How the FBI Used “Anna” the Informant to Entrap Eric McDavid and other Environmentalists as “Terrorists”

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Why was my post deleted? About the article saying specifically that these groupings are in no way similar to Al Qeada training camps (in direct opposition to what you, Will, say in the first paragraph of this article?
Kinda like something the Bush administration would do. Delete any critical feedback or facts that prove you were incorrect.

Damnit– I’ve tried downloading the PDF twice and when I open it it’s all scrambly and completely unrecognizable.

I hate my life

not sure if any of you have heard this, but listen to “anna is a stool pigeon” By Tom Gabel. It’s all about this obviously. and its a great song.

We saw Anna coming! I notice there is nothing in this story on her at the OAS events in Fort Lauderdale Fl. in June of 2005. She failed here, she tried to fuck up the demo on Sunday, by again getting some naive young people to stage a sit in in front of the cops in riot gear. We had no plans to do CD or direct actions at this event, but their she was trying to take over the event and create a problem.
As it happened.
Tuesday, Phone call from The MAD office to me, Ray we have no street medics, yes we have one Sara, Ray that is not enough. I will makes some calls. I called around with no luck, going into the event we had one street medic.
Wed. St Maurice, the last meeting before the event. We are meeting on the patio and going over all the lose ends. This car pulls up and out of it comes a young woman dressed as a street medic. I see her and think RED FLAG they really are taping our phones, we need street medics and her she is. No one comes to a meeting dressed as a street medic! Then she started to act like a bull in a china shop. All kinds of questions, like she wanted to find out everything in 15min.
Thursday, Lesters Dinner, the legal team and the core organizers compared notes, ANNA WAS A FED, watch her!!!
Friday, IBEW union hall, she was back, asking all kinds of questions, with no answers from us, we could see she was gritting frustrated and making calls on her cell phone all the time she was there.
Sat. Carnival Of The Americas at St. Maurice, she back again in the after noon trying to get info, again to no avail. You could see she was getting very frustrated.
Sun. The March, she recruits about a dozen young people to do a sit in. Thing are getting out of hand, the agreement was that there were to be no cops in riot gear and now we had 12 kids doing a sit in in front of them. We right away began to defuse the situation by having some of the younger organizers talk the sit in people to give up their posture and get up. It began to work, at the same time I lost my cool and began calling out loud that she was a fed and this was a problem. I first address the march leader to no avail and then moved over the the head of the legal team that was on the ground. Jim the march leader told me flat out the ANNA was not a fed and Andrea said “Ray you have no proof”, grudgingly I knew I did not have 100% proof.
She stayed in town for about 3 more weeks showing up here and there. She then left for Philadelphia with Sara for the BIO-Tect actions.
We had her and could have outed her down her, we could have put her face all over the internet and Eric and co. could be free today.
Ray Del Papa