Resist grand jury witch hunts.

At least two individuals have been subpoenad to a federal grand jury that appears to be investigating a 2008 fire at the home of an animal experimenter at the University of California, Santa Cruz.

One of the people subpoenaed, José Palafox, said:

“I was approached by two FBI agents at the BART Station at 19th and Broadway in Oakland. They asked my name, identified themselves as Carrie and Matt from the FBI, and served me a subpoena to testify before a federal Grand Jury. They informed me that I had been served and left without asking me any other questions….

“I know nothing about the Santa Cruz action but believe this is a political prosecution and part of a government attempt to gather information on activists, specifically involved in the animal rights movement.”

Grand juries are often used to compel political activists to testify about their political beliefs and political associations. When activists enter a grand jury, they check their rights at the door. Those who refuse to take part in these political witch hunts face prison time. [Utah animal rights activist Jordan Halliday is currently in prison for his principled stand .]

In addition to Palafox, at least one other person has been subpoenaed, and another received a visit from the FBI.

Grand juries are secret, but there is some information about the scope of this one. The 2008 fire was also at issue in the prosecution of the “AETA 4″ on animal enterprise terrorism charges (which were all dismissed). And the prosecutor in that case, Assistant U.S. Attorney Elise Becker, is also involved in this grand jury.

I’ll post more information as it becomes available. In the meantime, if you are contacted by the FBI or receive a grand jury subpoena, immediately contact the National Lawyers Guild hotline,  (888) 654-3265. Also, watch this video.

Anarchists have been hugely influential in the creation and rapid growth of Occupy Wall Street. General assemblies are using non-hierarchical consensus models, and national media outlets are talking anarchist theory with folks like David Graeber.

For most Americans, though, “anarchism” isn’t about helping each other out (without the government). Anarchism is chaos. Anarchism is destruction. Anarchism is kids with green hair playing smashy smashy. 

When a group of activists were arrested for an alleged plot to blow up a bridge in Cleveland, Ohio, we saw the power of this cultural framing on display. The government came out swinging, labeling the defendants “self-proclaimed anarchists” and “terrorists” (a bit overkill, because as we’ll see the two are often interchangeable). The intention, of course, is to use the labels to skew public opinion (and distract from the unsettling role the FBI played in creating and supplying the plot).

In most of my work I’ve focused on how language is used to demonize dissent. But, as the cliche goes, a picture is worth a thousand words.

So to illustrate how powerful labels can be in shaping discourse, let’s look at what the top stock photo websites have to say about anarchists. You don’t find images of community gardens or activists stopping home foreclosures. Instead, you learn:

1.) Anarchists never leave home without a good brick.

2.) No brick? A bat works.

3.) Anarchists only use turn of the (19th) century technology.

4.) Anarchists aren’t fans of subtlety.

5.) Anarchists like to use MS Paint.

6.) Anarchists always circle their A’s. Even in a PowerPoint.

7.) Anarchists look cooler than Tea Partiers.

8.) Anarchists part the sea with their molotovs.

9.) Anarchy is just around the corner! Mom, are we there yet?

10.) Anarchists have mental health problems.

11.) 95% of molotov-throwing anarchists are either 1) undercover cops or 2) Greek.

12.) Portrait of an Anarchist as Young Man.

13.) I’m not sure what is going on here, but it needs to be a video game.

14.) Super Anarchist’s superpowers include community building and consensus-based organizing. BAM! POW!

15.) WHY AM I JUST NOW LEARNING THAT THERE IS AN ANARCHY BUTTON?!

16.) This speaks for itself.

17.) But this one is more accurate…

*Thanks to SadAndUseless.com for the inspiration.

This has been a grassroots effort. Please considering making a donation to support!

The corporate-led crackdown on the animal rights and environmental movements originated, and has grown most rapidly, in the United States. But many of these tactics have been exported to other countries, in some cases aided by U.S. law enforcement. As the U.S. grapples with “Ag Gag” legislation, for example, EUROPOL describes animal right activists and environmentalists as “terrorists,” and warns that their tactics include undercover investigations and “images of sick and abused animals.”

