ACTIVIST SUPPRESSION

2/17 ACTIVE SUPPRESS 2

new category 11/13

 supernode OFFENSIVE 1/17

 see also eco-terrorism, cointelpro and crypto

 see also science, press and academic suppression

includes activist surveillance

capt txt 717

 ==

In North Carolina, protesting your government could soon open you up to charges of “economic terrorism”under a measure proposed Thursday by two Republican lawmakers.

The bill would create a new felony charge applied to any criminal offense that leads to at least $1,000 in economic harm to any business, if the offender intended to intimidate the government or the public. Separate language in the proposal would make it illegal to block traffic as part of a protest or demonstration.

The proposal is so broad it could potentially be used to ensnare people like the Rev. William Barber II, a key leader of the state’s Moral Mondays protests.

“Many of these extremist legislators cannot stand protest because it doesn’t allow them to do in the dark the work they’re doing that’s hurting so many people,” Barber told ThinkProgress. “This is an old game. It is an attempt to malign movements that work and that challenge what the system is doing.”

The mass meetings Barber helps convene are rigorously peaceful, but numerous participants have been arrested for acts of civil disobedience or at the request of legislators. Such arrests could, under the broad language of the bill, be construed as felonies if a prosecutor linked the protest in question to an economically harmful boycott or street closure.

The proposal from state Reps. John Torbett (R-Gaston County) and John Faircloth (R-Guilford County) is the latest in a string of state-level proposals to roll back protester rights and raise the legal stakes of public dissent in the era of President Donald Trump.

Washington state is weighing a similar “economic terrorism” measure. Arizona lawmakers want to treat protest organizers like mobsters. Minnesota legislators are pushing for the right to sue protesters to recoup the costs of police overtime incurred by demonstrations. At least four states have moved to criminalize roadway protests in recent months.“No matter what your politics are, everyone should be concerned anytime that lawmakers seek to curb our fundamental constitutional right to not only protest, but to criticize our government,” American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina spokesman Mike Meno said in an interview. “This is one bill in a wave of legislation that we’ve seen across the country designed to criminalize peaceful protest and really have a chilling effect on our First Amendment rights.”

All these laws constraint protests in various ways, primarily by exposing demonstrators to new financial or criminal consequences.

“Any time tyrants try to stifle the voice of the people, it always backfires.”

But the North Carolina law also recasts a longstanding American right as a sinister usurpation of public order. Where the Constitution protects citizens’ rights to group together in public to dissent from its government’s actions, Torbett’s bill targets efforts to “[i]ntimidate the civilian population at large, or an identifiable group…[or i]nfluence, through intimidation, the conduct or activities of the government of the United States, a state, or any unit of local government.”

The law offers no detail on how officials would distinguish persuasion from intimidation when responding to protest activity. The state already has statutes on the books to punish rioting. Any law that requires cops and prosecutors to discern people’s intent creates a murky psychological task within a seemingly precise criminal procedure.

The language about protesters’ intentions struck Meno as particularly ironic, he said, since Torbett and Faircloth’s bill itself “seems designed to intimidate people who would want to protest their government.”

Police and civic leaders would not have to divine protesters’ inner thoughts in all cases under Torbett’s crackdown, however. The second a protest moves onto a roadway, for example, everyone involved becomes a criminal under the proposal. Blocking roads would be as serious a misdemeanor as crimes like sexual battery or assaulting a public official. Public officials would be automatically required to dispatch police to clear a roadway, by force if necessary, once “at least 10 persons obstruct vehicular traffic.”

The bill is unlikely to become law with Democrat Roy Cooper in the governor’s mansion, though Republicans do hold a veto-proof majority. Regardless, this will likely not be the last time lawmakers try to smear protesters.The choice to single out traffic obstruction as a new and special offense is not random. Protests tied to the broad Movement for Black Lives have frequently targeted high-traffic roads and highways, gumming up a city’s normal flow as a means of calling the whole community’s attention to police abuse that would otherwise be easy for the white populace to ignore. (Roads are convenient targets, but also historically appropriate ones for racial justice movements in particular.)

