Will Potter's Blog, page 24

What Students and Professors Are Saying About Green Is the New Red…

I’ve received some wonderful feedback from college professors who have taught Green Is the New Red as part of their syllabus. As an author, I think one of the best compliments you can receive is that college students actually wanted to read your book and were excited about it in class. Here are a few highlights of what folks are saying after they’ve used the book and invited me to speak to their students.

[Sorry for the self-promo, but  I think it's really important to engage young people on these issues. If you're interested, you can order a desk copy or an exam copy from Consortium.]

I assigned Will Potter’s book, Green Is The New Red, to my class, “The Politics of Terrorism and Political Violence,” last Spring at Georgetown University.  Despite many of the students’ unfamiliarity with the larger eco-justice and animal rights movements, the words of the text reached them, and many wrote a great deal about the book in their weekly journals and term papers.  The book served as the background for a series of discussions concerning the criminalization of dissent, the State’s domestic war on terrorism and how social movements are labeled within a security discourse.  During the course’s ‘wrap up’ session, when the students are tasked with evaluating the class, there was nothing but praise for Potter’s book as well as his in-class speaking.  I believe one student said it best when she said, that the book reads as it it was written by someone with heart, a careful storyteller who is able to balance journalistic integrity with compassionate humanism.  Having met the author and seen him speak, this describes Will Potter to a tee.

Prof. Michael Loadenthal

Georgetown University

 

As a college professor, I seek to assign texts that will both inform and captivate my students. Will Potter’s Green is the New Red achieves both these goals and then some. I have adopted Green is the New Red as a required book for my upper-level sociology seminar “Environmental Social Movements,” which I will teach in spring 2013. I chose Potter’s book because it provides a riveting depiction and analysis of the opposition that environmental social movements face from government, corporations, as well as the culture in which they work. Potter’s meticulously cited—and often shocking—facts, combined with his fluid and engaging writing style, should appeal to college students at all levels, and it should be of use for sociology, political science, history, and other social science disciplines teaching about social movements and environmentalism.

Prof. Elizabeth Cherry

Manhattanville College

 

Green is the New Red was an integral text in my Environmental Justice course. Students found the book personally moving, informative on current political repression, and a necessary history of earth liberation in the U.S. The book was used in the course to bridge an intersectional discussion about environmental injustices with an advocacy for a critical and holistic environmental justice movement. My students pointed out that the book provided salient illustrations of the theoretical concepts we had been discussing all semester.

Prof. Jenny Grubbs

American University 

You can order a desk copy or an exam copy from Consortium.

Hey Portland, Eugene, and Denver — Upcoming Events

I’m heading out west for a few speaking events that I’m really looking forward to.

At two of the events I’ll be presenting with Jake Conroy, a long-time animal rights activist who was sentenced to 4 years in prison for his involvement in one of the most successful animal rights campaigns in history: Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC USA). Jake will discuss being the target of a multi-agency terrorism investigation, learning he was on a high-profile prisoners list, and navigating living a life branded as a terrorist in post-9/11 society. I’ll discuss how corporations manufactured the idea of “eco-terrorism,” and why all social justice activists are at risk.

Wed. October 17, 2012

University of Oregon

“From Activist to Terrorist: Will Potter and Jake Conroy”

McKenzie 221

7pm

RSVP to the Eugene, OR event on Facebook

Thurs., October 18, 2012

Portland State University

“From Activist to Terrorist: Will Potter and Jake Conroy”

SMSU Rm 228 1825 SW Broadway

RSVP to the Portland, OR event on Facebook

Sat., October 20, 2012

Lewis & Clark, Animal Law Conference

“Ag-gag Laws: Suppressing Speech and Activism”

9:30 -11 am

I’ll be discussing the corporate-led attempts to criminalize undercover investigators who expose animal welfare abuses.

Tues., October 23, 2012

University of Denver Sturm College of Law

I’ll be discussing how anti-terrorism and surveillance laws passed since 9/11 are applied to non-violent activist groups, especially in the environmental and animal rights movements.

Noon to 1pm

 

If you’re in town I hope you can make them, or help spread the word!

3 People Now in Jail for Refusing to Talk About Other Anarchists

Leah Plante appeared before a federal grand jury for the third time yesterday, and for the third time she refused to talk about her politics and other anarchists. She was taken into custody on civil contempt, and is now imprisoned at SEA-TAC in Seattle, Washington.

