In article ,
"Daniel-San" (Rot13) wrote:

"Peter A. Collin" wrote ...
Scott Seidman wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/25/op...=1&oref=slogin

I don't feel like registering to the website. Synopsis?

Cut-n-paste:

August 25, 2006
A (Terror) Fish Story
We've been fascinated by the story of how Jim Bensman of Alton, Ill., went
to a hearing about fish and wound up as a potential terrorism suspect.

As Cornelia Dean reported in The Times, the Army Corps of Engineers held a
meeting in Mr. Bensman's neighborhood to talk about helping those fish swim
around the locks and dams it has constructed on the Mississippi River over
the years. There was a PowerPoint presentation on various options. One -
clearly not the Corps's favorite - was to eliminate a dam in East Alton. To
illustrate that idea, the presentation included a picture of a dam being
dynamited.

Mr. Bensman rose later to support removing the dam. Big mistake.

A local paper reported that Mr. Bensman told the Corps he "would like to see
the dam blown up."

A Corps security officer read the report. He decided that Mr. Bensman was
threatening a public facility. He notified the G-men.

An F.B.I. agent then contacted Mr. Bensman, who was surprised to learn that
federal investigators believed a terrorist might announce his plans at a
public hearing of the Army Corps of Engineers.

When the agent said he wanted to visit his home, it occurred to Mr. Bensman
that he needed a lawyer. At that point, Mr. Bensman said, the agent
threatened to "put you down as not cooperating."

All this started because Mr. Bensman believes the Army Corps builds way too
many locks and dams on the Mississippi for the convenience of boating
interests. This page has always thought so too.

But not in any way, shape or form that involves any kind of sabotage
whatsoever.

_________________________

Dan




I think the story neglects to mention that the army corps had a history
with Mr Bensman, and that probably influenced what happened (lemme
google this...)

Here we go, lemme change the topic

Alton, Illinois -- Jim Bensman, the Sierra Club activist who was being
"investigated" by the FBI as a terrorist because he stood up at a public
hearing being held by the Army Corps of Engineers and suggested that the
Corps should pursue its idea of removing some dams to improve fish
habitat, has now discovered that the Corps lied when it denied having
turned him into the FBI as a suspect.
In a response to The Alton Telegraph the Corps now says:

"On July 26, the Telegraph had an article on the day following the
public meeting; we sent that article to our district staff. We had some
employees who pointed out that the article attributed certain statements
to Mr. Bensman. Our security officer's determination, based on U.S. Army
regulations concerning possible threats to public facilities, was that
the article should be forwarded to the appropriate federal agency, the
FBI, for their consideration to determine whether there was a threat or
not."
This item appears only a day after the Army Corps denied to the New York
Times that it had asked the FBI to investigate Jim. Now the Army Corps
admits that it sent the FBI a newspaper story which incorrectly said
that Jim Bensman had suggested "blowing up dams" when this suggestion
was actually the Army's own idea -- Jim simply said it was worth looking
into. The Corps had prepared the PowerPoint presentation that had the
picture of dams being blown up. They were aware that it was their idea,
not Jim's; therefore, they knew that the article they sent the FBI was
wrong. And the Corps further admits that it did not send the FBI the
transcript of the hearing which would have clearly shown the FBI that
Jim did not even make the statement which allegedly warranted turning
his name over to the Bureau in the first place.




It's difficult to avoid the conclusion that the Army Corps of Engineers
decided to set up one of their critics for an FBI investigation using a
bogus charge based on a newspaper article the Corps knew was false. They
withheld from the Bureau information in their possession which they knew
exonerated Jim. They may well have assumed that eventually the FBI would
learn the truth and drop the investigation, as the Bureau in fact did --
but in the meantime they were harassing Jim, and, one suspects, hoping
to intimidate him.

Jim says in his email to me, "I just do not see any reasonable
explanation for these facts other than the ACOE got the FBI to
investigate me as a suspected terrorist to punish me for exercising my
First Amendment rights. So I am looking forward to getting more
information to base a final opinion of the situation on." He has asked
the Corps for the regulation which they claimed required them to make
the complaint to the FBI, the names of the individuals involved, and
full disclosure of any other actions they took with regard to Jim for
testifying.

The FBI should be furious for being used by the Corps to pay back a
critic. The Defense Department should be getting rid of the Corps
employees responsible for this outrage, but I'm not holding my breath.
And Congress ought to find out how common this practice is.