OMG, the May issue of Elle is the “Green Issue” and has an article on these, like, Al-Qaeda environmentalists! Srsly. There’s a lot about how the FBI hired this girl to totally pretend to be an activist, and lie to them and pressure them into doing illegal stuff. Now they’re going to prison as terrorists or something. Whatevs, this stuff will have you ROFL:
- “For two years now, a young woman in camo pants, black sweatshirt, military boots and pink hair, known to both her fellow eco-activists and FBI employers as ‘Anna,’ had been crashing the party.”
Forget “number one domestic terrorist threat,” how about number one fashion threat! LOL! First of all, military boots don’t even look good if you’re in the military. And pink hair! Anna, honey, please check out “What to Wear” (p. 106) and “Roll-out-of-bed Beautiful Hair” (p. 208).
- “The car stank of body odor and sweat, thanks to the extremists’ rejection of regular bathing and hygiene products like antiperspirants.”
Uh, hel-lo terrorists! Have you not heard of Ren’s neroli and grapefruit bodywash (p.214). All this global warming is only going to make you’re B.O. totes worse!
- “‘One of the best things about this movement is the way women are treated and viewed,’ Anna says. ‘They reject typical standards of beauty, they you have to be stick-thin, with Pantene hair, perfect hair, perfect skin.’”
Thank GOD this Anna woman got out when she did. Any longer and she might start saying that botox isn’t worth needlessly killing animals. You’re never going to meet Elle’s Green Hunk 2008 without at least some foundation and eyeliner (p. 102).
Ok, I’m done being snotty. But Andrea Todd’s article misses the big picture—questioning the relentless push to label non-violent activists as “terrorists,” and the sleazy methods used to do that– for the sake of glamming up the Green Scare.
She falls head-over-heels for the sexiness of the story—shadowy activists in love out to save the world—and swallows a series of absurdities provided by the FBI. Rather than pick apart every paragraph, I wanted to highlight a few good points buried within the sensationalism:
- Eric McDavid, Lauren Weiner and Zachary Jenson are accused of plotting to sabotage a U.S. Forest Service genetics tree lab and the Nimbus Dam. U.S. Attorney McGregor Scott has claimed that damage to the dam would have made “what happened in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina look like a Sunday pancake breakfast.” Todd reports that Jeff McCracken, a spokesperson for the dam, says the water would just “trickle.” (p. 323)
This is an important point when we’re talking about labeling people as “terrorists” who endangered human life. It’s a good example of how the government has consistently twisted the truth in the hopes of chalking up a victory in the “War on Terrorism.”
- The FBI supplied Anna with a ’96 Chevy Lumina, and gas money, and food money, to drive Jenson and Weiner across the country and meet McDavid. There, the FBI paid for a cabin. And on top of that, the FBI supplied bomb-making recipes and materials.
All that was needed was a little encouragement. And the FBI supplied that, too.
At one point when tensions were very high, McDavid tried to calm Anna and Weiner down, saying “relax and chill out and maybe come back and chitchat later.” Weiner agreed, offering to make pasta. Anna flipped out.
Anna: Tomorrow, what are we planning on doing tomorrow? Are we still planning on doing anything tomorrow? Or should I just stop talking about plans?
McDavid: Hmmm.
Weiner: I would love it if you stopped talking.
Anna: I would love it if you guys followed a plan! How about that! (p. 324)This is a critical exchange, because Jenson’s attorneys argued that his client was “entrapped.” In other words, the three were not likely going to commit these crimes, and Anna was trying to push them down that path, in the hopes of getting a big gold star from the FBI.
- “Under cross-examination by Reichel [Jenson’s attorney], Torres [FBI] admitted he hadn’t read all of the literature on informants; nor could he recall any specifics about the Attorney General’s guidelines regarding political protests.” (p. 324)
Anna infiltrated lawful gatherings, like a CrimethInc convergence and G8 protests. Todd says that they were secretive and require a special eco-terrorist invitation. In reality, they’re posted widely on the Internet. The danger of tactics like this, beyond ruining the lives of those entrapped and watering down public faith in the criminal justice system, is that basic First Amendment rights are a casualty as well.
- During Jenson’s trial, prosecutors went to great lengths to conceal Anna’s identity, even from the attorneys. Part of the justification was that Anna could be a target for retaliation, retaliation by environmentalists who have yet to harm anyone. If environmentalists are such a threat, why is Anna posing glamour-shot-style in the world’s largest fashion magazine?
- Perhaps the most disturbing piece in all of this is the final section of the article, where Todd interviewed one of the jurors, Diane Bennett.
“I said the FBI was an embarrassment,” she says, as other jurors scrambled to unload similar opinions. “I hope he gets a new trial. I’m not happy with the one he got.”
Bennett said that the foreman “teared up” when he delivered the guilty verdict. But the judge’s instructions were confusing, she said, and “people were tired… we wanted to go home.”
The piece could have been much worse. As someone posted anonymously on Indymedia in Portland: “Perhaps Andrea Todd deserves a little credit. She was, after all, attempting to write an article about someone who lies for a living.”
