I was on Austin’s KOOP radio a while back, and had a great discussion about the FBI’s use of surveillance, infiltration and informants within social movements with Colleen Rowley (retired FBI agent), Michael May (Texas Observer managing editor), Debbie Russell (ACLU of Texas) and Scott Crow (author of Black Flags and Windmills).

You can listen to the program and download it here. Thanks to Allan Campbell for having me on the program.

There was some surprising news in the UK this week when undercover police officer Mark Kennedy, who spied on environmental groups and even organized national protests and direct action campaigns as “Mark Stone,” offered to cooperate with activists against the police.

The Guardian has had some excellent reporting on this story, and notes that Kennedy visited at least 22 countries over 7 years to gather information on political activists, and in some cases urge them to take illegal action. Kennedy’s spying was undertaken as part of a national police operation against so-called “domestic extremists,” including animal rights activists, environmentalists, and anarchists.

Kennedy has told his (former) friends he had a change of heart, and realized the importance of environmental work (and how he has betrayed people who he says became his friends). He was not alone in his work, though: Kennedy acknowledged the existence of at least one other undercover cop in the UK environmental movement.

I was on The Alyona Show last night talking about how this fits into the bigger picture of labeling activists as “eco-terrorists,” and the history of law enforcement informants and provocateurs sabotaging progressive social movements.

For instance, I recently wrote about an animal rights informant and FBI agent who discussed spreading rumors to discredit activists.

Let me know what you think of the video!

The FBI and a previously-unknown informant in the animal rights movement discussed, among other topics, how to disrupt political activism, according to FBI documents. The topics discussed echo COINTELPRO-era tactics of the 1960s, including the possibility of discrediting activists through planting rumors.

The FBI file is dated May 12, 2005, by the FBI’s Johnson City Resident Agency, which is part of the Knoxville  field office. It is based on conversations between an FBI agent and “Source,” who is only identified as someone who was involved in “direct actions” and is willing to share information with the government in exchange for immunity from prosecution.

The result is an FBI agent’s notes that offer a rare glimpse of how the government is targeting its “number one domestic terrorism threat.”

Spreading Rumors

Of particular interest to the FBI agent was how the animal rights movement has responded to the government’s use of informants. I have reported here previously about the FBI infiltrating vegan potlucks, and much more serious cases involving an informant named “Anna,” Brandon Darby, and Jacob Ferguson, among others.

These high-profile cases have made activists fearful of FBI spying. According to the FBI agents’ notes, the informant reported that fear alone of such infiltration can be enough to sabotage political activity:

“The Animal Rights Movement does little research on newcomers into the movement and basically goes with its gut instinct as to whether a person is an informant or not. Organizers of the Animal Rights Movement can be discredited and removed from the scene by planting rumors that they are plants and/or informants.” [emphasis added]

The potential for such tactics appears to be validated in the mind of the FBI agent, who notes that there is “no risk of violence to these persons about whom these false rumors may be started as most of the animal rights people are also strict advocates of nonviolence against human persons.”

Weak Links in Security Culture

A common term in activist circles is “security culture,” which means being aware of government surveillance and taking reasonable steps to protect your privacy, and the privacy of others. One aspect of security culture, for instance, includes email encryption via PGP.

Activists who have had homes raided by the FBI or been harassed through grand jury witch hunts have learned the importance of protecting their privacy, and making it less easy for the FBI to snoop into their political activity. “Security culture” has been cited in court cases and Congressional hearings as a source of frustration for FBI agents.

In this document, the FBI agent notes “the day of those strict rules may be passing. Source believes that many of the younger activists do not subscribe to these strict requirements as they are extremely inconvenient.”

A Century of Similar Efforts

This FBI document was provided to me by Ryan Shapiro, who is a PhD candidate at MIT. Shapiro, a historian of science, is researching conflicts over animal experimentation and national security. This document surfaced in one of his Freedom of Information Act requests.

Shapiro’s research is a ground-breaking investigation of early campaigns to exploit national security fears in order to  fight animal rights activists. As he told me:

“Politicians, industry, and law enforcement have long employed the rhetoric and apparatus of national security to counter animal advocacy. Today’s Green Scare actually stands on the shoulders of a century of similar efforts to marginalize animal protectionists as threats to American security.”

COINTELPRO Tactics Resurface

Throughout U.S. history, there have been government campaigns against progressive social movements. This document reveals a continuation of that trend, not only in terms of the ideological motivations, but in terms of the specific tactics used by law enforcement.

One of the most notorious eras of FBI spying in recent memory was dubbed COINTELPRO. According to FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, COINTELPRO aimed to “expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit, or otherwise neutralize” radical social movements in the 1960s, using any means at their disposal.

