It cannot help. Ever. A great talk by James Duane, a professor at Regent Law School and a former defense attorney, on why you should never talk to the police or FBI. A great refresher in light of the recent FBI harassment of a sociology professor.

While you’re at it, why not check out this great “Know Your Rights” booklet?

David Pellow, a Professor of Sociology at the University of Minnesota, has been outspoken against the government’s attempts to label his student, Scott DeMuth, a terrorist. A few months back he authored a guest post for GreenIsTheNewRed.com, and he has worked with students, professors and the media to raise awareness about how the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act is threatening academic freedom.

FBI harassment campaigns are about instilling fear in the activist community, and agents have demonstrated they are not below bringing respected faculty advisors into the witch hunt. Because there have been other FBI visits in the Twin Cities regarding this case, I wanted to share this story.

The following is written by David Naguib Pellow, a Professor of Sociology at the University of Minnesota and faculty advisor of Scott DeMuth:

Scott DeMuth is one of my advisees here at the University of Minnesota. He is a bright, hard working graduate student who has become ensnared in a federal investigation that has left him with the possibility of facing several years in jail related to conspiracy and terrorism charges (his trial begins this summer). The federal government is building a case against him because they believe he has knowledge of at least two Animal Liberation Front actions that occurred in Iowa and Minnesota in 2004 and 2006, respectively.

The U.S. Attorney prosecuting the case has also made it clear that he believes Scott is guilty because he is an anarchist and is believed to be associated with activists who are earth and animal liberation advocates. Scott has indeed worked to educate the public about issues concerning eco-prisoners and other political prisoners in the United States. He has also worked for years advocating for the rights of Dakota peoples, who have been dispossessed of their homelands by military force. And he has done impressive sociological research on these social movements and presented his work at professional conferences. He and I have recently begun collaborating on a research project that focuses on many of these issues. So when the government came knocking on my door I took notice.

Monday April 6, 2010: This morning when I arrived at my place of employment—the University of Minnesota—I went straight to my mailbox. There was the usual pile of academic junk mail—catalogues from publishers, invitations to receptions, etc. But there was something else this time: a business card with a post-it attached to it that read: “re: student, Pellow, 04/06/10, 9:15am.” The business card was for a Steve Molesky, Special Agent, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Minneapolis Division. He also left a voice message for me in my office that stated that he wanted to “interview” me in the next day or so. He didn’t say about what, but the post-it from the receptionist offered an indication (“re: student”).

I immediately called several trusted lawyer colleagues, read the NLG’s “Operation Backfire” guide, and spoke with activists here in the Twin Cities community, all of whom suggested I not talk to the feds. My view on the matter is that I am Scott’s advisor and as such, I should be looking out for him and advocating for him, so talking to people who are trying to build a case against him is probably not in his best interest.

One person also pointed out that given Assistant U.S. Attorney Clifford Cronk’s characterization of me during Scott DeMuth’s arraignment in November 2009 as someone who left him a voice mail message protesting Scott’s detention and criticizing grand juries, it’s likely that they already have formed a certain opinion of me. One of my lawyer colleagues told me that by law I have the right not to talk to the FBI, but if I do then be courteous. My own attorney added that if they persist then I might ask them to send me their questions in written form and that I would run them by counsel.

Wednesday, April 8, 2010: Agent Molesky called my home phone today and left a message that clearly was directed toward asking questions about Scott’s research and my own research. He stated: “I’d like to ask you a couple of questions about one of your students you are the advisor for at the University, Scott DeMuth. I’d like to ask you a couple of questions about the research that you do and the research that he does for you.” I then followed up with a request for a detailed list of questions.

Thursday, April 9, 2010: Agent Molesky replied, “I recognize and understand your request, however, I will probably be unable to satisfy it; not because I don’t want to but because I cannot. I have been asked to interview you by our office in Cedar Rapids, IA. With their request they did not include a specific list of questions. When we conduct interviews, it is more an art than a science, meaning that except for a few questions, I never have scripted questions for an interview–the answers, demeanor, and posture of the interviewee normally dictate the questions I ask and the direction in which the interview moves.” He continued, “I will be asking you about any human research studies that you are conducting in which Scott Demuth may be participating as study personnel. I will also be querying you on your contacts and relationship with Peter Young that may be relevant to the Demuth investigation.”

