FBI documents reveal plans to assassinate OWS activists

[Libertarian California]

Operation Northwoods was planned by the government (CIA, other officials, etc) to kill innocent American citizens in terrorist attacks (Planes and ships blowing up, etc) back in 1962, in order to justify an invasion of Cuba by blaming it on them using fabricated 'evidence'. Fortunately John F. Kennedy vetoed the plan, but it does go to show you that such an alleged plan by the FBI to assassinate OWS activists, while shocking, wouldn't be that, well, .. impossible.

Yeah, Northwoods is some scary shit, as is MK-ULTRA. As is waterboarding. In fact, half the shit our intelligence community does or plans to do is very fucked up.


Is it weird I want to join them?

[Abatael]

Here are some governmental definitions of terrorism.

Those links about the OWS fall into place about them being terrorists.

US DoD definition: The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.

US law definition: Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents.

United States Code: Any activity that (A) involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life that is a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State; and (B) appears to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping.

FBI definition: The unlawful use of force against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population or any segment thereof, in the furtherance of political or social objectives.

[Len Hyet]

Released FBI documents reveal plans to assassinate OWS activists

Jason Leopold, an investigative journalist for Truth-Out, has obtained FBI documents - through the Freedom of Information Act - relating to Occupy Wall Street. Most of the pages in the documents are redacted, and show concerns of cyber threats against the financial sector. However, there are questions of assassination plots against Occupy activists in Houston, Texas. Because the documents have redactions, it is not clear who or what group was planning the assassinations.

On page 61, the section reads: “An identified [redacted] of October planned to engage in sniper attacks against protesters in Houston, Texas, if deemed necessary. An identified [redacted] had received intelligence that indicated the protesters in New York and Seattle planned similar protests in Houston, Dallas, San Antonio and Austin, Texas. [Redacted] planned to gather intelligence against the leaders of the protest groups and obtain photographs, then formulate a plan to kill the leadership via suppressed sniper rifles.”

The bottom of page 68 and the top of page 69 reads: “On October 13, 2011, writer sent via email an excerpt [redacted] regarding FBI Houston’s [redacted] to all IA’s, SSRA’s and SSA [redacted]. This [redacted] identified the exploitation of the Occupy Movement by [redacted] interested in developing a long-term plan to kill local Occupy leaders via sniper fire.” ragingchickenpress.org

HIGHLIGHTS

According to internal documents newly released by the FBI, the agency spearheaded a nationwide law enforcement effort to investigate and monitor the Occupy Wall Street movement. In certain documents, divisions of the FBI refer to the Occupy Wall Street protests as a "criminal activity" or even "domestic terrorism." The Huffington Post

The internal papers were obtained by the Partnership for Civil Justice fund via a Freedom of Information Act Request. The fund, a legal nonprofit that focuses on civil rights, says it believes the 112 pages of documents, available for public viewing on its website, are only "the tip of the iceberg." The Huffington Post

Documents show the spying abuses of the FBI’s “Campus Liaison Program” in which the FBI in Albany and the Syracuse Joint Terrorism Task Force disseminated information to “sixteen different campus police officials,” and then “six additional campus police officials.” infoshop.org

Campus officials were in contact with the FBI for information on OWS. A representative of the State University of New York at Oswego contacted the FBI for information on the OWS protests and reported to the FBI on the SUNY-Oswego Occupy encampment made up of students and professors. infoshop.org

According to the new documents, the FBI began meeting with representatives of the New York Stock Exchange and other businesses as early as August 2011, a month before the Zuccotti Park protests. The Huffington Post

According to the documents, the FBI coordinated extensively with private companies, including banks that feared they could be affected by Occupy protests. The Huffington Post
FACTS & FIGURES

The Occupy Wall Street movement, which began on September 17, 2011 in New York City's Wall Street financial district has been rallying against social and economic inequality, greed, corruption and the perceived undue influence of corporations on government-particularly from the financial services sector. occupywallst.org

Among the Occupy movement's prime concerns is that large corporations and the global financial system control the world in a way that disproportionately benefits a minority, undermines democracy and is unstable. The Huffington Post

Occupy Wall Street has managed to turn the attention of America’s politicians and citizens to the dismal state of income inequality and economic mobility in the U.S. Think Progress

The Guardian

Yep our government doing everything in their power to keep us safe,.....I mean the banks safe from us. I don't really know what is the most disturbing, the fact that these documents show that the govt fears its own people (that's how its supposed to work) or the fact a peaceful movement was the planned target of FBI assassinations.

On page 61, the section reads: “An identified [redacted] of October planned to engage in sniper attacks against protesters in Houston, Texas, if deemed necessary. An identified [redacted] had received intelligence that indicated the protesters in New York and Seattle planned similar protests in Houston, Dallas, San Antonio and Austin, Texas. [Redacted] planned to gather intelligence against the leaders of the protest groups and obtain photographs, then formulate a plan to kill the leadership via suppressed sniper rifles.”
The bottom of page 68 and the top of page 69 reads: “On October 13, 2011, writer sent via email an excerpt [redacted] regarding FBI Houston’s [redacted] to all IA’s, SSRA’s and SSA [redacted]. This [redacted] identified the exploitation of the Occupy Movement by [redacted] interested in developing a long-term plan to kill local Occupy leaders via sniper fire.” ragingchickenpress.org

I'm only really rambling because simply i'm awe struck, but this is why the OWS movement was so violently suppressed by police and Russia and Iran literally mocked the US of how they handled the movement and condemning the actions taken against the protesters. OWS is a terrorist organization?

According to the new documents, the FBI began meeting with representatives of the New York Stock Exchange and other businesses as early as August 2011, a month before the Zuccotti Park protests. The Huffington Post

Yep all suspicions proven, the FBI and NYPD was simply working as a front for the banks and the billionaires who brought the world economy to a halt.

Yeah, that's not how I read this.

What I saw was the FBI filing a report that says SOMEONE was planning to kill OWS activists. Not unheard of. Every big movement has enemies, and every big movement attracts the attention of nutjobs who would like to kill them.

I didn't see anything that suggested that the FBI or NYPD were working for the banks. What I saw was a legitimate concern that the protests might turn violent, and the FBI and NYPD doing their JOBS to come up with contingency plans if the protests did become violent.

The Occupy Wall Street movement, which began on September 17, 2011 in New York City's Wall Street financial district has been rallying against social and economic inequality, greed, corruption and the perceived undue influence of corporations on government-particularly from the financial services sector. occupywallst.org

Or they're a bunch of people who clearly don't have jobs, because they spent months protesting. Then, these people who don't have jobs, decided to blame the people with jobs for their misfortune.

Yeah. Really a motivational group.

And just to point this out, one of your sources is " ragingchickenpress.org"
I mean really? THAT's your reliable source?
Ragingchickenpress?
Really?

You couldn't find a conspiracy website with at least a SLIGHTLY professional sounding name?

Weak.

[Abatael]

Operation Northwoods was planned by the government (CIA, other officials, etc) to kill innocent American citizens in terrorist attacks (Planes and ships blowing up, etc) back in 1962, in order to justify an invasion of Cuba by blaming it on them using fabricated 'evidence'. Fortunately John F. Kennedy vetoed the plan, but it does go to show you that such an alleged plan by the FBI to assassinate OWS activists, while shocking, wouldn't be that, well, .. impossible.

Yeah, Northwoods is some scary shit, as is MK-ULTRA. As is waterboarding. In fact, half the shit our intelligence community does or plans to do is very fucked up.


Is it weird I want to join them?

No, it's not. Edit: What our intelligence community does or plans is not fucked up.

It's not weird to want to join the intelligence community.
It is weird to want to join OWS.

[Kvatchdom]

Yeah, Northwoods is some scary shit, as is MK-ULTRA. As is waterboarding. In fact, half the shit our intelligence community does or plans to do is very fucked up.


Is it weird I want to join them?

No, it's not. Edit: What our intelligence community does or plans is not fucked up.

It's not weird to want to join the intelligence community.
It is weird to want to join OWS.