“If thousands of people are marching to protest voter suppression laws, the people who passed those laws will say they’re disturbing the peace,” said Barber. “Even what happened in Charlotte, the people who wanted to use that as a scapegoat took the actions of a few people to try to malign the whole. That’s not new. That happened in [the 1968 sanitation workers strike in Memphis, Tennessee] just before Dr. King was killed.”

While Charlotte’s brief-but-cinematic rage last September captured great public attention, North Carolina is also serving as incubator to a more sustainable, less flashy form of populist dissent — one that could nonetheless run afoul of the broad criminalization of protest activity which Torbett proposes.

For nearly 4 years now, thousands of North Carolinians have regularly rallied at the state capitol for “Moral Mondays,” a movement anchored by Rev. Barber’s call to revive working-class solidarity in the face of economic and social inequality.

The movement has opted for rigorous state and local focus rather than the nation-wide activism of the Fight for $15 protests. It has rarely made the national headlines that often greet police protests. But it is rooted in an all-of-the-above moral urgency that links those two fights with dozens of other local and national causes — a broad, ambitious, and positively articulated vision of American social and political change that seems poised to blossom from statewide success to national significance.

Moral Mondays are so studiously lawful — despite hundreds of arrests that have been thrown out of court — that Torbett and Faircloth’s bill would seem not to immediately target its activities. But it doesn’t take much imagination to envision how an ideologically motivated prosecutor might seek to link peaceful civil disobedience to lost revenue for a business owner who runs afoul of protesters — and then depict dissenters as “economic terrorists” using the bill’s language.

Barber, who is confident the proposal would be struck down in court if it ever became law, welcomed the hamfisted attempt at chilling protest activity.

“What they will do with attempting to pass things like this is grow the movement. There is no fear. People are not gonna stand down,” said Barber.

“Any time tyrants try to stifle the voice of the people, it always backfires.”

==

remember that kid? duncan tarr

http://www.alternet.org/activism/state-lawmakers-are-brutally-cracking-down-protesters-under-cover-trumps-law-and-order

==

https://theintercept.com/2017/01/19/republican-lawmakers-in-five-states-propose-bills-to-criminalize-peaceful-protest/

Women’s March on Washington will kick off what opponents of the incoming administration hope will be a new era of demonstrations against the Republican agenda. But in some states, nonviolent demonstrating may soon carry increased legal risks — including punishing fines and significant prison terms — for people who participate in protests involving civil disobedience. Over the past few weeks, Republican legislators across the country have quietly introduced a number of proposals to criminalize and discourage peaceful protest.

The proposals, which strengthen or supplement existing laws addressing the blocking or obstructing of traffic, come in response to a string of high-profile highway closures and other actions led by Black Lives Matter activists and opponents of the Dakota Access Pipeline. Republicans reasonably expect an invigorated protest movement during the Trump years.

In North Dakota, for instance, Republicans introduced a bill last week that would allow motorists to run over and kill any protester obstructing a highway as long as a driver does so accidentally. In Minnesota, a bill introduced by Republicans last week seeks to dramatically stiffen fines for freeway protests and would allow prosecutors to seek a full year of jail time for protesters blocking a highway. Republicans in Washington state have proposed a plan to reclassify as a felony civil disobedience protests that are deemed “economic terrorism.” Republicans in Michigan introduced and then last month shelved an anti-picketing law that would increase penalties against protestors and would make it easier for businesses to sue individual protestors for their actions. And in Iowa a Republican lawmaker has pledged to introduce legislation to crack down on highway protests....

==

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/02/24/republican-lawmakers-introduce-bills-to-curb-protesting-in-at-least-17-states/

Republican lawmakers introduce bills to curb protesting in at least 17 states

By Christopher Ingraham February 24 at 11:37 AM

Since the election of President Trump, Republican lawmakers in at least 17 states have introduced or voted on legislation to curb mass protests in what civil liberties experts are calling “an attack on protest rights throughout the states.”

From Virginia to Washington state, legislators have introduced bills that would increase punishments for blocking highways, ban the use of masks during protests, indemnify drivers who strike protesters with their cars and, in at least once case, seize the assets of people involved in protests that later turn violent. The proposals come after a string of mass protest movements in the past few years, covering everything from police shootings of unarmed black men to the Dakota Access Pipeline to the inauguration of Trump.

