Great Moments In COINTELPRO, Part Umpty-something

Look! Your tax dollars at work – not as you might think, funding public services or fighting crime, but paying agents provocateurs and Nazis to intimidate and provoke those peskily vocal yet peaceful minorities and liberals into violence.

From the Orlando Sentinel via Raw Story:

SENTINEL EXCLUSIVE
Neo-Nazi rally was organized by FBI informant

Henry Pierson Curtis | Sentinel Staff Writer
Posted February 15, 2007

A paid FBI informant was the man behind a neo-Nazi march through the streets of Parramore that stirred up anxiety in Orlando’s black community and fears of racial unrest that triggered a major police mobilization.

That revelation came Wednesday in an unrelated federal court hearing and has prompted outrage from black leaders, some of whom demanded an investigation into whether the February 2006 march was, itself, an event staged by law-enforcement agencies.

The FBI would not comment on what it knew about the involvement of its informant, 39-year-old David Gletty of Orlando, in the neo-Nazi event. In court Wednesday, an FBI agent said the bureau has paid its informant at least $20,000 during the past two years.

“Wow,” Gletty said when reached by phone late Wednesday. “It is what it is. You were there in court. I can’t really go into any detail now.”

Read full story

You can’t even trust a fascist not to be fake these days. Why, one might almost think they were trying to provoke a reaction they could clamp down on.

It wouldn’t be the first time the FBI attempted to engineer violent political events recently. Before the big post 911 hate-on for the Moslems and antiwar activists, the big ‘danger’ was from the anticapitalist left:

One activist who has had experience with how the DC police handle demonstrators is Rob Fish, a cheerful young man with the Student Environmental Action Coalition profiled in a recent Sierra magazine cover story on the new generation of environmentalists. If you were watching CNN during the protests against the International Monetary Fund and World Bank in Washington, DC, in April, you would have seen Fish, 22, beaten, bloody and bandaged after an attack by an enraged plainclothes officer who also tried to destroy the camera with which Fish was documenting police harassment.

Fish is a plaintiff in a class-action suit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Lawyers Guild and the Partnership for Civil Justice against the DC police and a long list of federal agencies including the FBI. This suit–along with others in Philadelphia and Los Angeles, where the party conventions were held in August; in Detroit, which declared a civil emergency during the June Organization of American States meeting across the border in Windsor, Ontario; and in Seattle–is exposing a level of surveillance and disruption of political activities not seen on the left since the FBI deployed its dirty tricks against the Central American solidarity movement during the 1980s.

Among police agencies themselves this is something of an open secret. In the spring the US Attorney’s office bestowed an award on members of the Washington, DC, police department for their “unparalleled” coordination with other police agencies during the IMF protests. “The FBI provided valuable background on the individuals who were intent on committing criminal acts and were able to impart the valuable lessons learned from Seattle,” the US Attorney declared.

The US’ population hasn’t had it’s legitimate right to dissent so closely spied on, monitored and blatantly interfered with since the worst of the McCarthy years and the days of that paranoid psychotic Nixon. The aim of this covert activity is to discredit people who organise against the Bush administration and to smear them as violent revolutionaries, even to the extent of siccing the far-right on them in the hope of engineering a violent response.

This type of covert entrapment, deliberate provocation and incitement to illegality is known as cointelpro*:

COINTELPRO (Counter Intelligence Program) was a program of the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation aimed at investigating and disrupting dissident political organizations within the United States. Although covert operations have been employed throughout FBI history, the formal COINTELPRO operations of 1956-1971 were broadly targeted against organizations that were (at the time) considered to have politically radical elements, ranging from those whose stated goal was the violent overthrow of the U.S. government (such as the Weathermen); non-violent civil rights groups such as Martin Luther King Jr.’s Southern Christian Leadership Conference; and violent groups like the Ku Klux Klan and the American Nazi Party. The founding document of COINTELPRO directed FBI agents to “expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit, or otherwise neutralize” the activities of these movements and their leaders.

According to the US government and other reports COINTELPRO officially stopped in 1971.What are all these cointelpro reports then, chopped liver?

There’s currently a leftwing activist and blogger who’s been in jail for over a year in California for refusing to release a samizdat video he made that may have featured possible FBI agents provocateurs attempting to engineer a riot at the San Francisco G8 protests.

Then there’s the mysterious yet ubiquitous supposed peace activist known as ‘Anna’ for instance, who has been doing the rounds of US peace groups attempting to incite them to illegality.

For more background on COINTELPRO and its history see here and Congress’ 1976 report here and for a review of the actual methods, see here.

[*For the pedants, I’m using lowercase cointelpro as the noun for the modern activity rather than COINTELPRO, as that’s the historical acronym for the government programme]

Don’t Trust Your Bank Unless It’s A Piggy

Proof that the Blair government and Gordon Brown as Chancellor knew all along that the Bush administration was snooping through British citizens’ bank accounts without any due process comes via The Register.