In light of that, has Elle issued a retraction? These stickers have mysteriously appeared in copies of the magazine on newsstands around the country.
They read, in part:
Following consultation with federal agencies, we at Elle wish to retract this article. Not because of the stream of factual inaccuracies beginning in the second sentence (there has never been a CrimethInc. convergence in Athens, Georgia), but because in the current political climate it is irresponsible to even pretend to give a fair hearing to radical anti-capitalists. Even if Anna’s story is a cut-and-dried case of entrapment, we have to understand this as a necessary defense of our free market freedoms.
the retraction is a hoax, probably from someone of crimethinc.
i checked my local borders bookstore (northern ny) for the magazine, and it had no stickers. if it was put out by elle, stickers would of been on all of the copies.
This is just sickening. Not that I would expect anything better from such a magazine, but the whole thing is disgusting.
The only good outcome I can see from such an article is ostracism by “Anna’s” friends and family after seeing the article. How any individual could freely coerce others into acts simply aimed at sending them into the violence of prison is amazing.
Hi Ashley: Perhaps I was being a bit too tongue-in-cheek when I raised the question, but it’s most definitely a hoax. Best, Will
This article confuses things that were written in the article with things that were written about it. It also confuses the informant’s opinions and perspectives (Anna) with the reporter’s. who interviews in the story McDavid, his attorney, his family, as well as the juror mentioned in the story, who says the FBI was an embarrassment (and mentiones other jurors felt the same way and said so after the verdict was delivered). First Amendment right casualties are mourned int he story, as is the guilty until proven innocent “cornerstone” of our justice system (quoted from the story). The reporter makes the point that no one has ever been killed in an Elf- or Alf-related attack (or even injured). The reporter also calls Anna’s “version” of the events “spy tales” and points out where the government exaggertated their case. The reporter seems very sympathetic to McDavid and hardly writes about him like he is a dirty criminal. That is Anna’s POV, not the reporter’s. A careful and intelligent reading of this story results in a different understanding. Just like A Modest Proposal shocked people into thinking it was about eating children…biased readings are ignorant and dangerous to us all.
Amanda:
You completely lost me. I wasn’t clear if you’re talking about this post, or the article in Elle. I’d strongly disagree that “First Amendment right casualties are mourned” in the Elle piece. I don’t think it was made clear, in any way, that this case has far-reaching implications, and should be of concern to everyone who speaks up for what they believe.
But I think your reference to a Modest Proposal is on point, because “eco-terrorists” will TOTALLY eat your children.
That was a joke.
Will
Will;
You need to reread the article (and keep in mind two things, this is not for the left but mainstream America, and it is not the reporter’s job to express his/her opinions of the subject matter one way or another, it is the reporter’s job to present information in a way it has been presented to him/her, then to challenge it if he or she can. Which, given the case is in appeal, makes this difficult to impossible: McDavid’s attorney is still prepapring for an appeal, the amount of information he can provide; he who did not testify, is limited.
But on to p. 268:
‘For any investigation of these groups to be legitimate — to get around the “freedom of assembly right U.S. ciotizens are afforded –law enforcement needs to have proof of illegal activity. Anna’s FTAA report gave them that green light. “This was Christmas come early for them,” Anna says with a laugh.’
Also , on p.270:
“Calling individuals associated with these groups ‘the No 1 threat to security’ is really hyperbolic,” Rosenfeld says, as FBI Deputy Assistant Director John Lewis did in 2005. …”Basically the FBI no longer concentrates on crime solving but has moved to crime prevention” (END QUOTE.) [and the reporter writes] which creates some serious constitutional issues, namely that innocent until proven auilty cornerstone of our legal system…’
I could go on but have not the time or inclination. I’m a crappy typist. There is an interview with Mcdavid, a quote from his attorney saying the government can say and do whatever the fuck it wants,and an interview with a juror calling the FBI an embarassment and saying she hopes Eric gets a new trial–as well as the final quote in the piece: “At least someone is trying to protect our world and our environment.”
I think you did not read the story that carefully. It is incomplete, but that’s because this is a book, not a magazine article. I’ll bet anyone the reporter called at any of the eco-terror organizations (and if she could find Anna, I’m sure a call or two were placed) ignored her calls because she was calling from Elle magazine. Or because she was calling from any mainstream magazine. Whichg makes getting your “accurate story” out a bit hard.
There is also a brief quote from Weiner’s attorney. Jenson’s attorney would not return calls, according to the story.
The view of the reporter is not slanted. The view of the interviewed–and those who choose not to be interviewed–as well as the view oif the readers responding to it, however, is. In my opinion.
And my point in mentioning A modest proposal was /is that stupid ignorant readers took it seriously at the time. They thought he was actually suggesting eating babies. My point had nothing to do with eco-terrorists who may or may not snack on infants.
That was a facetious remark.
one more point: The quote about the gatherings being secretive came from Anna, not the reporter. Reread the article. But question: if all are welcome, why was Anna turned away at the first one she attended?
Amanda:
Yes, I have reread the article multiple times, and I think you’re totally missing the point.
