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.

I had the pleasure of returning to Democracy Now this morning to talk about my new book, and how environmental activists have been branded as “domestic terrorists.”

We discussed the case of Daniel McGowan, a former Earth Liberation Front member, who is currently in a secretive prison called a Communications Management Unit. Also on the program were Andy Stepanian, who is the first prisoner to be released from a CMU, and Marshall Curry, director of If a Tree Falls.

Because so much of the discussion was focused on Daniel McGowan, arson, and the Earth Liberation Front, it raises a lot of questions about tactics. These are important discussions that need to take place within the environmental movement, and I agree with Marshall Curry’s concluding thought that activists must “think carefully” about what tactics they choose.

However, if we are to move forward, we need to focus even more attention on the truly radical tactics of corporations and the politicians who represent them. They have manufactured this “eco-terrorism” threat, and they are widening their net, eroding checks and balances on government power, in order to demonize and silence their opposition.

Corporations have made quite clear that it is not solely the tactics that matter– it is whether those tactics are effective. That’s why environmentalist Tim DeChristopher is facing 10 years in prison not for arson, but for non-violent civil disobedience. That’s why legislation has been introduced in multiple states not targeting death threats and violent posturing, but targeting undercover videos.

The case of Daniel McGowan and others should prompt a critical examination of the tactics employed by animal rights and environmental activists, but that introspection is absolutely worthless unless it is accompanied by a parallel critique of the tactics used by corporations to push their extremist agenda.

In addition to their incredible work day in and day out, the folks at Human Rights Watch also run an international film festival. This year, they are featuring two important films that examine the government’s “domestic terrorism” priorities.

“If a Tree Falls: A Story of the Earth Liberation Front” tells the story of Daniel McGowan, and “Operation Backfire.” And “Better This World” looks at the case of two Texas activists who were prodded into action by a disturbed government informant named Brandon Darby. Unfortunately, I haven’t had the opportunity to see either of them yet (I’m seeing “Better this World” at SilverDocs, and hope to see “If a Tree Falls” in the next couple weeks), but I have heard great things.

It’s wonderful that a group like Human Rights Watch is raising awareness of these issues, and talking about them on the Human Rights Watch podcast. It reflects a growing public awareness, and a recognition that these aren’t just compelling stories (as mainstream media often has treated them), but that they raise serious questions about human and civil rights.

The government’s roundup of environmental activists in “Operation Backfire” was only possible because the lead arsonist, Jacob Ferguson, had agreed to wear a wire, travel the country, and prod his friends into talking about the crimes with the Earth Liberation Front.

The government has repeatedly called Ferguson a “hero.” U.S. Attorney Kirk Engdall has said he was “essential” to the largest investigation of the radical environmental movement in U.S. history.

In exchange for doing the government’s work for them, Ferguson, who was involved in about 18 arsons, was sentenced to no jail time and five years probation. In other words, the most prolific arsonist in the history of so-called “eco-terrorism” got a free pass.

But Ferguson was arrested on April 6, 2011, on drug charges and now faces prison time for violating these conditions. Today will be his first probation violation hearing at the Eugene federal courthouse.

I think this is worth highlighting for a few reasons. Ferguson’s drug history is not new information. In fact, the government used this against him in order to pressure him to become an informant. The FBI was well-aware of his personal history, but chose to ignore this because it was the only lead they had in arresting members of the ELF.

This is  yet another example of how far the FBI has been willing to go, and the shady deals that agents are willing to make, in order to secure a victory in the “War on Terrorism.”

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 wrote this for the latest issue of Bite Back Magazine, which just came out. I know it’s a bit long for online reading, so click on the image to download the pdf if you like, then come back and leave a comment.

“Making an Animal Rights ‘Terrorist,’” Bite Back Magazine, Issue 14.

Shortly after midnight on November 11th, 1988, Fran Trutt exited the passenger side of a rented Chevy pickup and approached the headquarters of U.S. Surgical with a package. She still had doubts about the evening. The day before, as she prepared for the trip to Norwalk, Connecticut, from her home in Queens, New York, she called a friend three times. She had cold feet. Could she go through with this? Was it taking things too far? What if someone got hurt? No, no, the voice on the phone reassured her. Remember the dogs.

