on May 1, 2012
As
the Occupy movement carries out massive May Day protests around the
country, the FBI Joint Terrorism Task force is trumpeting the arrest of
“self-proclaimed anarchists” and “terrorists” who allegedly conspired to
destroy a bridge in Ohio. Integral to the development and advancement
of this plot, however, were FBI agents themselves and an informant with a
drug and robbery record.
Douglas L. Wright, 26; Brandon L. Baxter,
20; and Anthony Hayne, 35, Connor C. Stevens, 20, and Joshua S.
Stafford, 23, were arrested by the FBI on April 30, just in time to make
the announcement as the nation turns its attention to May Day protests.
The affidavit reveals a plot by the FBI that continues a pattern of
behavior in “terrorism” investigations against political activists. Most
importantly, undercover FBI agents helped shape the “plot,” offered
advice on how and where to use explosives, and allegedly sold explosives
to the activists.
Pervasive Use of Informants and Undercover FBI
The informant in the case has been working with the FBI since July
20, 2011, and has a criminal record including possession of cocaine,
conviction for robbery, and four convictions for passing bad checks.
(The FBI’s proclivity for using down-and-out criminals was a key issue
in the “Operation Backfire” Earth Liberation Front cases. The lead
arsonist and informant, Jacob Ferguson, had a heroin addiction, and is
now back in prison on drug charges).
The
informant and the others haphazardly talked about various plans,
starting with the use of smoke grenades and destroying bank signs off
the top of large buildings.
For instance, on April 10, 2012: ““…BAXTER explained that he does not
know what to do with the explosives and he has never considered blowing
anything up before.”
Conversation shifted to other outrageous plans. According to the
affidavit, “WRIGHT joked that he would wear a suicide vest and walk in
and blow himself up, but advised he would have to be very drunk.”
“The CHS [the informant] asked the others what it is they wanted to
do… BAXTER said that they had never decided on the bridge, they were
just throwing out options and they had never decided on anything.”
FBI Guidance
The defendants flitted between hyperbolic conversations -– some about
destroying bank signs, some about destroying a boat, some about a
bridge — and various spy tactics such as secret email accounts, wiping
computer drives, and disrupting surveillance. At every step of the way,
the informant (who was paid nearly $6,000, plus expenses) and undercover
FBI agents were there to correct course.
At one point Wright asked the undercover FBI agent “if there was any
work he could do… to pay for the items he was going to purchase” from
the agent. Later, Connor Stevens told Wright that he no longer wanted to
be part of the plan, but wanted to know if the informant might hire him
to do some work on his house.
At another point, Wright told the informant that he and others
thought one of the individuals involved was an undercover cop (which he
was). To allay his fears, the informant said he would help provide the
explosives.
Clamoring to Thwart “Terrorist Plots”
U.S. Attorney Dettelbach called this a violent terrorist plot, and
said: “The defendants stand charged based not upon any words or beliefs
they might espouse, but based upon their own plans and actions.”
What’s troubling is that the government has had a heavy hand in creating the very plot it thwarted.
And on top of that, the defendants, by the admission of the FBI, said
repeatedly that they had no intention of harming anyone. At one point
Baxter and Wright “stated they don’t want people to think they are
terrorists.”
This isn’t an isolated instance.
The criminal complaint reads like the spitting image of the case of Eric McDavid,
who was coaxed by an undercover FBI operative named “Anna.” In that
case, like this one, the FBI supplied bomb making recipes, bomb making
materials, and attempts to distill activist boasting and hyperbole into a
coherent plan.
McDavid did nothing, and was arrested on conspiracy charges, like
these defendants have been. As readers of this site know, conspiracy
charges are the fall-back for the government when there is not enough
evidence to get anything else to “stick.”
Demonization of Anarchism
In addition to a continuation of undercover informants and
FBI-manufactured plots, this case also reflects on on-going focus on
demonizing anarchists.
The government’s press release
proclaims that the defendants are “self-proclaimed anarchists.” The
affidavit notes that they attended anarchist protests and carried
anarchist flags.
The affidavit also says that the defendants talked about anarchists
“rioting and destroying each city” that holds May Day protests, and that
it will be “off the hook.”
Demonizing anarchists has gone one for over a century, of course, but
in recent years the rhetoric has dovetailed with “War on Terrorism”
hysteria.
For example, in Scott Demuth’s case,
the government argued that: “Defendant’s writings, literature, and
conduct suggest that he is an anarchist and associated with the ALF
movement. Therefore, he is a domestic terrorist.”
In another case, the government sought a high cash bond against environmentalist Hugh Farrell because “the defendant has been observed advocating literature and materials which advocate anarchy.”
It should come as no surprise, then, that the announcement of these
arrests was carefully unveiled yesterday, so that the top news story
this May Day would not be about how anarchists are preventing home foreclosures, starting community gardens,
teaching collective organizing skills, and re-framing class
consciousness, but about how they were part of an FBI-guided “terrorist
plot.”
Iscriviti a:
Commenti sul post (Atom)
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento