Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: FBI engages in massive surveillance of Occupy protests

Posted 5 years ago on Jan. 27, 2013, 5:33 a.m. EST by dutchmurphy (0)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Imagine living in a country where big corporations work hand in glove with law enforcement agencies to spy on peaceful protests. No this is not China, North Korea or Iran. This is the United States of America.

According to a Congressional Research Service report from 2003 the FBI has a dual mission of protecting US national security and combating criminal activities. Its criminal investigative priorities also include civil rights violations. Yet FBI documents recently obtained by the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund (PCJF) reveal how the bureau has acted in a way that totally undermines this claim to be protecting US citizens from civil rights violations.

Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, Executive Director of the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund (PCJF) has called this collusion ''police-statism'' and stated:

“These documents show that the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security [DHS]are treating protests against the corporate and banking structure of America as potential criminal and terrorist activity. These documents also show these federal agencies functioning as a de facto intelligence arm of Wall Street and Corporate America.”

The heavily redacted documents obtained by the (PCJF) through a freedom of information request reveal how the FBI has regarded the Occupy Wall Street Movement as a criminal and terrorist threat from its inception. The documents, which include reports from various agents during 2011, clearly show that the Occupy Wall Street movement was engaged in peaceful protests and distanced itself from any kind of political violence.

This active collaboration between branches of state and the security arms of the banks/big corporations is very disturbing and raises questions about the type of society America has become. The mainstream media both on the domestic and international stage portray America as one of the world's leading democracies where the rights of citizens are protected and cherished by the state that is supposed to represent their interests.

The documents reveal how this collusion takes place under the banner of the Domestic Security Alliance (DSAC). Its reports are prepared by FBI and DHS agents for corporate security officers of the banks and big corporations. The purpose of these reports being to,''document the Occupy Wall Street movement'' and to ''raise awareness concerning this type of criminal activity''. Most of the reports have the following warning attached to them,''Recipients are reminded DSAC LIRS [reports] contain sensitive information meant for use primarily within the corporate security community. Such messages shall not be released to the media, the general public...''.

Let's just look at one example from the documents which reveal the sinister and anti-democratic nature of this collusion between the FBI, DHS and corporate America: the 2 November 2011 protest at Oakland port. The DSAC coordinated a whole host of state agencies to monitor this peaceful protest including the Naval Criminal Investigative Service. Agents were used to infiltrate the planning meetings of Occupy Oakland to identify how ''significant a threat'' the protest would be.

On 2 November 2011 Occupy Oakland organised a general strike that temporarily shut down Oakland port. 7-10,000 protesters used human body chains to prevent longshoremen and trucks from entering and exiting the port. This forced the port authorities to call off the evening shift.

The various reports covering this protest reveal the fear of the establishment that the protests might receive active support from the unions and the wider community. Anything that might hinder the potential profits of corporate America is seen as a serious threat. An analysis of the Oakland port protest by one agent sums up this fear of corporate America rather well,

''The protesters actions shut down the port of Oakland for 14 hours. If this movement were to spread to the port of Long Beach, the second busiest port in the United States, the disruption of port operations resulting in cargo reaching their destination late could have much more serious effects on the supply chain in the United States''.

The reports contained in the heavily redacted documents were produced during the violent state crackdown on the Occupy Wall Street movement during the autumn of 2011. They reveal the fear of the American state and its masters in big business at ordinary citizens exercising their democratic rights to protest against the enormous social and economic inequality in America. Will there be any government action to stop this abuse of citizen's rights? I fear not. It's just one more example of how America is sleepwalking into becoming a police state. Dylan Murphy



Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by FawkesNews (1290) 5 years ago

Absolute blatant idiocy is to expect the 99% to provide the manpower to oppress themselves.

..."The Communist Party, without military support, was truly a paper tiger and could do nothing to stop the marches, and two days later the Wall of Shame finally came crumbling down and the people of East Germany were free of their communist oppressors."...