Copycat prosecutions have appeared in Austria, Finland, Spain, and elsewhere.

This is a troubling trend, and activists in many other countries are closely watching the United States’ war on “eco-terrorism.” 

Last year I lectured at a conference in Germany focused on working together across social movements and across borders to fight back. I had some wonderful conversations with people about the need for activists to recognize, and prepare for, a U.S.-style backlash against animal rights and environmental activism.

To this end, I am very excited to announce that I’ll be going on a speaking tour through Germany, Switzerland, and Austria next month.

The tour includes:

June 3, 2012 — Hamburg, Germany
June 4, 2012 — Bremen, Germany
June 5, 2012 — Dortmund, Germany
June 6, 2012 — Düsseldorf, Germany
June 8, 2012 — Freiburg, Germany
June 9, 2012 – Tübingen, Germany
June 10, 2012 — Zurich, Switzerland
June 11, 2012 — Vienna, Austria
June 12, 2012 — Innsbruck, Austria
June 14, 2012 — Berlin, Germany

(I’m exhausted just looking at that!)

This has been a completely DIY effort, organized by incredible friends with Assoziation Dämmerung (click through to read their mission statement about connecting social movements).

The sponsoring organizations in each city will be helping out with travel costs once I’m overseas, but by far the most substantial cost has been airfare from the U.S. If you’ve thought about buying a book, poster, or making a donation, now would be a wonderful time to do it — it would help cover these costs.

Harlot is a publication about rhetoric and persuasion published out of Ohio State University’s English graduate program. They’ve got a great post up reviewing the book, and discussing the power of language in demonizing dissent.

Tim Jensen writes:

Regardless of where you stand with regard to environmentalism or monkey-wrenching, it’s nevertheless important to understand how the term terror is being specifically deployed in an age increasingly defined by such a label…

Use of the “eco-terrorist” label picks up substantially throughout the nineties, especially following the well-reported arson of a Vail ski resort in 1998.  It was 9/11, however, as the phrase goes, that changed everything.  Greg Walden, a Republican Representative from Oregon said on September 12 that the Earth Liberation Front was a threat “no less heinous than what we saw occur yesterday here in Washington and New York.”  Before the steel of the towers had even stopped smoldering, “Industry groups hired PR firms to insert eco-terrorism into the national security dialogue,” writes Potter.  Since 9/11, “the eco-terror language went viral, replicating by spreading from host to host.”

But this is not a conspiracy, Potter is right to point out.  It’s framing.  It’s the introduction of and normalizing of key terms that shape attitudes and perspectives.

Check out the full article at Harlot. And you can see what others are saying about Green Is the New Red and order online.

Are you concerned about climate change? According to a new billboard campaign by the right-wing Heartland Institute, that makes you no different than the Unabomber, Fidel Castro, or Charles Manson.

The first billboard went up in the Chicago area this week.

I’ve written about nutty corporate ads labeling animal environmentalists and animal rights activists as terrorists, but this goes even further. It doesn’t matter whether or not you’re an activist, the Heartland Institute says, because even thinking about these things makes you dangerous.
Here’s how they explain it:

Why did Heartland choose to feature these people on its billboards?

Learn more about how corporations manufactured the idea of "eco-terrorism," and the impact of media stunts like this.

Because what these murderers and madmen have said differs very little from what spokespersons for the United Nations, journalists for the “mainstream” media, and liberal politicians say about global warming. They are so similar, in fact, that a Web site has a quiz that asks if you can tell the difference between what Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber, wrote in his “Manifesto” and what Al Gore wrote in his book, Earth in the Balance.The point is that believing in global warming is not “mainstream,” smart, or sophisticated. In fact, it is just the opposite of those things. Still believing in man-made global warming – after all the scientific discoveries and revelations that point against this theory – is more than a little nutty. In fact, some really crazy people use it to justify immoral and frightening behavior.