Some are introducing bills because they say they're necessary to counter the actions of “paid” or “professional” protesters who set out to intimidate or disrupt, a common accusation that experts agree is largely overstated. “You now have a situation where you have full-time, quasi-professional agent-provocateurs that attempt to create public disorder,” said Republican state senator John Kavanagh of Arizona in support of a measure there that would bring racketeering charges against some protesters.

Others, like the sponsors of a bill in Minnesota, say the measures are necessary to protect public safety on highways. Still other bills, in states like Oklahoma and South Dakota, are intended to discourage protesting related to oil pipelines.

Democrats in many of these states are fighting the legislation. They cite existing laws that already make it a crime to block traffic, the possibility of a chilling effect on protests across the political spectrum, and concerns for protesters’ safety in the face of aggressive motorists.

None of the proposed legislation has yet been passed into law, and several bills have already been shelved in committee.

Critics doubt whether many of the laws would pass Constitutional muster. “The Supreme Court has gone out of its way on multiple occasions to point out that streets, sidewalks and public parks are places where [First Amendment] protections are at their most robust,” said Lee Rowland, a senior attorney with theAmerican Civil Liberties Union.

This is by no means the first time in American history that widespread protests have inspired a legislative backlash, says Douglas McAdam, a Stanford sociology professor who studies protest movements. “For instance, southern legislatures — especially in the Deep South — responded to the Montgomery Bus Boycott (and the Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education) with dozens and dozens of new bills outlawing civil rights groups, limiting the rights of assembly, etc. all in an effort to make civil rights organizing more difficult,” he said via email.

“Similarly,” he added, “laws designed to limit or outlaw labor organizing or limit labor rights were common in the late 19th/early 20th century.”

The ACLU’s Rowland says the new bills are not about “creating new rules that are necessary because of some gap in the law.” She points out, for instance, that “every single city and county in the United States” already has laws on the books against obstructing traffic on busy roads.

Rather, Rowland says the laws’ intent is “increasing the penalties for protest-related activity to the point that it results in self-censorship among protesters who have every intention to obey the law.”

Even the accusations of “paid” or “professional” agitators, which Trump has promoted, have been leveled at protesters before.

“This is standard operating procedure for movement opponents,” Stanford’s McAdam said. “Civil rights workers were said to be ‘outside agitators, and the tea party was dismissed as an ‘AstroTurf’ phenomenon — funded from on high by the Koch brothersand others — rather than a legitimate ‘grass roots’ movement. In all these cases, including the present, the charges are generally bogus, with the vast majority of protesters principled individuals motivated by the force of deeply held values and strong emotion.”

But now, social media has made it possible to organize larger protests more rapidly than ever before. “The older laws are becoming less effectual in dealing with these kind of groups,” said Michael Heaney of the University of Michigan, a political sociologist who studies protest movements. On top of that, “the courts have said, ‘Look, the people have a right to protest in this way.’ ” So on some level the new legislation represents an attempt by lawmakers to catch up with new realities of 21st-century protesting.

Here’s a list of laws that have been introduced or voted on since the election.

Arizona

Arizona’s bill, introduced this week, would open up protests to anti-racketeering legislation, targeting protesters with the same laws used to combat organized crime syndicates. It would also allow police to seize the assets of anyone involved in a protest that at some point becomes violent. It recently passed the state Senate on a party-line vote and is now before the House.

Colorado

A bill under consideration in Colorado would strengthen penalties for “tampering” with oil and gas equipment. It’s intended to prevent activists from shutting off pipelines, a tactic that’s been used in other states.

Florida

A bill introduced by Republican George Gainer in the Florida Senate this month would provide criminal penalties for protesters obstructing traffic and exempt drivers from liability if they struck a protester under certain conditions. It was filed this week, and if enacted would take force on July 1.

Iowa

A bill supported by nine Republican sponsors would make protesters who intentionally block highways subject to felony charges and up to five years in prison. The bill’s lead sponsor told the Des Moines Register it was introduced in response to a November incident in which a protest Trump shut down part of Interstate 80 in Iowa.

Indiana

An Indiana Senate committee recently toned down a bill that would have allowed police to shut down highway protests using “any means necessary.” The current version allows police to issue fines for such behavior.

