When Jeff “Free” Luers was sentenced to more than 22 years in prison for his role in setting fire to 3 SUVs, June 11th became an international day of action to show support for Luers, and raise awareness about his case. Luers is out of prison now, but the disproportionate crackdown on environmentalists– including outrageous prison sentences that do not fit the crimes– continues.

Over the next week, there are dozens of events planned around the world to raise awareness about these issues, and about two prisoners in particular who have received particularly harsh sentences. Marie Mason was sentenced to nearly 22 years in prison for her role in two arsons in the name of the Earth Liberation Front. In another case, Eric McDavid was sentenced to nearly 20 years in prison for “conspiracy.” In McDavid’s case it was revealed that the a paid FBI informant had provided the group with bomb-making recipes; at times financed their transportation, food and housing; and poked and prodded the group into action.

Part of the explanation for why Mason and McDavid received such disproportionately harsh sentences is that throughout their traumatic ordeals, even as their friends agreed to cooperate with the government and turn against them, they stood their ground and refused to “name names.” Outrageous prison sentences like this are intended to send a message to the broader environmental movement, and scare people into becoming informants.

At minimum, June 11th is an opportunity to take part in these support events (I’ll list a few, below) and write these prisoners a letter. It’s critical that they receive continued support. However, this is also an opportunity to talk about these issues in your community.

Here are a couple of the events scheduled:

San Francisco: Film screening of “If a Tree Falls: A Story of the Earth Liberation Front” and an auction. June 11.

New York City: Vegan BBQ and raffle. June 11.

For a full listing of events, visit June11.org.

For more information:

• Supporteric.org
• Supportmariemason.org

While the FBI targets environmentalists, Osama bin Laden remains free.

Christopher Paul, aka “Abdul Malek,” is an Ohio native who joined Al Qaeda in the early 90s. According to the FBI, he:

• received training in “the use of assault rifles, rocket-propelled grenades, and small unit tactics,”
• fought with the mujahedeen in Afghanistan,
• and returned to Ohio to recruit and establish a terrorist cell.

He pleaded guilty to conspiring with others to use a weapon of mass destruction against Americans at home and abroad. His sentence: 20 years.

By comparison, Marie Mason was sentenced to nearly 22 years in prison, as a “terrorist,” for property destruction in the name of defending the environment.

Her sentence, for arson targeting genetic engineering at Michigan State University, was the most severe yet in what many are calling the “Green Scare.” Unfortunately, it is not an isolated incident. Jeffrey “Free” Luers was sentenced to 22 years and 8 months for setting fire to SUVs. And Eric McDavid was sentenced to 20 years for “conspiracy” to sabotage the Nimbus dam, even though an FBI operative 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.

The FBI has labeled the environmental and animal rights movements as the “number one domestic terrorism threat.” Groups like the Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front, and activists like Marie Mason, have clearly broken the law in the name of defending the environment. But they have never used rocket-propelled grenades, never created weapons of mass destruction, and never harmed a single human being.

This should concern everyone, regardless of how you feel about environmental issues or economic sabotage: Such skewed government priorities are wasting valuable law enforcement resources targeting environmentalists while Al-Qaeda continues to place American lives at risk.

What kind of message do you think this sends, when environmentalists who target property are a greater national security threat than the organization responsible for the most deadly act of terrorism in the history of the United States?

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 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.

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.