U.S. Surgical had become the nation’s largest supplier of surgical staplers, a speedier alternative to stitches. The company used about 1,000 dogs each year in training doctors to use the product, stapling dogs and then killing them. Behind the invention of the surgical stapler, the rise of U.S. Surgical to a $1 billion company, and the deaths of tens of thousands of dogs was the CEO, Leon Hirsch.

To Trutt, Hirsch murdered the only creatures who seemed to understand her. She was a loner and uncomfortable around
people, neighbors said. But dogs were different, especially the four she called her “babies.” She felt a special kinship with them. To Trutt, the dogs were unconditionally loving and affectionate. To Trutt, Hirsch was unconditionally evil.

She placed the package in some bushes about ten feet from where Hirsch would park his car the next morning. Inside the package, a foot-long radio controlled pipe bomb had been wrapped in roofing nails. Maybe Trutt still had doubts as she hid the package and then turned back to her waiting driver. By the time she reached the truck, though, it was too late for second thoughts.

Fran Trutt had been set up. U.S. Surgical, the press and most animal rights groups, would soon condemn her as a violent extremist. But over the coming months it would be revealed that the plot—the only act of attempted murder in the history of the U.S. animal rights movement—had not been an organic occurrence.

The money for the bomb, the truck, the logistics, the encouragement—U.S. Surgical and a “counter-terrorism” firm had been orchestrating it all.

Hired Guns

When Trutt returned to the truck, police moved in. They arrested her and found a radio-controlled detonator. They also arrested her driver, 30-year-old Marc Mead.

That afternoon, New York City police and bomb squad searched Trutt’s basement apartment in Queens and found a sawed-off shotgun, another weapon they described as a hybrid of a bazooka and a shotgun, and two more homemade bombs. The bombs were made of M-80s—large firecrackers—wrapped with nails and BB pellets, and stuffed into 3-by-6 inch pieces of standard plumbing pipes. One had a fuse, and one had a radio. Trutt had few other possessions, not even a telephone, but police also found pictures of tortured animals.

Trutt faced two sets of charges. In New York: federal charges of possessing two bombs. In Connecticut: attempted murder, possession of explosives and manufacturing a bomb. The press called the case a thwarted “terrorist” plot. The FBI announced a “terrorism” investigation. News stories said Trutt “may have been supplied with the explosive device by a terrorist group.”

All this talk of terrorism and murder didn’t sit well with Mead, Trutt’s driver. He had been released without charge, but worried that news reports implicated him. Mead, the owner of a window washing company, felt he had to do something to distance himself from this animal rights terrorist. He walked into the newsroom of the The Westport News with a press release he wrote—headlined “WINDOW WIZARD THWARTS ASSASINATION [sic] ATTEMPT”— hoping to clear his name.

The local newspaper’s expose, and the national headlines that followed, revealed a long-term plan by U.S. Surgical to infiltrate and disrupt the animal rights movement. To do his dirty work, Hirsch had
hired a counter-terrorism firm called Perceptions International. The firm was the brainchild of Jan Reber, a self-styled “terrorism” expert who had experience demonizing animal rights groups: he also published
a newsletter called the Animal Rights Reporter, a dossier on the activities of animal activists crafted for the vivisection industry.

Perceptions International had hired a woman named Mary Lou Sapone to infiltrate the movement. Sapone met Trutt at a U.S. Surgical demonstration in 1988, and reported back to Perceptions International and U.S. Surgical that Trutt had made threatening comments against Hirsch. Keep tabs on Trutt, they said. Talk to her. Befriend her. She did, and Trutt opened up about her anger at Hirsch, her sex life, and, of course, her dogs.

Sapone urged Trutt to take action. The spy had already approached other animal activists, saying someone should bomb U.S. Surgical, but they had written her off as a drunk or a lunatic. With Trutt, she found a more receptive audience.

Two months before the night of the bombing, Perceptions International brought Mead into the operation. The firm paid Mead $500 a week to befriend Trutt. Following Sapone’s lead, he used dogs to do so. He approached her in a pizza parlor, and asked for advice on finding homes for puppies.

They became friends, talking about animal rights and U.S. Surgical. Mead soon gave Trutt about $300, which she said was explicitly to be used for hiring two non-activists in New York to make the bomb. Although Mead denies this, and says the money was to help her pay her rent, he admitted that the president of Perceptions International went so far as to tell him when to bring Trutt and the bomb to the U.S. Surgical office.