The tactics discussed in this document, including the details about spying, informants, and rumor-spreading, are direct parallels to those used in COINTELPRO. The Church Committee hearings in the 1970s ostensibly put an end to those operations, reining in rogue police operations. This is yet another example of how the COINTELPRO legacy has been institutionalized, and continues to endure.

Manufacturing the Threat

The FBI agent’s notes, no matter how disturbing, are actually quite astute throughout the document. That is, except for a final section on the potential threat posed by animal rights activists:

“The Animal Rights Movement activists will not resort to violence as a source of funding. By that, source means that activists will not become bank robbers or armed robbers and commit crimes of that nature in order to fund their movement.”

To anyone familiar with the animal rights movement (such as the informant), the thought of this is quite odd. Animal activists have not robbed banks. They have not taken up arms. Judging by the structure of the document, though, and the accompanying material, it is clear that these transcribed comments were the informant’s response to direct questions by the FBI agent.

In other words, the FBI agent was seriously questioning the informant about the feasibility of animal rights activists and “eco-terrorists” building a true guerilla-style revolutionary movement.

In many ways, this is the most revealing segment of the entire file. The animal rights movement has never injured a single human being in the name of protecting animals, let alone in the name of money. For the FBI to entertain the possibility, and press an informant for further information, is another reflection of how much the bureau has lost touch with reality.

As I have discussed on this website at length, the creation of animal rights and environmental activists as the “number one domestic terrorism threat” has been a coordinated campaign by corporations and the politicians who represent them. As we see here, the rhetoric has taken on a life of its own; even the most far-fetched ploys are discussed straight-faced, business as usual, and the scare-mongering has been institutionalized into national security operations.

I was on the Alyona Show last night talking about emails between the PA Department of Homeland Security and a private counter-terrorism firm comparing environmental groups to Al-Qaeda.

In September, we learned that the Pennyslvania Department of Homeland Security distributed reports on the activities of non-violent animal rights and environmental groups, such as screening the film Gasland. New emails between James “Tim McVeigh is Not a Terrorist” Powers and the Institute of Terrorism Research & Response compare these groups to Al-Qaeda.

On May 3, Mike Perelman of ITRR emailed James Power of homeland security:

“The Internet is an incredible force multiplier — example: I doubt that the Rainforest Action Network or the Ruckus Group number more than 25 people each. But they have incredible reach, sophistication, and influence on local groups.”

Perelman then wrote: “Shades of Al Qaeda!”

Unfortunately, this isn’t an isolated case.

Pennsylvanians are calling on Gov.-elect Tom Corbett to stop government agencies from spying on people because of their political beliefs. Corbett hasn’t taken any action.

If you missed the last segment on the Alyona Show:

“Eco-terrorist: The new Boogeyman”

Also, check out Donald Gilliland’s detailed piece in The Patriot-News.

I’ve been hearing two types of responses to the recent raids against peace activists in Minneapolis and Chicago. They sound something like this:

1. OMG! This is outrageous! I can’t believe this is taking place in a free country! This must be a mistake.
2. The FBI has always done this. Remember COINTELPRO? Spying on MLK? Nothing will ever change.

For those who have never heard about the Green Scare, it is tempting to view recent events as a News of the Weird story: an anomaly wholly separate and distinct from any broader political climate. Viewing government conduct in this way makes it easier to laugh at Keystone Kops antics (which is healthy) and believe government statements that these examples are isolated (which is not).

For those who know about the government’s history of surveilling, harassing and disrupting social movements, news of further misconduct is dismissed in another fashion: business as usual. At best, it is met with deadpan statements about the frequency of such harassment, at worst the FBI visits and raids are viewed as badges of honor. To be very clear, I think it is imperative we place everything going on now in a historical context.

But here’s the thing:

What is taking place now is not an isolated instance, nor is it inevitable. It is the work of real human beings, making real choices, and their actions are dependent on the ignorance–either orchestrated or willful–of the general public.

Through this work I have had the fortune of speaking with people from a variety of backgrounds who aren’t “activists.” I have seen that, time and again, when people learn about what’s going on they are not very surprised. There is a growing, deep-seated distrust of corporate influence and abuses of political power. What people don’t seem to realize is that behind these general feelings of unease are specific campaigns to destroy social movements.

Most people do not sympathize with the financial interests of gas companies, and if they knew, they would be outraged that the Pennsylvania Department of Homeland Security is protecting business interests. Most people know that being a peace activist does not mean you are a terrorist, and if they knew about these raids they would be disgusted. It’s up to us to show them.

