor O'Malley seems to have forgotten is that we have the rule of law precisely because we cannot rely on the good will of whoever holds power. Has he learned nothing from history, to say nothing of Civics 101?
Our protection against abuses of our rights is the rule of law, not blind trust that those in power will be good people.
Since the spying story came to light last week, the governor has not clearly said that what the State Police did was illegal. He has not given a pretty good but not completely satisfactory denial that his administration has engaged in similar activities. And now he opposes legislation to put our basic First Amendment protections into state law, so that we can have specific processes in place to prevent these abuses.
Surely the governor knows basic civics. And even if he doesn't, surely he knows that the next governor may not be so gracious toward the people as he apparently is.
O'Malley's "you don't need laws to protect your rights - just trust me" approach to this issue does not indicate a healthy respect for civil liberties. Nor does it make me more willing to give him the benefit of the doubt when it comes to figuring out what his own administration has been up to.
Inside Ehrlich’s Secret Police: Part Two
Max John Obuszewski is not an ordinary liberal. The 63-year-old Baltimore resident has a long history of anti-war and anti-death penalty activism. He has participated in multiple anti-Iraq War protests at the Capitol. His Internet mailing list was named the best in the Baltimore metro area by the Baltimore City Paper in 2000. He even wrote a piece for film director Michael Moore’s website criticizing spying by the National Security Agency and was arrested for protesting there. In fact, Obuszewski told the Sun that he had been arrested at least 70 times for protests going all the way back to the Vietnam War.
Now here was a target worthy of the attention of the Secret Police. Obuszewski was no mere socialist from Takoma Park; he was a nationally-known, almost professional protestor. He was a big fish. He had to be watched.
So the Secret Police began gathering information on Obuszewski. Here is what they found:
The heavily redacted portions of the first two pages raise questions. What did the spies find out about Obuszewski? How did they collect it? Did they search his trash? Did they tap his phones? Did they obtain his financial information? Did they follow him around in his private life? Did they watch his friends and neighbors? We may never know. That’s why they are called the Secret Police!
Despite the spies’ obsession with Obuszewski, they were not rewarded with evidence of illegal activity. To the contrary; the protestors were consistently peaceful. After a 5/24/05 meeting, the spies wrote this about their plans to support Vernon Evans at a court hearing:The group is planning to meet up outside of the Court of Appeals and “pack the courtroom.” They said they would likely wear armbands to show their support for Evans. The 60 minute oral arguments in Evans’ case are scheduled to start at 1000 hours so the group said anyone who tries to get into the small courtroom should get there at approximately 0915 hours. The people who can’t get in are going to try and stand silently near the courthouse holding signs protesting the death penalty… The group was very firm about any protests being silent and non-disruptive because they were worried about damaging Evans’ case.
But Obuszewski wanted a loud protest outside the Baltimore County State’s Attorney’s office. That piqued the interest of the spies, who reported:The MSP Annapolis Barrack, Department of General Services Police, Baltimore City Police Department Intelligence Unit, and the Annapolis City Police were informed about the above events.
Through November, the Secret Police went on to monitor Obuszewski and the other anti-death penalty protestors at two courtroom hearings, one rally and nine internal meetings. Unfortunately for the spies, no illegal activities occurred.
1. At a 6/6/05 Supermax rally, the spies reported, “There were no problems observed at the event.”
2. At a 6/7/05 court hearing for death row inmate Wesley Baker, “There were approximately 10 to 15 anti-death penalty activists who were inside of the courtroom and none caused any problems. There were several additional protestors outside of the courthouse who held signs against the death penalty and they were joined by those in the courtroom when the hearing was over. No problems were observed.”
3. At a 9/2/05 court hearing for death row inmate Vernon Evans, “The people in the courtroom did not cause any type of disturbance during the arguments and no problems were observed. Four members of Evans’ family were also in the courtroom and also did not cause any disturbances. There were no problems observed outside of the courtroom and the group left after the hearing was concluded.”
The vast majority of the spies’ time was spent in meetings with the Committee to Save Vernon Evans, often attended by fewer than ten people. Typically, the attendees discussed publicity around the Evans case, publicity around the death penalty issue generally and sometimes participation in other protests (like those against the war in Iraq). Violence was not discussed. Nevertheless, the spy would sign each report with the simple statement, “Due to the above facts I request that this case remain open and updated as events warrant.” But why?
The spies would soon have their work put to the test. We’ll find out how in Part Three.
Monday, July 21, 2008
Ticking Time Bomb: Who Were the Spies?
Who in the Maryland executive branch gave the spying orders in 2005-2006? And who are the undercover police officers who worked so diligently to sabotage our First Amendment rights?
