This is Tom Gabel of Against Me! playing at the Nimbus Dam, the site Eric McDavid was allegedly plotting to blow up with Zachary Jenson and Lauren Weiner. An FBI informant named “Anna” 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.

Mark Reichel, McDavid’s attorney, said:

“There has never been a case in America that has involved this much entrapment, this much pushing by an informant, by the U.S. government and by the FBI behind it.”

McDavid was sentenced to 20 years in prison.

“Anna the Stool Pigeon”
by Tom Gabel

Eric, Ren and Jensen were activists
Heads loaded with theory, their hearts are filled with passion
Shared the same left wing politics
Liked the same music, they were part of the protest movement
Now, Anna presented herself as a feminist
Studied the way they talked and dressed
Fashioned herself an anarchist
Eric fell in love with Anna at the meeting of the CrimethInc conference
He didn’t know it but Anna was an FBI informant

Eric fell in love with an FBI informant
Shared his dreams of revolution
Now he’s sitting in solitary confinement
Be careful what you think
Be careful what you say
It might be used against you in court one day
Well Anna thinks she’s a hawk
She’s just a fucking snitch

The headlines called them the believers
Comparisons were made to a terrorist organization
Well Anna had the car, Anna paid the rent
Anna helped find the recipe to make the explosives
She encouraged her friends to follow through with their plans
They were gonna build a bomb and blow up the Nimbus Dam
Their conversations were being recorded
They didn’t know it but Anna was an FBI informant

Eric fell in love with an FBI informant
Shared his dreams of revolution
Now he’s sitting in solitary confinement
Be careful what you think
Be careful what you say
It might be used against you in court one day
Well Anna thinks she’s a hawk
She’s just a fucking snitch

Black suburbans and AR-15 rifles
Agents made their arrests in a K-Mart parking lot
Caught with the supplies for the bomb in hand
The three were charged with conspiracy against the government
Ren and Jensen traded testimony in exchange for leniency
Eric was sentenced to twenty years in the penitentiary
Eric, Ren and Jensen were activists
They didn’t know it but Anna was an FBI informant

Eric fell in love with an FBI informant
Shared his dreams of revolution
Now he’s sitting in solitary confinement
Be careful what you think
Be careful what you say
It might be used against you in court one day
Well Anna thinks she’s a hawk
She’s just a fucking snitch

Eric McDavid was sentenced to nearly 20 years in prison on Thursday, as a “terrorist,” for conspiring to sabotage federal facilities in the name of the environment.

Nearly 20 years.

That number is shocking enough, considering that the average sentence for violent offenders, in 2004, was about 7.6 years.

That number is shocking enough, considering that Jeff “Free” Luers was sentenced to 22 years and 8 months for sabotaging SUVs (not “conspiring” to do so, like McDavid, but actually doing it)—a sentence that made international headlines and was finally reduced.

And that number is shocking enough, considering that his codefendants will likely receive only five years in prison in exchange for becoming government informants.

But it is even more surprising in light of the disturbing chain of events that led to McDavid’s conviction, including an FBI operative who 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.

Mark Reichel, McDavid’s attorney, said:

“There has never been a case in America that has involved this much entrapment, this much pushing by an informant, by the U.S. government and by the FBI behind it.”

But, as Judge England said in justification of applying the “terrorism enhancement”:

“It’s a new world since Sept. 11, 2001.”

It is indeed a new world. One where fears of “terrorism” are used to justify sweeping police powers, government spying and entrapment. Perhaps most damaging of all is that the press has largely swallowed the “War on Terrorism” rhetoric, labeling activists as “eco-terrorists” at every turn, often long before they even have a foot in the courtroom.

The U.S. Attorney’s office wasted no time in patting themselves on the back for landing such a hefty sentence for a “terrorist,” issuing a press release headlined, “ECO-TERRORIST GIVEN NEARLY TWENTY YEARS IN PRISON.” The release, of course, doesn’t mention anything about “Anna,” the FBI operative. Instead, it only references a “confidential source,” in passing.

United States Attorney Scott said:

“Today’s severe punishment of nearly 20 years in federal prison should serve as a cautionary tale to those who would conspire to commit life-threatening acts in the name of their extremist views.”

A former juror in the case tells of a much different “cautionary tale.” One of the dangers of unchecked police powers and kangaroo courts.

In a rare declaration to the court, made even more rare by its candor and unrestrained outrage, Diane Bennett described how she and other jurors were mislead.

During deliberations, we asked the court to please clarify for the jury the issue of whether Anna was a government agent, and if so, when did she become one… The written answer was from the court and stated “no” that she was not a government agent, yet we were told orally that she was. With the written response of “no,” and after reading the other written responses from the court, we ended our consideration of the issue of entrapment, the vote was 7-5 to consider the entrapment issue as a defense. Once the written response advised Anna was not a government agent, we then changed to a guilty verdict soon thereafter.

In other words, in case this is all getting confusing, prosecutors needed to show that McDavid conspired with at least one other person to destroy these government facilities. His codefendants, Jenson and Weiner, testified that there was no conspiracy among the three of them to carry out the illegal actions. That left just McDavid and “Anna,” a paid FBI operative. Yet jurors were led to believe that “Anna” wasn’t a government agent, and so they convicted him.

Bennett goes on to call the FBI an “embarrassment”:

…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.

Then again, as Judge England said, “It’s a new world since Sept. 11, 2001.”

The May issue of Elle has an article on how the FBI paid a young woman, known as “Anna,” to befriend activists and pressure them into illegal activity. Now, some of those she befriended and entrapped, including environmentalist Eric McDavid, are going to prison as terrorists.

“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.”

Unfortunately 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 an interesting spy story.

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.