Plante joins two other anarchists, Matt Duran and Katherine “KteeO” Olejnik, who have chosen to make the same principled stand.

The three were subpoenaed to this grand jury following FBI and Joint Terrorism Task Force raids in multiple cities in the Northwest. The search warrants identified “anti-government or anarchist literature.” At the time, because of statements from police and because the warrants listed that the items were connected to “conspiracy to destroy government property” and “interstate travel with intent to riot,” it appeared that the raids and grand jury were connected to broken windows and other vandalism at a Seattle May Day protest.

Grand jury proceedings are secret, but Lauren Regan, an attorney with the Civil Liberties Defense Center, learned that the grand jury was empaneled March 2, 2012 — before the May Day protests even took place. It’s possible that prosecutors spent months anticipating and investigating May Day protests, but a more likely explanation is that this grand jury is not about broken windows.

It’s a fishing expedition targeting those who identify as anarchists or associate with anarchists. Grand juries have historically been used against radical social movements as a tool to intimidate and to gather information. When activists enter a grand jury proceeding, they check their rights at the door. They are asked about what they believe, what their friends believe, who they associate with, what kinds of activism they support. If they choose to assert their First Amendment and Fifth Amendment rights by refusing to speak about their political beliefs and political associations, they can be imprisoned.

Jordan Halliday, an animal rights activist, was charged with both civil and criminal contempt for his non-cooperartion. Not long ago, Carrie Feldman was imprisoned for her refusal as well. The same tactics were recently used against antiwar and international solidarity activists in the midwest.

Here are 3 reasons you should support these grand jury resisters:

This is from a FBI training guide about anarchist "terrorists." "Non-cooperative" is one of the only things they got right.

1) They have not committed any crime. Plante, Duran, and Olejnik were not subpoenaed to the grand jury because they are being tied to a crime, they were subpoenaed with the hopes that they could be intimidated into providing information on others. I’ve seen some people say things like, ”if they didn’t have information about a crime, they wouldn’t have been subpoenaed.” That’s simply untrue. In the past, activists have been subpoenaed to grand juries because they are friends with a “target,” or have dated someone under investigation, or just had their name appear in an address book or email list.

2) This is part of the on-going demonization of anarchists, and dissent. From the FBI entrapment plot targeting Occupy Cleveland to FBI training materials describing anarchists as “criminal seeking an ideology,” this is a crackdown not on specific criminal activity but on an entire belief system.

3) Today’s response will shape what happens tomorrow. I mean this in two ways. First, the resistance of these grand jurors, and the support of their communities, may affect how long they are imprisoned and whether others are subpoenaed. Grand jury resisters are technically only allowed to be imprisoned if the jail time will be an incentive for them to cooperate. If it’s clear that they will not cooperate, under any circumstances, it puts their attorneys in a much better position to fight for their release. And it also sends a clear message to prosecutors that further attempts to intimidate activists will also fail.

Second, and more importantly,  our response to what is happening today will have a direct impact on how these tactics are used tomorrow, against other social movements. For years I have been reporting about the backlash against animal rights and environmental activists as “terrorists.” We are seeing the exact same rhetoric, and same tactics, being used against anarchists. They won’t be the last. Whether it is animal rights activists, environmentalists, anarchists, Occupy Wall Street, or whatever new movement is rising in the distance,  if these grand jury witch hunts are not resisted they will be used against others.

What can you do?

Donate to their legal defense.

Write them a letter. Here are their addresses:

Matthew Kyle Duran #42565-086

FDC SeaTac,

P.O. Box 13900

Seattle, WA 98198

Katherine Olejnik #42592-086

FDC SeaTac,

P.O. Box 13900

Seattle, WA 98198

Leah-Lynne Plante

#42611-086

FDC SeaTac

PO Box 13900

Seattle, WA 98198

Talk to each other. The fact that yesterday’s article was shared more than 12,000 times on Facebook alone, and has received more than 100,000 views in less than 24 hours, indicates to me that a wide range of people had no idea this was going on. And when they learned about it, they were shocked and outraged and shared it with other like-minded people. I see inspiration in that, and I see huge opportunities for outreach and community building.

Leah Plante said in her statement yesterday, “They want us to feel isolated, alone and scared.” Confronting those feelings openly, honestly, and with one another is the best way to strip the power away from tactics based on fear.

“Today is October 10th, 2012 and I am ready to go to prison.”

Today Leah Plante will again appear before a federal grand jury in Seattle, Washington, for the third time, and refuse to testify about her political beliefs and political associations. It is likely that she will be imprisoned for her principled stance against what she calls a witch hunt against local anarchists.

The grand jury is investigating anarchists in the Northwest, following FBI and Joint Terrorism Task Force raids in search of “anarchist literature.” Two other anarchists, Matthew Kyle Duran and Katherine Olejnik, have already been imprisoned for refusing to cooperate.

Plante wrote a powerful statement to her friends and supporters in preparation for today’s hearing. Here is an excerpt:

On the morning of July 25th, 2012, my life was turned upside down in a matter of hours. FBI agents from around Washington and Oregon and Joint Terrorism Task Force agents from Washington busted down the front door of my house with a battering ram, handcuffed my house mates and me at gunpoint, and held us hostage in our backyard while they read us a search warrant and ransacked our home. They said it was in connection to May Day vandalism that occurred in Seattle, Washington earlier this year.

“They want us to feel isolated, alone and scared.”

However, we suspected that this was not really about broken windows. As if they had taken pointers from Orwell’s 1984, they took books, artwork and other various literature as “evidence” as well as many other personal belongings even though they seemed to know that nobody there was even in Seattle on May Day. While we know that knowledge is powerful, we suspected that nobody used rolled up copies of the Stumptown Wobbly to commit property damage. We saw this for what it was. They are trying to investigate anarchists and persecute them for their beliefs. This is a fishing expedition. This is a witch hunt. Since then, thanks to a Freedom of Information Act request, we have learned that this Grand jury was convened on March 2nd, 2012, two months before the May Day vandalism even took place…

This is from a FBI training guide about anarchist "terrorists." "Non-cooperative" is one of the only things they got right.

I do not look forward to what inevitably awaits me today, but I accept it. I ask that people continue to support us throughout this process by writing us letters, sending us books, donating and spreading awareness.I cannot express in words how grateful I am to all those who have shown us support and solidarity, especially our friends, partners and loved ones. We will all get through this together. I know I am a broken record with the following sentiment, but I feel like it’s worth repeating. They want us to feel isolated, alone and scared. I know that even though Kteeo has been held in what is essentially solitary confinement, she does not feel alone. I know that Matt does not feel alone. I know that I will not feel alone. When they try to mercilessly gut communities, we do not scatter, we grow stronger, we thrive. I view this State repression like this: The State thinks it is a black hole that can destroy whatever it wants. In reality, it is much more like a stellar nursery, wherein it unintentionally creates new, strong anarchist stars.

My convictions are unwavering and will not be shaken by their harassment. Today is October 10th, 2012 and I am ready to go to prison.

Statement From A Resister – Leah-Lynn Plante from Because We Must on Vimeo.

Congressional Report on Domestic Terrorism Addresses the “Green Scare,” Cites Green Is the New Red

Photo by dcJohn, Flickr

A recent Congressional report on domestic terrorism examines the government’s crackdown on animal rights and environmental activists, and asks members of Congress to question why the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act singles out political activists as terrorists when they have not harmed anyone.

The report, “The Domestic Terrorist Threat: Background and Issues for Congress” (739K, pdf) was prepared by the Congressional Research Service, which is the government agency tasked with creating policy and legal analysis for the U.S. Congress.

CRS reports are bipartisan, but they often provide “policy considerations” that members of Congress are urged to critically investigate (more on those in a moment). In making the case for those policy considerations, the report draws from Green Is the New Red. For instance, in a section titled, “A Serious Domestic Concern or ‘Green Scare?’” the report cites the book and says:

…one observer emphasizes that while activities linked to U.S.-based animal rights extremists have caused significant property damage, none of these criminal acts has physically harmed people. This critic suggests that describing vandalism or arson as terrorism and not ordinary crime dampens constitutionally protected protest activity by people who support animal rights or radical environmentalism but do not engage in criminal activity. In essence, this position argues that the U.S. government is encouraging a “green scare”  by labeling the activity of movements such as the ALF and ELF as terrorism or extremism. (emphasis added)

The report also cites my reporting on the SHAC 7 case and the AETA 4 case, along with my article in the Vermont Law Review and a front-page story in The Washington Post. 

Right Wing Violence Vs. Eco Activism

The report details the history of violence by right-wing groups and anti-abortion extremists, and notes the contrast to animal rights and environmental groups. For example, there have been 8 anti-abortion murders since 1993, there were 133 racist skinhead groups active in the United States last year, and militia groups have seen a “resurgence.” A group in Georgia was arrested in 2011 for plotting murders, the use of toxic agents, and assassinations. Another group, the Alaska Peacemaker’s Militia, had a plot they codenamed “241″ because they wanted to kill 2 government officials for every 1 militia member killed in their operations.

The “delineation of domestic terrorism in the U.S. Code includes criminal acts ‘dangerous to human life’ that appear to intend to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or influence governmental policy via intimidation or coercion,” the report says.

“This line of reasoning suggests that the crimes committed by animal rights extremists and eco-terrorists cannot be compared to clearly violent attacks…”

Congress Should Address “Inconsistencies” in Terminology

The report notes several points that Congress should consider, including the inconsistent use of “terrorism” rhetoric by law enforcement. When it comes to animal rights, environmental, and anarchist groups, the words “terrorism” and “extremism” are used interchangeably, and the “threat” is never defined. This “may lead to inconsistencies in the development and application of the law in the domestic terrorism arena.”

The report says the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act is an example of the danger this poses:

“…policymakers may ponder why a specific terrorism statute covers ideologically motivated attacks against businesses that involve animals, while there are no other domestic terrorism statutes as narrow in their purview covering a particular type of target and crime.”

Checks and Balances Needed

Perhaps the most important recommendation put forward in this report is that Congress should demand to know:

“How does a particular brand of dissent become…a ‘domestic terrorism’ threat?”

How does a particular brand of dissent become ripe for description by DOJ and the FBI as driving a “domestic terrorism threat”?

What criteria are involved in such a process?

How many crimes or plots attributed to a specific ideology have to occur to stimulate the identification of a new extremist threat?

Is the severity of the crimes linked to an ideology taken into consideration?

At what point do ideologically driven domestic terrorism threats cease to exist?

Should there be a means for public petitioning of the government to eliminate various threats as investigative priorities?

The only way to answer these important questions is for the FBI to consistently provide accurate information on the specific activity that is being investigated as terrorism. Government oversight and reform is impossible without this accountability from law enforcement.

Steps in the Right Direction

The Congressional report is well-researched and fair, but it does include a troubling policy recommendation to create a formalized list of “domestic terrorist threats” parallel to the list of international terrorist groups maintained by the State Department. Such a list would erase ambiguity regarding which groups are officially terrorists, but it would also allow for the criminalization of so-called “material support” of those groups. This would open the floodgates for investigating and prosecuting political activists.

For example, the Animal Liberation Front, Earth Liberation Front, Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty and possibly Earth First would be on this list. And I have no doubt whatsoever that “material support” statutes would be used to criminalize above-ground activists who publicly support them through magazines, videos, and websites. The author of the report acknowledges the potential civil liberties abuses inherent in such a proposal, yet encourages lawmakers to consider the idea.

Nevertheless, the questions posed in this report are promising developments. It’s rewarding to see my book and website referenced in this document, but it’s not without irony: as one government agency is citing my work in official reports to Congress, other government agencies are surveilling and monitoring it, and the FBI has refused to comply with a FOIA request for files on the book because they are the subject of a “pending or prospective law enforcement proceeding.”

Clearly, we have a long way to go.

7 Examples of a “Police State,” and How They Are Appearing in the U.S.

Video available from KATU.com

“Has the United States become a police state?”

That’s the stark question I was asked at the beginning of a recent radio interview.

Framing the current political climate in these terms is quite blunt, and can be jarring to some people because it automatically conjures images of, for example, Nazi Germany. That’s clearly different than what is occurring right now in the United States. So  how do we conceptualize the current state of government repression, and how do we put it in a historical context?

Is this a police state? If not, what is it?

The image that most people hold of a “police state” is a representation of extreme power dynamics, and repressive tactics to maintain them, at specific points of history. The current political climate in the United States is unique in many ways, and distinct from those eras. However, it shares core attributes that we generally associate with a “police state”:

1. Raids, harassment, and intimidation of dissidents by police

When FBI and Joint Terrorism Task Force agents raided multiple activist homes in the Northwest recently, they were in search of “anti-government or anarchist literature.”

2. Militarization of domestic law enforcement

As Arthur Rizer wrote for The Atlantic:

In an effort to remedy their relative inadequacy in dealing with terrorism on U.S. soil, police forces throughout the country have purchased military equipment, adopted military training, and sought to inculcate a “soldier’s mentality” among their ranks.

3. Disproportionate prison sentences for political activists

The reason Marie Mason, who destroyed property, received a prison sentence twice as long as racists, who harmed human beings, is because of her politics.

Likewise Tim DeChristopher was sentenced to two years in prison for non-violent disrupting an illegal oil and gas lease auction because he cost corporations thousands of dollars.

4. Creation of new laws for people because of their political beliefs

The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act was created solely to prosecute activists who threaten the “loss of profits” for corporations.

And now 10 states have considered “Ag Gag” bills that go so far as to criminalize non-violent undercover investigations. The new bills have passed in two states, Utah and Iowa.

5. Creation of special prison units

In addition to Guantanamo Bay, which Obama has refused to close, there are now two experimental prison units on U.S. soil for “domestic terrorists.” These Communications Management Units are for political prisoners that the U.S. Bureau of Prisons describes as having “inspirational significance.”

6. Pervasive use of surveillance

Spy drones are being used by domestic law enforcement for surveillance, artificial intelligence, and monitoring social movements (here’s a great overview from Salon).

Recently, Tampa police wanted to use them against RNC protesters.

This is in addition to widespread surveillance measures such as TrapWire.

7. Criminalization of ideology

In my opinion this is the hallmark of any police state: the targets of the state have little to do with criminal activity, and everything to do with their perceived subversive ideology.

For example, consider these FBI “domestic terrorism” training documents which say that anarchists are “criminals seeking an ideology to justify their activities.”

There is no “tipping point”

A final, more nebulous characteristic of a police state is the extent to which all of the tactics above take place. It’s a question of degree and intensity, and some would argue that, even though these tactics are occurring with increasing frequency, they are not at the level that would merit this kind of “police state” language. I think that’s completely reasonable.

But no matter how you feel about the characterization of what is occurring right now, the most important point is this: if we’re not a police state already, we are marching closer and closer every day.

In the following interview, I try to dispel some of the myths about police states and how they are created, including the flawed idea of a “tipping point” leading up to extreme states of repression.

Listen to the full interview here (starting at 55:43) or download it from iTunes (it’s the 8/23/12 show)

 

7 Ways Canadian Environmental Groups Are Being Attacked as “Terrorists”

Environmentalists have drawn international attention to Canada’s tar sands, vast deposits of a particularly gooey, toxic form of petroleum called bitumen that Canada hopes to ship thousands of miles. Civil disobedience campaigns against the Keystone XL pipeline were so effective that President Obama placed construction of its northern leg on hold (and activists in Texas and Oklahoma have been relentlessly blockading construction for the southern leg).

With the Keystone XL in jeopardy, Canada’s prime minister Stephen Harper has tried to shift gears with another plan called the Enbridge Northern Gateway, which would cut through the lands of indigenous groups and three major watersheds. Not surprisingly, this has been fiercely opposed by groups like ForestEthics, the Sierra Club, First Nations groups, and the general public (as background see Rolling Stone‘s “Keystone Moves North, Where Big Oil Is Losing”). Just this week, another investigation by ForestEthics documented how toxins from tar sands refineries are polluting communities.

There are billions of dollars at stake. And that means Big Oil and Harper have a crisis.

Their response has been to hit back hard against environmental groups as “terrorists.”

The scare tactics have worked. A recent poll showed that one in two Canadian voters are afraid of attacks by “eco-terrorists,” and would support spying on environmental groups.

Here are 8 tactics they have used to manufacture this fear:

Photo from Rainforest Action Network Flickr

1. Media campaigns smear environmentalists as extremists

Enbridge, the company that wants to build the Northern Gateway pipeline, has been mounting a public relations campaign, and says activists are threats to national security because they are targeting infrastructure. CEO Patrick Daniel said: “I think we’re facing a very strong, almost revolutionary movement to try to get off oil worldwide… they’re coming after what they consider to be the weak link in the whole process, and that’s the infrastructure part of it.”

In a calculated PR move the day before federal regulatory hearings began on whether to approve the Northern Gateway, Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver said environmentalists are “radical groups” who “threaten to hijack our regulatory system to achieve their radical ideological agenda.” Read his full letter here, in which he warns of the activists’ use of regulatory hearings and “jet-setting celebrities.”

It’s no accident that corporate PR and government PR are nearly identical. Internal documents obtained by Greenpeace Canada revealed a coordinated, joint effort to shift attitudes in the press and among elite decision-makers internationally. Environmental and indigenous groups are listed in the documents as “adversaries”; energy corporations and associations are listed as “allies.”

2. Canada’s first counter-terrorism program targets environmentalists

In the midst of those federal regulatory hearings, the Harper administration unveiled what it called “Canada’s first counter-terrorism strategy.”

“Although not of the same scope and scale faced by other countries,” the report said, “low-level violence by domestic issue-based groups remains a reality in Canada. Such extremism tends to be based on grievances—real or perceived—revolving around the promotion of various causes such as animal rights, white supremacy, environmentalism and anti-capitalism.”

The document discussed environmentalists, who have never harmed anyone, alongside the Oklahoma City bombing and the 2011 Norway massacre as examples of “domestic issue-based extremism.”

3. Harper threatens the tax status of environmental charities

Harper and Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver cracked down on charitable environmental groups that oppose the pipelines and investigated the Tides Foundation. Harper and Oliver said the charities were receiving donations from U.S. supporters, and that this, along with the groups’ political advocacy, overstepped the bounds of a charitable organization. The recent federal budget included $8 million for the Canada Revenue Agency to audit charitable groups. Because of this, ForestEthics decided to split into two organizations so that it could continue its work.

Valerie Langer of ForestEthics Solutions said the move “shows our resolve in this very hostile climate to continue the work that we feel Canadians actually want.”

In response to the threats against charitable groups, hundreds of Canadian websites went dark.

4. New counter-terrorism unit formed to protect the oil sands

The federal government set up a RCMP-led counter-terrorism unit in Alberta to protect the oil industry from alleged attacks by activists. The new unit doubles the number of counter-terrorism cops in the area, and the 32-member team works with foreign partners to gather intelligence on potential threats to the oil and natural gas pipelines and refineries.

Assistant Commissioner Gilles Michaud denied that the unit would be used to monitor protest activity. “That being said, in our role of preventing these threats from occurring, it is important that intelligence is collected against the activities of groups before they become violent,” he said.

John Bennett of the Sierra Club Canada responded: “It’s part of their overall propaganda campaign to try to convince Canadians that environmentalists are somehow a threat—which means that most Canadians would be a threat. This is more of a political announcement than it is a police announcement.”

5. Canada sends diplomats to scare Fortune 500 corporations

Fearing the growing success of anti-tar sands campaigning, the Harper government sent Canadian diplomats to lobby Fortune 500 companies in the United States, in hopes of persuading them to ignore the concerns of environmental groups.

“The (diplomatic) posts have offered briefings to targeted companies to counter misinformation, and in certain cases, to provide background to likely targets which have yet to be approached by ForestEthics,” said an internal memo to Natural Resources Canada Deputy Minister Serge Dupont from Mark Corey, an assistant deputy minister. “The campaign has not produced many true converts, but the possibility looms out there, particularly if further pressure is applied.”

 6. Government trainings identify environmentalists as “terrorists”

Canada’s financial intelligence unit, FINTRAC, has a “terrorism-financing” tutorial for investment advisors. Three of the questions reference al-Qaeda. One says ” “Under which terrorist group do animal rights activists and environmental extremists fall?””

Tactics like this are critical to mainstreaming and institutionalizing the “eco-terrorism” rhetoric. In the United States it has been so effective, for example, that the USDA lists PETA as a terrorist threat.

7. “Terrorism” reports that blur the line between legal and illegal conduct

A 2009 report by the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute warns of five “threat groups” including “ecoterrorists” and “mainstream environmentalists” such as the Sierra Club and the Pembina Institute.

Notably the report, which warns of blockades and nonviolent activism, was sponsored by the Nexen corporation, one of the biggest Tar Sands oil producers.

And in a series of counter-terrorism documents from 2005 to 2009, the RCMP identified “threats from terrorism and extremism” including Greenpeace and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Examples include Greenpeace trespassing on Royal Dutch Shell property to protest tar sands development, and PETA protesting the Canadian seal hunt by threatening to boycott Canadian maple syrup.

The purpose of these reports, both by corporations and by law enforcement, are to conflate legal, aboveground tactics with illegal, underground ones, and to legitimize the attacks upon all of them.

The “Green Scare” Goes to Canada

My reporting for this website and in my book has focused on how environmentalists and animal rights activists became the “number one domestic terrorism threat” in the United States. What is taking place in Canada parallels the U.S. campaigns, step by step, but at an accelerated pace.

In the U.S., the rhetoric of “eco-terrorism” was first used against saboteurs with the Animal Liberation Front, Earth First, and later the Earth Liberation Front. The message from corporations and politicians was always that these anti-terrorism efforts were concentrated on so-called “extremists,” and that more moderate groups had nothing to worry about. This was a lie, as these tactics spread to the mainstream.

However, in Canada these tactics seem to be aimed squarely at charitable organizations from the start. There have been acts of sabotage against the pipelines, such as the bombings in 2008 and 2009 of gas wells and pipelines in northeastern B.C. But even by the government’s admission those crimes have been rare, harmed no one, and pose no current threat. Instead the focus is on major environmental groups.

Why did this happen?

Part of the explanation is that U.S. law enforcement has directly briefed Canadian law enforcement about “eco-terrorism.” In Green Is the New Red I discuss how the FBI’s John Lewis traveled north for this purpose. And on this website I’ve written at length about similar international coordination between the U.S. and Austria, for example, and with EUROPOL.

These priorities have also been institutionalized through the sharing of counter-terrorism reports and intelligence documents. For example, this ATF publication, “Northern Border Extremists: Overview of American / Canadian Extremists” discusses terrorism threats along the border. Alongside lengthy sections on the KKK, Aryan Nations, right-wing militias, and anti-abortion groups, and their history of bloodshed, are briefings on animal rights and environmental activists. ”The animal and environmental extremists believe companies are responsible for the destruction of animal habitats and natural resources,” the report says.

While I think that such direct coordination of government agencies certainly greased the wheels for these tactics to migrate, it is the  corporate coordination that truly set the stage for this backlash.

“That’s what definitely put us on the radar.”

To put it another way, this Canadian backlash is occurring against mainstream environmental groups not because U.S. officials have prompted it, but because activists have been incredibly effective in threatening corporate profits.

As one example, environmentalists strategically chose a divestment-style campaign, pressuring corporations to stop using oil from Canada’s tar sands. More than a dozen agreed, including Avon, Trader Joe’s, and Bed Bath & Beyond.

ForestEthics led the campaign against Chiquita, encouraging activists to swarm Chiquita’s Facebook page, sign petitions, attend protests, and hound the company until it severed ties with tar sands oil. It worked.

Harper and his corporate allies panicked, and some even called for Chiquita boycotts.

When I talked to Matt Brown of ForestEthics about the backlash in Canada, he said the Chiquita campaign is what stood out most.

“They’re one of the biggest companies that stepped away from tar sands oil,” he said. “That’s what definitely put us on the radar.”

Rolling Stone Article on the FBI’s Entrapment of Occupy Cleveland Activists

The latest issue of Rolling Stone has an article by Sabrina Rubin Erdely about the FBI’s entrapment of five activists associated with Occupy Cleveland for a plot to blow up a bridge. As I’ve written previously, the case was carefully coordinated by the FBI; undercover FBI agents helped shape the “plot,” offered advice on how and where to use explosives, and sold explosives to the activists.

As Erdely writes:

“… the defendants started out as disoriented young men wrestling with alienation, identity issues and your typical buckets of adolescent angst. They were malleable, ripe for some outside influence to coax them onto a new path. That catalyst could have come in the form of a friend, a family member or a cause. Instead, the government sent an informant.”

I spoke with Erdely about how this case fits into the broader crackdown on radical social movements such as Occupy, and the FBI’s use of informants to entrap activists, such as the similar case of Eric McDavid:

“These tactics are beyond the pale for what could be seen as a legitimate anti-terrorism operation,” say Green Is the New Red author Will Potter, who tracks government crackdowns on activists. “But this is how the Bureau is spending their counterterrorism money, and thousands of man-hours: creating the terrorism plots that they are ostensibly preventing.”