I don’t know their identities. But I do know that they are dangerous. Their actions make that abundantly clear. And if this or a future administration decides to resume the sort of undercover spying that is more characteristic of a police state than a free democracy, we have no reason to think these individuals will do anything but once again collaborate.
I assume that most of the people involved in the bureaucracy of the Free State Stasi were simply following orders. But "I was just following orders" is not an excuse. When a government official tells you to break the law, your obligation is to the law, not to that government official.
When government employees follow that principle — when they refuse to carry out the illegal orders of an overreaching executive — they protect citizens from losing the constitutional rights we cherish. Our freedom relies on civil servants’ refusal to break the law.
It scares me to know that our state police has members who were so willing to spy on people and monitor our constitutionally protected political activities. And it scares me to know that they’d do it again.
Inside Ehrlich’s Secret Police: Part One
Much has been written about the spying undertaken by Maryland’s State Police against liberal activists. But the most revealing story is contained in the actual documents unearthed by the ACLU. What did the police do? Why did they do it? Come with us down to the secret vault as we reveal the inside story of Bob Ehrlich’s Secret Police.
The 46-page file is remarkable for its lack of context. It does not begin with a rationale for the espionage that began on March 14, 2005. It does not state who ordered it or why. It does not state the names of the officers involved in the investigation or their superiors. At the top of the first page, it merely states that the first entry is a “Supplement to Intelligence Report Initiated by Analyst Sparwasser.” So on March 13th, there is no spying. On March 14th, suddenly there is. Or so the files of the Secret Police would have us believe.
The first entry is a report by an agent who attended while “undercover” a meeting of activists in Takoma Park about death-row inmate Vernon Evans. The spy’s report is humdrum: the meeting attendees discussed putting out flyers, going to other meetings and events and soliciting donations. The report contains no evidence that violent acts, crime or terrorism was discussed by anyone at the meeting. Nevertheless, the report states, “After the meeting, [redacted] set up a covert e-mail account, was accepted on the Maryland Campaign to End the Death Penalty Yahoo List Serve and also contacted a man who attended the Takoma Park meeting about attending future meetings.” Accepted as a confidant by the anti-death penalty group, the spy had established a regular channel of information that would enable continuous monitoring and reporting on the group to superiors.
The Post article discusses an individual named “Lucy” who was later suspected by the activists. Was “Lucy” the spy writing these reports? It is hard to tell from the documents, which redact any mention of an officer’s name. The reports could have been written by one spy, two spies or many spies. The Secret Police protect their own identities just as they track the rest of us.
The very next day, a spy attended another organizational meeting in Baltimore. There the sisters of inmate Vernon Evans, convicted of murder and languishing on death row, discussed their communication strategy with politicians and the press. They did not discuss bombing, or shooting, or subversion, or terrorism against the government. They only discussed how to save their brother from being put down by the state. The spy reports, “The goal which many of the attendees stated was a moratorium on executions until a study promised by Governor Ehrlich about racial disparity in the judicial system was completed.” Apparently, that was enough to justify further spying and the espionage continued.
Interestingly, the report states, “Further intelligence will be added as it is developed. The above information was relayed to MSP Executive Protection Section and Baltimore City Police Intelligence Section on 3/16/05 by [redacted].” Did the Secret Police really worry that the anti-death penalty activists posed a physical threat to Governor Ehrlich?
Two more reports follow on meetings attended by the spy “in a covert capacity:” a town hall meeting in Takoma Park and an anti-death penalty rally at Baltimore’s Supermax facility. The spy named as many attendees as he or she could identify, including “exonerated inmate Shujaa Graham,” “Mike Stark, a socialist and organizing member of the Maryland Campaign to End the Death Penalty” and Vernon Evans’ “sister, Gwen Bates.” The spy wrote, “Each speaker mentioned the April 9th rally at Supermax but no one advocated any kind of violence or disobedience.” But still the Secret Police persisted. After all, at any gathering of socialists, exonerated inmates and liberal activists, violence would be the inevitable result. It was just a matter of taking more time, gaining more trust, working into the inner circle of the activist leadership and their nefarious true purpose would be exposed.
Finally, the spies’ persistence would be rewarded. Because attending the Supermax rally was none other than Max John Obuszewski, a person who would quickly become the central figure in the investigation. We will find out how the Secret Police dealt with Obuszewski in Part Two.
Saturday, July 19, 2008
O'Malley Responds to Political Spying
Governor O'Malley's response to the uncovering of the Ehrlich administration's Free State Stasi sounds good upon first read. However, upon closer inspection, it may still leave unanswered just what kind of "intelligence gathering" is permissible under the O'Malley administration.
The Governor's office released a statement consisting of two paragraphs. The first paragraph sounded the right notes:"While these events happened in 2005 and 2006 under the previous administration, the Maryland State Police, under the O'Malley-Brown Administration, does not and will not use public resources to target or monitor peaceful activities where Maryland citizens are exercising their First Amendment rights."