Michigan

A Michigan bill voted on late last year would have increased fines for certain “mass picketing” behavior, and made it easier for courts to shut down such demonstrations.

Minnesota

Bills under consideration in Minnesota would increase fines for protesters blocking highways and airports. A separate measure before the legislature would make it possible for jurisdictions to charge protesters for the costs of policing the protests.

Missouri

A Republican lawmaker has introduced legislation that would make it illegal for protesters to wear masks, robes or other disguises during protests deemed to be illegal.

Mississippi

A bill before the Mississippi legislature would make obstruction of traffic a felony punishable by a $10,000 fine and a five-year prison sentence.

North Carolina

A North Carolina Republican has pledged to introduce legislation making it a crime to “threaten, intimidate or retaliate against” current or former state officials, in response to an incident involving the heckling of Gov. Pat McCrory. The Senator proposing the legislation, Dan Bishop, confirmed via email that he still intends to introduce the legislation, perhaps as early as next week, after consulting with potential co-sponsors.

North Dakota

A number of North Dakota bills have been introduced in response to the long-standing protests there against the Dakota Access Pipeline. The measure that drew the most attention was a bill that would have removed penalties for motorists who strike protesters with their car in some circumstances. That bill failed to make it out of the House, but a number of other measures increasing penalties for certain types of protest action are advancing through the legislature.

Oklahoma

Inspired by pipeline protests in North Dakota, the Oklahoma legislature is considering a bill that would increase penalties for trespassing on certain pieces of “critical infrastructure” like pipelines and railways.

Oregon

A novel piece of legislation in Oregon would require public community colleges and universities to expel any student convicted of participating in a violent riot.

South Dakota

A Senate panel in South Dakota recently approved a bill that would increase penalties for certain acts of trespassing and blocking highways. It’s a response to pipeline protests in North Dakota, and to the potential for similar protests in South Dakota if the Keystone XL pipeline gets built.

Tennessee

A Tennessee Republican wants drivers to be protected from liability if they inadvertently strike a protester who is blocking a roadway.

Virginia

A Virginia bill that would have increased penalties for people who refused to leave the scene of a riot or unlawful protest died in the state Senate last month. The bill had been requested by law enforcement.

Washington state

Washington lawmakers are considering a bill to increase penalties for people blocking highways and railways, acts that the bill's sponsor has characterized as “economic terrorism.”

---

==

http://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/321018-state-legislators-take-steps-to-criminalize-protests

Republican state legislators across the country are advancing bills that would criminalize or penalize some public protests just a month after millions of Americans took to the streets in opposition to President Trump.

In North Dakota, where protesters occupied land around an unfinished section of the Dakota Access oil pipeline, Gov. Doug Burgum (R) on Thursday signed four laws that would stiffen penalties against protests. The measures increase sanctions for offenses related to riots and broaden the definition of trespassing, allowing law enforcement officers to issue citations and fines.

The new laws, passed under emergency provisions that allow them to take effect immediately, came just hours after a protest camp near the pipeline was evacuated.

Senators in neighboring South Dakota on Thursday passed a bill that would allow the governor to create a "safety zone" in emergency situations. Anyone who entered the zone would be fined.

Legislators who backed the measure specifically cited the Dakota Access project and possible protests against the Keystone XL oil pipeline, which will run through South Dakota. Gov. Dennis Daugaard (R), who sponsored the legislation, said it was needed to deter “professional agitators.”

“Certainly, the Keystone XL pipeline would be a likely prompt to these types of demonstrations,” Daugaard told reporters at a press conference last week.

Native American tribes objected to the legislation, which they say improperly targets them.

Minnesota lawmakers say cracking down on protesters who block access to highways is among their top priorities this legislative session. On Wednesday, two legislative committees voted to increase penalties for protests that block access and to make protesters liable for costs incurred by police responding to their demonstrations.

The Minnesota legislation follows protests against the shooting deaths of several black men by police. Those protests blocked roads leading to the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport. Legislators in Indiana and Iowa have also considered bills to criminalize blocking streets during protests.

Arizona Republicans have introduced a measure to expand racketeering laws, which target organized crime groups, to include rioting. The bill would allow police officers to arrest and the seize the assets of those who organize protest events.