Of course, not all global warming alarmists are murderers or tyrants…

Heartland is the engine behind climate change denialist efforts around the country. The group doesn’t reveal its funding sources, but Desmogblog obtained internal documents that show funding from ExxonMobil, GlaxosSmithKline, and Pfizer among others.

Heartland is also a member of the American Legislative Exchange Council, including its Energy, Environment and Agriculture Task Force (here’s more about ALEC’s ties to recent Ag Gag bills). The corporations mentioned above are ALEC members also.

According to Heartland, there are also plans in the works for comparing “global warming believers” to Osama bin Laden.

In related news, I heard from reliable sources that Timothy McVeigh believed in gravity. YOU DON’T WANT TO BE LIKE THE OKLAHOMA CITY BOMBER, DO YOU?!?!

UPDATE: New York Times reports that, responding to public outrage, Heartland Institute pulls the billboard.

As the Occupy movement carries out massive May Day protests around the country, the FBI Joint Terrorism Task force is trumpeting the arrest of “self-proclaimed anarchists” and “terrorists” who allegedly conspired to destroy a bridge in Ohio. Integral to the development and advancement of this plot, however, were FBI agents themselves and an informant with a drug and robbery record.

Douglas L. Wright, 26; Brandon L. Baxter, 20; and Anthony Hayne, 35, Connor C. Stevens, 20, and Joshua S. Stafford, 23, were arrested by the FBI on April 30, just in time to make the announcement as the nation turns its attention to May Day protests.

The affidavit reveals a plot by the FBI that continues a pattern of behavior in “terrorism” investigations against political activists. Most importantly, undercover FBI agents helped shape the “plot,” offered advice on how and where to use explosives, and allegedly sold explosives to the activists.

Pervasive Use of Informants and Undercover FBI

The informant in the case has been working with the FBI since July 20, 2011, and has a criminal record including possession of cocaine, conviction for robbery, and four convictions for passing bad checks. (The FBI’s proclivity for using down-and-out criminals was a key issue in the “Operation Backfire” Earth Liberation Front cases. The lead arsonist and informant, Jacob Ferguson, had a heroin addiction, and is now back in prison on drug charges).

The informant and the others haphazardly talked about various plans, starting with the use of smoke grenades and destroying bank signs off the top of large buildings.

For instance, on April 10, 2012: ““…BAXTER explained that he does not know what to do with the explosives and he has never considered blowing anything up before.”

Conversation shifted to other outrageous plans. According to the affidavit, “WRIGHT joked that he would wear a suicide vest and walk in and blow himself up, but advised he would have to be very drunk.”

“The CHS [the informant] asked the others what it is they wanted to do… BAXTER said that they had never decided on the bridge, they were just throwing out options and they had never decided on anything.”

FBI Guidance

The defendants flitted between hyperbolic conversations -– some about destroying bank signs, some about destroying a boat, some about a bridge — and various spy tactics such as secret email accounts, wiping computer drives, and disrupting surveillance. At every step of the way, the informant (who was paid nearly $6,000, plus expenses) and undercover FBI agents were there to correct course.

At one point Wright asked the undercover FBI agent “if there was any work he could do… to pay for the items he was going to purchase” from the agent. Later, Connor Stevens told Wright that he no longer wanted to be part of the plan, but wanted to know if the informant might hire him to do some work on his house.

At another point, Wright told the informant that he and others thought one of the individuals involved was an undercover cop (which he was). To allay his fears, the informant said he would help provide the explosives.

Clamoring to Thwart “Terrorist Plots”

U.S. Attorney Dettelbach called this a violent terrorist plot, and said: “The defendants stand charged based not upon any words or beliefs they might espouse, but based upon their own plans and actions.”

What’s troubling is that the government has had a heavy hand in creating the very plot it thwarted.

And on top of that, the defendants, by the admission of the FBI, said repeatedly that they had no intention of harming anyone. At one point Baxter and Wright “stated they don’t want people to think they are terrorists.”

This isn’t an isolated instance.

The criminal complaint reads like the spitting image of the case of Eric McDavid, who was coaxed  by an undercover FBI operative named “Anna.” In that case, like this one, the FBI supplied bomb making recipes, bomb making materials, and attempts to distill activist boasting and hyperbole into a coherent plan.

McDavid did nothing, and was arrested on conspiracy charges, like these defendants have been. As readers of this site know, conspiracy charges are the fall-back for the government when there is not enough evidence to get anything else to “stick.”

Demonization of Anarchism

In addition to a continuation of undercover informants and FBI-manufactured plots, this case also reflects on on-going focus on demonizing anarchists.

The government’s press release proclaims that the defendants are “self-proclaimed anarchists.” The affidavit notes that they attended anarchist protests and carried anarchist flags.

The affidavit also says that the defendants talked about anarchists “rioting and destroying each city” that holds May Day protests, and that it will be “off the hook.”

Demonizing anarchists has gone one for over a century, of course, but in recent years the rhetoric has dovetailed with “War on Terrorism” hysteria.

For example, in Scott Demuth’s case, the government argued that: “Defendant’s writings, literature, and conduct suggest that he is an anarchist and associated with the ALF movement. Therefore, he is a domestic terrorist.”

In another case, the government sought a high cash bond against environmentalist Hugh Farrell because “the defendant has been observed advocating literature and materials which advocate anarchy.”

It should come as no surprise, then, that the announcement of these arrests was carefully unveiled yesterday, so that the top news story this May Day would not be about how anarchists are preventing home foreclosures, starting community gardens, teaching collective organizing skills, and re-framing class consciousness, but about how they were part of an FBI-guided “terrorist plot.”

A protest in Italy against Green Hill, a breeding facility for dogs used in animal experimentation, spontaneously turned into a daylight rescue when dozens of activists rescued more than 40 dogs who would have been used in testing.

Police stopped a few cars leaving the village, and captured a few activists and dogs, but others escaped according to Animal Equality.

News of the protest and rescue has quickly circulated around the world and inspired grassroots activists. When I saw the photos, I immediately thought of a similar protest in 1997, that galvanized an international movement. As I discuss in Green Is the New Red:

Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty was born in a riot. On April 24th,1997, World Day for Laboratory Animals, protest organizers ar-rived at Consort Beagle Breeders near Hereford in England. They had campaigned for a year to close the breeder, which housed abouteight hundred dogs—beagles sought for invasive experiments be-cause of their small size, docile temperament and loving nature. The dogs would be sold to laboratories like Huntingdon. The organizers expected a few dozen activists, maybe a hundred. More than fivehundred showed up.

The activists used this moment of surprise to swarm the facility. Police in riot gear kept most at bay, but somehow a few activists slipped inside the dog sheds. Muscles tensed. Did they makeit? Were they arrested? Should everyone go back to chanting andholding signs? Moments later, two activists in masks appeared onthe roof, cradling a beagle. They yelled to the crowd for help.

Riot cops were overwhelmed as people climbed over, and toredown, the razor-wire fence. More police arrived and swarmed thefields like locusts: reserves had been waiting inside the building,and others had been waiting in vans lining the streets. Dr. King once said, “A riot is at bottom the language of the unheard.” One could argue that for too long the activists in this crowd—from students to “raging grannies”—had not been heard. Their leafleting,letter-writing, marching and protesting had earned some victories,yes, but not enough. Perhaps they felt they needed a new voice, a new language.

At this time, 12 people, 8 women and 4 men are imprisoned in Brescia, Italy, awaiting charges. You can sign the petition calling for their immediate release.

For more information:

Website of the campaign Occupy Green Hill
Website of the campaign Fermare Green Hill
News coverage from Italy

Photos from Animal Equality:

Iowa Governor Terry Branstad and U.S. Rep. Steve King, ALEC members and Ag Gag supporters.

“Ag Gag” bills targeting undercover investigators of factory farms have been introduced in 10 states in the last year. The nearly identical legislation is no coincidence. The bills, and their supporters, have ties to the American Legislative Exchange Council.