When Trutt began to lose her nerve en route, she called her friend Mary Lou Sapone.

No Way Out

With evidence of his covert plans mounting, Hirsch finally acknowledged using paid informants. He told the Associated
Press that animal rights “terrorists” had left him no choice. “Many of them are very dangerous organizations,” he said. “They don’t believe in right and wrong as most people in society do. They believe that human beings are on the same par as rats and dogs and they are prepared to take violent actions to enforce their beliefs.”

Trutt maintained the she never intended to kill Hirsch; she intended to explode the bomb as he walked into the building. “It would have been purposeless to kill him,” she told The Advocate of Stamford. “But to scare him at this time might have affected some change.”

Yet the media circus and aggressive prosecution wore her down. On the New York bomb possession charges, she pled guilty and received time served in prison. On the Connecticut murder charges, she agreed to a plea agreement, and then rescinded upon learning she would not be allowed to visit her dogs. Abruptly, in April 1990, she agreed to plead no contest in exchange for one year in prison followed by three years of probation.

“The sex tapes—I think that’s what did it. It was just disgusting,” said John Williams, her attorney. “I have been fearing this from the first day: How long will Fran be able to stand up to this?”

Prosecutors had threatened to introduce tape recordings between Trutt and Sapone, he said. On the tapes, Trutt rails against Hirsch, and also discusses a sexual relationship with a woman.

Even the federal prosecutor in the New York case opposed using the tapes in court. Assistant U.S. Attorney Leslie Caldwell had written a letter to a U.S. District Judge questioning the handling of the case by Connecticut police.

“Like a sports ‘highlight film’ made for the benefit of home team fans, the tape contains many of Trutt’s most menacing and outrageous remarks,” she wrote. “However, it omits the operatives’ goading, encouragement and offers of money.”

Lessons Unlearned

By giving national exposure to so-called “animal rights terrorism,” the foiled plot marked a turning point in the history of the animal rights movement and in the sustained corporate campaign to surveil, disrupt and demonize activists. Trutt’s case should be a reminder of the dangers of jumping to conclusions. It should also be a reminder of the importance of focusing on true enemies, not placing blame. But for some of the activists involved in this
scandal, these lessons of terrorist scare mongering have gone unlearned.

Wayne Pacelle, for example, was executive director of the Fund for Animals, which filed a government complaint against U.S. Surgical’s experiments. He is now the head of the Humane Society of the United States, the largest animal protection organization in the country.

“[Sapone] was at every meeting of at least three people, always milking people for information,’’ he told the New York Times in 1989. “She served not only as an informant, but as a provocateur, often suggesting illegal activities.’’

Despite Pacelle’s firsthand experience with provocateurs, and firsthand knowledge of the dangers of jumping to conclusions, he has done exactly that in recent months. When a bomb exploded in California at the home of UC researchers, animal activists issued no communiqué or claim of responsibility. Nevertheless, Pacelle and HSUS not only issued media statements condemning underground activists, but also donated $2,500 to law enforcement for their “ecoterrorism” witch hunt.

Similarly, Friends of Animals led the demonstrations against U.S. Surgical beginning in 1981. Members recalled that Trutt attended at least one of their protests.

“It’s a classic frame case,’’ Priscilla Feral, president of the group, told the New York Times. “This is a concerted effort to discredit a movement that is having an effect.’’

Despite Feral’s firsthand experience with corporate smear campaigns, Friends of Animals has repeatedly focused its efforts on discrediting other animal activists. Instead of placing blame for this “Green Scare” on corporations and government agents, Friends of Animals says underground activists have brought these tactics upon themselves.

As Lee Hall of Friends of Animals has written, “government seizes opportunities provided to them by apparently dangerous activists to begin treating all kinds of dissenters as terrorists.”

History Repeats Itself

Time and again, these “dangerous activists” are in fact government and corporate creations, the product of cloak and dagger maneuvers to frame individual activists and discredit entire movements. In a contemporary case eerily reminiscent of Trutt’s entrapment, an environmental activist named Eric McDavid was recently sentenced to 20 years in prison for “conspiring” to blow up the Nimbus Dam in California.