After receiving Agent Steven Molesky’s email message today, I spoke with my attorney and we decided that Molesky was firmly within the realm of infringing upon academic freedom. Thus I have decided not to grant the interview request. To speak to Agent Molesky about my research at the level of detail indicated above would very likely violate the American Sociological Association’s Code of Ethics, which states: “Sociologists have an obligation to protect confidential information and not allow information gained in confidence from being used in ways that would unfairly compromise research participants, students, employees, clients, or others.” “Confidential information provided by research participants, students, employees, clients, or others is treated as such by sociologists even if there is no legal protection or privilege to do so.” (Section 11.01). The Code of Ethics also states, “Sociologists do not disclose confidential, personally identifiable information concerning their research participants, other recipients of their service which is obtained during the course of their work.” (Section 11.06).

I appreciate Agent Molesky’s polite and cordial approach to this process, but I cannot and will not violate the trust relationship that I have with my advisee and colleague Scott DeMuth and with the participants in my research study.

-David N. Pellow
Professor of Sociology
University of Minnesota

FBI raid of Salt Lake City house of animal rights activists. Photo by Jordan Halliday.

I just got off the phone with multiple housemates who were there witnessing the raid, and who were able to read the warrant. Details about all of this are still emerging, but at this point it is clear that the warrant was issued by the Southern District of Iowa, and authorizes the seizure of any books, pamphlets, computers and other materials tied to “animal enterprise terrorism.” [UPDATE: Here is copy of the warrant.]

Some background: In Minnesota, a graduate student named Scott DeMuth has been indicted on conspiracy charges under the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. The charges are related to a 2004 raid by the Animal Liberation Front at the University of Iowa.

Another Minnesota activist, Carrie Feldman, has been jailed for refusing to testify about her political beliefs and political associations before a grand jury. Feldman was a teenager at the time of the ALF crime, and says the grand jury is clearly an attempt to harass and intimidate the activist community.

So how did the FBI end up in Utah? One of the housemates, Peter Young, is repeatedly mentioned by name in the warrant. Young was one of the first people prosecuted for “animal enterprise terrorism” in connection to fur farm raids in the late 90s. (His co-defendant Justin Samuel is also mentioned in the warrant). He served two years in prison, and has been living in Salt Lake City, speaking at colleges, and writing on his website, Voice of the Voiceless. He is among the most vocal, public supporters of the ALF and direct action.

The only connection I can decipher between Young and the Iowa investigation is this: in an emergency motion filed against Scott DeMuth, to keep him in jail, the government calls DeMuth an “anarchist” and “domestic terrorist.” As evidence of this, they say he is an “associate” of Peter Young. As DeMuth’s faculty advisor has publicly explained, this is tied to his research as a graduate student.

There are about nine people living at the activist group house in Salt Lake. At least 15 computers were taken by the FBI, along with boxes of documents, notebooks, files, and address books. The house is well-known in the area as a gathering space for animal rights and other activists. No arrests have been made, and at this point it seems Iowa is being used as a pretext for a continued campaign of harassment and intimidation.

Among the items taken from the FBI’s terrorism raid: a postcard for Iowa 80, “the world’s largest truck stop.”

I’ll continue to update as this story develops. In the meantime, this is a good opportunity to plug the National Lawyers Guild hotline, 1-888-NLG-ECOL. Also, please write Carrie Feldman a letter as she continues to resist the grand jury witch hunt. Carolyn Feldman,
770 Iowa St., Dubuque, IA 52001.

The National Lawyers Guild has created a great new resource, “Operation Backfire: a Survival Guide for Environmental and Animal Rights Activists.” It’s a booklet on how environmental and animal rights activists have been targeted by the government and branded as the top domestic terrorism threat. It also has a great “know your rights” section that offers information on:

• handling encounters with the police and FBI in various situations
• suggestions for how to respond when questioned or presented with a warrant
• information about your rights when asked for identification or a DNA sample
• a discussion of grand juries, subpoenas, and FBI attempts to turn activists into informants.

To request free copies, call the National Lawyers Guild office at (212) 679-5100. You can also download the booklet at nlg.org (I also uploaded “Operation Backfire” here on GreenIsTheNewRed, as a backup).

And don’t forget the guild has a Green Scare Hotline at 888-NLG-ECOL (888-654-3265).

“If activists have nothing to hide, why are they wearing masks?”

I’ve heard that question over and over again. It usually comes in the form of a soundbite from someone affiliated with a corporation, industry or government agency that is attempting to smear lawful activists as “terrorists.”