I don't think even Russia murders activists. So yeah, what your Intelligence Community does and plans is fucked up.

[Grave_n_idle]

These are definitely going to be found guilty. And, while it's theoretically possible they won't be found guilty, we both know that they will be.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/10/ ... 34x366.jpg - Defecating on a police interceptor.
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/209671.php - The bottom video.
http://patdollard.com/2011/10/occupypor ... -war-dead/
http://www.nypost.com/rw/nypost/2011/10 ... 00x300.jpg - Protester grabbing an officer's gun.

Those are a few of the crimes for the purposes of protesting. Other crimes occurred, but they weren't for the purposes of protesting.

Based on what you've presented here, you've still got nothing.

Two entirely inconclusive photos, a video that [/i]might[/i] contain the 'crime' of someone grabbing a policeman's hat, and an article claiming desecration.

No evidence of any attempt to use fear of violence or destruction as the means to institute a change of policy. So, no evidence of terrorism. (Indeed, you've barely provided evidence of 'crime' - despite your repeated claims).

Like I said, come back when you've got some actual evidence of some actual convictions, for some actual crimes, that can be argued as actual terrorism.

This shit you've got so far, it's weak sauce.

[Libertarian California]

Yeah, Northwoods is some scary shit, as is MK-ULTRA. As is waterboarding. In fact, half the shit our intelligence community does or plans to do is very fucked up.


Is it weird I want to join them?

No, it's not. Edit: What our intelligence community does or plans is not fucked up.

It's not weird to want to join the intelligence community.
It is weird to want to join OWS.

Look up Operation: Northwoods.
I'll eat my shoe if you say there is nothing that is morally wrong in that.

Anyways, I'm considering a career in the CIA.

[Libertarian California]

No, it's not. Edit: What our intelligence community does or plans is not fucked up.

It's not weird to want to join the intelligence community.
It is weird to want to join OWS.

I don't think even Russia murders activists. So yeah, what your Intelligence Community does and plans is fucked up.

Well, the KGB did (the KGB were basically like the Gestapo and CIA merged together), but I don't know anymore.

[Your Tired Friend Goofy]

FBI is just like Slovenia.
The difference is that the FBI is a strong american security organisation.

[Abatael]

No, it's not. Edit: What our intelligence community does or plans is not fucked up.

It's not weird to want to join the intelligence community.
It is weird to want to join OWS.

I don't think even Russia murders activists. So yeah, what your Intelligence Community does and plans is fucked up.

Yeah... neither do we...

These are definitely going to be found guilty. And, while it's theoretically possible they won't be found guilty, we both know that they will be.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/10/ ... 34x366.jpg - Defecating on a police interceptor.
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/209671.php - The bottom video.
http://patdollard.com/2011/10/occupypor ... -war-dead/
http://www.nypost.com/rw/nypost/2011/10 ... 00x300.jpg - Protester grabbing an officer's gun.

Those are a few of the crimes for the purposes of protesting. Other crimes occurred, but they weren't for the purposes of protesting.

Based on what you've presented here, you've still got nothing.

Two entirely inconclusive photos, a video that [/i]might[/i] contain the 'crime' of someone grabbing a policeman's hat, and an article claiming desecration.

No evidence of any attempt to use fear of violence or destruction as the means to institute a change of policy. So, no evidence of terrorism. (Indeed, you've barely provided evidence of 'crime' - despite your repeated claims).

Like I said, come back when you've got some actual evidence of some actual convictions, for some actual crimes, that can be argued as actual terrorism.

This shit you've got so far, it's weak sauce.

Stop playing dumb.

You can see he was about to crap on the interceptor; the man's hand was at the officer's gun (even if it wasn't, he was assaulting an officer, which is a felony), and those terrorists in the video were intimidating (intimidation = assault) them by counting down and charging. If they touched any officers, they they also committed a felony.

You've got nothing and are trying to minimalize the evidence.

No, it's not. Edit: What our intelligence community does or plans is not fucked up.

It's not weird to want to join the intelligence community.
It is weird to want to join OWS.

Look up Operation: Northwoods.
I'll eat my shoe if you say there is nothing that is morally wrong in that.