The Ag Gag bills parallel other national efforts by ALEC, such as “Stand Your Ground” legislation, in that they have been promulgated through model legislation, carefully coordinated task forces, and the ability to mobilize ALEC members for key votes. Whereas many ALEC efforts have remained focused on the state legislation, ALEC’s coordinated attacks on the animal rights and environmental movement have also contributed ton the passage of a new federal terrorism law.

Model Legislation

The primary tool used by ALEC is model legislation. Corporations pay thousands of dollars to be members of the group, and in turn they draft model bills which are introduced across the country, all without other lawmakers and the public having any idea of their origins.

One of ALEC’s model bills is the “Animal and Ecological Terrorism Act.” The bill is so broad that it classifies non-violent civil disobedience by environmental and animal rights activists as terrorism.

The model bill is tailored to address local issues, and has appeared across the country in various forms since it was drafted in 2003. For example, when it was introduced in Washington state the sponsors focused on “terrorists” who take part in tree sits and non-violent road blockades.

The purpose of this and other model legislation is not necessarily for it to be introduced verbatim: it is to present a “wish list” of legislative language from which state lawmakers can pick and choose to satisfy their constituents. For example, the model bill spells out penalties for undercover investigators that are lockstep with the new “Ag Gag” bills, such as prohibitions against:

(b) entering an animal or research facility that is at the time closed to the public;
(c) remaining concealed in an animal or research facility with the intent to commit an act prohibited by this chapter;
(d) entering an animal or research facility and committing or attempting to commit an act prohibited by this chapter;
(e) entering an animal or research facility to take pictures by photograph, video camera, or other
means with the intent to commit criminal activities or defame the facility or its owner;
(f) entering or remaining on the premises of an animal or research facility if the person or organization:
(i) had notice that the entry was forbidden; or,
(ii) received notice to depart but failed to do so.

These provisions are the heart of every Ag Gag bill. In some cases, identical legislation has appeared in multiple states. For example, Missouri’s HB 1860 says:

A person commits the crime of agricultural production facility fraud if he or she willfully obtains access to an agricultural production facility by false pretenses or knowingly makes a false statement or misrepresentation as part of an application for employment at an agricultural production facility with the intent to commit an act not authorized by the owner.

Compare this to Iowa’s HF 589, which is the same text with a new format:

1. A person is guilty of agricultural production facility fraud if the person willfully does any of the following:

a. Obtains access to an agricultural production facility by false pretenses.

b. Makes a false statement or representation as part of an application or agreement to be employed at an agricultural production facility, if the person knows the statement to be false, and makes the statement with an intent to commit an act not authorized by the owner of the agricultural production facility, knowing that the act is not authorized.

ALEC’s model legislation originates from what it calls “task forces.” One of these is the “Energy, Environment and Agriculture Task Force.” Every state where an Ag Gag bill has been introduced, except for New York, has members of this task force:

• Florida (2)
• Illinois (2)
• Indiana (3)
• Iowa (9)
• Minnesota (1)
• Missouri (3)
• New York (0)
• Tennessee (4)
• Utah (3)

Securing Sponsors and Votes

The secrecy of ALEC makes it difficult to know the extent to which any legislation is derived from a model bill. And when they are introduced, lawmakers and the general public have no idea if the sponsor is an ALEC member. Thanks to the document leaks of the Center for Media and Democracy, a long list of verified ALEC members has emerged.

Even from the limited list, it is clear that ALEC members have been absolutely critical to introducing, sponsoring, and bloc voting for Ag Gag bills across the country. Here are a few states where ALEC’s power has been on display:

Minnesota

In Minnesota, House File 1369 was introduced to criminalize production of an “image or sound” of animal suffering in a sweeping list of “animal facilities,” including factory farms, animal experimentation labs, and puppy mills.

The sponsors? Four of the seven are affiliated with ALEC. Rep. Paul Anderson (R-13A), Rep. Steve Drazkowski, and Rep. Connie Doepke are all ALEC members, and Rep. Dean Urdahl denies membership but has said he will introduce ALEC model bills.