Their reasoning goes something like this: If you aren’t doing anything wrong, you have no reason to hide your face. If you are hiding your face, it’s an admission of criminal activity. Therefore, wearing a mask justifies rounding up lawful activists as “terrorists.”

That’s exactly what happened in the recent arrests of four activists on Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act charges in California. The FBI argues that activists “wearing bandanas to hide their faces” were intimidating, and that this therefore amounted to a campaign of terror.

To those not familiar with grassroots activism, that might seem like a pretty reasonable point. Masks are generally associated with bandits, ninjas and Hamburgler, all of which are quite intimidating. So, why would someone want to cover their face at a protest?

• Spying. The FBI and Joint Terrorism Task Forces routinely spy on lawful, above-ground activists. For instance, the ACLU exposed FBI agents spying on animal rights activists who were leafleting outside of HoneyBaked Hams. And corporations have been tracking who activists are dating.
• Blacklists. Government “watchlists” have millions of names. Recently in Maryland, it was exposed that law enforcement kept terrorist files on environmentalists, antiwar activists, and nuns.
• Grand jury witch hunts. Vocal, public activists are routinely hauled before grand juries in political witch hunts, and forced to testify about their political beliefs and political associations. If they refuse, they face jail time.
• Infiltration. The government has been using paid informants and provacateurs to keep tabs on lawful protest movements. The recent case of the RNC 8 is a good example, and even more disturbing is “Anna,” the FBI informant who befriended activists and entrapped them.
• Legal attacks. FBI agents have shown their incompetence in attempts to track down underground members of the Animal Liberation Front and Earth Liberation Front. There have been arrests, but those crimes overwhelmingly remain unsolved. Instead, law enforcement has been cracking down on the public faces of those movements and labeling them “eco-terrorists.” A good example of that is the SHAC 7 case.

In this political climate, many activists have told me they face a difficult decision. If they take to the streets and protest on a controversial campaign (especially a campaign that has involved both legal and illegal tactics), they risk this surveillance, harassment and intimidation.

If they don’t take to the streets, they are compromising their beliefs and remaining silent about the things that matter.

For many, a solution has been to continue protesting on these campaigns, but with masks covering their faces. It clearly isn’t always the best solution. It can alienate and isolate everyday people who might otherwise be open to the message of the protest.

It clearly infuriates the feds that activists want to protect their identities while continuing to advocate for what they believe. A Joint Terrorism Task Force has even gone so far as to arrest an animal rights activist on felony charges for wearing a mask at a protest.

It would be a mistake, though, to blindly buy the FBI rhetoric. Wearing a mask may or may not best campaign decision for activists. But wearing a mask doesn’t mean activists are guilty, or that they are “terrorists.” For many activists, it simply means they don’t trust FBI agents and corporations. The developments of the last few days have shown they have good reason to feel that way.

News continues to come out of the Twin Cities and the Republican National Convention of what I can only describe as a police state showing its true colors. If you read this site regularly, you know I stay far away from language and descriptions like that, because I think it’s best to let the stories speak for themselves. But I’m at a loss of how else to describe this. Here as some of the highlights that the mainstream press has overwhelmingly ignored:

• Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com writes: “Protesters here in Minneapolis have been targeted by a series of highly intimidating, sweeping police raids across the city, involving teams of 25-30 officers in riot gear, with semi-automatic weapons drawn, entering homes of those suspected of planning protests, handcuffing and forcing them to lay on the floor, while law enforcement officers searched the homes, seizing computers, journals, and political pamphlets.” Here’s another wrap-up with a video interview of an attorney on the scene. Police claim the raids targeted protest “leaders.”
• Police raided what’s called the convergence space, a place with computer access, free food, and child care for out-of-town protestors. The raid took place while folks were having a group dinner and watching a video, with children. Police took laptops, schedules and 7,000 “welcoming guides” organizers would have distributed at protests.
• Democracy Now’s Amy Goodman was arrested while reporting about her two producers, who were arrested for “conspiracy to riot” while covering the RNC protests. An AP photographer was arrested at the same time. David Ake, an AP assistant chief of bureau in Washington, said, “Covering news is a constitutionally protected activity…Photographers should not be detained for covering breaking news.”
• Filmmakers who traveled from NYC to document, among other things, police conduct had video equipment seized when they came into town.
• Police raided the home of I-Witness video, whose video coverage exposed police abuse, and lying under oath, during the 2004 RNC. Eileen Clancy was able to write this as police swarmed the home: “We have locked all the doors…The police say that they are waiting to get a search warrant. More than a dozen police are wielding firearms, including one St. Paul officer with a long gun, which someone told me is an M-16.”
• Police raided and seized an Earth Justice bus, used to educate people about environmental sustainability. Check out the number of squad cars in this video.
• Even the local alt-weekly joined the scare-mongering leading up to the RNC, with a tongue-in-cheek “field guide” to the “deranged” people coming to town, including “eco-terrorists” (“Weapon of Choice: Their ability to chain themselves to stuff.”) To be fair, they also listed “FBI moles”.