Anyways, I'm considering a career in the CIA.

I don't see anything wrong with that. As long as no one got seriously injured, unless they agree to be injured, it's fine.

[Grave_n_idle]

Have any articles that actually implicate OWS in TERRORIST activities? Your opinions don't make groping and pooping terrorism.

But, according to the FBI's definition of terrorism, it does.

According to the FBI's definition, no - it probably doesn't.

Which is irrelevant, anyway - it's more likely you'd be tried according to the United States Code definition, which is set forth in the PATRIOT Act - since the FBI definition seems to be advisory (originating in an analytical department).

In order to support the claim that OWS was a 'group of terrorists', you have to prove acts that are not only criminal, but also either a danger to human life, or likely to cause mass destruction - and are designed to influence policy by either direct or indirect intimidation or coercion.

Some guy pooping on a car - and to be honest, the picture isn't even very good evidence of that claim - isn't likely to qualify.

[Federated States of South Asia]

Released FBI documents reveal plans to assassinate OWS activists

Jason Leopold, an investigative journalist for Truth-Out, has obtained FBI documents - through the Freedom of Information Act - relating to Occupy Wall Street. Most of the pages in the documents are redacted, and show concerns of cyber threats against the financial sector. However, there are questions of assassination plots against Occupy activists in Houston, Texas. Because the documents have redactions, it is not clear who or what group was planning the assassinations.

On page 61, the section reads: “An identified [redacted] of October planned to engage in sniper attacks against protesters in Houston, Texas, if deemed necessary. An identified [redacted] had received intelligence that indicated the protesters in New York and Seattle planned similar protests in Houston, Dallas, San Antonio and Austin, Texas. [Redacted] planned to gather intelligence against the leaders of the protest groups and obtain photographs, then formulate a plan to kill the leadership via suppressed sniper rifles.”

The bottom of page 68 and the top of page 69 reads: “On October 13, 2011, writer sent via email an excerpt [redacted] regarding FBI Houston’s [redacted] to all IA’s, SSRA’s and SSA [redacted]. This [redacted] identified the exploitation of the Occupy Movement by [redacted] interested in developing a long-term plan to kill local Occupy leaders via sniper fire.” ragingchickenpress.org

HIGHLIGHTS

According to internal documents newly released by the FBI, the agency spearheaded a nationwide law enforcement effort to investigate and monitor the Occupy Wall Street movement. In certain documents, divisions of the FBI refer to the Occupy Wall Street protests as a "criminal activity" or even "domestic terrorism." The Huffington Post

The internal papers were obtained by the Partnership for Civil Justice fund via a Freedom of Information Act Request. The fund, a legal nonprofit that focuses on civil rights, says it believes the 112 pages of documents, available for public viewing on its website, are only "the tip of the iceberg." The Huffington Post

Documents show the spying abuses of the FBI’s “Campus Liaison Program” in which the FBI in Albany and the Syracuse Joint Terrorism Task Force disseminated information to “sixteen different campus police officials,” and then “six additional campus police officials.” infoshop.org

Campus officials were in contact with the FBI for information on OWS. A representative of the State University of New York at Oswego contacted the FBI for information on the OWS protests and reported to the FBI on the SUNY-Oswego Occupy encampment made up of students and professors. infoshop.org

According to the new documents, the FBI began meeting with representatives of the New York Stock Exchange and other businesses as early as August 2011, a month before the Zuccotti Park protests. The Huffington Post

According to the documents, the FBI coordinated extensively with private companies, including banks that feared they could be affected by Occupy protests. The Huffington Post
FACTS & FIGURES

The Occupy Wall Street movement, which began on September 17, 2011 in New York City's Wall Street financial district has been rallying against social and economic inequality, greed, corruption and the perceived undue influence of corporations on government-particularly from the financial services sector. occupywallst.org

Among the Occupy movement's prime concerns is that large corporations and the global financial system control the world in a way that disproportionately benefits a minority, undermines democracy and is unstable. The Huffington Post

Occupy Wall Street has managed to turn the attention of America’s politicians and citizens to the dismal state of income inequality and economic mobility in the U.S. Think Progress

The Guardian

Yep our government doing everything in their power to keep us safe,.....I mean the banks safe from us. I don't really know what is the most disturbing, the fact that these documents show that the govt fears its own people (that's how its supposed to work) or the fact a peaceful movement was the planned target of FBI assassinations.

