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?

I’ve noticed that there’s a tendency, when people speak critically about the use of “terrorism” legislation and rhetoric to chill dissent, to act as if this is something that rose from the ashes of 9/11. As if the political opportunism we’re seeing now can only be explained as some kind of outgrowth of that tragedy. That’s true, in some ways, in that 9/11 has been exploited by politicians and corporations to push their political agenda. But that political opportunism was taking place long before 2001.

Today’s news about the arrests for a 1999 arson at the University of Michigan is a good example of that. The FBI and law enforcement held a press conference today trumpeting that “domestic terrorists” have been indicted. But that rhetoric, that PR tactic, was in use back in 2000, right after the arson.

CBS News ran a two-part series in early 2000 called “Green Terror.” The opening of the CBS piece called the MSU arson “sabotage,” then the tone shifts to labeling it “terrorism”:

A terrorist group claimed it set the fire specifically to stop the work of those who study genetically modified food.

“I lost basically my entire professional life,” says Ives. “I lost every paper I ever wrote that analyzed the benefits and risks of this technology.”

CBS went on to report:

Now, federal investigators say the violent, radical green movement has a new mission. “It seems to me as if anybody who’s engaged in genetic research is potentially a target” says Stephen Peifer. Peifer, a federal prosecutor in Oregon, is presenting evidence against the ELF to a federal grand jury. He believes that “Sooner or later there will be human injury, or perhaps loss of life if this continues.”

This was 8 years ago. And in that time, the Earth Liberation Front, even the most extreme and potentially dangerous acts of sabotage committed by that group, has not lived up to that expectation. Not one person has been harmed. I think that’s important to remember as we see the words “terrorism” and “violence” batted around in soundbites.

As an aside, this is the same Stephen Peifer who was the Assistant US Attorney in the “Operation Backfire case,” a string of ELF actions in the Northwest. During a “terrorism enhancement hearing” for those cases, you might remember, Peifer told the court, “This is not a political prosecution.” Really? It’s been 8 years. And in that time, terrorists have flown planes into buildings. Murdered innocent people. Sent anthrax in the mail. Created “dirty bomb” plots. Distributed video communiques vowing more attacks on innocent people. And still, the government has escalated sabotage in the name of the environment to the level of “number one domestic terrorism threat.”

Anyone else still believe this isn’t political?

I dug through some old zines and brochures I’ve collected over the years, and found this in a publication called “Frequently Asked Questions About the Earth Liberation Front.” (And then, of course, also found it on the web in a fraction of the time). It helps shed a bit more light on one of the crimes in question out in Michigan. They happened so long, I figure that even if you follow news like this you’ve probably forgotten about (clearly, the government has not, though). Also, please check out this earlier post, first, for the basics if you haven’t already.

Just six days later, on New Years Eve, 1999 the ELF for the first time turned to the subject of genetic engineering. At Michigan State University, Catherine Ives worked as a researcher, according to her, to help feed the starving people of the world through biotechnology. One of her programs funded in part by Monsanto and the U.S. Agency for International Development involved attempts to coerce farmers in less westernized countries to give up sustainable agricultural practices for reliance on the biotech industry, in particular Monsanto who among numerous other creations brought the terminator seed to life. These seeds which do not reproduce require farmers to purchase new seeds annually from Monsanto.

The idea that there just is not enough food in the world to feed the current population is an absolute myth being used by the biotech industry as one of their reasons to continue into the
area of gene manipulation. The public relations departments at Monsanto and in other firms within the biotech industry are being far from truthful by presenting this appearance of altruism
as though they are helping people in, as they refer to them, the “developing nations” to improve their lives. It is nothing but another form of largely U.S. based imperialism
attempting to control and destroy non-westernized cultures for the sake of monetary gain. Is it just a mere coincidence that Monsanto, the U.S. Agency for International Development and
Catherine Ives, are not teaching and promoting organic permaculture in less-westernized countries? And just another coincidence that instead they are manufacturing the desire for
genetically altered seeds which Monsanto conveniently sells?

In response to this program and Catherine Ives work, the ELF set fire to her offices at Michigan State University causing an estimated $400,000-$900,000 in damages. Ives herself admitted
the fire destroyed years of her work. A communiqué sent by the ELF stated, “The E.L.F. takes credit for a strike on the offices of Catherine Ives, Rm. 324 Agricultural Hall at Michigan State University on Dec. 31, 1999. The offices were doused with gasoline and set afire. This was done in response to the work being done to force developing nations in Asia, Latin America and Africa to switch from natural crop plants to genetically altered sweet potatoes, corn, bananas, and pineapples. Monsanto and USAID are major funders of the research and promotional work being done through Michigan State University. According to local newspapers, the fire cost $400,000 in damage. Cremate Monsanto, Long live the E.L.F. On to the next G.E. target!”

Just under a month later, on January 23, 2000, the ELF set fire to a new luxury home under construction in the Bloomington, Indiana area. This home, which was to be valued at between $750,000-$1.5 million upon completion, threatened the Lake Monroe watershed which supplies clean, fresh drinking water to the Bloomington area. Damage from the fire was assessed at over $200,000 and it marked the first time the ELF had targeted what the group chose to call urban
sprawl.

Following up on the post from just a few hours ago, The Associated Press is reporting that four people have been charged in a 1999 arson at Michigan State University. The four individuals named in the indictment have not even been arraigned on the charges yet, and the government has already held a press conference labeling them as “terrorists.”

According to the U.S. Attorney’s Office, it’s a 4-count felony indictment. The four are facing charges of conspiracy to commit arson, aggravated arson, and arson, all related to a December 31, 1999, fire at the Agriculture Hall on the MSU campus and the January 1, 2000 arson of logging equipment near Mesick, Michigan. The arson at the university campus was related to federally-funded genetic-engineering research, and the indictment says Mason and Ambrose were responsible. The MSU action is similar, in some ways, to the attacks on perceived genetic-engineering research at the University of Washington, of which Briana Waters was recently found guilty, and had been smeared as a “terrorist” as well.

The MSU arson targeted the research of Catherine Ives, regarding biotechnology. A previous arson, in 1992, at the Michigan State mink research facility caused more than $2.5 million in damage. Rod Coronado served about four years for that crime.

According to the government’s press release:

“The Indictment we are announcing today is a testament to the perseverance, dedication and hard work of law enforcement professionals at both the state and federal level.” said United States Attorney Gross. FBI Special Agent in Charge Arena added that “This investigation has been ongoing for almost a decade and it should be a reminder to all that the FBI does not allow the passage of time to thwart our ability to apply our full resources to a case. In particular, domestic terrorism is a top priority of the FBI and we will continue to aggressively investigate and pursue prosecution of all such matters. We would also like to thank the MSU Police Department for its cooperation throughout this investigation.” [emphasis added]

But it doesn’t stop there. Chief Dunlap then calls it a “significant act of domestic terrorism.” And, he says, “the University dedicated an unprecedented amount of resources and personnel to investigate this crime.”

And taking things even a step further, MSU President Simon takes a few pages directly from the Bush administration’s “War on Terrorism” playbook, and argues that these “terrorists” were attacking freedom itself. “This was more than an attack on a building and the destruction of valuable property,” he says. “It was an assault on the core value of free and open inquiry at a research university.”

All the language, all the rhetoric, all the PR machinery in this case is perfectly mirroring exactly what happened last week outside of Seattle (a case where we STILL do not know if the Earth Liberation Front was actually responsible, or if this was yet another insurance scam by people who know that environmentalists are easy scapegoats in this political climate). The overzealous and premature use of the word “terrorism” in that case undoubtedly had an impact on the trial of Briana Waters, who was found guilty in an “eco-terrorism” case, just miles away, just hours later.

And it’s exactly mirroring the PR strategy of the government in the Operation Backfire cases, when Alberto Gonzalez held a press conference trumpeting the arrest of “eco-terrorists” before the fingerprint ink had even dried. The government went on to push for “terrorism enhancement penalties” in those cases, and the fact that these individuals had been labeled “eco-terrorists” from day one was certainly part of the gameplan.

Are we seeing a pattern here? The T-word isn’t being used because it’s needed to obtain search warrants. It isn’t being used because it’s needed to land an indictment. It isn’t being used because it’s needed to make the charges stick. It’s being used because that word, terrorism, is the most powerful word in the English language today.

And if the government can slap it on people before they’ve even had a day in court, it stacks the deck overwhelmingly in their favor.