|
Revealed: How The FBI
Coordinated The Crackdown On Occupy
December 29th, 2012 |
by Naomi
Wolf, guardian.co.uk |
New documents prove what was once dismissed as
paranoid fantasy: totally integrated corporate-state repression of
dissent. Police
used teargas to drive back protesters following an attempt
by the
Occupy supporters to shut down the city of Oakland.
Photograph: Noah
Berger/AP It was more sophisticated than
we had imagined: new documents show that the violent crackdown on
Occupy last fall - so mystifying at the time - was not just
coordinated at the level of the FBI,
the Department of Homeland Security, and local police. The
crackdown, which involved, as you may recall, violent arrests, group
disruption, canister missiles to the skulls of protesters, people
held in handcuffs so tight they were injured, people held in bondage
till they were forced to wet or soil themselves -was coordinated
with the big banks themselves. The
Partnership for Civil Justice Fund, in a groundbreaking scoop that
should once more shame major US media outlets (why are nonprofits
now some of the only entities in America left breaking major civil
liberties news?), filed this request. The document - reproduced
here in an easily searchable format - shows a terrifying network
of coordinated Department of Homeland Security (DHS), FBI, police,
regional fusion centre, and private-sector activity so completely
merged into one another that the monstrous whole is, in fact, one
entity: in some cases, bearing a single name, the Domestic Security
Alliance Council. And it reveals this merged entity to have one
centrally planned, locally executed mission. The documents, in
short, show the cops and DHS working for and with banks to target,
arrest, and politically disable peaceful American citizens. The
documents, released after long delay in the week between Christmas
and New Year, show a nationwide meta-plot unfolding in city after
city in an Orwellian world: six American universities are sites
where campus police funnelled information about students involved
with OWS to the FBI, with the administrations’ knowledge (p51);
banks sat down with FBI officials to pool information about OWS
protesters harvested by private security; plans to crush Occupy
events, planned for a month down the road, were made by the FBI -
and offered to the representatives of the same organizations that
the protests would target; and even threats of the assassination of
OWS leaders by sniper fire - by whom? Where? - now remain redacted
and undisclosed to those American citizens in danger, contrary to
standard FBI practice to inform the person concerned when there is a
threat against a political leader (p61). As Mara
Verheyden-Hilliard, executive director of the PCJF, put it, the
documents show that from the start, the FBI - though it acknowledges
Occupy
movement as being, in fact, a peaceful organization -
nonetheless designated OWS repeatedly as a “terrorist threat”: “FBI
documents just obtained by the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund
(PCJF) ... reveal that from its inception, the FBI treated the
Occupy movement as a potential criminal and terrorist threat ... The
PCJF has obtained heavily redacted documents showing that FBI
offices and agents around the country were in high gear conducting surveillance
against the movement even as early as August 2011, a month prior to
the establishment of the OWS encampment in Zuccotti Park and other
Occupy actions around the country.” Verheyden-Hilliard
points
out the close partnering of banks, the New York Stock Exchange and
at least one local Federal Reserve with the FBI and DHS, and calls
it “police-statism”: “This
production [of documents], which we believe is just the tip of the
iceberg, is a window into the nationwide scope of the FBI’s
surveillance, monitoring, and reporting on peaceful protestors
organizing with the Occupy movement ... These documents also show
these federal agencies functioning as a de facto intelligence arm of
Wall Street and Corporate America.” The documents show stunning
range: in Denver, Colorado, that branch of the FBI and a “Bank
Fraud Working Group” met in November 2011 - during the Occupy
protests - to surveil the group. The Federal Reserve of Richmond,
Virginia had its own private security surveilling Occupy Tampa and
Tampa Veterans for Peace and passing privately-collected information
on activists back to the Richmond FBI, which, in turn, categorized
OWS activities under its “domestic terrorism” unit. The
Anchorage, Alaska “terrorism task force” was watching Occupy
Anchorage. The Jackson, Michigan “joint terrorism task force”
was issuing a “counter-terrorism preparedness alert” about the
ill-organized grandmas and college sophomores in Occupy there. Also
in Jackson, Michigan, the FBI and the “Bank Security Group” -
multiple private banks - met to discuss the reaction to “National
Bad Bank Sit-in Day” (the response was violent, as you may
recall). The Virginia FBI sent that state’s Occupy members’
details to the Virginia terrorism fusion centre. The Memphis FBI
tracked OWS under its “joint terrorism task force” aegis, too.