Utah

Utah was the second state to approve legislation targeting undercover investigators. HB 187, “Agricultural Operation Interference,” was introduced by the House Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Committee, and was originally so sweeping that it made videotaping a factory farm the same as assaulting a police officer.

When the bill came to the full Utah House for a vote, 14 of the 60 yea votes were from known ALEC members. Two of them, Rep. Roger Barrus and Rep. Rebecca Lockhart, are members of the ALEC Energy, Environment and Agriculture Task Force.

When the Utah Senate approved the bill, 13 of the 24 yeas were from ALEC members.

Tennessee

In Tennessee, the “Ag Gag” bill was introduced by Sen. Dolores R. Gresham, an ALEC task force member.

When it was being considered by the Tennessee Senate, 4 of the 6 votes in favor came from ALEC members.

Iowa: ALEC’s Influence on Display

Iowa Governor Branstad wears his ties to the agriculture industry on his sleeve.

Iowa was the first state to pass one of the recent “Ag Gag” bills. The Iowa Poultry Association says it helped draft the bill, and Iowa State Rep. Annette Sweeney, the most vocal sponsor, is the former executive director of the Iowa Angus Association. Supporters are quite proud of their ties to the agriculture industry (as you can see in these photos), but they also have ties to ALEC.

There are 9 Iowa lawmakers on ALEC’s Energy, Environment and Agriculture Task Force, more than any other state.

Three of these lawmakers are also members of the House Agriculture Committee, where the bill originated (on the Senate side, there are 2 ALEC members on the Agriculture Committee). In their capacity as ALEC task force members, Iowa representatives Betty R. De Boef, Dave Deyoe, Steven N. Olson, are responsible for coordinating model legislation with their corporate counterparts.

As Mike McIntire reported in the New York Times:

Beyond creating model bills, ALEC keeps careful track of state legislation, as well as national issues, and tries to mobilize its lawmaker members to take action. Aides on ALEC task forces keep detailed, color-coded spreadsheets on “good bills” and “problematic bills” in all 50 states, and they regularly send e-mails to alert legislators about ones that ALEC opposes or supports.

This mobilization power of ALEC was undoubtedly on display in the passage of Iowa’s Ag Gag bill. Of the 60 Iowa lawmakers who voted in support of HF 589, at least 14 of them — 23 percent — are members of ALEC.

After the bill passed the House and Senate, it was signed into law by Governor Terry Branstad, who is not only an ALEC members, but who is is praised on the group’s own website for having a leadership role in ALEC’s “formative years.”

ALEC and the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act

ALEC is best known for its influence on state legislation, and according to the group itself that’s where it wields its power most effectively. However, ALEC members often move on to the U.S. Congress where they continue their relationship with the group.

Some of the most important Congressional players in efforts to label animal rights and environmental activists as “terrorists” are ALEC members. For example:

• Rep. Don Young, who publicly speculated in the aftermath of 9/11 that the attacks were the work of environmentalists and called for Congressional hearings on “eco-terrorism.”
• Rep. Steve King of Iowa who publicly brags about his war on vegetarians.
• Sen. James Inhofe, who has had a hand in multiple versions of “eco-terrorism” bills and hearings over the last 20 years.

The federal Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act has striking similarities, and at points nearly verbatim language, to ALEC’s model “Animal and Ecological Terrorism Act.” The bills are not the same, but that’s not the point: at both the state and federal levels, ALEC’s model bills exist to shape political discourse. They provide the framework for the debate.

The Senate version of the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act was sponsored by Sen. James Inhofe, a long-time key player in ALEC.

When the bill was introduced in the House, it had 44 cosponsors — of which 7 still work with ALEC.

The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act is currently the subject of litigation from the Center for Constitutional Rights, which argues that the law is so vague and broad that it wraps up any non-violent activism that harms corporate profits.