What’s particularly disturbing is that the federal government and Joint Terrorism Task Forces have been instrumental in all of this. Minnesota Public Radio reported that the FBI was involved in the raids, and the Star Tribune reported that the raids were specifically “aided by informants planted in protest groups.”

You’ll remember that this is the same town where Joint Terrorism Task Forces were recruiting folks to infiltrate vegan potlucks. And you’ll also remember how the government has used “infiltrators” to instigate and provoke illegal activity, such as with “Anna” in the Eric McDavid case, among others.

The mass media have overwhelmingly ignored all of this, while repeating absurd “official” soundbites. Headlines that proclaim “Police hope violent St. Paul protests will end” ignore the simple, crucial facts that police have stormed homes, confiscated leaflets, confiscated cameras, arrested journalists, arrested attorneys, and more. Stories of “protestors turning violent” are quite Orwellian, considering police kicked in the doors of peaceful protestors, armed to the teeth.

How can there be any discussion about protestors (both legal and illegal) without this context? Considering the overwhelming, unconstitutional assaults by the police, I think protestors should be praised for being so restrained.

The purpose of all this, as we’ve seen time and again, is two-fold. The first, through the press, is to further the myth that if you protest the right way you have nothing to worry about. The mayor said it well: “To pick up a protest sign, that’s fine. If you’re here to pick up a brick or some other instrument, there’s a problem.” If people continue to believe lies like this, while ignore attacks on First Amendment activity, this government repression will continue unabated.

The second purpose, regardless of the myths people believe, is to instill widespread fear in anyone who might even consider taking action.

On that note, it’s inspiring to see how folks have responded. I’ll leave you with an excerpt from today’s press statement by the RNC Welcoming Committee

The actions taken yesterday prove that the tactics of intimidation, harassment, violent oppression, the snatching of specific individuals, and the profiling of activists will not stop committed people from taking to the streets for what they believe in and putting their bodies behind those convictions. These tactics were seen yesterday in the targeting of medical workers, journalists, legal observers, and the public. They are the same tactics used daily by police and governments around the world to terrorize and oppress those that they claim to serve…

The infrastructure that has been created for these actions with the help and support of the twin cities community has been amazing. 100′s of people in Minneapolis and St. Paul have opened their homes to 1000′s of protesters, Locals and newcomers have taken time off work and from their lives to cook meals, provide medical care, legal support, and transportation. We understand that it must be intimidating to see people organizing for themselves around the idea of mutual aid and solidarity, but in doing this we are actively creating the world we want to live in. This is work that we will continue to do for the rest of our lives.

What do you think? I know police response at big protests like this (WTO, FTAA, DNC/RNC) has often been extreme, but is this above and beyond?

As the New York Times reported last week, the Department of Homeland Security routinely stops Americans who are re-entering the country so government officials can snoop through laptops and even copy files.

For many animal and environmental advocates, though, this is old news. And it’s only part of the story. The government labels the animal rights and environmental movements the “number one domestic terrorism threat” because some activists do things like break windows, release animals from fur farms, or, at worst, burn SUVs. That label has given the Department of Homeland Security, FBI, and TSA the pretext to go after legal, above-ground activists: Feds have not only snooped through laptops, but detained and questioned activists about their political beliefs and political associations. The government has been treating the border as a Constitutional no-man’s land, a legal dead zone for carrying out political witch hunts.

For instance, I recently talked with Jeremy Beckham, who is working with the Primate Freedom Project to create the National Primate Research Exhibition Hall. He’s a part-time student at the University of Utah, and he also teaches in an after-school program.

On June 20th, he went to Vancouver with his brother and a friend. They crossed into Canada without a problem. It wasn’t until the return trip, when they gave the U.S. border agent their licenses and birth certificates, that they realized something was up.