As to your last comment, you’re mixing up two separate points. Anna says she was turned away at an FTAA meeting, and the reporter says she “scored an invite” to a CrimethInc gathering.
Regarding your much longer comment: much of it was too convoluted for me to follow what you’re saying. It’s clear that some things you noted, though, are completely untrue, such as the reporter not having access to information because the case is pending appeal. Also, I think it’s quite a stretch to say things like the reporter called “eco-terror organizations” and they ignored her calls (first, because there’s no such thing, and second, because that’s nothing but a wild guess).
I’m not arguing that the reporter should have made this magazine article some kind of essay about how McDavid didn’t get a fair trial. However, purporting to be “unbiased” isn’t an excuse for not questioning the lies and misinformation provided by “Anna” and government sources. That being said, as I noted in the original blog post–it could have been much worse. Will
Someone awaiting sentencing with an appeal pending cannot speak freely. (Duh!) Reasons forwhich should be obvious. Ask an attorney.
And again, these were the informant’s words (about the secretive nature) not the reporter’s. So, your point is that some group activities turn people away and others do not? IS it secretive or not? And Anna wasn’t just “attending” meetings, she was involved in the planning.
That’s very different. That must require some trust on the part of others. And i doubt they “trust” everyone on that level.
Amanda: I can’t keep going back and forth on this. It’s clear in the article that there are multiple, distinct meetings that you are treating as one, cohesive group. The FTAA meeting is different than CrimethInc, which is different than planning meetings between the defendants.
[…] The Believers (hosted by greenisthenewred.) […]
Will: Amanda is the one on track regarding the content of the Elle article and the job faced by the writer. For you to say or imply that the writer did not question “the lies and misinformation provided by “Anna” and government sources” shows you did not read the article carefully, or are reading it from a very biased viewpoint. First, if the article was all about ‘Anna,’ it would have been titled “The Believer” (singular); instead it is plural (”Believers”), showing that the various subjects in the story (’Anna’ as well as Eric and Lauren and Zachary) believed in what they were doing. More importantly, the article is filled with responses from Eric, Eric’s attorney, Eric’s family, and jurors - - clearly showing that the verdict rendered maybe shouldn’t sit well with anyone. At the end of the story the writer even includes ‘Anna’s’ own doubts about what has happened.
Also, as readers of Ms. Todd’s story we have no idea what cooperation, or lack of cooperation she received from the subjects in the story - - how do we know what any of these individuals were willing to say, whether they called back the writer, etc. Try writing a story in which you must interview people on both sides of a pending dispute, especially when there may be some risk for such individuals to speak, and see how difficult it may be. Lastly, for a feature story such as this one we have no idea what the Elle ‘editors’ did - - the writer does not necessarily have much control over what makes it in the story.
Overall, supporters of Eric should be thankful that a lenghtly feature made it into a mainstream magazine - - even if the article told more of Anna’s story. The Elle piece is likley to introduce the subject matter, and the idea that post-911 effects on criminal law & sentencing are not all positive, to many more people than the ramblings on far left or far right web site blogs. Ms Todd should be thanked for that.
Will - I read this Elle article and have been searching through the net to find more info (I’m saying that I’m new to this story and this is just my opinion based on shallow understanding of the facts)… I’d like to comment that I agree with Amanda and Gary. I was pretty ready to be insulted by Ms. Todd’s article; but carefull reading of it brought me to the conclusion that in the end, Ms. Todd paints a picture of Anna as a driven, hawkish youth who was just as inexperienced as her three victims. It takes a few pages to get to this conclusion… maybe its the writing style - the desire to make the reader feel one way (Anna was Right) and then twist the emotions to some sort of doubt and uncertaintly (Actually, Anna was pretty pushy and the other 3 appear to have been coerced).
Finally, I would like to thank you for putting this info in your blog (which I’m happy I found and look forward to reading more). We need to be aware of the lengths the gov will go to keep their status quo continuing.
It is important to remember that this reporter was speaking to someone who lied for a great while to pretty much “get ahead.” It was “anna’s” goal to please the FBI but also please the “family.”
It is hard for me to believe that she would go to so much trouble to be so cohesive with a group that she was not truly trying to entrap such as forever marking her body with a tattoo of which she now says she never wanted, giving up so much of her life, and being so “frightened” for her safety.
It comes down to that this girl is a pathological liar and it was the duty of the reporter to check the sources of the story before going to print. Not only to help save your face as a diligent reporter but you are also dealing with labeling a whole activist community as “eco-terrorists.” Believe me, I know the FBI and other media outlets do a great job of droppin the T word as it is but it is still irresponsible of any reporter to not check your facts especially when dealing with a known liar.
If McDavid’s attorney had such a hard time getting the facts about Anna, a reporter from Elle (a fashion, right?) magazine certainly would. And unless a reporter can challenge facts with proof, they can’t be printed (again, ask a libel lawyer). if nothing else, hopefully this article has called attention to this issue and other reporters will follow the story more thoroughly. In McDavid’s hometown, I did a web search and barely anything was in the local papers. I think it’s gutsy of Elle to do a story like this, considering their other subject matter (Madonna, Greenorexia, Eye jobs).