..."what happened in East Germany shows that a peaceful revolution is possible when enough of the people, and enough in the military, simply withdraw their consent and begin to act like free people. Certainly if there is not enough who feel the same way and are willing to stand up, then those few who do stand will be arrested and “disappeared,” as happened in 1968."...


[-] 4 points by DSamms (-294) 5 years ago

Reminds me of Ward Churchill's book "Agents of Repression" which documents FBI activities (COINTELPRO) against the Vietnam anti-war movement, Black Panthers and American Indian Movement in the 1960s and 70s. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

With regards to ..."what happened in East Germany shows that a peaceful revolution is possible when enough of the people, and enough in the military, simply withdraw their consent and begin to act like free people..."

What do you make of the following "withdrawal of consent" argument...

From a Constitutional perspective, we are experiencing a breakdown in representation at the most basic level of governance -- our elected representatives no longer represent the voters whom elect them to office. However, whoever they do represent is not as important as the simple fact that they do not represent the vast majority of Americans who cannot afford large campaign donations and lobbyists. This issue is basic to Constitutional self-governance which, according to the Declaration of Independence, is based solely on the principle that government derives its "just powers from the consent of the governed".

The democratic aspect of our little constitutional republic is limited to popularly electing Representatives and Senators to Congress and electors in the Presidential election, as well as serving on juries (and grand juries) in criminal and civil matters. Notwithstanding the First Amendment's articulation of "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances", there is no other Constitutional means to assert democratic (that is to say direct citizen) control over our government.

The Constitution does not confer rights upon citizens, rather it merely articulates some of our inherent rights as contrasted with the limited duties, powers and responsibilities we delegate to the government it describes. Or, in other words, the Constitution is a formal agreement between Americans, individually and collectively, about how we govern ourselves. As such, elections serve to elect citizens to Constitutionally described offices whom then constitute the actual and functional "government" which presides over our (we the people's) business.

Thus, each election not only constitutes a "new" government, but also conveys our consent, individually and collectively, to be governed under the Constitution by that government. Individually, voting for a candidate in an election conveys your consent to be governed by any candidate elected to office and, collectively, our consent legitimates the new government regardless of whom is elected.

If consent to be governed under the Constitution is implied, both individually and collectively, by voting for a candidate in an election for office, it follows that any American withholding their consent must do so explicitly in an election, insofar as voting is the only Constitutional means of determining the people's intent and political will both individually and collectively. Moreover, it also follows that an American withholding their consent casts a vote against all candidates for office.

Individually this is political dissent in the only poll that counts -- our ballot box. Collectively it becomes democracy -- an expression of our free intent and political will.

And its practical effect? By withdrawing our consent, a plurality of Americans can present the lame-duck Congress with a public and undeniable Constitutional crisis, if the House of Representatives proves unable to seat a quorum come January. Although there is no precedent, a Constitutionally logical course of action is that Congress immediately call an Article V Convention. Thus, perhaps this ought be the direct Constitutional object of our withdrawal of consent in a general election -- calling an Article V Convention to propose amendments to the Constitution.

As far as linking a withdrawal of consent at the polls with calling an Article V convention, what else can we do Constitutionally speaking? This is not a rhetorical question.

An Article V convention is our means of amending the Constitution that neither Congress, Court or President can control. Any amendment proposed by the convention must be ratified by a majority of voters in thirty-seven (3/4s) states. Because we elect all delegates to the convention and must ratify any amendment the convention proposes before it becomes Constitutional law, we democratically control the process. Needless to say, it scares the hell out of the rich, right and politicians.

In "Walker v. Congress", the USSC held that Congress' continuing refusal to call an Article V convention was a political question and refused to rule, even though plaintiffs proved sufficient state applications had been tendered and that Article V's plain language, "shall call", left no doubt that Congress refuses to fulfill its Constitutional duty.

Constitutionally, the only democratic way to compel politicians is in the voting booth, and the USSC ruled this a political question...