His Mary Lou Sapone was a young FBI operative named “Anna.” McDavid fell in love with Anna. Anna provided McDavid and friends with bomb-making recipes; at times financed their transportation, food and housing; strung along McDavid, who had hopes of a romantic relationship; and poked and prodded the group into action.

While Trutt was sentenced to about one year in prison for attempted murder and possessing bombs, McDavid, who wasn’t accused of either—only “conspiracy”—was sentenced to 20. Post-9/11, the tactics of government and corporations haven’t changed, but the stakes for activists have clearly risen.

From Bombs to Boards of Directors

The media coverage of Trutt’s case, and the role of Perceptions International, seemingly should have ruined Sapone’s career as a mole. Instead, she just switched social movements. A 2008 investigation by Mother Jones magazine revealed that Sapone—going by Mary Lou McFate, her maiden name—had been spying for years on gun control groups. She wasn’t orchestrating bomb schemes or murder plots. This time, on the payroll of the National Rifle Association, she was hired to spy on the upper echelons of the mainstream movement.

She posed as a gun-control activist for more than a decade, even landing positions on two boards of directors. As both a local and national activist, she gained access to the internal deliberations, lobbying strategies, media plans, and internal gossip of the entire movement.

Bryan Miller, the executive director of Ceasefire New Jersey, told Mother Jones that Sapone’s story “would confirm for me the way that the gun lobby works, which is no rules no question of fairness or honesty. Anything that they can do they would do to protect the profits of the gun industry.”

If one substitutes “animal research” for “gun,” the story remains the same.

What is the True Threat

The FBI has labeled the animal rights and environmental movements the “number one domestic terrorism threat.” But
the true threat posed by these movements is not violence. As we saw in the Trutt case, and recently in the McDavid case, the most serious acts of “violence” in the movement have been the work of provocateurs.

These corporations and politicians are not after the Fran Trutts of the movement. They’re not after the Animal Liberation Front, Earth Liberation Front, Revolutionary Cells, or any other underground group. The true target of these terrorist witch hunts is not “violent extremists,” but the movements themselves.

It’s telling that Mary Lou Sapone’s career took a drastic turn, from coercing activists into bombings to infiltrating boards of directors. Sapone and the “terrorism” firms she worked for evolved in their understanding of how to squash and repress social movements. Activists must evolve, too. These corporations and government agents might single out an individual like Fran Trutt in order to make headlines and demonize the movement. But that’s merely a single step, a stop along the way to their bigger goal. Infiltrating and sabotaging the activities of grassroots activists and direct action supporters is simply the low hanging fruit. When grasped, these corporations and government agents become bolder and start trying to hack down the entire tree.

Sapone realized this. U.S. Surgical, Perceptions International and the NRA realized this. And until mainstream animal protection and environmental groups realize this, there will be many more Fran Trutts.

Careless talk costs lives.

Let’s look at this case from another perspective, though. Perhaps the activists arrested were never the intended targets.

I’ve written about the government’s seven-step process for convicting environmentalists as terrorists in property crimes cases. The recent Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act arrests are different from Earth Liberation Front or Animal Liberation Front arrests, though. These are above-ground and lawful—yet controversial–activists. However, I think the same model is being used.

The critical step in this process is for law enforcement to use what little evidence they have to scare the living hell out of those arrested. They use threats of outlandish prison sentences and terrorism rhetoric in order to create government informants, or snitches. They then continue that pattern of threats and fear-mongering with each subsequent arrestee, until they have enough to move forward with a case. This snitch-based model of police work (as opposed to gathering evidence, witnesses and leads) is notoriously unreliable and often illegal.

As this case moves forward, I have no doubt that federal prosecutors and law enforcement will, if they haven’t already, offer some kind of a plea agreement in exchange for cooperation. They’ll say something like: “We can offer you a way out of all this. Look, you’re facing prison time as a terrorist. And once you get out, you’ll always be a terrorist. We know you have good intentions, and you’re just worried about the animals. If you help us, maybe by wearing a wire, or offering up some names of others in this campaign, we can make it all go away.”

The FBI has shown it is completely inept at tracking down underground groups, including the people behind the destruction of vans at the University of California, and the incendiary devices left at a researcher’s home (which has been recklessly attributed to animal rights activists). So the feds go on snitch hunts.

