The warrants were obtained through Joint Terrorism Task Forces (organizations coordinating federal, state and local law enforcement agencies) and signed off on by a federal judge. Many of the individuals will stand before grand juries in the coming weeks to answer questions on the issues under investigation. The searches and the rationalization behind them deserve a great deal of attention and close analysis from the public because of the potential consequences for civil liberties.

For anyone familiar with domestic counter intelligence (including the FBI’s Counter Intelligence Program, or COINTELPRO) from the 1960s and ‘70s, this is nothing new. The U.S. government conducted extensive surveillance programs against peace activists and other “radical leftist” groups during and after the Vietnam War.

At the time, justification for the investigations was much the same. Law enforcement agencies and the government played off the fear of domestic terror by “fringe” groups to expand their power and infiltrate what they saw as subversive, anti-American groups.

Although there certainly were some violent, American-based groups in the ‘60s and ‘70s, the vast majority of groups targeted by programs like COINTELPRO were simply political organizations with rhetoric and positions that broke from the mainstream. It is worth mentioning that the targets of such surveillance included Martin Luther King Jr., members of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, or NAACP, and even members of the women’s rights movement.

Clearly, law enforcement does not have the best track record when it comes to targeting “subversive” elements of society. Any person or group labeled as such is worthy of a second opinion.

The whole undertaking reeks of political repression of a sort not seen in decades. Why the FBI has chosen to act against these organizations at this point is very suspect. It is strange these groups are under open investigation now, as opposed to several years ago.

Public opposition to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were at their highest points then, and it seems to me the most effective point at which to “subvert” has passed now that we’ve settled into a comfortable state of quagmire in those countries.

If there is any legitimacy to the charges that might be leveled against these people, then there must have been some kind of catalyst that spurred law enforcement into action. If not, then it seems there is even more evidence to suggest these investigations are simply acts of political repression.

If so, those responsible for carrying them out must be punished accordingly. However, much evidence remains to be uncovered, and it would be imprudent to pass judgment at the moment.

The struggle between liberty and security is one that characterizes nearly all democratic societies at some point in time. With the War on Terror, we find ourselves in one of those periods.

In such times, it is important that the public remain aware and involved, lest we lose the liberties many have fought hard to win and maintain. Although the rhetoric might have changed from fear of communists to fear of terrorists, the method of repression remains the same.

It is every American citizen’s duty to pay the absolute greatest attention to this and treat anything published by either side — particularly the government — with the greatest degree of skepticism. The prosecution of the alleged domestic terrorists must be scrutinized to the highest degree, and the charges must be dutifully analyzed. Those who are prosecuted should be examined just as deeply as those filing charges, because there might well be just cause behind the searches.

But we have experienced behavior like this by law enforcement before. Most often it was not due to good intentions on behalf of those carrying out the investigations.

Matt Korovesis is a State News guest columnist. Reach him at koroves1@msu.edu.