Corporate Ties to State and Federal Legislation

The web of connections becomes even more tangled when you examine state and federal lobbying side by side. Some of the same corporations who secretly lobby through ALEC were also involved in forming a secretive lobbying group called the Animal Enterprise Protection Coalition that existed solely to pass the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. Pfizer, Wyeth, GlaxoSmithKline, PhRMA, Boehringer Pharmaceuticals, and the National Pork Producers Council are just some of the ALEC sponsors involved.

This is perhaps the most important salient point to emphasize. Task forces, model bills and voting blocs are among ALEC’s tools, but ALEC itself is a tool in a bigger effort. ALEC’s ability to introduce model legislation and to mobilize its members across the country have been essential in the rise of Ag Gag laws and many other legislative campaigns. Yet ALEC is merely one vehicle among many for corporations to recraft our laws in their image, whether it’s “eco-terrorism” bills or union busting efforts in Wisconsin.

As public outrage against ALEC continues to grow, and as corporations like Coca-Cola, Kraft, and Intuit sever ties with the group, it’s important to recognize the scope of corporate influence on the legislative process. It extends beyond “Stand Your Ground,” beyond pro-fracking bills, beyond state levels bills, and even beyond ALEC to include a political system that is literally being rigged, at every level, to protect corporate profits at the expense of workers, families, animals, and the environment.

Anti-abortion extremists and Christian fundamentalists have resorted to physical violence and assassinations in the name of their cause, but it is not investigated as terrorism. Meanwhile, property destruction and civil disobedience by environmentalists is systematically labeled as such by the FBI, Homeland Security and Justice Department.

I spoke with Matt Harwood of Salon about the glaring contradiction. Here’s an excerpt from his excellent piece:

On Tuesday, 50-year-old Francis Grady pleaded not guilty to trying to burn down a Planned Parenthood in Grand Chute, Wis., on April 1. Earlier this month, however, during his first court appearance, Grady sang a different tune, telling the U.S. district judge he did it because “they’re killing babies there.”

An open and shut case of domestic terrorism for the state, it would seem. But curiously Grady is not facing any domestic terrorism charges, once again raising the question of whether the FBI and U.S. Attorneys’ Offices apply terrorism laws equally when prosecuting ideologically motivated crimes. While Islamists and animal rights and environmental activists regularly spend years behind bars under terrorism sentences, antiabortion criminals are seldom punished as severely. Grady, it would seem, is the latest antiabortion activist accused of a crime that would be harshly punished if, say, he had done it in the name of Allah or Mother Earth….

Journalist Will Potter, the author of “Green Is the New Red,” which explores how the war on terrorism has been used to stifle dissent and label nonviolent civil disobedience as terrorism, says the perfect illustration of this double standard is the case of Eric McDavid. McDavid was labeled an “eco-terrorist” by the FBI and sentenced to nearly 20 years in federal prison in May 2008 after the judge applied a terrorism enhancement to his sentence. McDavid was convicted of conspiring to destroy the Nimbus Dam and other targets with two co-conspirators. His defense attorney, however, argues he was entrapped by an FBI informant that he had developed a crush on.

During the trial, jurors were told that “Anna,” the ringleader of the group McDavid belonged to, was not a government agent, thereby precluding them from considering entrapment a legitimate defense for McDavid. After the trial, two jurors wrote letters to the judge expressing outrage when they learned Anna was indeed a government agent.

“My opinion of the case is that the FBI agents were an ‘embarrassment’ by their lack of knowledge of FBI procedures and the way they handled the investigation, specifically by allowing this case to develop the way it did using Anna and providing all of the essential tools for the group; the cabin, the money, the idea, the books, everything, and by letting Anna ‘string Eric along’ when she should have terminated the relationship clearly with him; that the main witness ‘Anna’ was not a credible witness at all,” wrote juror Diane Bennett. Later on in the same letter, Bennett added, “we would have found that he was entrapped” if the jurors knew Anna was a government agent.

Read the full article on Salon.com.

And here are some related articles for further reading on this juxtaposition:

• 3 Reasons Why Murdering an Abortion Doctor Isn’t Being Called “Terrorism”
• If Sarah Palin Were an Animal Rights Activist, She’d Have Already Been Convicted of “Terrorism”

FBI agents visited an animal rights activist in Minnesota saying that they “don’t just work” for Big Ag corporations, and that they are in search of activist “liaisons.”