Civil libertarians say the measures are unconstitutional overreactions to a historic era of protests.

“Robust protest activity is a sign of the health of our republic. Our democracy is literally designed for citizens to get out in the streets and make their voices heard to their legislators,” said Lee Rowland, a senior attorney with the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy and Technology Project.

“To see legislators in these states make it a priority not to listen to the voices of their constituents, but to silence them, is deeply troubling and fundamentally un-American.”

One measure in Tennessee goes so far as to give civil immunity to a driver who hits a protester blocking traffic.

The legislation, sponsored by state Rep. Matthew Hill (R), comes after a car hit volunteers helping protesters cross a street in Nashville as they demonstrated against the Trump administration’s orders blocking immigrants from seven Muslim-majority countries.

Hill’s measure passed its first test in a state Senate committee earlier his month. Hill did not respond to a request for comment on Friday.

A similar bill failed in the North Dakota legislature earlier this month.

Republican-led legislatures in Michigan and Virginia have already rejected their own measures increasing penalties on protests.

Rowland, who has been following state legislatures for about a dozen years, said the measures represent a “fairly unprecedented level” of action against protestors. The wave of bills come after high-profile protests including the Occupy movement, Black Lives Matter, and the Women's March on Washington, which took place the day after Trump’s inauguration.

The women’s march drew more than 3 million participants in cities across the nation. It attracted more people to Washington’s subway system than Trump’s inauguration, the city's transit authority reported.

==

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2013/jun/17/kobach-says-he-considering-filing-charges-against-/

cf youtube

EKA — Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach said today he is considering filing criminal charges against immigration reform advocates who protested on his home's porch over the weekend. Those who helped organize and participated in the protest said nothing improper happened.

Reports indicated that anywhere from 100 to 300 people participated in the protest at Kobach's home in western Wyandotte County on Saturday. of the event showed people standing on Kobach's porch and in the driveway chanting pro-immigration slogans and leaving pairs of shoes that they said represented the shoes of fathers who have been deported because of Kobach's anti-immigration policies.

Kobach, a Republican who has built a national profile pushing tough illegal immigration laws, called the protesters a mob and said they were trying to intimidate him.

Kobach, his wife and their young daughters were not home at the time. "If my daughters had seen 200 people coming up the driveway, it would have been very scary for them," Kobach said.

"We are looking into what charges will be filed," he said. "There are a variety of charges, a number of statutes that apply," he said, mentioning criminal threat, criminal terrorism, and littering....

sunflower comm

hope, court:

A mistrial has been declared in the case of environmental activist Ken Ward, who was facing three felony charges and one misdemeanor charge after he shut off a valve on the Trans Mountain pipeline in Washington state to stop the flow of tar sands oil coming into the United States from Canada in October. His action was part of a coordinated protest during which the valves on pipelines in Minnesota, Montana and North Dakota were also shut off. The mistrial was declared after a Skagit County, Washington,jury couldn’t reach a verdict.

Last week, Doug Ericksen, communications director for Trump's EPA transition team, told NPR that the agency planned to review all of its scientists' studies on a "case by case basis" prior to publication. Employees were also told to "scrub" EPA's climate change web pages, although the administration backed off that charge. Ericksen told Bloomberg BNA that the agency plans to restore full communications rights, including social media, "as soon as possible."

Until we learn more, here's what we do know about the beachhead team and some notable affiliations, mapped out using the LittleSis platform.

view this map on LittleSis

Koch and Coal Connections

Charles Munozis the White House liaison to the EPA landing team and was a top Trump organizer in his home state of Nevada. Munoz helped launch the Nevada chapter of Americans for Prosperity, a political advocacy group funded by the Kochs.

David Schnare, who has waged intimidation campaigns against climate scientists, worked for 33 years at the EPA before joining a number of Koch-affiliated entities.

Schnare is director of the the Free Market Environmental Law Clinic at George Mason University, which serves as the official attorney for the Energy and Environment Legal Institute. Both are funded extensively by Donors Capital Fund and Donors Trust. Schnare is also an energy policy expert at the Heartland Institute.