We can’t do this, though, if we are only going to pull people from one extreme, of ignorance, to another, of hyper-aware paralysis. If activist communities are going to survive this repression and move forward, and if we are going to welcome others to join us, we must lay claim to a space between the extremes of patriotic naiveté and hopelessness.

If that space does not exist we must create it, and then show others that social change is not about “faith” or “hope,” and it is also not impossible. We can’t turn to presidents and we can’t turn to hopelessness. We can only turn to each other.

Pennsylvania’s Department of Homeland Security has distributed intelligence bulletins warning that an animal rights protest against the use of carriage horses could be “a fertile recruiting or meeting ground” for extremists.

As I have written here previously, the bulletins notified law enforcement of meetings by non-violent environmental groups, including a film screening of Gas Lands.

Gov. Rendell’s office has released all 137 state-issued intelligence bulletins produced for the homeland security department by a private firm called Institute of Terrorism Research and Response. The bulletins also warned of antiwar protests at a defense contractor: “When their focus is not directed at Lockheed itself, protesters will likely gather at the traffic light on the corner of Mall and Goddard to wave signs at cars,” the bulletin said.

The head of homeland security, James “Timothy McVeigh is No Terrorist” Powers, awarded the contract to the private firm with no competitive bidding. In a leaked email, Powers had said that he wanted to protect “natural gas stakeholders” from those “fomenting dissent.” He signed a form that said the contract with ITRR should bypass a competitive bidding process because the threat was so urgent:

“Without this information, the ability to protect commonwealth assets and resources while simultaneously alerting/notifying private sector owners/operators of the potential and/or credible threats/warnings is severely hindered.”

The ACLU of PA has called on the governor to fire Powers. Kudos to them. But let’s not stop there. Pennsylvania, after you kick Powers to the curb, some good folks in Minneapolis and Chicago could use your help doing the same.

Jeremy Scahill reports in the latest issue of The Nation that subsidiaries of the mercenary firm Blackwater were hired by biotech giant Monsanto spy on animal rights and environmental activists.

Documents uncovered by Scahill are a chilling reflection of the overlap between so-called “domestic terrorism” and “eco-terrorism” with the broader global political climate in which mercenary armies like Blackwater exist. It is also a reminder of of how the recent “eco-terrorism” intelligence bulletin in Pennsylvania is part of systemic problem.

An excerpt:

One of the most incendiary details in the documents is that Blackwater, through Total Intelligence, sought to become the “intel arm” of Monsanto, offering to provide operatives to infiltrate activist groups organizing against the multinational biotech firm…

Through Total Intelligence and the Terrorism Research Center, Blackwater also did business with a range of multinational corporations. According to internal Total Intelligence communications, biotech giant Monsanto—the world’s largest supplier of genetically modified seeds—hired the firm in 2008–09. The relationship between the two companies appears to have been solidified in January 2008 when Total Intelligence chair Cofer Black traveled to Zurich to meet with Kevin Wilson, Monsanto’s security manager for global issues.

After the meeting in Zurich, Black sent an e-mail to other Blackwater executives, including to Prince and Prado at their Blackwater e-mail addresses. Black wrote that Wilson “understands that we can span collection from internet, to reach out, to boots on the ground on legit basis protecting the Monsanto [brand] name…. Ahead of the curve info and insight/heads up is what he is looking for.” Black added that Total Intelligence “would develop into acting as intel arm of Monsanto.” Black also noted that Monsanto was concerned about animal rights activists and that they discussed how Blackwater “could have our person(s) actually join [activist] group(s) legally.” Black wrote that initial payments to Total Intelligence would be paid out of Monsanto’s “generous protection budget” but would eventually become a line item in the company’s annual budget. He estimated the potential payments to Total Intelligence at between $100,000 and $500,000.

Pennsylvania’s Department of Homeland Security has distributed intelligence bulletins about non-violent environmental groups, such as Climate Ground Zero, and labeled activists as “environmental extremists.” In response to public outrage, the state’s contract with a private firm called the Institute of Terrorism Research & Response has been terminated; Governor Ed Rendell said he’s “appalled.” But this was no fluke, no error, no isolated instance. The same policies that have come to light in Pennsylvania have been exposed across the country, and up to top levels of the federal government.

After Abrahm Lustgarten at Pro Publica broke the story, the mainstream press and many bloggers have been treating this story as a “news of the weird,” a strange case of a bizarre intelligence bulletin that, if you buy the governor’s rhetoric, was simply a mistake. In reality, this intelligence bulletin is nearly identical to countless others that have been exposed around the country, and it is representative of federal terrorism priorities.