Dallas Rising is the program director for the Animal Rights Coalition, an organization in Minneapolis founded in 1980. She was at work when two people walked into the group’s storefront office. “I thought they were going to try to sell me internet service or something,” she says. Then they flipped their badges and said they were with the FBI.

“The guy said ‘Can I talk to you’ and I said ‘No, you can’t,’” she says. She called her boss to confirm that the group would have nothing to do with the FBI, and then asked them to leave.

The agent, who identified himself as Steve Molesky, told Rising that she didn’t need to talk to them, and that they just wanted to say something to her. According to Rising:

“He said, ‘I understand why you would be reluctant to talk to me and I get that, and we, as the FBI, have close relationships with animal enterprises… but we don’t just work for those big companies, we work for all the people.”

Molesky said multiple times that FBI agents “don’t want to stifle anyone’s First Amendment rights,” and that they want to work with her as a “liaison.”

According to Molesky and his partner, Elizabeth Pauling, who said she is an FBI analyst, this would mean that if anyone approached Rising with information about animal welfare violations, she would tell FBI agents about the place of concern so that they could urge the USDA to conduct an investigation.

“Is liaison a new word for informant?” Rising asked. Molesky said no, and that “if Jack and Jill come to you with information, what a liaison would do is let the FBI know where that farm is, while an informant would let the FBI know who Jack and Jill are.” That way, Molesky said, “your concerns are addressed and nobody needs to break the law.”

The visit occurred a week after two other unusual encounters at the Animal Rights Coalition. Someone had called the office saying he knew about a farm in Wisconsin abusing animals and that he wanted help “to get in there” through an Animal Liberation Front style action, Rising says. And just days earlier, a newcomer to an activist training session was asking other attendees how they feel about blowing up buildings and killing people.

In both cases, Rising said the individuals were immediately told that the Animal Rights Coalition was not involved in illegal activity. But the encounters were surprising to local activists because the group is known for organizing non-violent protests, hosting speakers, and coordinating vegan outreach.

The FBI has a long history of using informants to surveil, harass, disrupt, and entrap political activists. As I’ve documented at length on this website, the heavy-handed tactics of the COINTELPRO era have not disappeared — they have been repackaged as counter-terrorism efforts. This may take the form of threatening activists in hopes they will become informants (as I experienced personally), or attempting to infiltrate vegan potlucks. In the case of Eric McDavid, an undercover FBI informant named “Anna” repeatedly attempted to coerce him and others into illegal activity. He refused, and yet was sentenced to nearly 20 years in prison on conspiracy charges.

So is this emphasis on “liaisons” a reflection of a kinder, gentler FBI?

Not likely.

“Ag Gag” bills have been introduced across the country, and passed in Iowa and Utah, targeting undercover investigators who expose animal welfare abuses on factory farms. As discussed in my recent interview with a current undercover investigator, these activists are at risk — not for underground, ALF sabotage, but for non-violent investigations affiliated with mainstream organizations.

This new emphasis on using liaisons to find out farm names, at a time when investigators are being targeted for videotaping farms, is certainly noteworthy. Minnesota considered its own “Ag Gag” bill recently, co-sponsored by Representative Rod Hamilton — past president and current member of the Minnesota Pork Producers.

In other words, activists should know that there is no such thing as providing the FBI with innocuous information. Drawing a distinction between a “liaison” and an “informant” is clever, but keep in mind that this is the same FBI that says undercover investigators can be prosecuted as terrorists.

The two FBI agents who visiting Dallas Rising attempted to reassure her that they were only interested in fighting criminal activity and terrorism, and that they would protect her First Amendment rights. Her response?

“I said if you really want to help protect our First Amendment rights, you could help overturn the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act.”

Molesky has not returned phone calls for comment.

These FBI agents said they would be “reaching out” to other organizations. If visited by the FBI, know your rights and call an attorney.