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.

They’ve been “terrorists” from day one. Since their arrest for a string of property crimes against corporations they believed were destroying the planet, a group of environmental activists from the Northwest have been relentlessly branded “eco-terrorists” and “domestic terrorists” in government press conferences, Congressional hearings and in the media. On Tuesday, though, in federal court in Eugene, Ore., the government will try to take the T-word one step further.

It’s not just semantics. If the government successfully argues for “terrorism enhancement” penalties, it could add up to 20 years on the sentences, and in some cases quadruple prison time. It could place defendants in cells next to more traditional “terrorists.” And it could allow harsh restrictions on contact with family and friends.

But Tuesday’s court date is about more than these 10 defendants who never harmed anyone but caused about $40 million worth of property damage. And it’s about more than whether the government can put a notch on its “War on Terrorism” bedpost, which hasn’t seen much action lately, to justify the massive investigation and expense of “Operation Backfire.”

It’s about the meaning of a word that, with every mention, can hit Americans harder and deeper than perhaps any other. The word has come to symbolize planes flying into buildings, family and friends murdered, and lives that will never be the same. The “terrorism enhancement” hearing will test how much political mileage the administration can get out of that pain.

“Terrorism is terrorism”

For over a decade, and especially since the Seattle WTO protests in 1999, activists have fiercely debated whether property destruction is “violence” or “direct action.” Ask activists how they feel about breaking windows, gluing locks and burning bulldozers, and some may tell you it only makes John Q. Public less receptive to the issues. Others may tell you that those actions stop the “real” violence: and besides, can you be violent towards an SUV?

Beyond that, even if you do believe that destroying an empty building is violence, there is an even bigger question: is it terrorism?

The FBI doesn’t see a grey area. A crime is either terrorism or it is not. You are “either with us or against us.”

“Terrorism is terrorism — no matter what the motive,” said FBI director Robert Mueller at a press conference announcing the indictments. “The FBI is committed to protecting Americans from all crime and all terrorism…”

The government hasn’t been committed to labeling all crimes “terrorism,” though. It didn’t seek “terrorism enhancement” in the Alabama church arson cases. It didn’t seek “terrorism enhancement” in the case of a firefighter who set 28 fires because she wanted overtime pay. And it hasn’t sought “terrorism enhancement” for the murder of abortion doctors.

According to Congressional Quarterly, the Department of Homeland Security does not even list right-wing terrorists on a list of national security threats. Those groups have been responsible for the Oklahoma City bombing, the Olympic Park bombing in Atlanta, violence against doctors and admittedly creating weapons of mass destruction. But animal rights and environmental activists still top the “domestic terrorist” list.

The government has singled out these property crimes for “terrorism enhancement” because of the politics of the crime. Motive matters. The defendants didn’t harm anyone, and they didn’t seek to benefit from the crimes, but they committed an even deadlier sin: targeting corporate profits.

“He closed the door”

The crimes didn’t cause any deaths, any injuries, or any substantial risk of death or injury, but make no mistake: these were very serious crimes nonetheless. They often involved arson, which immediately puts the actions on another level, separate from petty vandalism like graffiti or slashing the tires of SUVs. The defendants have accepted responsibility for their actions, and it’s clear they’re heading to prison.

But it’s critical to note in a debate about “terrorism enhancements” that the defendants went to great lengths to make sure they didn’t harm anyone. That’s a concern not shared by suicide bombers and anthrax mailers.

“A terrorist acts from hate and aims to create fear,” says Kevin Tubbs’ attorney in his sentencing memo. “A terrorist’s goal is to cause death, because is the ultimate tool. Death is the ultimate source of fear.”

The government admits as much. In a 148-page document, prosecutors spell out how some of the defendants set fire to the Vail ski resort and caused $24.5 million in damage. During that action, William “Bill” Rodgers had “opened a door and observed two hunters sleeping. He closed the door and did not set that building on fire.”