We are the governed. All legitimate governance arises from our consent to be governed. We have the power to say no, under our Constitution, to withdraw our consent to be governed by a corrupt political order.

If not, government of the people, for the people and by the people simply does not exist any longer, if ever it did. The republic has fallen and our Constitution is myth. We have no rights or liberty, only privileges easily revoked and votes worth nothing... Nothing beyond that which money can buy.

[-] 3 points by FawkesNews (1290) 5 years ago

Article V Guy..?

If those who have sworn to defend the United States, were allowed to do the job they swore to do, Jails would fill with corrupt bankers and politicians. The bankers and politicians know it, the courts know it but, when the people know it, it will change.

What "Withdrawing Consent" meant to the Soldiers, who refused to fire upon their own people, and the meaning of "Withdrawing Consent" proposed above, have to do with each other is difficult for me to understand.

[-] 2 points by DSamms (-294) 5 years ago

Perhaps that realization will come when our own soldiers face the same choice.

[-] 3 points by FawkesNews (1290) 5 years ago

Every day an FBI agent investigating this forum, and others like it, read how Americans are getting screwed, by bankers that control politicians. How long before those FBI agents realize that the banks are the real enemy of the people of America. The oath to defend the country will eventually override the oath to spy on your neighbor for corrupt bankers and controlled politicians.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 5 years ago

Alternatively, they are laughing their asses off.

[-] 2 points by FawkesNews (1290) 5 years ago

Likely, until they realize how funny it is not.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 5 years ago

Watching people with multiple ids walk into a forum and spend their time spinning shit isn't funny?

I don't think it is too funny either. Perhaps they find it rather boring.

[-] 1 points by FawkesNews (1290) 5 years ago


[-] 1 points by DSamms (-294) 5 years ago

One would certainly hope so, but experience tells me not to trust that hope.

[-] 1 points by FawkesNews (1290) 5 years ago

Once it is clear that there is no anarchistic plotting, what left for an FBI agent to do but read the posts about criminals in Wall Street?

[-] 1 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 5 years ago

I think he means that ART5 can be formally used in legal process to meaningfully establish that states are "Withdrawing Consent".

Seems really up to the people to go after their state legislations. I read that if 3/4 of the states start having conventions in their states, and ratify, allowing other states to participate at all times, it IS ART5.

For a soldier "Withdrawing Consent" would amount to questioning that command is actually a "lawful military authority". If it is shown, and tests are needed, that it is not, then "Withdrawing Consent" can equate to a solder not consenting to following the orders of command which is lawful.

Christopher Brown the 9-11 concrete core guy came up with this for a soldier to use to question or test the military authority over them.


[-] 1 points by FawkesNews (1290) 5 years ago

An Article V on those scales will require more portable toilets than D.C. has ever needed to import.

What I mean to say is, enough Patriots who swore to defend the United States, will eventually rise up and do so. A child can understand corruption. Why can't the people? When will the FBI?

[-] 1 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 5 years ago

The FBI took an oath, but we can be sure that they were of the first infiltrated.

That strategy needs to go to the families of soldiers. It ca save their lives and ou nation. The families are the only ones with the reason that the soldiers will listen to. The women, the mothers need to understand. When that happens the fathers will have to understand too. Seems if about 10 active duty all at one base were to file, and the movement is with them, we will see good things happen.

[-] 1 points by FawkesNews (1290) 5 years ago

Bankers have hijacked governments. It is a problem. One need not be an investigative sleuth, to determine that glaring reality, to be factual.

These days, it seems everyone understands such basics. Why would you think the FBI cannot do the same?

[-] 1 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 5 years ago

They can, but won't. The real question is why that doesn't matter to most Americans.

[-] 1 points by FawkesNews (1290) 5 years ago

They may. After all the corruption is so bad it takes more effort to not see it than it does to see it. Whether anything is done about it is entirely up to "We the people". If we become exponentially aware daily, then it will be an inevitability that our government agencies do also.

