from the article:
The Counterintelligence Field Activity, or CIFA, began as a small policy-coordination office but has grown to encompass nine directorates and a staff exceeding 1,000. The agency's Talon database, collecting unconfirmed reports of suspicious activity from military bases and organizations around the country, has included
"threat reports" of peaceful civilian protests and demonstrations.CIFA compiled records of dissenters like military recruiting protesters, according to the article. One of their missions, I understand, is the investigation of threats of treason. I'll bet their mandate doesn't fall far from outright prosecution of sedition to the point of suppression. What a mess.
side note:
Not since Wilson was president have we seen such a determined assault on dissent by the Executive. Woodrow Wilson urged legislative action against those who had "sought to bring the authority and 'good name' of the Government into contempt." He worried in his declaration of war, about "spies and criminal intrigues everywhere afoot" which had filled "our unsuspecting communities and even our offices of government."
http://www.cia.gov/csi/monograph/firstln/wilson.html During his presidency more than 2,000 American citizens were jailed for protest, advocacy, and dissent, with the support of a compliant Supreme Court.
http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=12666&c=206 The Wilson-era assaults on civil liberties; Schenck v. U.S.; Frohwerk v. U.S.; Debs v. U.S., Abrams v. U.S., were ratified by Supreme Court decisions which asserted that free speech in wartime was a hindrance to the efforts of peace.
http://www.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=341&invol=494 Justice Holmes, in upholding the 1919 Schnek case, in which leaflets were distributed that expressed opposition to the draft, wrote of the words of protest: "Their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight" (referring to the war), and that "no court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right."
Justices Brennan and Holmes wrote the majority opinion which was phrased as the new "clear and present danger" test in which they argued: "The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree."
http://www.pbs.org/now/printable/classroom_courtcases_print.htmletc.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=5614411