For instance:

• In Georgia, local homeland security officials were exposed spying on animal rights activists distributing leaflets at a HoneyBaked Ham store. The vegans prevailed in a lawsuit.
• In Maryland, police labeled environmental activists as “eco-terrorists” and “environmental extremists,” monitored group meetings, maintained databases, and shared those files with the FBI and NSA.
• In Minnesota, FBI agents approached a local activist with hopes of infiltrating vegan potlucks.

The list goes on. And on. And on.

These are not the goofy exploits of Keystone Kops. These misplaced priorities come from the top levels of government. The animal rights and environmental movements have repeatedly been labeled the “number one domestic terrorism threat.”

If you read the Pennsylvania intelligence bulletin closely, you can see that the reference to activists as “environmental extremists” actually cites an FBI memo as its source for that claim (on page 8).

This is not the work of a few rogue homeland security officials, it is the work of multiple local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies. Until we demand a fundamental restructuring of domestic terrorism operations in this country, and demand true checks and balances on local homeland security cops and, more importantly, the FBI, there will be many more Pennsylvanias.

UPDATE: There has been some great coverage of this issue elsewhere. Please check out John Robbins’ piece on Huffington Post, Jen Phillips’ column in Mother Jones, and the post on Empty Wheel, to name a few.

Last night I was invited by The Alyona Show to talk about “eco-terrorism” and the Department of Homeland Security spying on activists in Pennsylvania. Here’s a bit about the show:

“These days, when you hear the word domestic terrorist, environmental activists probably don’t come to mind. But documents recently leaked show the Pennsylvania Office of Homeland Security has been tracking anti-gas drilling groups and their meetings, including a public screening of the film, GASLAND, a documentary about the environmental hazards of natural gas drilling. Why is the government so scared of these people they call eco-terrorists, over cases of vandalism?”

If you haven’t seen The Alyona Show before, please check out their YouTube archives (it’s also on cable in NYC and many other cities). Alyona and her crew researched these cases extensively before the show, which, unfortunately, is all too rare for TV programs. Also on the show yesterday was Glenn Greenwald of Salon, who has done incredible work. Check them both out.

Americard, by Ian Geldard

On this website I have exclusively documented the crackdown on the first group: attempts to label people as “terrorists” because of their political beliefs. The new immigration law in Arizona makes clear, though, that this “Green Scare” does not exist in a vacuum.

Arizona’s law, SB 1070, makes it a state crime to be in the country illegally and requires immigrants to carry paperwork proving their immigration status. It allows Arizona police to stop and question people who they think are “reasonably suspect.”

So what’s the problem? As supporters of the law have repeatedly said, “If you are here legally, you have nothing to worry about.” Right?

The phrase “Show me your papers” has no place in a democracy.

It puts unchecked power in the hands of government officials and law enforcement to stop people at their whim. In terms of immigration, the most immediate concern is racial profiling and harassment of those who look like an “illegal” [read: brown people].

Supporters of this legislation have justified it in a few ways. They point to terrorism concerns due to lax border security, and say illegal immigrants unfairly benefit from living in the United States without contributing through taxes (actually, illegal immigrants are vital to economic growth).

However, this law (and a similar one proposed in Michigan) is not about national security, and it is not about the economy. It is about using a vulnerable class of people as a political scapegoat in order to push a larger political agenda.

For example, the demonization of immigrants in Arizona has moved from the border to the classrooms. Legislation has been proposed to outlaw ethnic studies programs:

The new bill would make it illegal for a school district to teach any courses that promote the overthrow of the U.S. government, promote resentment of a particular race or class of people, are designed primarily for students of a particular ethnic group or “advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals.”

[Update: This bill has become law.]

Much like animal industries have moved from targeting the Animal Liberation Front to targeting mainstream groups, anti-immigrant groups are moving from targeting so-called “illegals” to targeting anyone who ideologically supports them.

Both of these crackdowns, on dissidents and on immigrants, are about the vilification of the “other.” [For a great, accessible discussion of this, check out the Pinky Show, "How to Solve Illegal Immigration."] As Naomi Wolf has documented in The End of America, one of the defining characteristics of increasingly totalitarian societies is the creation of both internal and external threats as scapegoats, and then slowly widening the net.

Activists of all social movements should reject Arizona’s law, and all others guided more by fear than compassion. It promotes racial profiling, it is intended to terrify communities, and it will destroy families. Those reasons alone are enough to oppose this legislation. But this is not not solely about immigration; it is about whether we continue advancing towards a society where the “illegals” are not just individuals, but entire belief systems.