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.

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.

OMG, the May issue of Elle is the “Green Issue” and has an article on these, like, Al-Qaeda environmentalists! Srsly. There’s a lot about how the FBI hired this girl to totally pretend to be an activist, and lie to them and pressure them into doing illegal stuff. Now they’re going to prison as terrorists or something. Whatevs, this stuff will have you ROFL:

• “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.”

  Forget “number one domestic terrorist threat,” how about number one fashion threat! LOL! First of all, military boots don’t even look good if you’re in the military. And pink hair! Anna, honey, please check out “What to Wear” (p. 106) and “Roll-out-of-bed Beautiful Hair” (p. 208).

• “The car stank of body odor and sweat, thanks to the extremists’ rejection of regular bathing and hygiene products like antiperspirants.”

  Uh, hel-lo terrorists! Have you not heard of Ren’s neroli and grapefruit bodywash (p.214). All this global warming is only going to make you’re B.O. totes worse!

• “‘One of the best things about this movement is the way women are treated and viewed,’ Anna says. ‘They reject typical standards of beauty, they you have to be stick-thin, with Pantene hair, perfect hair, perfect skin.’”

  Thank GOD this Anna woman got out when she did. Any longer and she might start saying that botox isn’t worth needlessly killing animals. You’re never going to meet Elle’s Green Hunk 2008 without at least some foundation and eyeliner (p. 102).

Ok, I’m done being snotty. But 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 the Green Scare.

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.

When environmental and animal rights advocates are sentenced to lengthy prison terms—many as “terrorists”—they depend on the support of friends, family and the larger activist community. They need money in their commissary account. They need books and magazines. They need visitors, phone calls, and perhaps above all else, according to many current and former prisoners I’ve interviewed, they need letters: sometimes mail call is the only thing to look forward to in prison. The support, or lack of support, of these activists also sends a message to the government and to other activists.

But doing all this prison support work can be time consuming and draining. Base-line decisions have to be made about what, at bare minimum, qualifies a prisoner for support from the wider activist community. And lately, many activists have been struggling with what disqualifies a prisoner from receiving support.

Chris “Dirt” McIntosh attempted to burn down a McDonalds in Seattle, in 2005, and is serving an eight-year prison sentence (his guilty plea dropped it down from a minimum of 30, as the government was pushing to use “terrorism” laws against him). The crime was claimed by both the Animal Liberation Front and the Earth Liberation Front.

The Earth Liberation Prisoners Support Network just announced it is ending all support for McIntosh, and encouraging others to do the same, after investigating racist and sexist comments he has made. The support network says:

1) McIntosh has adopted White Supremacist views whilst in prison. A number of people have contacted ELP saying that McIntosh has started to associate with a racist gang and has even gone as far as to get a racist ‘white power’ tattoo. In a letter to one of his supporters McIntosh enclosed a photo of himself and referred to his tattoo which was not visible in the photo. He told another supporter how he would show off his tattoo upon his release from prison.

[As an aside, that’s quite a strikingly different prison experience than, for instance, http://www.myspace.com/andystepanian Andy Stepanian, who just sent a letter celebrating the work of the Black Panthers and urging animal rights advocates to support the San Francisco 8. “The Panther fed our mornings with free breakfasts and our hearts with power. The Panther took this love and handed it to our captors like Valentine's flowers. The Panther stole the hearts of the ghetto and white privilege alike.”]

2) McIntosh, through his Social Darwinian beliefs, thinks that ‘might makes right’, or as he puts it in one of his letters “supremacy to the strongest”.

3) McIntosh has told at least one female supporter that it is okay for a man to rape a woman (under his ‘might makes right’ theme).

4) ELP has had it confirmed that since going into prison McIntosh has abandoned his vegetarian diet and has reverted to eating meat.

I have never spoken with McIntosh, but on his website there are some notes along those lines. In October, 2007, he wrote that he had asked to be removed from prisoner support lists because “I had become frustrated and disillusioned by the resistance to evolution within the struggle… Also, I don’t understand why the foremost natural law – might makes right – is not held paramount.” He then had a change of heart, saying “I need mental and emotional support.”

This isn’t the first time prisoner support networks have struggled with these issues. Resist.ca, an anarchist collective that hosts websites and provides technical support to activists, came under fire recently for hosting the website of Darren Thurston’s support group. Thurston, you’ll remember, is one of the cooperating defendants in the Operation Backfire cases, where activists were rounded up and charged with serious property crimes committed in the name of defending the environment. [Here’s a previous post on Thurston, “Cooperator, Snitch or Something Else?”]

A couple groups have refused to work with Resist.ca any longer. Here’s a statement from one:

Wii’nimkiikaa removed its site from resist.ca as an act of solidarity with those ‘Green Scare’ defendants who have chosen not to collaborate nor snitch on others. ‘Wolves Not Sheep’, the archive of the Vancouver Native Youth Movement also removed its site from resist.ca at the same time for the same reasons.

But as someone commented in a discussion on the Infoshop website:

I’ve read one irresponsible call for activist sites to boycott Resist. This takes criticism and differences of opinion to a puritanical level, which I can’t support. Our radical tech infrastructure, as well as much of our alternative media, are in a precarious situation already. Organizing a campaign to disrupt a radical ISP over a difference of opinion is in my opinion just as bad as snitching.

What do you think? What are the bare-minimum requirements for supporting “Green Scare” prisoners?

Darren Thurston’s support committee has posted an open letter responding to what seems to be widespread condemnation by other activists that Thurston and others “snitched,” or cooperated with the government (as opposed to the non-cooperating defendants), in hopes of receiving reduced sentences in the Operation Backfire cases. Here’s an excerpt, or also take a look at the full letter for yourself.