Beckham says:

As he [the border agent] entered my name into his computer, he grew very alarmed and immediately made a hand gesture to other agents. Approximately half a dozen CBP agents surrounded our car. When I looked into my rear view mirror, one of the agents shouted very authoritatively “don’t look in your mirrors at us! keep your eyes forward”. We were instructed to pull our car off to the side and walk inside the CBP station. We were told to leave all of our cell phones and keys in the vehicle.

Agents refused to let Beckham observe as they searched his car. They took him into another room where he was questioned by Agent Galager about his job, salary, and which student groups he supports at the university. When Beckham asked to speak with a lawyer, Galager became very upset, handcuffing Beckham and saying he was being detained. Another agent entered the room.

The new agent told me “we aren’t your local law enforcement going after gang bangers in the street. We’re federal officials fighting terrorism. So you will sit there and answer our questions whether you like it or not.”

I responded “So I do not have the right to remain silent?” He responded “No you do not. This isn’t an episode of Law and Order. You are not taking this as seriously as should.”

About this time, Beckham says, two agents were talking about the search of his car. The car was “clear,” they said, except for a notebook with addresses, which they copied.

[Agent] Page explained what was happening — the first time so far. He said that the government considered me a “person of interest” but that he could say no more. He said that he has Googled my name while I was being detained and knows that I am an animal rights “extremist” and that the government has a good reason for monitoring people who believe in animal rights because so many of them, although not all, have resorted to terrorism.

He stated “we have no problem with your right to be an animal rights person, but they just want to make sure that you aren’t more extreme.”…

Then he said “do you support or know anyone in ALF [Animal Liberation Front]? Do you support law breaking for your cause?” I said again, firmly, that I didn’t want to answer any questions of that nature. For the first time in my whole ordeal, he expressly told me “OK well you certainly have that right – no one here has stopped you from that.” I told him – with Galager in the room – that Galager told me that I had to answer questions. Galager then quickly stated that he never told me that.

When Beckham was allowed to return to his brother and friend, he found out that they, too, had been questioned. Beckham says, “When Amy asked why she was being asked that, they shouted that she was being uncooperative. Frightened, she provided them with the requested information: that she was an after school teacher for Salt Lake City School District.”

The entire ordeal lasted about three hours, Beckham says. When they returned to the car, the glovebox had been searched and left open, their bags had been searched and left open. As if the agents clearly felt they had nothing to hide.

Eric McDavid was just sentenced to 20 years in prison, as a “terrorist,” in a case that would never have been possible without a “confidential source” known only as Anna. She was paid by the FBI. She provided the group with bomb-making recipes; at times financed their transportation, food and housing; strung along McDavid, who had the hopes of a romantic relationship; and poked and prodded the group into action. In a rare declaration to the court, a former juror called the FBI an “embarrassment.”

Well, that former juror isn’t alone in her assessment of how the FBI plays fast and loose with the law in hopes of landing convictions. A 2005 analysis by the inspector general of the Justice Department, looking at 120 cases, found that FBI agents regularly ignore regulations for handling informants. The inspector general, Glenn A. Fine, found that:

FBI agents violated procedures in 87 percent of the cases, including some in which informants allegedly engaged in illegal activity without proper oversight or permission…

The inspector general also faulted the FBI for “consistently failing to obtain advance approval to listen in on informants’ conversations.”

The FBI attributed many mistakes to “complicated paperwork requirements,” and says the administrative errors have been corrected.

As we saw in the McDavid case, though, there’s much more going on at the FBI than paperwork problems. The use of Anna, a provocateur, wasn’t a clerical error. It was part of a deliberate, calculated, and coordinated effort to infiltrate activist groups and land “terrorism” convictions, even if it means breaking the rules and provoking criminal activity.

But now that Anna, the “eco-terrorism” informant, has had a profile in Elle, and says that she might be burned out, the feds might have a problem. Informants are “critical to the FBI’s ability to carry out our counterterrorism, national security and criminal law enforcement missions,” a top official said. And it looks like the FBI needs some new blood.

I got word from the Twin Cities Eco-Prisoner Support Committee that a local activist was approached by the Joint Terrorism Task Force and asked to become a paid informant. Here’s more from the activist about the encounter:

“Then for twenty minutes they flatter me about how my personality and appearance are perfect matches for what is required in some espionage dealio. They wanted me to crash vegan potluck parties and get into the inner circle of terrorists because supposedly terrorists are trusting and I’m “trustable, easy going, funny,” and a bunch of other flattery. Every time they said “vegan potluck” I chuckled, but their faces showed they weren’t kidding. They said “vegan potluck” half a dozen times. They really feared vegans and their violent conspiracies to blow up buildings in protest to the republican national convention.

