💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › crimethinc-inside-the-fbi-entrapment-strategy.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 23:09:05. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
⬅️ Previous capture (2023-01-29)
➡️ Next capture (2024-07-09)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Inside the FBI Entrapment Strategy Author: CrimethInc. Date: May 29, 2012 Language: en Topics: FBI, strategy, Read All About It Source: Retrieved on 29th November 2020 from https://crimethinc.com/2012/05/29/inside-the-fbi-entrapment-strategy
In April and May 2012, the FBI initiated a spate of entrapment
operations designed to frame anarchists as “terrorists.” Significantly,
they did not target longtime organizers, but rather people who were
relatively peripheral to anarchist communities. It’s important for us to
understand how this entrapment strategy works and why the FBI has
adopted it.
---
First, let’s review the basics.
Never undertake or discuss illegal activity with people you haven’t
known and trusted for a long time. Don’t trust people just because other
people trust them or because they are in influential positions. Don’t
let others talk you into tactics you’re not comfortable with or ready
for. Be aware that anything you say may come back to haunt you, even if
you don’t mean it. Always listen to your instincts; if someone seems
pushy or too eager to help you with something, take some time to think
about the situation. Reflect on the motivations of those around you—do
they make sense? Get to know your comrades’ families and friends.
These practices are sensible, but insufficient; we can’t only think of
security individualistically. Even if 99 out of 100 are able to avoid
getting framed, when agents provocateurs manage to entrap the 100^(th)
one we still end up all paying the price. We need a security culture
that can protect others as well, including vulnerable and marginal
participants in radical spaces who may be particularly appetizing
targets to federal bounty hunters. In addition to looking out for
yourself, keep an eye on others who may put themselves at risk.
For example, imagine that you attend a presentation, and one person in
the audience keeps asking crazy questions and demanding that people
escalate their tactics. It’s possible that this person is an agent
provocateur; it’s also possible that he’s not an agent, but a hothead
that might make a very attractive target for agents. Such individuals
are typically shunned, which only makes them more vulnerable to agents:
“Screw these squares—stick with me and we’ll really do something!”
Someone who has nothing to lose should approach this person in a
low-stress environment and emphasize the importance of proper security
culture, describing the risks that one exposes himself and others to by
speaking so carelessly and urging him to be cautious about trusting
anyone who solicits his participation in illegal activity. A ten-minute
conversation like this might save years of heartache and prisoner
support later on.
Not so long ago, it seemed that the FBI focused on pursuing accomplished
anarchists: Marie Mason and Daniel McGowan were both arrested after
lengthy careers involving everything from supporting survivors of
domestic violence to ecologically-minded arson. It isn’t surprising that
the security apparatus of the state targeted these activists: they were
courageously threatening the inequalities and injustices the state is
founded upon.
However, starting with the entrapment case of Eric McDavid—framed for a
single conspiracy charge by an infiltrator who used his attraction to
her to manipulate him into discussing illegal actions—the FBI seem to
have switched strategies, focusing on younger targets who haven’t
actually carried out any actions.
They stepped up this new strategy during the 2008 Republican National
Convention, at which FBI informants Brandon Darby and Andrew Darst set
up David McKay, Bradley Crowder, and Matthew DePalma on charges of
possessing Molotov cocktails in two separate incidents. It’s important
to note that the only Molotov cocktails that figured in the RNC protests
at any point were the ones used to entrap these young men: the FBI were
not responding to a threat, but inventing one.
In early 2012, the FBI have shifted into high gear with this approach.
Immediately before May Day, five young men were set up on terrorism
charges in Cleveland after an FBI infiltrator apparently guided them
into planning to bomb a bridge, in what would have been the only such
bombing carried out by anarchists in living memory. During the protests
against the NATO summit in Chicago, three young men were arrested and
charged with terrorist conspiracy once again involving the only Molotov
cocktails within hundreds of miles, set up by at least two FBI
informants.
None of the targets of these entrapment cases seem to be longtime
anarchist organizers. None of the crimes they’re being charged with are
representative of the tactics that anarchists have actually used over
the past decade. All of the cases rest on the efforts of FBI informants
to manufacture conspiracies. All of the arrests have taken place
immediately before mass mobilizations, enabling the authorities to frame
a narrative justifying their crackdowns on protest as thwarting
terrorism. And in all of these cases, the defendants have been described
as anarchists in the legal paperwork filed against them, setting
precedents for criminalizing anarchism.
Why is the FBI focusing on entrapping inexperienced young people rather
than going after seasoned anarchists? Isn’t that just plain bad
sportsmanship? And why are they intensifying this now?
For one thing, experienced activists are harder to catch. Unlike
anarchists, FBI agents work for money, not necessarily out of passion or
conviction. Their reports often read like second-rate homework
assignments even as they wreck people’s lives. Agents get funding and
promotions based on successful cases, so they have an incentive to set
people up; but why go after challenging targets? Why not pick the most
marginal, the most vulnerable, the most isolated? If the goal is simply
to frame somebody, it doesn’t really matter who the target is.
Likewise, the tactics anarchists have actually been using are likely to
be more popular with the general public than the tactics infiltrators
push them towards. Smashing bank windows, for example, may be illegal,
but it is increasingly understood as a meaningful political statement;
it would be difficult to build a convincing terrorism case around broken
glass.