As many of you reading know, Darren decided to co-operate with the FBI investigation into his case in May of 2006 after being incarcerated for almost six months. He based his decision on the information that besides his charges in Oregon he would face additional charges in California of handling an incendiary device (albeit by conspiracy) at the Lichtfield action, which would carry a *mandatory minimum* sentence of 30 years on top of the 5-10 he was already facing. He was further made aware of the fact that three people with whom he had done the Lichtfield action had already agreed to testify against him, and that he would face the further charges in California alone (the other three indicted separately in Lichtfield were Rebecca Rubin, Joe Dibbee and Justin Solondz – all currently missing and considered fugitives by the US Government).

To put it simply, Darren was facing 35 years to life in prison and was set up for his most contentious trial entirely alone with an array of people lined up to testify against him. He had no way of winning his case, and he knew it. What he also knew when he co-operated was that eight other people had already provided information before him and so he would be providing very little (if any) new information. In this context he agreed to meet with the FBI and the US prosecutor’s office. After a lifetime of eschewing the state and decrying movement “snitches”, he did not take this decision lightly. But it is true that in making his plea agreement Darren met with the FBI and prosecutors on several occasions for debriefing sessions during which he gave information about his action at Lichtfield, additional sites he reconnoitered with others and described the activities he and Chelsea engaged in during their years underground together (2002-2005). And it is also true that he named some of the people he worked with – all of whom were already known to the FBI and most of whom were in custody.

It’s a rather long letter, and you should read it for yourself, but it seems that two points resurface throughout:

*Even though Thurston “named names,” his supporters say he didn’t give the government anything they didn’t already know.

*People should ask themselves what they would do facing similar, seemingly overhwhelming circumstances, and “act out of love for the world and out of forgiveness for myself and others in every way that I can.”

What do you think?

A federal judge labeled property destruction in the name of the environment “terrorism” yesterday and sentenced the first of the Operation Backfire defendants to 13 years in prison. Activists around the country– and particularly the remaining nine defendants– had been watching the sentencing very carefully, because the judge’s tenor may foreshadow the remaining court dates.

Her decision may have much broader implications, though, in that it sends a clear message to prosecutors: if you bring politically-motivated prosecutions, toss around “terrorist” rhetoric in the press, and push for “terrorism enhancements” in the courtroom, there’s not much to stand in your way.

Stanislas Meyerhoff had been labeled a “snitch” by activists for offering to cooperate with the government just hours after his detention and interrogation, and before even consulting with his attorney. He has vigorously condemned his own actions, and those of his co-defendants, and he read a handwritten statement denouncing the Earth Liberation Front:

I was stupid; it was my mistaken understanding that the ELF’s ostensible aim was to initiate public discussion of issues highlighted by the dramatic occasion of crimes. The crimes were absolutely counter-productive to this goal. They cut off discussion. Meaningful discourse cannot be forced and fear cannot replace discussion. Transformation solutions will never be comprised of transgressions.

Meyerhoff’s political about-face might have helped during sentencing: his sentence is about 2 1/2 years less than the government offered in his plea deal. Without the deal, he faced 30 to life. And “had prosecutors pursued all possible charges, they earlier estimated he could have faced a minimum of 230 years,” according to The Register-Guard.

The government met Judge Aiken’s criteria for the “terrorism enhancement,” she says, because prosecutors argued that the crimes were all intended to influence government conduct (a key point in the “federal crime of terrorism” definition).

Here’s the reasoning:

• After the September 2000 arson attempt at a Eugene police substation, an anonymous communiqué dedicated the action to a group of anarchists that had been attacked by police. Police substation=government.
• After the March 2001 arson of 35 SUVs at Romania, a communiqué dedicated the action to Jeff Luers, and his prison sentence of 22 years, 8 months for an arson at the same spot. Prosecution=government.
• After a May 2001 arson at Jefferson Poplar Farm, a communiqué referenced new legislation. Legislation=government.

True, these actions are all in some way related to government conduct (just like nearly all legal and illegal activist conduct). But making such simplistic parallel constructions ignores the bigger picture: many crimes could meet such low standards, but these crimes are being singled out to push a political agenda.

“If, as defendants strenuously assert, the government is overreaching due to political considerations,” Aiken said in her opinion, “either the enhancement will not apply to defendants’ offenses or defendants will be eligible for a downward departure because their conduct is outside the ‘heartland’ of terrorism offenses.”

Property crimes like this are outside of that “heartland.” To most people, the “heartland” of terrorism crimes are attacks against government like the Oklahoma City bombing, not actions calculated to destroy property but not human beings. The PR campaigns and War on Terrorism rhetoric are meant to expand that heartland, though, and envelop more and more illegal activity as “terrorism.”

In this With Us Or Against Us War on Terrorism, it seems these activists were clearly in the “against us” camp, according to Aiken. They didn’t play by the books. Their hearts were in the right place, the prosecutorial cliché goes, but they choose the wrong path.

Aiken even took the opportunity to admonish Meyerhoff for hurting the environmental movement. From Jeff Banard of AP:

U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken commended Stanislas Meyerhoff for having the courage to “do the right thing” by informing on his fellow arsonists after his arrest, but declared that his efforts to save the earth by setting fires were misguided and cowardly, and contributed to an unfair characterization of others working legally to protect the environment as radicals.”

Environmentalists, rejoice! It’s all for your own good! Labeling activists as “terrorists” is certainly not about protecting corporate profits and scaring the mainstream environmental movement. Far from it. It’s about protecting your reputation!