David Kreutzer was a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, a group funded by foundations controlled by Koch Industries

After working at the EPA during the George W. Bush Administration, George Sugiyama lobbied for the National Mining Association. Sugiyama also served as legal adviser to the Republican minority, led by Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe, on the Senate environment committee. Inhofe is arguably the best-known climate science denier in Congress and famously declared climate change to be a "hoax."

Washington State's Worst on Climate

Two Washington state officials, described as the state's "most radical small government lawmakers," have been assigned key posts on the beachhead team. Don Benton, who once introduced legislation based on Agenda 21 conspiracy theories, is the Senior White House Advisor to the EPA transition. And Doug Ericksen is serving as communications director for the transition team.

Described by the Seattle Times as "an ally of the fossil-fuel industry," Doug Ericksen was named by Washington Conservation Voters as among the state's "Dirty Dozen" worst politicians.

Ericksen wants to make it a felony for oil-by-rail protests to block train tracks, describing it as "economic terrorism," although the Seattle Times notes that Ericksen's motive is "punishing environmentalists, tribal activists and others who have illegally obstructed oil and coal trains, pipelines and similar projects." The Times notes, "More than going after individual protesters,Ericksen said the legislation's goal is to target wealthy, liberal donors, such as billionaires George Soros or Tom Steyer and organizations such as the Sierra Club, for sponsoring disruptive demonstrations. They could be held liable for damages under the bill."

Shannon Murphy, head of the Washington Conservation Voters, said, "Sen. Ericksen's and Benton's environmental records speak for themselves. They are both climate deniers who have consistently voted against protecting clean air and water for communities across the state."

The Rest of the Team

Patrick Davisran Trump's campaign in Colorado and before that was accused of defrauding a wealthy super PAC by steering money to fake organizations "run" by Davis and his friends.

Layne Bangerter headed the Trump campaign in Idaho and most recently worked with Sen. Mike Crapo (R-ID), whose website claims that the cause of changes to the Earth's climate "is ultimately not well-understood and is a matter of vigorous debate." Koch Industries donated $40,000 to Crapo's campaign from 2013-2014.

Justin Schwab is serving as the main legal advisor and is currently an attorney at the corporate law firm Baker Hostetler in Washington, DC.

Holly Greaves is working on budget issues and was most recently a public accountant for KPMG, which works with a number of oil, gas and utility industry clients.

Reposted with permission from our media associate DeSmogBlog.

==

==

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/four-more-journalists-slapped-felony-charges-covering-inauguration-unrest

==

http://www.alternet.org/trumps-america-felony-riot-charges-against-inauguration-protesters-signal-dangerous-wave-repression

More than 200 people who were mass-arrested at the Washington, D.C. protests against the inauguration of Donald Trump have been hit with felony riot charges that are punishable by up to 10 years in prison. Those picked up in the sweep—including legal observers and journalists—had their phones, cameras and other personal belongings confiscated as evidence, a lawyer confirmed to AlterNet.

Demonstrators warn that the crackdown signals a new wave of repression against the protesters, whose mass mobilization was met with riot police violence, National Guard and Department of Homeland Security deployments, heavy surveillance and law enforcement snipers positioned on rooftops....

In Trump's America, 'Felony Riot' Charges Against Inauguration Protesters Signal Dangerous Wave of Repression

More than 200 people mass arrested in Washington, D.C. facing up to 10 years in prison.

By Sarah Lazare / AlterNet

January 22, 2017

-

More than 200 people who were mass-arrested at the Washington, D.C. protests against the inauguration of Donald Trump have been hit with felony riot charges that are punishable by up to 10 years in prison. Those picked up in the sweep—including legal observers and journalists—had their phones, cameras and other personal belongings confiscated as evidence, a lawyer confirmed to AlterNet.

Demonstrators warn that the crackdown signals a new wave of repression against the protesters, whose mass mobilization was met with riot police violence, National Guard and Department of Homeland Security deployments, heavy surveillance and law enforcement snipers positioned on rooftops.

“These charges are absolutely horrifying. They are just trying to stop any resistance to the Trump administration,” Samantha Miller, an organizer with the Disrupt J20 Collective, told AlterNet. “Many of these demonstrators were showing rage and fear of what’s coming. It’s going to take a lot more than asking nicely to create change and stop the threats from the Trump administration.”