On page 61, the section reads: “An identified [redacted] of October planned to engage in sniper attacks against protesters in Houston, Texas, if deemed necessary. An identified [redacted] had received intelligence that indicated the protesters in New York and Seattle planned similar protests in Houston, Dallas, San Antonio and Austin, Texas. [Redacted] planned to gather intelligence against the leaders of the protest groups and obtain photographs, then formulate a plan to kill the leadership via suppressed sniper rifles.”
The bottom of page 68 and the top of page 69 reads: “On October 13, 2011, writer sent via email an excerpt [redacted] regarding FBI Houston’s [redacted] to all IA’s, SSRA’s and SSA [redacted]. This [redacted] identified the exploitation of the Occupy Movement by [redacted] interested in developing a long-term plan to kill local Occupy leaders via sniper fire.” ragingchickenpress.org

I'm only really rambling because simply i'm awe struck, but this is why the OWS movement was so violently suppressed by police and Russia and Iran literally mocked the US of how they handled the movement and condemning the actions taken against the protesters. OWS is a terrorist organization?

According to the new documents, the FBI began meeting with representatives of the New York Stock Exchange and other businesses as early as August 2011, a month before the Zuccotti Park protests. The Huffington Post

Yep all suspicions proven, the FBI and NYPD was simply working as a front for the banks and the billionaires who brought the world economy to a halt.

It is to laugh. Are you a Truther?

FSoSA.


P.s. This entire thread is freaking hilarious! MK Ultra. The reality and the fiction are seldom congruent. McGill University's discovered interrogation methodology. (nothing to do with that cover program) did have some very practical applications (after 9-11 for example when terrorists SCUM had to be broken in a hurry to save lives.).

[Abatael]

But, according to the FBI's definition of terrorism, it does.

According to the FBI's definition, no - it probably doesn't.

Which is irrelevant, anyway - it's more likely you'd be tried according to the United States Code definition, which is set forth in the PATRIOT Act - since the FBI definition seems to be advisory (originating in an analytical department).

In order to support the claim that OWS was a 'group of terrorists', you have to prove acts that are not only criminal, but also either a danger to human life, or likely to cause mass destruction - and are designed to influence policy by either direct or indirect intimidation or coercion.

Some guy pooping on a car - and to be honest, the picture isn't even very good evidence of that claim - isn't likely to qualify.

USC's definition of terrorism: Any activity that (A) involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life that is a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State; and (B) appears to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping.

Assaulting an officer: http://www.nypost.com/rw/nypost/2011/10 ... 00x300.jpg

It definitely seems like they're coercing people. I mean, here, they allegedly kidnapped a member of the civilian population.

They could easily be found to be terrorists according to the US Code.

[Grave_n_idle]

You can see he was about to crap on the interceptor;

I can see he appears to have his pants pulled down. Anything else is either purely speculation or wishful thinking on your part.

the man's hand was at the officer's gun

Having your hand near an officer's gun isn't illegal.

If he was holding the officer's gun, you might have a point. The picture doesn't support that claim, though.

(even if it wasn't, he was assaulting an officer, which is a felony),

The picture doesn't support that claim.

and those terrorists in the video were intimidating (intimidation = assault) them by counting down

Counting isn't actually illegal.

and charging.

A crowd surging forward isn't actually illegal.

If they touched any officers, they they also committed a felony.

Touching an officer isn't a felony.

You've got nothing and are trying to minimalize the evidence.

On the contrary, you've made a nonsensical claim, and have absolutely nothing that comes even vaguely close to proving it.

The fact that none of the 'evidence' you present is any good isn't something you can blame on me.

[Grave_n_idle]

According to the FBI's definition, no - it probably doesn't.