And so on, for over 100 pages. Jason
Leopold, at Truthout.org, who has sought similar documents for
more than a year, reported that the FBI falsely asserted in response
to his own FOIA requests that no documents related to its
infiltration of Occupy
Wall Street existed at all. But the release may be strategic: if
you are an Occupy activist and see how your information is being
sent to terrorism task forces and fusion centres, not to mention the
“long-term plans” of some redacted group to shoot you, this
document is quite the deterrent. There is a
new twist: the merger of the private sector, DHS and the FBI means
that any of us can become WikiLeaks, a point that Julian Assange was
trying to make in explaining the argument behind his recent book.
The fusion of the tracking of money and the suppression of dissent
means that a huge area of vulnerability in civil society - people’s
income streams and financial records - is now firmly in the hands of
the banks, which are, in turn, now in the business of tracking your
dissent. Remember that only 10% of the money
donated to WikiLeaks can be processed - because of financial
sector and DHS-sponsored targeting of PayPal data. With this
merger, that crushing of one’s personal or business financial
freedom can happen to any of us. How messy, criminalizing and
prosecuting dissent. How simple, by contrast, just to label an
entity a “terrorist organization” and choke off, disrupt or
indict its sources of financing. Why the
huge push for counter-terrorism “fusion centres”, the DHS
militarising of police departments, and so on? It was never really
about “the terrorists”. It was not even about civil unrest. It
was always about this moment, when vast crimes might be uncovered by
citizens - it was always, that is to say, meant to be about you.
|
European Parliament
may regulate “Fracking”
because of safety concerns
December 9th, 2012 |
by Daniel
Boffey, policy editor, “The Observer” |
Brussels will move to regulate the shale gas
industry, a senior member of the European parliament has warned,
claiming the UK cannot be sure it knows what it is doing in
embarking headlong on a “dash for gas”. Jo
Leinen MEP, a member of the parliament’s environment committee,
said the UK government could not be confident it understood the
scale of health and environmental consequences of “fracking”, in
which pressurised water, sand and chemicals are pumped into rocks to
force them to release gas.
The chancellor, George Osborne, announced
last week that the coalition would offer tax breaks to fracking
firms, and intended to set up a new regulator for “unconventional
gas”.
The energy secretary, Ed Davey, is shortly
expected to lift restrictions on fracking at a site in Lancashire
where the process was halted when evidence emerged it was triggering
earthquakes.
The British Geological Survey is expected
to reveal that the amount of shale gas deposited around Blackpool,
is 50% bigger than estimated.
But Leinan, a member of the German SPD,
spoke of the European parliament’s growing concern over
large-scale fracking, adding that it would pass new regulations to “manage,
to discipline” the sector. He said: “There are basically only
two countries where the government is behind using it. It is Poland
and it is Great Britain, and Poland has not gone very fast. Then in
Great Britain they give green light for industrial exploitation but
they have to know what they are doing. I don’t know if they can be
so sure and clear about what they are doing.”
Recent reports on fracking from the
European commission warn of the high risk of ground- and
surface-water contamination, noxious air emissions, risks to
biodiversity and noise pollution.
There is also doubt about the amount of the
gas that could be retrieved, despite the government’s claim that
shale gas could be a substantial boost to the British economy.
Research suggests that 2,500 to 3,000
horizontal wells and up to 113m tonnes of water would be required to
produce just 10% of the UK’s gas consumption over the next 20
years.
Christophe McGlade, from the UCL Energy
Institute who worked on a report for the European commission on the
level of shale in the EU, said: “Just because the resource is
there, it does not mean that it can be produced economically.”
Leinan told the Observer that whatever the
level of gas that could be extracted might be, anxiety over the
risks demanded regulation that would fix safety standards across the
EU.
He added that the European parliament had
already voted in favour of the commission exploring what new laws
were now necessary. Leinan said: “We need
new elements [of law]. Whether we fit them into existing legislation
or create a ‘fracking law’ is still an open question. But from
our analysis there are questions that are not being answered by the
existing legislation.
“We want to have a proposal from the
European commission for a level playing field in the European Union
and, let’s say, to have the same standards for environment and
health protection.
“If fracking gets used as a method for
energy supply it is a major issue. We will be busy with this sector
for some time to manage it, to discipline it.”
Leinan said that among the regulations
would be a demand for full disclosure on the chemicals used in the
fracking process. He also suggested that fracking should not be
attempted near water supplies nor near urban areas, due to the risk
of earthquakes.
A freeze on fracking was imposed in the UK
following two small earthquakes in 2011 in north-west England where
the Australian firm Cuadrilla Resources has exploratory drilling
sites. A report commissioned by the company concluded that it was “highly
probable” that the test drilling triggered the earth tremors, but
that they were due to an “unusual combination of geology” at the
site.