He could have ended his statement there. Unfortunately, there was apparently a need for a second paragraph:"The State Police and other law enforcement agencies have an obligation to take seriously and investigate all potential threats to public safety consistent with state and federal law, including the Criminal Intelligence Systems Operating Policies contained at 28 Code of Federal Regulations Part 23. But where there is no evidence of a potential public threat, illegal activity or criminal wrongdoing, all investigatory or intelligence gathering activities shall cease."
This raises questions that I was hoping would have been put to rest.
The first paragraph says that the Maryland State Police does not monitor and target peaceful activities protected by the First Amendment. However, the second paragraph says that the State Police and other law enforcement agencies investigate potential threats etc. That begs the question: Since the first paragraph is explicitly limited to the State Police, is there a part of the state government other than the State Police that "use[s] public resources to target or monitor peaceful activities where Maryland citizens are exercising their First Amendment rights"? Why was the statement written to limit the coverage of the first paragraph to the State Police, while the rest of the statement covers the entire law enforcement and intelligence gathering apparatus of the executive branch?
Another problem raised by the second paragraph is its use of the phrase "consistent with state and federal law." The problem is that the State Police clearly believed the activities they were engaged in were consistent with state and federal law. Without a clear statement that Governor O'Malley believes that the political spying revealed by the ACLU was illegal, the statement his office released might say nothing about the very activities that prompted its release.
This is the same problem that plagued the State Police superintendent's response quoted in the initial Washington Post article.
Over the past several years, especially in response to 9/11, we have seen such an erosion of commitment to the principles of the First Amendment that I find it difficult to simply give the executive the benefit of the doubt.
I look forward to information from the governor's office that would allay my concerns.
Friday, July 18, 2008
Congressional Investigation of Maryland Spying
Reports of Gov. Ehrlich's spy operation have gotten the attention of Congress. Rep. Dennis Kucinich, chair of the House Domestic Policy Subcommittee of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, has announced an investigation of the surveillance of Maryland citizens engaged in constitutionally-protected political activities.
According to a press release from Congressman Kucinich's office:
Washington, Jul 18 - “I think that most people would be upset to know that police were spying on lawful citizens and infiltrating peaceful organizations, rather than chasing down real criminals. At a minimum, such police spying is clearly a waste of taxpayer dollars and a diversion from the mission of protecting and serving the people. I want the subcommittee to determine how widespread these activities are and who ordered them,” Kucinich said.
Congressman Kucinich is Chairman of the House Domestic Policy Subcommittee of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
Yesterday, it was revealed that Maryland State Police officers infiltrated Maryland peace and justice groups engaged in peaceful, non-violent activities. The documents were made public through a lawsuit.
Mother Jones magazine uncovered evidence of surveillance of environmental groups by Beckett Brown International on behalf of several large corporations. The information and documents were provided by a former investor.
While I am glad someone in Congress is looking at this, I would urge the Maryland General Assembly to take action, as well. The legislature should determine the extent of the Free State Stasi's activities under Governor Ehrlich and whether similar activities are continuing today.
The Free State Stasi
As important as it is to condemn in no uncertain terms the Ehrlich administration's use of secret police to spy on Marylanders engaged in constitutionally protected political activities, our current governor is not off the hook. Nowhere does the Washington Post article say that this odious practice has ceased under the O'Malley administration.
The key paragraph from the article:
"No illegal actions by State Police have ever been taken against any citizens or groups who have exercised their right to free speech and assembly in a lawful manner," Col. Terrence B. Sheridan, the state police superintendent appointed last year by Gov. Martin O'Malley (D), said in a statement. "Only when information regarding criminal activity is alleged will police continue to investigate leads to ensure the public safety."
The first quote, clearly designed to make people think it is a denial, in fact tells us absolutely nothing. If O'Malley officials believe that Stasi-like spying on us is legal, then the phrase "no illegal actions by State Police" tells us nothing about whether the activities are still going on under O'Malley.
Unfortunately, we do not know if the State Police or anyone else in the O'Malley administration considers spying on legal, constitutionally-protected political activity to be illegal. After all, the Ehrlich folks thought it was legal. So the first quote is the classic non-denial denial.
The other part of the quote is equally misleading: "Only when information regarding criminal activity is alleged will police continue to investigate leads to ensure the public safety." (emphasis mine)
"Continue to investigate ... " That means that the police have already begun what they consider "investigating leads to ensure the public safety."
In other words, spying.
Regardless of the legality of this spying, it is reprehensible, frightening, and simply unacceptable in a free country.
We need answers from Governor O'Malley, and we need them now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