That’s why it’s absolutely critical to not be intimidated into silence by these arrests. These activists need to know they have a strong community of people who support them, will look after them, and will not be afraid to speak up. The government relies on fear to create informants and snitches, and with a strong community of vocal supporters, it’s easier for activists to confront this fear head on. These activists, and all others, need to know that there is a way out of all of this, and it’s not by naming names or pledging loyalty oaths, it’s by organizing and fighting back.

Poster by Just Seeds Collective, justseeds.org

The cops in The Wire are methodical. They can’t go straight after Avon Barksdale (the kingpin). They must pick off henchmen, build priors (to up the stakes), threaten heavier sentences in order to turn snitches, use snitches to tighten the screws on others, and keep going onward and upward to the top.

This made me think about the application of a similar methodology to the cases against alleged members of the Earth Liberation Front, Animal Liberation Front, and others labeled “eco-terrorists” for property crimes. [For this, I'm looking just at the property crimes cases, not pure First Amendment cases like the SHAC 7.] Based on my reporting of the “Green Scare” cases, the government’s seven-step process for turning non-violent activists into imprisoned terrorists goes something like this:

1. Use the T-word early. As soon as there’s a crime that might be attributable to environmentalists, the government steps in and labels it terrorism. A case study of this is the recent arsons in Seattle. There was no claim of responsibility by the ELF, but the FBI rushed to label it “eco-terrorism.” Likewise, in California there were incendiary devices left at the home of animal researchers. Again, there was no claim of responsibility, but the government, the university, and even other animal groups rushed to label it “animal rights terrorism.” In short, this step is much like that Chicagoan political mantra: Label them early and label them often.
2. Luck out. There has to be some kind of lucky break for cops to get things moving in the case. In one case, a business owner in Michigan found boxes of maps and M-80s while dumpster-diving and called the cops. In another case, a career-oriented 20-something named “Anna” infilitrated lawful protest groups. These leads aren’t enough to build a case, but they’re a start.
3. Make an informant or “snitch.” This third step is absolutely critical to the entire process. No major investigation of ELF or ALF activity has been possible without it. The government must pick a weak link. In Michigan, it was Frank Ambrose, the environmentalist who carelessly threw out boxes of personal items. In the Operation Backfire cases, it was Jacob Ferguson, a drug addict. The government searches for a weakness and begins to tighten the screws until they turn informant.
4. Breed more informants. The FBI then uses this information to harass and intimidate other activists. The government makes the activists feel like they have no option, no hope. Agents say that unless they cooperate, they’ll spend their lives in prison, and in prison they’ll be thrown in with the worst of the worst, the murderers, the terrorists. The government makes the activists feel like their only option is to turn on their friends.

   The catch here is that each successive informant must offer new information and new names. As a result, the government’s net grows and snares people that had little or no involvement in any crime. Some activists may be hauled before grand juries, where this “snitch farming” continues. Others may be hauled into court. (A perfect example of this is Briana Waters. Her friend Lacey Phillabaum turned informant and because Lacey was one of the last to do so, she had to name someone new—and Briana was implicated).

5. Push a plea. The government doesn’t want to take anything to trial. It costs money. It’s could be a media circus. It reduces the chances of scoring a victory in the War on Terrorism. Instead, the government offers reduced sentences if the defendants take a plea. Prosecutors tell them it’s their only option, that all their friends and co-defendants are against them. Prosecutors tell them there is no hope, and that this is the only way out.
6. Play the terrorism card at sentencing. That word, terrorism, is used extensively in the press throughout this process. For the most, though, it isn’t allowed into the courtroom. Once the defendants accept a plea agreement, though, prosecutors push for “terrorism enhancement” penalties. If the defendant has already accepted a plea agreement, it’s significantly harder to fight back against this label. The terrorism label has been used since day one, and now it’s official.
7. Start the PR machine back up. The government labels the conviction and the “terrorism enhancement” a victory in the so-called War on Terrorism. Federal agents use it to prove their worth and request additional resources and support. This, in turn, leads to more surveillance, more harassment, more arrests, more snitches, and more fear. [Repeat with step one.]

