Op-ed column: View Point First published by the Sunday Gazette, Schenectady, NY, 02/14/10

Protection or intimidation?

Peace protesters at Union College treated as terrorists

BY JOHN AMIDON

It is a gray but mild January afternoon at Union College, and I am there to protest. Later in the evening, Ehud Olmert, a former prime minister of Israel now wanted for war crimes in Norway and the UK and indicted for corruption in Israel, will be speaking in Memorial Chapel. The TV broadcast vehicles are lined up in a row with their antennas reaching skyward.

Near the Humanities Building, I am approached by two young men dressed in dark suits. The taller of the two’s body language displays some level of agitation and perhaps a bit of fear. As he approaches, he calls out to me, “Mr. Amidon, we are with the anti-terrorism task force in Albany and we would like to speak with you!”

He flashes a badge quickly, allowing no real chance of identification. His attempt at intimidation only succeeds in being extremely irritating.

I understand the need for an honest and well-trained police force and respect the men and women who perform their roles with courage, integrity, truthfulness, protecting the public. We need our anti-terrorism unit to be effective and work intelligently, to identify and prevent real threats. We want everyone to be safe.

Violating the law

Yet far too often, peace advocates are targeted as the subject of investigations and our law enforcement agencies are found violating the law. For example, Albany is famous for a case of Muslim entrapment. “Rounded Up: Artificial Terrorists and Muslim Entrapment After 9/11” (by Shamshad Ahmad) is the latest book written about the Aref and Hossain case. On Jan. 19 The Washington Post reported, “The FBI illegally collected more than 2,000 U.S. telephone call records between 2002 and 2006 by invoking terrorism emergencies that did not exist.”

My friends and colleagues have been arrested, caught up in illegal sweeps, abused and held in deplorable conditions. Sadly, when large groups of police gather to “protect the public,” there is far too often a police riot and police brutality (Chicago, Seattle, Pittsburgh). And police provocateurs have often been the perpetrators of violence at protests, for which peace groups have later been accused. These acts of lawlessness are then used to justify further violence, sometimes resulting in violent overreactions and brutal assaults by law enforcement officials.

As I stand there with the taller man, his partner walks up. I call for nearby friends to come and witness our conversation. My friends are told forcefully that this is a private conversation and to stay back. I am told I have done nothing wrong, that information has come to them that there may be an act of violence here tonight and that my name was associated with it, and advised, “don’t be stupid.”

I can’t help but wonder if this is real intelligence or their latest generic opening line. I already know I have done nothing wrong. “Don’t be stupid” suggests they believe I am guilty of planning violence. It is clear their intelligence-gathering is, at best, incomplete. Since the Olmert demonstration is focused on the criminal conduct of the Israeli government, I wonder if this is politically motivated by the Zionist lobby. Never before has my name been associated with possible or attempted violence. Why now?

The simple act of Googling my name makes it obvious that I am a committed peace activist and not a criminal or a terrorist.

I look at them and repeat, “I have done nothing wrong.”

They answer, “That is correct.”

“Then I don’t have to talk with you.”

“That is correct,” the shorter one replies.

“Then I am not going to.” I turn and begin to walk away.

The taller man threateningly says, “That is unacceptable.”

“You want to talk to me, then arrest me.”

They shake their heads no.

“Look, we are just trying to do our job and keep everyone safe,” the shorter man states.

Inside, Ehud Olmert is speaking, the overseer of “Operation Cast Lead,” the war in Gaza.

I want so much to shout, if you really want to do your job and keep people safe, go inside and arrest Olmert and hold him for extradition to Oslo, Norway, or the UK.

Media presence

I begin walking toward a local TV cameraman and a female reporter. She looks scared. He is watchful and cautious.

“Turn on the camera,” I yell, “You want to do some investigative reporting?” I look at the officer. “Be a man, put the conversation on film. Let’s record it.” He looks confused and hangs back. The shorter man walks up.

We drift back away from the TV cameras.

“Look, I have no plans for being violent, and I do not know of anyone planning any acts of violence.” Then I add, “Of course, I am not responsible for everyone here.”

The shorter man now becomes agitated. “What does that mean?” he demands. I look at him and reply, “What do you think it means?” and then simply walk off. They do not follow me.