So after twenty minutes of bewildering suckups, they ask me if I’m in. They say there’s compensation if I assist in someone’s arrest. I say “ummmmmmm I’ll pass.” She says, “That was the fastest anyone has ever rejected me,” and then tried for ten more minutes to get me to change my mind before saying, “Really: think about it. We could really use you.”

I wonder if this is what the FBI means when they say, “By working in domestic terrorism investigations, you get to see the First Amendment in action.”

But who am I kidding, forget the First Amendment. Getting paid to infiltrate vegan potlucks? That sounds like the best job ever! Of course, it might be hard to stomach the free food knowing that it’s wasting valuable anti-terrorism resources on harassing social justice groups, and that you’re violating people’s privacy and trust for a few bucks.

But if you find it hard to swallow that spying on vegan potlucks is part of the “number one domestic terrorism threat,” just remember folks like Anthony Bourdain who say vegetarians are “terrorist scum.” Just take a look at soft-core eco-terrorist propaganda like Hoot. And then perhaps you’ll become a true believer, convinced that this “War on Terrorism” is a culture war. After all, you must understand that tofu makes you gay.

I’m not one to judge. This is a tough call. I wish you all the best of luck in weighing Constitutional concerns against getting paid to eat TVP chili and, if you’re lucky, some chocolate-chocolate cupcakes with sprinkles.

If the FBI comes knocking on your door about potlucks and protests, call the National Lawyers’ Guild “Green Scare” Hotline, 888-NLG-ECOLAW, and let us know at GreenIsTheNewRed.com.

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.

From DC Indymedia:

On Saturday, April 12, an FBI agent arrested an animal rights activist at George Mason University in Fairfax, VA. The activist was charged with wearing a mask in public—a Class 6 felony in Virginia.

On April 5, the arrested activist attended a protest at GMU and wore a mask. After the GMU Police Department identified the activist, a warrant was issued for his arrest. When he appeared at a protest one week later, he was identified and subsequently tackled and arrested. The arrested activist was protesting Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey Circus for their history of animal abuse.

The FBI agent who arrested the activist is part of the Joint Terrorism Task Force and is based in Prince William, VA. His name is Vincent Antignano and his badge number is #1035. He was stalking the arrested activist after he protested on numerous occasions against a private company, Huntingdon Life Sciences, which conducts medical tests on animals.

I spoke with the activist arrested, and I think it’s critical to note that neither he, nor the other protestors, were charged with anything like property destruction. He simply wore a mask at a lawful protest.

To those unfamiliar with activist groups or protests, that may seem odd. Why wear a mask if you aren’t going to do something wrong? What do you have to hide?

For some, it might be an attempt to look intimidating, tough, or just cool. But for many, many activists I’ve interviewed, it’s viewed as a necessity in this political climate. With the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Forces harassing and filming lawful protests, creating files on political activists, harassing them at home, and bringing grand jury witch hunts, activists don’t want to be singled out and targeted, and they also don’t want to stop speaking up for what they believe.
Ominously, a previous post on Indymedia about the FBI harassment said:

Help is urgent and we cannot continue this alone. Activists feel intimidated and threatened from many sides. Help is needed.

The bigger question here, though, beyond the absurdity of charging a non-violent, lawful protestor with a felony for wearing a bandana, is why the Joint Terrorism Task Force is monitoring a circus protest.

Even if you believe that groups like the Animal Liberation Front are truly the “number one domestic terrorism threat,” even if you believe that breaking a window in the name of the environment is a national security concern, protests against Ringling Bros. haven’t seen very much of that. Elephants have not been “liberated,” and the use of non-violent civil disobedience at circus protests isn’t nearly as common as it was in the late 90s. Ringling, though, has been relentless in targeting activists.

What the FBI is doing could be described, to borrow another Orwellian phrase from this “War on Terrorism,” as a pre-emptive war. Activists aren’t breaking the law, but they must be arrested because they MIGHT break the law.

Think that’s absurd? Check out the comments by FBI Special Agent Robert Springer Springer, who told a university crowd that the construction of a highway in Indiana could “arouse an eco-terrorist attack.”

But don’t worry, dear readers. As this FBI agent says, “We uphold the Constitution in everything we do…By working in domestic terrorism investigations, you get to see the First Amendment in action.”