[-] 1 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 5 years ago

Awareness seems linked to well being. If you are starving or homeless, for some reason you know congress is violating the law because it is supposed to protect you. With the economy as a weapon against people that do not have a social system that will inform them, those with nothing are the only ones that know. Those with plenty begin to think it is because they refuse to know.

[-] 1 points by FawkesNews (1290) 5 years ago

When there are more starving and homeless there will be less "plenty". You know?

[-] 1 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 5 years ago

Yep, and they are still pretending they can ignore that the government is unlawful. As correct as you are, the period of time as the land of plenty dries up, is proportionately equivilant to their unreasonable fears.

[-] 0 points by FawkesNews (1290) 5 years ago

As hard as it is to believe, there are people out there who will load train cars with people, if told to do so. Worse, there are those who will gas them. This is a problem. Any lawfulness, of whichever government, is irrelevant.

[-] 1 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 5 years ago

Unreasonable fears are one thing, genocide is another.

I do understand that population pressures cause those activities, and, with do few nations showing Any signs of moving to sustainability, such things can at least be understood.

[-] 1 points by FawkesNews (1290) 5 years ago

Refusing to follow abhorrent orders does not include hesitation.

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 5 years ago

"Most Americans" are bluffed by the alphabet soup groups. How many are there now? Anyone can be detained indefinitely without charge, shipped off to another country where torture is somehow legal, and never seen again.

I'd say that's a deterrent factor. Wouldn't you?

[-] 1 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 5 years ago

Those threats are not reasonable to respond to in the case of discussing constitutional violations and agreeing to formally complain to a highr authority.

It's not reasonable to be afraid to agree. The fear comes from some place which cannot reason.

[-] 1 points by DSamms (-294) 5 years ago

For a soldier, under the circumstances considered, withholding consent would be disobeying a direct order (such as one to fire upon unarmed protestors). This is a far more serious proposition for a soldier than merely questioning a command.

The point of withdrawing consent in the manner above outlined includes these two factors: First, by quantifying the political will of the electorate, it will be absolutely clear whether or not the American people (well, the voters at least) support the effort. In and of itself, this is priceless. Second, in the event that there is great public support for this course of action, having worked within the Constitution and electoral system (albeit creatively) will hopefully lessen the chance that the military will intervene on behalf of the government.

[-] 2 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 5 years ago

Hmmm you better look at this thing Brown put together.


I was angry about L.T.C. Lakins inability to subpoena defense for his disobeying a direct order and subsequent conviction at court martial. Some time later, here I saw that link and realized that if Lakin had done an offensive action first instead of one that required defense, he might have had what he needed in defense.

I'm thinking that any soldier who would consider "withholding consent" should do something legally questioning the lawful military status required to issue a lawful order. If there is an inappropriate response for a lawful military authority, then subsequent refusal to follow direct orders can be justified.

[-] 2 points by DSamms (-294) 5 years ago

Have read some of Christopher Brown's work, including this piece sometime ago.

Angering yes, but not terribly surprising. The military is only interested in maintaining unquestioned obedience to the chain of command.

My most serious concern is that the first time some young soldiers find themselves questioning an order happens as they face peaceful protestors and are given an order to fire...

[-] 1 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 5 years ago

If the soldiers are concerned about the same thing, the soldiers inquiry can pre empt such orders.

[-] 1 points by DSamms (-294) 5 years ago

I would not expect that very many serving soldiers and officers have read Brown's work.

[-] 1 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 5 years ago

I saw this thread here last year, where I learned of Browns ART5 work,


And read here that someone from Anonymous asked Shamar Thomas what he thought of it. Apparently, he was afraid if even discussing it. I asked a vet friend and he was the same way. Seems soldiers are too afraid of their command to consider defense of the constitution from a domestic enemy. This is understandable, and that the infiltrators would see that soldiers were conditioned with such fears.

I think the families of soldiers need to know about the soldiers inquiry.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33496) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

Yeah - those who were tried at Nuremberg probably had more in depth thoughts about that - Hey?

