FBI tactics for fighting terrorism draw scrutiny after reports of intimidation

ST. LOUIS -- FBI surveillance and subpoenas in St. Louis are central to a growing debate about whether the Justice Department is stifling legitimate political dissent in the name of fighting terrorists.

Three men from Kirksville, Mo., were so unnerved at being followed by agents and called to a grand jury here last month that they abandoned plans for peaceful protest outside the Democratic National Convention in Boston and now refuse to put their names to complaints, the American Civil Liberties Union said.

Similar episodes are being reported elsewhere, including in Kansas City, where at least a dozen men have been questioned by the FBI, some being asked if they knew of plans to blow up news media vans at the convention.

US Representative John Conyers, a Michigan Democrat and the ranking minority member of the House Judiciary Committee, wrote a letter Tuesday asking that Glenn Fine, inspector general of the Justice Department, investigate whether the agency has resorted to the kind of surveillance unleashed by the Nixon administration against anti-Vietnam activists.

Federal officials, while unwilling to discuss the specific cases, insisted their actions were aimed at protecting lives and property, not influencing politics.

"We don't do anything to violate anyone's right to protest or their First Amendment right," insisted Tom Bush, head of the FBI office here. "If we had reason to interview those individuals, it was because we had specific information about known or planned criminal activity."

Denise Lieberman, the ACLU's legal director for eastern Missouri, said three men, ages 20 to 24, were put under FBI scrutiny in Kirksville around July 22 and followed to St. Louis. She would not name them but said one is a student at Truman State University. Agents trailed them to the movies, a grocery store, and the university's library, she said.

"We believe that the tactics that were used here create a chilling effect on free speech," Lieberman said. "It's a tactic of intimidation, and it worked."

Jim Martin, the US attorney in St. Louis, responded: "In all due respect to Ms. Lieberman, her comments would indicate she does not know all the facts. This office has no intention of -- intentionally or otherwise -- chilling anybody's exercise of their First Amendment rights."

In Washington yesterday, the FBI assistant director of the Counter-Terrorism Division, Gary Bald, told reporters, "I've got more than enough work to keep my folks busy working on terrorism than to go out and worrying about whether or not a protester is pro or con an issue or not. If there's violence involved, that's what crosses the threshold for us and is going to get our attention," Bald said.

He insisted that his people "bend over backwards" to avoid violating free speech rights.

In the St. Louis case, the US attorney's office warned the three men in letters that they were targets of a grand jury investigation of possible crimes that might include violence and threats or hoaxes about violent acts.

Each appeared before a grand jury here for about five minutes on July 29 and returned to Kirksville, Lieberman said. She said the surveillance appeared to stop the next day. No charges were filed.

"They're quite shaken and terrified by the experience," she said. "They're concerned if they speak out, they're going to be targeted further."

The three are activists who have protested over a number of issues, Lieberman said. At the Democratic National Convention, they hoped to express concerns that the two-party political system shuts out alternative views.

She said that on July 20-22, FBI agents went to the men's parents' houses in St. Louis County, Southern Illinois, and Kansas, to learn where the three were. From July 22-24, she said, an agent and local police officer visited each in Kirksville with questions. Tim King, the deputy police chief there, confirmed it.

Lieberman said the FBI asked them if they knew of anyone planning "criminally disorderly conduct" at the Democratic or Republican conventions, presidential debates, or other events. "The fact that they did not answer the questions may have raised the red flag and gotten them the subpoena," she noted. She emphasized they had a right not to answer.