Since we need and want well-trained police force, here is some basic information that never quite seems to be understood by our law enforcement agencies: The peace movement is not secretive or violent. 

We attempt to bring truthful, accurate information concerning important issues for the well-being of our country. We help inform the citizenry and protect a democratic society. Our primary tool is education. Both the choice of Ehud Olmert as a speaker and the actions of these officers at Union clearly demonstrate that education is desperately needed for peace and justice to prevail.

John Amidon lives in Albany and is a member of Veterans For Peace.

____________________________________________________________

I have received a number of comments on this article and wish to thank everyone for their positive and thoughtful responses which I found both informative and  contained important information for our own legal protection. I have purposely edited out names and sometimes have shortened comments.

___________________________________________________________________

2.

From my many days of listening to McCarthy hearings and the like I recall that when under formal inquiry, such as, under oath, before a Congressional Committee, you'd have to claim your right to remain silent under the Fifth Amendment, from the get-go (after name and address) and not half-way through after you've answered some substantive questions. In speaking informally with FBI agents, there is no such requirement, I believe; and John managed to get in some information about his nonviolent intent (and the fact that he was not responsible for every person there) without diminishing his right to walk away. Personally, I thought that volunteering that information was appropriate. But there is one piece of advice I would venture, however rusty my legal education may be: it is a serious federal offense to lie to a federal official, which may be an additional reason to avoid saying anything to the FBI, lest they later find some innocent misinterpretation or misunderstanding to have been a "lie."

___________________________________________________________________

3.

It is difficult when confronted with police, to know what to do - they are very clever at manipulating the situation. So it is always a good idea to run several situations through your mind before a confrontation occurs so that you will know what to do if the real thing happens.

It is helpful for me to remember that the FBI does not record interviews (allegedly to prevent interview techniques from being discovered by the enemy), but the FBI can bring a criminal charge against you if they believe that you lied to them. It is essentially their word against yours as to what question was asked, and what response was given - you cannot win in such a situation. So whenever I (or a client) am asked to speak to the FBI, I respond, "Will the interview be recorded?", (No). "Can you charge me with lying to the FBI if you disagree with something I said". (Yes). "Will it be my word against yours as to what you asked me and what I responded" (Yes) "Until you change these unfair policies I cannot safely speak with you." I find this approach puts them on the defensive because it is obvious that their interview policy is unfair - the only reason not to record an interview is so they can charge you with lying if the feel like it. (For example, after grilling Yassin Aref for hours late at night, the FBI asked Yassin whether he knew Mullah Krekar. Yassin (in his imperfect English) responded essentially "He is a famous man - every knows him, but I do not know him personally". Yassin was charged with lying to the FBI about this answer based on the fact that Yassin had met Krekar on several occasions in large group situations. But the question "Do you know someone" is inherantly ambiguous. What does the question mean? Arguably if Yassin had said he knew Krekar personally based on a few group meetings he could also have been charged with lying to the FBI because you can't know someone personally after just a few group meetings. The context of the question is critical, and without a recording it is impossible to reconstruct the context. The question , "Do you know Krekar?" might elicit a very different response from, "Did you know Krekar?") That is why responding to the FBI or indeed any law enforcement officer with substantive information is risky. The unfair interview policy is a good response to the argument "If you have nothing to hide you should have no reason not to talk to us".

___________________________________________________________________

 4.

Thank you for pointing out the question addressed to Yassin about Mulla Kraker.

Given the fact that I am also an immigrant like Yassin and coming from where we both come from, I would have answered the FBI the same way. Knowing of someone does NOT mean knowing him or her.

As a native Iraqi, we are brought up culturally to answer to any "authority" as the system in Iraq was based on "Guilty until proven innocent" unlike the system in the United States. Something-unfortunately- Yassin learned the hard way and so did we (Muslims who are involved in Yasin's case.)

This question is VERY ambiguous indeed and there are many interpretations to it.

However, in Yassin's case, it's unjust to twist his answer to have it fit in a certain context with NO consideration to all that I mentioned above.

I wonder if this is a point that can be argued if and when another trial takes place. I would be more than willing to be a witness and testify this point.

___________________________________________________________________