Well-known activists also have much broader support networks. The FBI
threatened Daniel McGowan with a mandatory life sentence plus 335 years
in prison; widespread support enabled him to obtain a good lawyer, and
the prosecution had to settle for a plea bargain for a seven-year
sentence or else admit to engaging in illegal wiretapping. Going after
disconnected young people dramatically decreases the resources that will
be mobilized to support them. If the point is to set precedents that
criminalize anarchism while producing the minimum blowback, then it is
easier to manufacture “terror” cases by means of agents provocateurs
than to investigate actual anarchist activity.
Above all, this kind of proactive threat-creation enables FBI agents to
prepare make-to-order media events. If a protest is coming up at which
the authorities anticipate using brutal force, it helps to be able to
spin the story in advance as a necessary, measured response to violent
criminals. This also sows the seeds of distrust among activists, and
intimidates newcomers and fence-sitters out of having anything to do
with anarchists. The long-range project here, presumably choreographed
by FBI leadership rather than rank-and-file agents, is not just to frame
a few unfortunate arrestees, but thus to hamstring the entire
anti-capitalist movement.
As we saw in the Green Scare, FBI repression often does not begin in
earnest until a movement has begun to fracture and subside, diminishing
the targets’ support base. The life cycle of movements passes ever
faster in our hyper-mediatized era; the Occupy phenomenon peaked in
November 2011 and has already slowed down, emboldening the authorities
to consolidate control and take revenge.
As anarchist values and practices become increasingly central to protest
movements, the authorities are anxious to incapacitate and delegitimize
anarchists. Yet in this context, it’s still inconvenient to admit to
targeting people for anarchism alone—that could spread the wrong
narrative, rallying outrage against transparently political persecution.
Likewise, they dare not initiate repression without a narrative
portraying the targets as alien to the rest of the movement, even if
that repression is calculated to destroy the movement itself.
Fortunately for the FBI, a few advocates of “nonviolence” within the
Occupy movement were happy to provide this narrative, disavowing
everyone who didn’t affirm their narrow tactical framework. Journalists
like Chris Hedges took this further by framing the “black bloc” as a
kind of people rather than a tactic—despite even the Chicago Sun-Times
comprehending the distinction. Hedges led the charge to consign those
who actively defended themselves against state repression to this
fabricated political category—in effect, designating them legitimate
targets. It is no coincidence that entrapment cases followed soon after.
“The individuals we charged are not peaceful protesters, they are
domestic terrorists,” [state attorney Anita] Alvarez said. “The charges
we bring today are not indicative of a protest movement that has been
targeted.”
The authorities swiftly took up this narrative. In a recent Fox News
article advancing the FBI agenda, we see the authorities parroting Chris
Hedges’ talking points—“they use the Occupy Movement as a front, but
have their own violent agenda”—in order to frame the black bloc as a
“home-grown terror group.” The article also describes the Cleveland
arrestees as “Black Bloc anarchists,” without evidence that any of them
have ever participated in a black bloc.
The goal here is clearly to associate a form of activity—acting
anonymously, defending oneself against police attacks—with a kind of
people: terrorists, evildoers, monsters. This is a high priority for the
authorities: they were able to crush the Occupy movement much more
quickly, at least relative to its numbers, in cities where people did
not act anonymously and defend themselves—hence Occupy Oakland’s
longevity compared to other Occupy groups. The aim of the FBI and
corporate media, with the collusion of Chris Hedges and others, is to
ensure that when people see a masked crowd that refuses to kowtow to
coercive authority, they don’t think, “Good for them for standing up for
themselves,” but rather, “Oh no—a bunch of terrorist bombers.”
To recapitulate the FBI strategy:
participants
justify ever-increasing police violence.
The authorities are explicitly announcing that there will be more of
these “sting operations” at the upcoming Republican National Convention
in Tampa. We can expect more and more “unsportsmanlike” entrapments in
the years to come.
For decades now, movements have defended themselves against police
surveillance and infiltration by practicing security culture. This has
minimized the effectiveness of police operations against experienced
activists. However, it can’t always protect those who are new to
anarchism or activism, who haven’t had time to internalize complex
habits and practices, and these are exactly the people that the FBI
entrapment strategy targets.
Three years ago, we called for a collective security culture that could
protect even newcomers against infiltrators. In a time of widespread
social ferment, however, even this is not sufficient to thwart the FBI:
we can’t hope to reach and protect every single desperate, angry,
vulnerable person in our society. Infiltrators need only find one
impressionable young person, however peripheral, to advance their
strategy. These are inhuman bounty hunters: they don’t balk at taking
advantage of any weakness, any need, any mental health issue.
If we are to protect the next generation of young people from these
predators, our only hope is to mobilize a popular reaction against
entrapment tactics. Only a blowback against the FBI themselves can halt
this strategy. This will not be easy, but there is no better
alternative.
Don’t stop speaking out, organizing, and fighting—that won’t stop them
from repressing us or entrapping people. Retreating will only embolden
them: we can only protect ourselves by increasing our power to fight
back, not by withdrawing, not by hiding, not by behaving.
The best defense is a good offense. So long as capitalism is
unstable—that is to say, until it collapses—there will be repression.
Let’s meet it head on.