There’s nothing inevitable about this process, though. The government’s methodology is formulaic, but activists can break that mold. At every step of this process, there is room for resistance (for instance, Operation Backfire defendants Daniel McGowan, Jonathan Paul, Joyanna Zacher and Nathan Block pushed for non-cooperating plea agreements somewhere near step five).

But the best defense, as the cliché goes, is a good offense. The best response is stopping this process before it begins–refusing to allow the government to initiate step one.

That means resisting this scare-mongering each and every time it appears in the press. Refusing to label non-violent property destruction as “terrorism.” And building strong communities that can support defendants each and every step of the way.

Marie Mason

At a press conference announcing her arrest, an FBI agent said “domestic terrorism is a top priority of the FBI.” A police chief called the 1999 Earth Liberation Front arson at the Michigan State University campus, targeting genetic-engineering research, a “significant act of domestic terrorism,” though no one had been injured. And taking things even further, MSU President Simon argued that these “terrorists” were attacking freedom itself.

As a mother of two and a longtime community organizer, Mason had a lot to lose. Still, she stood her ground.

Soon, news broke that her former husband, Frank Ambrose, had worn a wire to entrap his friends and spy on lawful environmental gatherings.

Ambrose had made the mistake of throwing away personal records in a dumpster. According to a search warrant, a dumpster-diver found boxes that contained Earth First! magazines, maps of Michigan with the location of an ELF attack highlighted, an M-80 explosive device, a block of candle wax, and even a gas mask labeled “Frank’s Gas Mask.”

The dumpster-diver called the cops. In the words of a retired FBI agent who was involved in the case, “There’s no question that the discovery in the dumpster was the catalyst that caused this thing to move forward.”

The FBI easily traced the materials to Ambrose, and promised to soften his punishment if he cooperated. According to the government, Ambrose went above and beyond what was expected by the FBI. His cooperation “has been nothing short of remarkable, both in terms of the time and effort he put into it and in terms of its value to federal law enforcement,” said Assistant U.S. Attorney Hagen Frank.

He recorded 178 conversations with a variety of “targets,” traveling out of state seven times. The government credits him with bringing “long-stymied eco-terror investigations back to life.” After turning on his former wife, and violating the trust and confidence of untold numbers of activists, Ambrose would have his sentence reduced to nine years in prison.

Still, Mason stood her ground. The government offered her 15-20 years in prison if she agreed to name names; otherwise, prosecutors said they would push for life in prison. Mason said she would accept a non-cooperating plea agreement similar to those in the Operation Backfire cases, but she refused to become a government informant.

It looked like the case would head to trial. And then, just two hours before the deadline for the agreement expired, the government relented and offered a new deal. Mason would have to name Frank Ambrose (who had already named himself and become an informant) but she would not have to provide any additional testimony or debriefings.

“Because of the cooperation of her former husband Ambrose, there is no expectation that Mason would win a jury trial,” Marie Mason’s support committee said. “Part of this decision is also the long sentences handed to the very few Green Scare arrestees who have gone to trail, such as Eric McDavid, as is the intense financial and emotional strain that this process is taking on Mason’s immediate family.”

The government labeled Mason’s arrest and plea a victory in the “War on Terrorism,” but they still wanted more.

Mason had a history of resisting government intimidation. In 2002, she and Ambrose fought a grand jury subpoena investigating sabotage at an Ice Mountain water bottling plant. In an ominous message at that time, Ambrose told No Compromise: “The FBI’s unwelcome visits are meant to serve as a distraction and a deterrent to citizens’ ability to express their discontent with government policies. They want people to be afraid to get involved, for fear of being harassed by the FBI.”

Ambrose would later turn his back on such convictions. But Mason refused, and that didn’t sit well with the government.

In court filings, prosecutors argued that Mason’s refusal to cooperate has elevated her “to the status of movement heroine” among environmentalists.

That’s a striking insight into one of the reasons environmentalists and animal rights activists are labeled the “number one domestic terrorism threat.” Why is it such a government concern that, as one prosecutor said, “She has become a figure of admiration to that community”?

Because when people refuse to buy into the scare-mongering, when they refuse to name names even at great personal cost, when they take principled stands even as the full weight of the government is bearing down upon them, it shakes the very foundations of the “Green Scare.” It challenges the power of fear, and sends a message that others can do the same.

What do you think? What is the government’s motivation behind proposing such disproportionate sentences?