UK Treasury knew of US hunt through British bank data
EU investigation closes in

By Mark Ballard Published Friday 16th February 2007 13:12 GMT

The Bank of England told HM Treasury about the secret US surveillance of international banking transactions as long as five years ago.

The US’s eager pursuit of terrorist financiers, begun within weeks of the 11 September attacks, involved a trawl through the world’s financial transactions through subpoenas on the firm that handles them for private banking clients – the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Communication (Swift).

European authorities, including the UK’s Information Commissioner, have since declared the US operation “illegal” and have begun to press financial institutions to put a stop to the warrantless and unprotected transfers of private banking data to the US authorities.

This programme remained a secret from privacy watchdogs – even from those people whose data was being handed over to US investigators – until the New York Times unearthed it last June. Yet HM Treasury knew about it for some years.
A spokesman for the Bank of England told The Register: “Swift told us in 2002 that it had agreed with the US subpoenas. We told Swift it should tell the government. We told HM Treasury. We felt they should know.”

[…]

But the ECB had decided not to warn “other relevant authorities” about Swift’s decision to give US authorities access to its international banking transactions because it believed its own responsibility for “professional confidentiality” among its members was more important.

[…]

HM Treasury said in a statement: “On the financial stability point/impact on business confidence, we say that there is no greater risk to the financial system that the criminal abuse of or a terrorist attack on the system.”

“As you know this is a US project, and we don’t comment on this or any other security matter,” it added.

[…]

As the ECB was reprimanded for failing to tell privacy authorities when it first learned of the Swift subpoenas, and no banking clients are thought to have known that their private financial data was, via Swift, been pawed by the US Treasury, this concession appears to indicate some progress for campaigners like Privacy International, whose complaints to watchdogs across Europe lent the EU reaction to the Swift subpoenas some vigour.

Yet it only looks good on paper, as the ECB pointed out: “Payment orders from natural persons who do not consent to the use of SWIFT will not be processed.”

So if you want to use European banking services you must acquiesce to having your private financial affairs spied on by the Bush adminsitration.They’ll carry on blithely just as they did before and say it’s OK, they have our permission because we didn’t choose not to use the banks.

Fuckers.

This investigation meant nothing and does nothing except to tell us our supposedly democratic government is in breach of it’s own data protection regulations and our human rights – again.

It’s enough to make you start changing currency into gold and stashing it under the bed.

The Difficulty of Finding An Untainted Candidate

Is it possible for the Democrats ever to put forward a presidential candidate who’s not in hock to Israel and who might actually show a little actual leadership?

Avedon Carol gives me even more reason to think that Hillary Clinton is definitely not that candidate:

Okay, here’s Hillary’s statement on Iran (and here’s where you can tell her how you feel about it). Hillary says, “No Military Action On Iran Without Congressional Authority.” Think about that. Don’t do anything completely insane without getting our permission, first. Now, I do think it’s important that the point be made – strongly – that Bush does not have the authority to use military force against Iran, no matter how he’d like to pretend that some previous legislation granted him that power. But that isn’t how it’s being phrased – they sound more like, “We might let you do something completely insane only if you get our permission first.” That’s not good enough, the emphasis is all wrong. And the reason Clinton is getting the emphasis wrong is that she’s trying to be really macho about Iran and doesn’t dare say that there are worse things than Iran getting nuclear power, and one of those things would be using military force against Iran. And she apparently does not understand that nothing makes Iran want nuclear power like the constant belligerence from the United States against Iran. So just shut up about Iran and tell Bush flat out that he can’t go there. Draw up the articles of impeachment right now and hold them up on television and swear to God that if there is the slightest inkling that Bush is moving against Iran, impeachment proceedings start in the morning.

But Hillary won’t do that. She’ll never do that. Political caution and triangulation is so ingrained in her she can longer operate in any other way. I’m sure she’s assiduous in ministering to her constituents in NY State and advancing its interests, but at national level, on her record she’s incapable of bold and decisive political action because she’s beholden to other interests.

Can anyone show me where she’s actually demonstrated real leadership against this warmongering administration at any point at all during the last 6 years? Has she rallied her fellow Democrats to act in concert against government wrongdoing, or has she just done what’s currently expedient to advance her career?

She’s actually in an advantageous position electorally at the moment, what with Edwards holed below the waterline already, Obama bang in the sights of the rightwing media race hate machine and somewhat hors de combat as a result. So is she taking advantage of the lull and out there making her case for the leadership of a nation that’s crying out for it?

Dream on.

No, she’s wittering on about giving Bush permission to go to war, as though it were still the nineties and he weren’t a dangerously unstable man who’s already devastated one country and who’ll take no notice whatsoever of what those hippies in Congress say, because he is beyond the law, and all his lawyers say so.