Vanessa Vine, a campaigner who lives nearby
in Balcombe, said the government appeared to be “steam-rollering
through regardless of the facts, or of the need to protect the
greater good”. On Saturday night a
Department of Energy spokesman said: “Cuadrilla’s operations
near Blackpool in Lancashire are the only ones in the UK that have
begun fracking for shale gas. They remain at the exploratory stage
and their operations are suspended while we consider the comments
received on the independent report into seismic activity and the
recent comprehensive report by the Royal Society into the risks of
fracking for shale gas.
“Shale gas operations... will have to
meet tough standards of safety and environmental protection.”
|
Tony Farrell hands
himself
in!
October 4th, 2012 |
by Tony
Farrell |
The Principled Analyst Not Against the Police
Service
At
5pm on Sunday 30th September 2012, I pressed the button of a door
outside Digbeth Police Station in Birmingham as the building was
closed to the public. Over the phone system, I spoke to an operative
and told them I was presenting myself for arrest under Section 15
iii of the Terrorism Act 2000. The operative took some details and
told me to wait for assistance. Within 5 minutes, three police cars
pulled up outside and five uniformed police got out of their
vehicles.
I stood still and held out my arms with
wrists together so that they could easily cuff me. They asked me
what did I want them to do that for. I said I wanted the police to
do their duty and act in accordance with the law. I quoted the act
at them. None of them seemed aware of the S15 iii TA2000. I told
them that I was confessing to the above offence and wanted to clear
my conscience. I told them I had, in the past, paid lots of money to
an organisation which I had reasonable cause to suspect had been
engaged in terrorist activity and that now I was aware that what I
had done in the past was a criminal offence. I told them I just
wanted to make a fresh start and confess my crime and take the full
consequences of the law.
They asked me how much money was involved.
I said about £1500. They then asked me who was the terrorist person
I paid money to. I replied that it was not really a person but
rather a large organisation that they had had lots of underhand
dealings with. (I was referring here to West Midlands Police’s
role in the cover up of Hillsborough). So they asked me the name of
the organisation. I said South Yorkshire Police. I said I had paid
them money via Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council.
They all looked bewildered. They asked me
how I came to suspect South Yorkshire Police were engaged in
terrorist activity. I told them who I was and that I had been the
Principal Intelligence Analyst in South Yorkshire Police for a long
time and had come to disbelieve the Government narrative on 7/7 in
July 2010. I mentioned the roles of former Chief Constable Meredydd
Hughes and DCI Steve Williams in the London Bombings and the role of
other officers in sacking me for speaking truth to power.
One of the five officers, who was an Asian,
held out his hand and said, “I’d like to shake your hand, Mr
Farrell”. Two other officers did likewise and then left me with
two remaining officers who took me to the police station for further
questioning. They declined to arrest me however.
At the station, I was searched and they
took details. Everything was amicable and I was well looked after.
The uniformed officers seemed to be waiting for a steer from West
Midlands Counter Terrorism Unit. They tried also to contact South
Yorkshire Police to confirm my identity but seemingly could not get
through to anyone there. I told that over and above who I was. I
told them that I had recently acquired information that could be
very useful for the police service and would share it only if I
thought I could trust them to act in accordance with their oath and
duties. They said that would best be done in conjunction with West
Midlands CTU.
After an hour or so of waiting for contact
with South Yorkshire Police, I suggested that the officers look on
the internet, instead, to confirm who I was. So they took me to a
computer and Googled a few things. One of them remarked, as he was
reading my letter addressed to all Chief Constables, “Bloody hell,
you are quite famous!” They looked at Nick
Kollerstrom’s website. Briefly, they looked at the “Kollerstrom
and Farrell are Dead” film and others like it and said they would
watch them in their own time. All this appeared entirely new to
them. They did not seem aware of any of this activity by truth
activists.
After three hours of frank but pleasant
exchanges, they drove me home and came inside my apartment. They
admired my chess set and I gave them colour copies of my analytical
reports of 7/7, 9/11 and the terror threat which are now in the
Royal Courts of Justice. I asked them to read, digest and pass them
on to West Midlands Counter Terrorism Unit. They thanked me for
them.
They shook my hand, wished me well, and
left. That evening, I left Birmingham and headed for Sheffield to
confront South Yorkshire Police. But that’s another story. Updates
to follow!
The moral of this story is that Police
Officers and the Police Service need our help in exposing what is
going on.
|
|
Tony Farrell gave
a presentation, here, at New Horizons on 3rd October, 2011.
Check out “Previous
Speakers, 2011”
|
|
|
|
|