In 2006, as momentum built for the first Congressional vote in five years on legislation to close the SOA, the DC office received reports from the grassroots about being aggressively contacted by Lee Rials, spokesperson for the SOA/WHINSEC. One example is at Loyola Marymount University, where Fr. Roy Bourgeois spoke in late January. According to the campus newspaper the L.A. Loyolan, Lee Rials e-mailed student host Patrick Furlong two days before the event, accusing SOA Watch of making baseless, slanderous accusations.

In a subsequent Loyolan editorial entitled ?The Threat: Me, You, and Father Roy??, Julia Fauzia wrote, ?[The Army?s] efforts to monitor this non-violent human rights organization are unnecessary as well as [a]n imposition on the civil liberties of the members in this organization who are constantly pressured to keep their mouths closed... What?s even more disheartening is I know our taxes directly pay the government to keep unwarranted tabs on us.?

In May 2006, the ACLU released declassified files that revealed the FBI has opened counterterrorism investigations into SOA Watch. One month later, the ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of about 30 anti-war groups and individuals, including SOA Watch, demanding that the Pentagon respond to its Freedom of Information Act request to release records collected by the Department of Defense.

As SOA Watch awaits the outcome of this lawsuit, it?s important to reflect on our gains as we continue to build a safe and secure movement to close the SOA. The fact that the Army perceives letters from constituents as a threat to the future of this school confirms that we are making a difference, every time we encourage a neighbor to study the history of U.S. state support for torture and to take action against it. The following are some reflections:

1. Study the history of our own movement. Those of us who were active during the 1980s can remember things like the FBI investigation into the Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador and the federal prosecution of workers who provided sanctuary to Central Americans fleeing wars?a prosecution eerily echoed in 2006 by the provisions of the Sensenbrenner bill that would criminalize aid to people without papers, and by the prosecution coming this October of border aid volunteers Shanti Sellz and Daniel Strauss. (In the 1980s, such harassment was in part a testament to the success of the movement to block U.S. military aid... so let?s take a moment to appreciate our successes!)

It is important to remember that movements for peace and justice have already faced the problems of government harassment and persecution before, and to learn from these experiences. Brian Glick?s short book, The War at Home: Covert Action against U.S. Activists and What We Can Do About It, is a good introduction to this topic. It is also important to reflect that part of acting in solidarity, particularly for white North Americans, means accepting some of the fears and risks that our sisters and brothers throughout Latin America and the U.S. have learned to live with every day. Demanding that the SOA/WHINSEC close means demanding the end of state policies that target labor, religious, students, and people who speak up in defense of the rights of the poor and the oppressed.

2. Document, document, document. If you have ever been contacted by the U.S. Army regarding SOA Watch, the national office wants to know. We are interested both in cases of direct contact?i.e., an Army representative contacting you and asking for information about an SOA Watch event?and indirect examples that could suggest monitoring?i.e., a hostile editorial by a government official that appears in your local press after an SOA Watch event, or an Army official who appears at an event to challenge SOA Watch. Write down as many details as you can?names, dates, what was said, etc.?and share them with your local group, your regional representatives, and the national office. SOA Watch is currently seeking training on movement security and expects to host a workshop on government repression this November.

3. Learn from the U.S. history of government repression. Grand juries are one tool of government harassment and investigation into movements for social change. Individual activists can be subpoenaed, stripped of their Fifth Amendment rights, and compelled to testify. According to the website FBI Witchhunt, ?if an individual refuses to answer questions about such things as who her friends are and what activist groups she is involved with, she can be jailed for months and even years? for contempt of court. Over the past decade, for instance, the environmental movement in the Pacific Northwest has faced a wave of grand jury investigations into arson that seek to intimidate and criminalize dissent as acts of ?ecoterrorism.?

A July 2006 report by the ACLU on ?the state of surveillance? quotes Justice Department Spokesperson Mike Van Winkle explaining, ?You can make an easy kind of a link that if you have a protest group protesting a war where the cause that?s being fought against is international terrorism, you might have terrorism at the [protest]...You can almost argue that a protest against that is a terrorist act.? With the support of the ACLU in the past, SOA Watch has successfully fought for the right to protest outside the gates at Fort Benning, and the right for people attending the November vigil to be free of invasive searches. We are fighting again for our full civil and political rights. Upon the August release of the U.N. Human Rights Committee's critical findings, Fr. Roy told the ACLU, "The Committee's conclusions give me hope that if we continue to speak out against injustice, continue to call attention to torture, rendition, and other illegal acts by our government, the world will pay attention."

Visit www.soaw.org/cc for the links to the following web resources: