After reviewing the story written by Hector Carreon of La Voz de Aztlan about his encounter with DHS special agents on December 23, 2005 at his residence, in the Los Angeles, CA area I concluded that we had two issues with the Hector Carreon’s case: DHS’ attempt to intimidate a journalist and news reporter for exercising his First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and secondly, DHS investigating a suspected terrorist organization, which it is not an enforcement action within the DHS jurisdiction. This is FBI's territory. Although Mr. Carreon did not identify the DHS special agents by name or the agency, I assume the agents were from the Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) Los Angeles ICE District Office. It is possible the agents asked Mr. Carreon not to publish their name or the agency they worked for “under the name of national security.”
If I were the FBI-SAC Los Angeles after reading Mr. Carreon’s narrative, I would pick-up the phone and make some calls not only to his/her Los Angeles ICE counterpart but to the FBI Director. In summary, DHS and assuming ICE was involved, they were basically poaching into FBI exclusive territory: investigations of terrorist organizations within the USA.
Now, if there is such alleged coordination between DHS-ICE and the FBI’s Joint Terrorist Task Force, why was not an FBI agent present during Mr. Carreon’s consented search of his residence? One more thing, let’s assume that the FBI was already conducting an investigation on Mr. Carreon and his La Voz de Aztlan for possible terrorist activities, what DHS did in essence was to obstruct and sabotage an FBI investigation. This of course does not imply by any means that Mr. Carreon and his organization is connected with any terrorist group.
I don’t know if the above case had something to do with the sudden retirement of the Los Angeles ICE SAC Loraine Brown.
The Hector Carreon case is similar to my co-publisher Bill Conroy’s case, but the government’s intention and motives were not the same. In the Conroy’s case the DHS-OPR goons only wanted to intimidate him and to tell his bosses about his Narco News stories. On the other hand, the Carreon case was a pure “terrorist related investigation,” and of course to intimidate him and give him a "warning" about his stories exposing government corruption in the USA and abroad.
The Hector Carreon Story
DHS: "La Voz de Aztlan has raised eyebrows in Washington" by Hector Carreon - La Voz de Aztlan - Los Angeles, Alta California, January 12, 2006 - (ACN)
On the morning of December 22, 2005, I noticed a business card that was left at the door of my home. The card was from the US Department of Homeland Security and had a handwritten note that said "Please call". That afternoon I called Los Angeles and spoke with the special agent whose name was on the card. The DHS agent said they wanted to speak to me about "The Aztlan Movement" and my organization. I answered, "Do you mean La Voz de Aztlan?" I added, "La Voz de Aztlan is a news and information service." The special agent wanted to come to my home to speak to me personally on the following day. We made a 8:30 a.m. appointment.
The knock on my door came at precisely 8:30 a.m. on December 23, 2005 as my family was making final preparations for Christmas Day. On the other side of my glass door were two gentlemen dressed in professional business suits. I opened the door and we introduced each other. I escorted them to my living room and introduced the two special agents to two of my family members that were present. We all sat down and the lead government agent began the conversation.
Among the first statements said by the special agent in charge was, "La Voz de Aztlan has raised eyebrows in Washington". He proceeded to ask numerous questions about Aztlan. He said that he was not from the area and wanted to know as much as possible about the "Aztlan Movement" and my organization. I reiterated that "La Voz de Aztlan" is not an organization per se but merely an Internet news service for Mexican and Mexican-Americans in the US Southwest and in Mexico. I added that La Voz de Aztlan, however, had attracted readership and subscriber from around the globe.
He asked what Aztlan meant to me. I answered that Aztlan has many levels of meaning. I said that "Aztlan" in the name of our news publication is mostly symbolic. I gave both special agents the historic and cultural basis for "Aztlan" . I mentioned that there exists historical Mexica documents and old Spanish maps that point to an actual region called "Aztlan" that existed in pre-Columbian times near the "four corners" area of the US Southwest. I mentioned that according to ancient Mexica (Aztec) lore, they were to migrate south to establish the great city of Tenochtitlan (present day Mexico City) at a place where they were to see a "sign". The sign would be "An eagle on top of a cactus with a serpent in its beak". One of the special agents immediately recognized this "sign" as being part of the Mexican flag.
At this point the conversation turned into "Aztlan" being a separatist organization and whether I believed that the Southwest should separate from Washington and become part of Mexico. I said that there are many youths of Mexican descent that believe in such a possibility but that my personal beliefs are more in line with those of Professor Armando Navarro of the University of California and of Professor Charles Truxillo of the University of New Mexico. The special agent asked me whether I believed in the armed and violent overthrow of the US government. I answered "no" and that I believed in making social and political changes through the "ballot box".
The lead special agent also asked questions concerning a news report we had on a legendary Iraqi sniper that our troops have nicknamed "Juba". The report included a link to a video on the server of "The Internet Archive" at www.archive.org. "The Internet Archive" is funded by the US Library of Congress but the video appears to have been produced by Al-Queda. We have now removed two reports on "Juba" because of the concerns communicated to us by the DHS.
There were numerous other questions concerning my education, employment and military record with the US Army 2nd Armored Division. They asked what kind of weapons I own and where in the house I kept them. They asked whether I had friends and who were my associates. They asked about Ernesto Cienfuegos, Roberto Cruz and my association with Dr. Armando Navarro. They also asked how I got along with my neighbors.