The vast majority of the roughly 230 people who were kettled and mass-arrested at the anti-capitalist bloc during Friday’s protests have been charged under thefelony riot act, said Mark Goldstone, a National Lawyers Guild-affiliated attorney who has defended protesters in Washington, D.C. for more than 30 years. Washington, D.C. authorities put this number at 217. Goldstone confirmed to AlterNet that legal observers and journalists were among those detained in the sweep, explaining that, throughout his career in Washington, D.C.,he has never seen mass charges of this kind.

Jeffrey Light, a Washington, D.C.-based lawyer who provided legal support to the Disrupt J20 Collective, agreed with this assessment. “I have been representing protesters for 13 years now, and I have never seen felony rioting charges in Washington, D.C. It is not one of the standard laws that they tend to use. This is unusual. It is rare to use that charge.”

“Across the board, all phones and cameras are being held as evidence, and they are also detaining gloves and cell phone chargers as evidence,” said Light. “They are giving people their wallets back generally, but that’s it. It is extremely troubling.”

According to a class-action lawsuit filed by Light on Friday, those picked up in the sweep and hit with felony riot charges already endured abuse at the hands of the police. “Our class action lawsuit charges that the police were rounding up everyone on the street without warning and putting them under arrest and using excessive force,” said Light. “There were a number of weapons we haven't seen Washington, D.C. police use in recent memory, flash bang grenades and tear gas. In addition to chemical irritants, they were assaulting people with batons. They were beating people.”

Those kettled by police were forced to wait for hours in the street and on school buses, many of them going untreated for injuries, say supporters. “They are trying to set a tone to chill further demos of this nature, and I don’t think it’s going to work,” Bob Hayes, a Washington, D.C. resident who is helping coordinate legal support, told AlterNet. “They are trying to put pressure on individuals to collaborate with the investigations.”

Light emphasized that, while the riot felony charges are new, the mass arrests are not. Acting DC Police Chief Peter Newsham, who oversaw this weekend’s crackdown, was the assistant police chief who presided over another mass arrest more than a decade ago. In the fall of 2002, the Metropolitan police department mass arrested hundreds of people at a World Bank protest in Washington, D.C.’s Pershing Park and hogtied them for up to 24 hours while in detention, before dropping all charges. In a 2015 settlement, the city was forced to pay $2.2 million to nearly 400 protesters.

Newsham, who ordered the mass arrests in 2002, oversaw the police crackdown against inauguration protesters.

Friday’s crackdown came as mass protests erupted across Washington, D.C. and the world, overshadowing the inauguration of Donald Trump, who rose to power on a tide of white nationalism and fascism. On Friday morning, social movements including the Movement for Black Lives and groups centering Muslim, Jewish and immigrant resistance, converged at 14 different "security" checkpoints, to shut down, slow and disrupt the presidential inauguration of Donald Trump. “We stand in solidarity with everyone who challenges oppression in all of its forms, everywhere around the world, in favor of dignity, self-determination, and defending our collective well-being,” reads a statement from the anti-capitalist, anti-fascist bloc circulated ahead of Friday's protests.

Those arrested in Washington, D.C. faced an outpouring of public support. Ryan Harvey, an activist and musician with Firebrand Records, told AlterNet that hundreds gathered outside the jail on Saturday to show their support for those being released. “Every time people came out, the crowd would cheer and chant,” with the term “anticapitalista” an oft-repeated refrain. “For many, it was like a surprise birthday party, and their faces lit up. Street medics were on-scene, and many supporters brought food, clothes, coffee, tea and water.”

...

http://www.alternet.org/right-wing/north-dakota-gop-lawmaker-proposes-bill-would-let-motorists-run-over-pipeline-protesters

As Donald Trump takes office, pushing a wave of explicitly authoritarian federal policies and practices, Republican leaders at every level are following suit. The latest example is North Dakota lawmaker Keith Kempenich, who has introduced a bill that would let drivers who run down protesters blocking roads and other thoroughfares, go scott free. The $3.8 billion project, which would span 1,100 miles and include Sioux land at the Standing Rock reservation, was halted in December after months of high-profile protests. Kempenich, who spoke to the Bismark Tribune, was completely candid in expressing that he created the legislation in response to protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline.