In the time since the article went to press, the remaining defendants have plead guilty. That follow the announcement that Anthony Hayne agreed to cooperate against them in exchange for a reduced sentence.

Douglas Wright, 26, Brandon Baxter, 20, and Connor Stevens, 20, all pleaded guilty to conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction, attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction and attempted use of an explosive device to destroy property used in interstate commerce, authorities said in a statement.

Prosecutors have not ruled out seeking a terrorism enhancement penalty, which could increase their prison sentences and change how they are treated in prison.

Erdely’s article captures how these young men made some very misguided decisions, but she documents quite clearly how these decisions were guided, every step of the way, by the FBI.

Thanks to Sabrina Rubin Erdely and Rolling Stone for covering this disturbing case. You can read the full article here [5MB pdf]. Apologies for the quality, my scanner is dying; I’ll post the link when it’s up on Rolling Stone.

7 Groups the FBI and Corporations Have Classified as “Terrorists”

Today you’ll hear the annual chorus of “we will never forget.” But we have forgotten. We have forgotten the uproar against the Patriot Act, which was passed in the middle of the night. We have forgotten that Guantanamo Bay was once treated as an aberration, which Obama promised to close. And we have forgotten what freedoms have been sacrificed in the name of an ever-growing threat.

As an illustration of that, consider these 7 examples of the types of people the government and corporations now routinely label as “terrorists.”

1. Undercover investigators. Corporations have lobbied for “Ag Gag” bills to criminalize undercover investigations of animal abuse. And U.S. Congressmen compare investigators to arsonists and terrorists.

2. Tim DeChristopher. As an undergraduate student, DeChristopher disrupted an illegal oil and gas lease auction by placing bids (when he knew he didn’t have the money). For his act of non-violent civil disobedience, he was sentenced to 2 years in prison. Politicians called him an “eco-terrorist.”

3. Muslim communities were disproportionately targeted in the aftermath of 9/11, and through surveillance, harassment, infiltration (not to mention physical violence) the attacks continue. This has become so institutionalized within law enforcement that they continue even when they have not generated a single lead.

4. Anarchists. In the Northwest, more than 60 FBI and Joint Terrorism Task Force agents raided homes and subpoenaed activists to a federal grand jury. The warrants listed, among other generic items, “anti-government or anarchist literature.”

5. Animal rights protesters. The Center for Constitutional Rights is in court challenging a law called the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, which is so broad that it labels a wide range of First Amendment conduct as terrorism if it threatens corporate profits.

6. Militia cells. But not how you might think. Prosecutors have been so eager to label people as “anarchists” that they even tried to pin the term on a militia cell of former military officers. The media jumped on the story, even though it is untrue.

7. Journalists. The Counter Terrorism Unit has kept files on my work (including a book report!) and the work of other journalists critical of government counter-terrorism operations.

You know who is not on this list? Anti-abortion extremists who have actually murdered people.

Charlotte Police Ask for Excessive Bail to Keep “Known Activist” in Jail During DNC

Charlotte police asked a court for an unusually high bail in order to keep a local activist in jail for a traffic violation, so that he would not be protesting the Democratic National Convention.

James Ian Tyson was arrested for driving with a revoked license. Charlotte police asked for a $10,000 cash bond. In a section of a law enforcement information sheet asking police to describe “Why do you feel suspect is a risk?,” the officer responded:

“Known activist + protester who is currently on a terrorist watchlist. Request he be held due to DNC being a National Special Security Event.”

Tyson is a Charlotte activist who has worked with Occupy Charlotte and the Rainforest Action Network.

He has no serious criminal history, but as The Charlotte Observer article by Gary L. Wright and Ely Portillo notes, the government’s terrorism watch lists contain more than 400,000 names (by conservative estimates).

Many of those names are there mistakenly. But as I’ve written about at length, environmental activists are also included in these lists intentionally.

For prosecutors, the fact that Tyson is a “known activist” was enough to attempt to keep him away from the protests:

“That court document heightens our concern for public safety,” Mecklenburg District Attorney Andrew Murray said. “Our goal is to protect the public. The document causes us to have concerns for public safety.”

Chief District Judge Lisa Bell approved the $10,000 bond at first, then reduced at at the first hearing saying “no additional information was presented” to substantiate that Tyson posed a threat to public safety. Bell also said she was influenced by Tyson’s lack of a criminal record and his ties to the community.