Which is irrelevant, anyway - it's more likely you'd be tried according to the United States Code definition, which is set forth in the PATRIOT Act - since the FBI definition seems to be advisory (originating in an analytical department).

In order to support the claim that OWS was a 'group of terrorists', you have to prove acts that are not only criminal, but also either a danger to human life, or likely to cause mass destruction - and are designed to influence policy by either direct or indirect intimidation or coercion.

Some guy pooping on a car - and to be honest, the picture isn't even very good evidence of that claim - isn't likely to qualify.

USC's definition of terrorism: Any activity that (A) involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life that is a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State; and (B) appears to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping.

Assaulting an officer: http://www.nypost.com/rw/nypost/2011/10 ... 00x300.jpg

It definitely seems like they're coercing people. I mean, here, they allegedly kidnapped a member of the civilian population.

They could easily be found to be terrorists according to the US Code.

Allegations are not evidence.

The picture is the same one you presented before - and doesn't conclusively show anything, much less that an assault is taking place.

You say they could easily be found to be terrorists - but you've not even shown that they've been found to be criminals - and that's a requirement of the USC definition - it has to be an act that is a criminal violation.

And you've yet to show even one conviction.

[Abatael]

You can see he was about to crap on the interceptor;

I can see he appears to have his pants pulled down. Anything else is either purely speculation or wishful thinking on your part.

the man's hand was at the officer's gun

Having your hand near an officer's gun isn't illegal.

If he was holding the officer's gun, you might have a point. The picture doesn't support that claim, though.

(even if it wasn't, he was assaulting an officer, which is a felony),

The picture doesn't support that claim.

and those terrorists in the video were intimidating (intimidation = assault) them by counting down

Counting isn't actually illegal.

and charging.

A crowd surging forward isn't actually illegal.

If they touched any officers, they they also committed a felony.

Touching an officer isn't a felony.

You've got nothing and are trying to minimalize the evidence.

On the contrary, you've made a nonsensical claim, and have absolutely nothing that comes even vaguely close to proving it.

The fact that none of the 'evidence' you present is any good isn't something you can blame on me.

You obviously do not know the law. Thrusting yourself towards an officer is assaulting an officer.

Touching an officer without his permission, especially in a riot, is assaulting an officer.

Counting down, running towards, and then finally forcefully and physically encountering them is assault. If they didn't actually touch them, they would have committed assault by intimidating them, because they gave off the appearance of them about to attack them.

If you are going to make claims about the law, don't speak out of your ass like you are doing here.

[The Nation of Theives]

I'm a tad suspicious of the document itself. It seems too good to be true. Do you seriously think that they could coax assassination plans out of the FBI? Sure, it was under the "Freedom of Information Act," but historically they didn't release much on it at all.

And, who even were/are the leaders of the OWS movement?

[Abatael]

I'm a tad suspicious of the document itself. It seems too good to be true. Do you seriously think that they could coax assassination plans out of the FBI? Sure, it was under the "Freedom of Information Act," but historically they didn't release much on it at all.

And, who even were/are the leaders of the OWS movement?

Joe Iosbaker and Andy Thayer are two leaders in the movement.

[Grave_n_idle]

You obviously do not know the law. Thrusting yourself towards an officer is assaulting an officer.

Touching an officer without his permission, especially in a riot, is assaulting an officer.

Counting down, running towards, and then finally forcefully and physically encountering them is assault. If they didn't actually touch them, they would have committed assault by intimidating them, because they gave off the appearance of them about to attack them.

If you are going to make claims about the law, don't speak out of your ass like you are doing here.

Actually, US common law usually defines 'assault' specifically, as an attempt to commit battery.

More specifically - since the picture and video you presented seems to show New York police officers, it's worth pointing out that 'assault' in New York State requires actual injury.

You might want to think twice about accusing someone else of being ignorant of the law.

[Abatael]

You obviously do not know the law. Thrusting yourself towards an officer is assaulting an officer.

Touching an officer without his permission, especially in a riot, is assaulting an officer.

Counting down, running towards, and then finally forcefully and physically encountering them is assault. If they didn't actually touch them, they would have committed assault by intimidating them, because they gave off the appearance of them about to attack them.