Why is she doing this? Hillary Clinton’s a bought and paid for creature of AIPAC and the Israel Lobby:

If neither strategic nor moral considerations can account for America’s support for Israel, Mearsheimer and Walt ask, what does? Their answer: the “unmatched power of the Israel Lobby.” At its core is the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which is ranked second after the National Rifle Association (along with the AARP) in the National Journal’s 2005 listing of Washington’s most powerful lobbies. AIPAC, they write, serves as “a de facto agent for a foreign government.” The lobby, they say, is also associated with Christian evangelicals such as Tom DeLay, Jerry Falwell, and Pat Robertson; neoconservatives both Jewish (Paul Wolfowitz, Bernard Lewis, and William Kristol) and gentile (John Bolton, William Bennett, and George Will); think tanks (the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, the American Enterprise Institute, the Hudson Institute); and critics of the press such as the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America.

She should never be President because when it comes down to it she’ll puts the interests of another country above her own

Clinton’s close involvement with AIPAC and the Israel lobby makes any statement of hers at all viz Iran, Israel or the Middle East generally, suspect. She is answering to another constituency altogether and its not Democratic; it has much more money, much better connections and much more influence on her thinking than those boring nobody small voters ever could:

Read More

An Inconvenient Academic

Man In The Iron Mask

Meanwhile, in another part of the gulag forest….

The Florida-based Palestinian academic who was tried and found not guilty of any offence, but who was forced make a risible plea deal with federal prosecutors just to get out of near-Gitmo remand conditions is now indefintely locked up in maximum security for contempt, at the whim of a pet judge, mostly because he could cause some embarasssment to the Chimperor and First Brother Jeb.

Do read this interview: the story’s worthy of Kafka at his most convoluted, but unfortunately it’s not fiction. Remember that this is an innocent man and he’s just one person that this has happened to. His story is only being told because he is a well-known academic, has contacts in the persistent left-wing media, a good lawyer and is able to be eloquent in his own cause.

How many more, less prominent people have been similarly locked up and abused for being politically inconvenient don’t we know about?

(Via Left I on The News)

Whither the Democrats?


(Crossposted from Wis[s]e Words)

It’s hard to decide what to quote from this excellent Mike Davis article about what the left can expect from the Democrats after their November victory, but I think the following two paragraphs are best at showing the juxtaposition between expectations and reality:

The fate of New Orleans, of course, is one of the great moral watersheds in modern American history, but most Democrats shamelessly refused to make federal responses to Hurricane Katrina or the subsequent ethnic cleansing of the Gulf Coast central issues in the campaign. Although President Bush himself had declared in his Jackson Square speech that ‘we have a duty to confront this poverty [revealed by Katrina] with bold action’, the Democrats have shown no greater sense of ‘duty’ or capacity for ‘bold action’ than a notoriously hypocritical and incompetent White House. Their priorities were exemplified by the six-plank national platform in November that stressed deficits and troop buildups but failed to mention either Katrina or poverty.

[…]

But Nancy, Harry and Hillary do have one domestic crusade whose importance transcends other dogmas and constraints: the promotion of the ‘innovation agenda’ that the Democrats hope will dramatically solidify their support among hi-tech corporations and science-based firms across the country. If you wanted to find the missing urgency and passion that the Democrats should have focused on Katrina and urban poverty, it was evident last year in the rousing speeches that Pelosi and other leading Democrats delivered in tech hubs like Emeryville, Mountain View, Raleigh and Redmond.

It seems to me that what happened in November is that the grassroots groundswell of anger and frustration aimed at the Republicans has been co-opted by the Democratic Party’s Washington establishment. While the party’s base has always been strongely opposed to the Patriot Act, the War against Terror and the War on Iraq, it’s leadership has largely prefered to go along with Republican plans, either out of calculation or fear. According to the netroots (including myself) this attitude was the reason for the Democratic defeats in 2002 and 2004, with the gains in November last year as a vindication of the netroots’ vision. In reality however, the Democratic leadership hasn’t changed its stance on these issues; it’s still largely supportive of the War on Iraq and only willing to offer symbolic opposition rather than real opposition. From their point of view, their strategy of triangulation, of playing to the supposed centre worked. They didn’t need to radicalise
themselves in order to win Congress back form the Republicans, they just needed to wait and let the Republicans destroy themselves. In other words, the netroots have largely failed to move the party to the left, or even to get them to be more aggressive in opposition.

Instead, as Ilya suspected last Tuesday, the Democrats have courted those segments of business who’ve become unhappy with the Republican focus on war and the accompanying corruption. The war may have been kind to Halliburton and Exxon, but has it for companies like Microsoft? The credit for this split in elite opinion lies mostly with the Iraqi resistance who’ve managed to shatter the dream of a obedient Iraqi client state, but also with the anti-war movement, which for the moment has made it harder for politicians to be openly pro-war…

What we’ll probably see in the next few years then is a tug of war between the Bushites and the corporate elites that profit from them and the Democrats, with the former trying to keep the full war going while the latter will argue for a withdrawal with residual force. In both cases, expect more use of airpower to keep American casualties down at the expense of Iraqi civilians.

Read more about:
, , ,