Daniel McGowan’s attorneys say in “terrorism enhancement” memo that the many precautions taken to “honor human life” separate these activists from what most reasonable people consider “terrorists.”

It is “perhaps the most compelling reason why none of them should be branded a terrorist, why none of them should bear conditions of confinement that are not only degrading and punitive, but that are affirmatively damaging to their mental health, and why none of them should be permanently catalogued in our nation’s history books alongside the names of Mohammed Atta, Theodore Kaczynski, Timothy McVeigh, or Eric Rudolph.”

These cases don’t fit most people’s ideas of “terrorism.” They don’t neatly fit the legal definition, either. To qualify for the “terrorism enhancement,” the government must show that an action “involved or was intended to promote a federal crime of terrorism.” A “federal crime of terrorism” has a specific definition. It has to be one of a laundry list of specific offenses, including presidential assassination, use of weapons of mass destruction, and arson of property used in interstate commerce. It also has to be “calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct.”

That last part is the kicker. The actions targeted corporations and aimed to stop environmental destruction, not influence the government.

Anti-corporate rhetoric permeates the communiqués written about the crimes, like the one for arson at Superior Lumber that labels the company a “typical earth raper contributing to the ecological destruction of the Northwest” and calls for tactics against “capitalism and industry.” Another, for arson at Jefferson Poplar tree farm, shows that these crimes weren’t meant to influence government, because the defendants had lost all faith that government could be influenced. Instead, they targeted the bottom line.

The court will decide technical matters like this at the hearing on Tuesday. But the push for “terrorism enhancement” penalties should ultimately pose more questions than it answers.

Since 9/11, the T-word has been stretched and pulled and hemmed and cuffed and torn and mended to fit a growing body of political whims. This hearing is ultimately about how far the government can push its political tailoring. It’s also about the point at which we’ve outgrown the rhetoric, and we decide to stop wearing the past.

Will Potter is an award-winning reporter who focuses on how lawmakers and corporations have labeled animal rights and environmental activists as “eco-terrorists.” Will has written for publications including The Chicago Tribune, The Dallas Morning News and Legal Affairs, and has testified before the U.S. Congress about his reporting. He is the creator of GreenIsTheNewRed.com, where he blogs about the Green Scare and history repeating itself.

Just received this, about the “terrorism enhancement” hearing for the Operation Backfire cases. Activists are also holding a rally at the same time, outside the courthouse…

MEDIA ADVISORY

For Immediate Release: May 10, 2007

Contacts:
Lauren Regan, Civil Liberties Defense Center, Eugene, OR, 541-687-9180
Alejandro Queral, NW Constitutional Rights Center, Portland, OR, 503-295-6400, 202-491-6204

Defendants Decry Gov’t Attempt to Label Crimes “Terrorism”
Civil liberties groups: provision does not apply to nonviolent actions

Eugene, OR — On May 15 defense attorneys representing environmental activists accused of arson and property destruction will argue to U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken that the “terrorism enhancement” provision of the federal sentencing guidelines – which would add an extra 20 years of prison time to each defendant’s sentence – should not be applied to their clients.

A press conference will be held outside the courthouse at noon. Speakers will include defense attorneys for Daniel McGowan, along with representatives from the Civil Liberties Defense Center and the Northwest Constitutional Rights Center. The two organizations have opposed the prosecutors’ attempt to label the actions by the defendants as acts of “terrorism,” because their acts did not cause, nor were intended to cause, any harm to human or animal life. “When everyone is a terrorist, no one is.”

WHAT: Federal Terrorism Enhancement Hearings for all Oregon Green Scare defendants
WHEN: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 – 10 am
WHERE: New Eugene Federal Building (405 East 8th Ave.), Judge Aiken’s courtroom (spillover seating will be available)

Copies of a press packet with current related articles, background information, historical examples of sabotage in the U.S., and a history of F.B.I. repression of political activism will be available at the event.