COINTELPRO: Systematic Supression of Dissent

by Jody Ballew

Much of the media and new stories accumulated on this blog suggest that the suppression of dissent at Pittsburgh was complex and systematic.  The FBI, the National Guard, the Pittsburgh Police (supported by 1,000 officers from outside Pittsburgh hired for the G20) and other government agencies clearly cooperated to respond to protesters and activists in a preemptive strike that escalated on September, 24th and 25th. 

For evidence supporting this preemption theory, see these two videos detailing the harassment of a group seeking to provide support to protesters by radically feeding them.  Further support of this idea is demonstrated in earlier posts on this blog.  When considered as a whole, it becomes clear that the response to the protest was overwhelming in its scale and organization. 

Another trend on this blog has been to relate these current events to a historical trajectory of the systematic government suppression of dissent and criminalization of protest. 

We see yet another real historical precedent to this expectation by looking at an FBI organization called COINTELPRO which was active in its explicitly stated purpose of "protecting national security, preventing violence, and maintaining the existing social and political order" from 1956 to 1971.  COINTELPRO used a range of covert and often illegal tactics to systematically infiltrate and disrupt a long list of political organizations deemed subversive by J. Edgar Hoover's FBI.  The documented details of COINTELPRO's efforts were released to the public amidst politically motivated theft of FBI documents and a series of Senate investigations.  The Senate Select Committee finally issued this remark,

Many of the techniques used would be intolerable in a democratic society even if all of the targets had been involved in violent activity, but COINTELPRO went far beyond that...the Bureau conducted a sophisticated vigilante operation aimed squarely at preventing the exercise of First Amendment rights of speech and association, on the theory that preventing the growth of dangerous groups and the propagation of dangerous ideas would protect the national security and deter violence.

Locating this kind of effort on the part of our federal government in the past is alarming, but I am learning that in my lifetime there have been sweeping responses to organized protest.  In Seattle in 1999 the "no-protest" zone was first established.  In Pittsburgh free-speech zones were not even up for grabs as the deployment of 1,500 National Guard troops made the situation a de facto martial law.  In New York in 2004 a record 1800 protesters and bystanders were arrested at the RNC.

I see a pattern of suppressing dissent with overwhelming force and organization.  Pittsburgh 2009 is in this continuum.  In light of the organized, overwhelming and preemptive corralling of protesters this September, it is dismissive and erroneous to suggest that what happened in Pittsburgh was somehow the protesters' fault.  Historical examples somewhat distant like COINTELPRO show a governmental capacity to trap dissidents in a covert and subversive government scheme.  Precedents like COINTELPRO and more recent examples like Seattle and New York should frame our understanding of Pittsburgh. 

This understanding is a new and shocking part of my civic education.  It simultaneously drives me to learn more, to understand why these things are important, and to do something anything about it.  I hope those who read this blog also share those experiences.