[-] -1 points by DSamms (-294) 5 years ago

No, I mean that people, voters, can use the electoral process to withhold their consent to be governed.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33496) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

Yeah - fine - you get that put onto ballots - recognized for what it is supposed to mean - till then? - don't expect anyone to take part in an unrecognized action.

[-] -1 points by DSamms (-294) 5 years ago

You are certainly right. Wouldn't want to take part in some radical, unrecognized action now would we. Hell, we might actually accomplish something useful. Couldn't have that now can we?

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33496) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

Won't accomplish a damned thing if it is a legally unrecognized action - Hey?

U trying to buy time for the enemies of humanity?

[-] 0 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 5 years ago

Is "withhold their consent to be governed" not voting. What does "withhold their consent to be governed" consist of as an action?

[-] 2 points by DSamms (-294) 5 years ago

Literally writing in "No Consent" in the Congressional races on your ballot. You must vote. The mark, "No Consent", must be the same from voter to voter in order to be counted properly.

As an action, to withhold your consent to be governed you must first register to vote and then vote in the general election, writing-in "No Consent" in your local Congressional races. Then? Sit back, watch the results and see if we made a dent.

How familiar are you with the Constitutional principle that all legitimate governance arises from the consent of the governed?

[-] 1 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 5 years ago

I'm familiar with the "consent of the governed" aspect, but so many legal technicalities are ignored at all levels these days. For instance I heard of the John Guise complaint. Options are dropping off.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 5 years ago

I don't think the Occupy is regarded as a terrorist threat

terrorism itself means suppressing the people's will through terror

Terrorism is usually conducted by a government tto control its people

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 5 years ago

US national security and combating criminal activities.

combating criminal activities is national security

that's not a duel purpose

[-] 1 points by elf3 (3900) 5 years ago

Provides the FBI bureaucrats with jobs; They need something to do that doesn't take a whole lot of effort, they need to justify their fat pay and pensions without working too hard, ya know. And spying on a group of average citizens that protests and blogs out in the open and via their own website is probably the easiest thing those fat useless fucks could come up with...sound about right? Back to cooking my meatloaf husband should be home from his 14 hour day soon, then I shalk walk the dog, iron my work clothes, and read some before bed. Watch out for us we're the new fear factor, me and my fuzzy slippers are going to burn the world (sarcasm) Just in case they aren't intelligent enough to recognize that and try to use it to haul my ass to a third world country for some sactioned torcher ...it's good that in the land of the free we have to mark our free speech with asterics and explanations for Big Brother (makes it feel nice and cozy ...like Communist North Korea or China )...dreams do come true....thanks for complying Google at least we know where you stand on fighting and dying for freedom (guess freedom can be bought and sold) Google has shown us how easily the torch of freedom can be dimmed for profit or a nice government partnership.

[-] 1 points by occupyitnow (31) 5 years ago

When google first started with the by invite only ploy I suspected is was a CIA initiative to map all the relationships between people. Whoever joined google like that is mapped. Then I came to know NsA and CIA provided google seed funding. It all made sense. It is a huge spy network.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 5 years ago

which we can all use

I can bring back posts I made years ago with a few search terms

very useful for memory

[-] 1 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 5 years ago

Power will not allow its self to be constrained by the people.If this was not true you would never be allowed to vote.

[-] 1 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 5 years ago

That would be like a self investigation?

[-] 1 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 5 years ago

In some cases it would be. Maybe that's why they haven't investigated right wing terrorists, because they are cut from the same cloth.?

[-] 0 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 5 years ago

Right or left wing it is all the same bird.

[-] 1 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 5 years ago

I've seen that bumper sticker. Very funny, but just a bumper sticker and not really true. Dems are more disappointing because they have betrayed progressive principles to support republican anti 99% policies. Only the progressive caucus can be counted on and even they ain't perfect. But obviously left and right ain't the same. That's just simplistic and misleading.

[-] 1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 5 years ago

Dont confuse left vs right with Dems and Reps. Its like comparing BK to McDonalds- ya they are different, but both are disgusting and bad for you.