If you are going to make claims about the law, don't speak out of your ass like you are doing here.

Actually, US common law usually defines 'assault' specifically, as an attempt to commit battery.

More specifically - since the picture and video you presented seems to show New York police officers, it's worth pointing out that 'assault' in New York State requires actual injury.

You might want to think twice about accusing someone else of being ignorant of the law.

Assaulting a protected group of people (id est, the police) with or without the serious bodily harm is still a crime. And, even then, assaulting someone (let's say, you punch someone, but they aren't bruised and aren't damaged) is still illegal.

And they call what I called "assault through intimidation" "menacing," which is still illegal.

[Katzhakstan]

OWS is a joke, a sad one at that. But still, killing? If this document was real I would really get mad at the F.B.I; not that me getting mad would help.

[Grave_n_idle]

Actually, US common law usually defines 'assault' specifically, as an attempt to commit battery.

More specifically - since the picture and video you presented seems to show New York police officers, it's worth pointing out that 'assault' in New York State requires actual injury.

You might want to think twice about accusing someone else of being ignorant of the law.

Assaulting a protected group of people (id est, the police) with or without the serious bodily harm is still a crime. And, even then, assaulting someone (let's say, you punch someone, but they aren't bruised and aren't damaged) is still illegal.

And they call what I called "assault through intimidation" "menacing," which is still illegal.

It's hilarious watching you dance.

First it's terrorism, then it's just crime. Then it's assault, then it's just menacing.

Every time I show you how you're wrong, you make a wild swing at some new target.

And still - you've yet to show evidence that any of this has been proved through even one conviction, or that any of it can be linked to terrorism.

[Abatael]

Assaulting a protected group of people (id est, the police) with or without the serious bodily harm is still a crime. And, even then, assaulting someone (let's say, you punch someone, but they aren't bruised and aren't damaged) is still illegal.

And they call what I called "assault through intimidation" "menacing," which is still illegal.

It's hilarious watching you dance.

First it's terrorism, then it's just crime. Then it's assault, then it's just menacing.

Every time I show you how you're wrong, you make a wild swing at some new target.

And still - you've yet to show evidence that any of this has been proved through even one conviction, or that any of it can be linked to terrorism.

No, I'm still on terrorism. It said they had to be committing a crime for political purposes. Menacing and assault of a certain protected group is a crime. It is for political purposes. It is terrorism.

And you have the video of intimidation (menacing) and the photo of assault.

Your denial of it does not make it disappear.

[Grave_n_idle]

No, I'm still on terrorism. It said they had to be committing a crime for political purposes.

The USC definition requires more than that.

Menacing and assault of a certain protected group is a crime. It is for political purposes. It is terrorism.

Menacing might be a crime, but not necessarily one that is covered by the USC definition.

And you have the video of intimidation (menacing) and the photo of assault.

I have seen a video that MIGHT be arguable as 'menacing'. I've not seen evidence that any convictions were attained.

The photo certainly can't be described as proof of assault.

Your denial of it does not make it disappear.

It's not a matter of denial - it's a matter of actually understanding how the law works.

Not only are you innocent until proven guilty - but 'guilt' requires that it not just be a guess, it has to be beyond doubt.

In other words - the law errs on the side of caution. So, if the clip MIGHT show menacing, then the law says that it's probably NOT menacing. If the photo COULD be assault, then the law says it's probably NOT assault.

This is really simple - if it's terrorism - you should be able to provide sources verifying that nonsensical claim.

Obviously you can't find evidence supporting that claim, because that claim is bullshit.

[The Nation of Theives]

I'm a tad suspicious of the document itself. It seems too good to be true. Do you seriously think that they could coax assassination plans out of the FBI? Sure, it was under the "Freedom of Information Act," but historically they didn't release much on it at all.

And, who even were/are the leaders of the OWS movement?

Joe Iosbaker and Andy Thayer are two leaders in the movement.

Meh. Good enough for me.


But still, why would the FBI release something this outrageous about a large and popular movement that only happened about a year ago? I wouldn't release that until maybe thirty years afterwards.