At about this point, the second special agent got up and approached me with a clip board and a document. He requested that I print my name on a line at the top and sign at the bottom. I ask what it was for and he answered that it was permission for them to examine my computer. All this time the special agent in charge was in constant radio communication with someone at a remote location. I had to decide on the spot whether to grant permission or insist on a court warrant. I decided that it would be the best course to continue to fully cooperate with the federal agents and I sign the document. Right after I signed, the lead agent radioed someone and within five minutes two more special agents arrived to my home with suitcases of electronic equipment. The lead agent asked me to escort them to my computer room where they spent two hours copying the hard disk of my computer. I do not know what else they did down there because I was kept busy by the other two agents upstairs answering additional questions.
It was clear to me that the Department of Homeland Security had conducted previous surveillance and investigations because they already had much information on myself and our news publication "La Voz de Aztlan". The special agent in charge gave me the distinct impression that they were acting on high level orders from Washington. We suspect Congressman Tom Tancredo, the AIPAC or both. We are presently preparing a "congressional inquiry" in an attempt to find out who was behind this frightening invasion of privacy and government action that has "chilled" our constitutional freedom of speech and of the press.
http://www.aztlan.net/homeland_security_incident.h tm
REFERENCES
DHS eyes House members Agent who spoke with rep suspended - Sara A. Carter, Staff Writer - San Bernardino County Sun Article - 09/27/2006
Congressmen who visit the U.S.-Mexico border unannounced are being monitored by the Department of Homeland Security, and at least one U.S. Customs and Border Protection agent has been suspended for speaking to a congressman without first getting supervisory clearance, according to documents obtained by the Daily Bulletin.
Congressional members interviewed by the newspaper said they were unaware until recently that Border Patrol agents were required to file Significant Incident Reports - normally used for shootings and other serious border incidents - when congressional members made unannounced visits in the summer along the U.S.-Mexico border.
A second document obtained by the paper reveals that one agent was suspended for 10 days without pay for speaking with Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, who made an unannounced visit to the border in May.
"Preventing Congress from speaking freely to federal employees violates at least two federal statutes, and agents are fearful of telling the truth," said King, who recounted several visits to the Mexican border when Border Patrol agents would not speak with him for fear of reprisal.
http://www.sbsun.com/ci_4401381
The National Alliance for Human Rights
The Dr. Armando Navarro mentioned in the Hector Carreon's search incident is coordinator of the National Alliance for Human Rights, a network of leaders, activists, scholars and organizations committed to the promotion of human rights, social justice and political empowerment of the Latino community in the United States. Since its formation in the year 2000, the National Alliance for Human Rights has been at the forefront of issues affecting Latinos. Armando Navarro, Coordinator, (951) 333-6819
http://www.nationalallianceforhumanrights.org/
homeland security going after journalist Greg Palast reposter Greg Palast is facing a criminal complaint from the Department of Homeland Security stemming from his filming the Hurricane Katrina investigation for Link TV and Democracy Now.
Palast, Pascarella Face Homeland Security Charges Published by Greg Palast September 7th, 2006 in Articles by Zach Roberts
Yes, the rumor's true. Greg Palast is facing a criminal complaint from the Department of Homeland Security stemming from his filming the Hurricane Katrina investigation for Link TV and Democracy Now. The film's producer, Matt Pascarella, is also facing the legal wrath of Big Brother.
It appears the complaint is about filming a sensitive national security site owned by Exxon petroleum. It seems that photographing major Bush donors is now a federal offense.
Reached at an undisclosed location, Palast says, "Let's not get over-excited. They haven't measured us for our orange suits yet."
During questioning by Homeland Security, Palast asked, "Hey, aren't you supposed to be looking for Osama? Or for guys with exploding shoes? ... We're journalists." At Palast's request, Homeland Security confirmed that Louisiana is, indeed, still part of the USA but did not respond when asked if the First Amendment applies there.
Watch part one and part two of Palast and Pascarella's film. (In association with BigNoise Films) BigNoise Videographer Jaqui Soohen has not been charged http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/09/345676.sh tml
Free Political Expression Is Protected by the First Amendment
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution, however, protects the right of political expression of citizens and citizen groups. The First Amendment provides that:
"Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech." This Amendment was incorporated in our Constitution, at the urging of James Madison, to protect "indispensable democratic freedoms."
Freedom of speech and association were viewed by the Framers of the Constitution as essential to democracy. As the courts have explained:
(i)f popular elections form the essence of republican government, free discourse and political activity formed the prerequisite for popular elections.
Thus, "freedom of speech plays a fundamental role in a democracy. . . [I]t 'is the matrix, the indispensable condition of nearly every other freedom.'"
The Supreme Court has held, therefore, that political expression is "at the core of our electoral process and of First Amendment freedoms."
[T]he First Amendment right to 'speak one's mind . . . on all public institutions' includes the right to engage in "'vigorous advocacy' no less than 'abstract discussion.'" Advocacy of the election or defeat of candidates for federal office is no less entitled to protection under the First Amendment than the discussion of political policy generally or advocacy of the passage or defeat of legislation.
Thus, the Court has concluded that "it can hardly be doubted that the constitutional guarantee [of the First Amendment] has its fullest and most urgent application precisely to the conduct of campaigns for political office."
To date, the federal courts, including the United States Supreme Court, have vigorously protected the First Amendment right of citizens and citizens' groups to free political expression. The seminal case is Buckley v. Valeo, decided in 1976, which struck down, on First Amendment grounds, many of the speech limiting provisions of the post-Watergate amendments to the Federal Election Campaign Act.
Other important decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court protecting free political expression and association are NCPAC v. Federal Election Commission, Federal Election Commission v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, and Federal Election Commission v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee.
http://www.jamesmadisoncenter.org/missionstatement .html
By Miguel Contreras,
No comments:
Post a Comment