[-] 2 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 5 years ago

Fast food is a clever comparison but not very useful.

Dems are more disappointing because they have betrayed progressive principles to support republican anti 99% policies.

Only the progressive caucus can be counted on and even they ain't perfect. One real difference between left and right is that NO right wingers are members of the progressive caucus.

[-] 0 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 5 years ago

Not when you have both of them crap on you.Bird dropings are all the same on the ground.

[-] 1 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 5 years ago

Another clever saying. Your full of 'em. Or something anyway.

[-] 0 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 5 years ago

Somethin better than nuttin

[-] 0 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 5 years ago

Not always

[-] 1 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 5 years ago

Not always Somthin?

Not always Nuttin?

Not always Better?

Not always all of the above?

[-] 1 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 5 years ago


[-] 1 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 5 years ago

Sometimes yep.

[-] 1 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 5 years ago

Hard to argue with that.


[-] 0 points by oldJim (-96) 5 years ago

There still are Occupy protests?

[-] 1 points by Narley (272) 5 years ago

I suspect most organizations promoting social and political change is on the FBI radar. Probably includes OWS, the NRA, Tea Party, JDL, La Raza, NAACP and so on. I always assume someone in monitoring my online activity.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33496) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

It is a given - even if it is not active monitoring. So no paranoia just a fact of life in this day/age.

BTW - is the FBI, CIA, NSA, DHS, SEC .... etc etc etc ....really stupid? - that they can not see the real threats to the nation/society/environment/life? CorpoRATions? and their disregard for anything but the acquisition of the all-mighty dollar?

[-] 1 points by Narley (272) 5 years ago

These agencies take their orders from the Gubmnt. I doubt right and wrong play a role in their activities.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33496) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

No nor the Constitution. They should review Nuremberg - the trials.

[-] 1 points by Narley (272) 5 years ago

Nobody follows the Constitution anymore. It's become political gamesmanship tp find ways around the Constition. In the end, it's the courts who decide what's constitional.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33496) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

The constitution has become a figurehead article of operation. The courts - what a fuckin mess/abomination in many regards - justice has not totally died - but - that day is not far off - the way things are going.

[-] 1 points by Narley (272) 5 years ago

Agreed! The question is what can be done about it. People don't seem to care. The few of us who do care are the minority.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33496) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

It is happening it is being addressed - otherwise what would you ( or anyone else ) be doing here? We have only just begun to stand-up and sound off. Yet - the government which has been ignoring us from the start are directing their conversation to - US.

[-] 1 points by Narley (272) 5 years ago

Nice to hear good news for a change.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33496) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

The good news has been building for over a year now - not that you would have heard much about it ( nothing factual anyway ) on MSM.

[-] -1 points by oldJim (-96) 5 years ago

They most likely can, but America is built on capitalism and their job is to make sure laws are being abided. Until America becomes communism and making money by the millions is not permitted by the system, there's nothing wrong with making money.

And no, the FBI is not monitoring the activities of every citizen. That would require an enormous amount of computer and human resources. It would be impossible. They target very carefully who they watch. Living in fantasy won't help us create a better world. This is not a movie. We need to stay sharp and real if we want to be able to create change.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33496) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

Your reasoning seems a bit flawed - more then a little.

< Until America becomes communism and making money by the millions is not permitted by the system, there's nothing wrong with making money. >

Legality does not enter into your thinking? Poisoning the world has no place in your consideration? Well - perhaps not - but it should be a central concern of authorities of enforcement agencies.

By the way - mass observation is ongoing - keyed to be sent to a real person for review when key word criteria is met. That individual continues - an intensified surveillance or not depending on their review - but the information is collected.

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 5 years ago

Holy shit! Say it isn't so!

The FBI has been around for a very long time. Did anyone not see that coming? I don't think the people are sleepwalking here.


[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 5 years ago

Are you sure you want me to do that?


[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 5 years ago