“It’s shifting the burden of proof from the motor vehicle driver to the pedestrian,” Kempenich told the newspaper. The state Rep. went on to justify his bill, which would allow motorists to potentially maim or kill protesters using a vehicle—thousands of pounds of fast-moving metal—but complaining that protesters are “intentionally putting themselves in danger."

Kempenich’s says his opposition to the United States Constitution, and its First Amendment-granted rights of free speech, is the result of his mother-in-law being inconvenienced while driving through protests. The lawmaker cited an instance when he says, as she drove past a long line of cars parked along shoulder of the road, a protester jumped in front of her car waving a sign. It seems just as likely that the protester emerged from a blind spot created by the stationary cars, as can happen in any situation where parked vehicles create a visual barrier. It’s impossible to say definitively, since neither Kempenich nor any of the other six Republican sponsors of the bill were there at the time.

"It's shocking to see legislation that allows for people to literally be killed for exercising their right to protest in a public space," Tara Houska, a Native activist who works with environmental organization Honor the Earth, told NBC News. "These [bills] are meant to criminalize the protests with no real concern for constitutional law.”

Along with Kempenich, other Republican backers of the bill include Michael Brandenburg, Vernon Laning, Bill Oliver, Karen Rohr, Dwight Cook and Donald Schaible. If you’d like to reach Kempenich to express your thoughts and feelings on the proposed legislation, his contact information is available at his website, here.

This isn’t the first time in recent months that GOP legislators have tried to push aggressively anti-free speech laws. In Washington State, Republican Senator Doug Ericksen has proposed a law that would create “a new crime of economic terrorism” which could allow for the arrest and prosecution of any protesters who “block transportation and commerce, cause property damage, threaten jobs and put public safety at risk.” Ericksen is likely well aware of the fact that “blocking commerce” succinctly describes pretty much every protest, ever. Republican Representative Kathy Lohmer of Stillwater, Minnesota, is floating a bill that further criminalizes and penalizes protesting on freeways. Lohmer’s legislation would increase fines from $1,000 to $3,000 and raise jail time from 90 days to a full year.

==

==

http://www.alternet.org/environment/i-may-be-facing-felony-charges-shutting-pipeline-valve-real-radicals-are-running-fossil

jihnston

thinking a lot about risk lately—what we’re willing to risk, and why. I was one of five activists who turned off the major tar sands pipelines coming into the United States on Oct. 11, 2016. As a result, I’m risking prison time, ostensibly for property damage (we cut a few chains to access the valves), but really for being disobedient to business as usual. It's also possible they'll file a restitution suit, for temporarily disrupting a pipeline that’s highly profitable for some, at the expense of all others.

I took part in the action in full awareness of these risks—in dread of them, to some degree—because of the risk that Enbridge and the other companies engaged in the extraction, transport and sale of tar sands are taking, which is the unimaginably huge risk that if the world’s scientists are correct, what really flows through those pipelines is the end of human history....

12/29/2016

==

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/03/12/hawaii-san-diego-most-wanted/6341641/

FBI hunting Hawaii for most-wanted domestic terrorist

AP 5:26 p.m. EDT March 12, 2014

AP Animal Rights Bombings

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — The FBI said Wednesday agents are hunting in Hawaii for the nation's most wanted domestic terrorism suspect.

The FBI office in San Francisco said the agency received "credible intelligence" that Daniel Andreas San Diego might be on the state's Big Island. Agents are searching for him in the island's eastern district of Puna and in the small, eclectic town of Pahoa.

San Diego, 36, is suspected to be an animal rights extremist. He is charged with exploding pipe bombs in front of two San Francisco Bay Area companies with ties to a lab that conducted animal experiments.

STORY FROM DOCTORS WITHOUT BORDERS

Mobile malaria care in Democratic Republic of Congo

San Diego is atop the FBI's list of most-wanted domestic terrorists, and the agency is offering a $250,000 reward for information leading to his arrest.

Kai Sorte, who manages anorganic deliin Pahoa, said FBI agents had visited the small, counter-cultural town about 18 months ago in search of San Diego. Sorte said he was interviewed again Monday and said FBI agents believe San Diego is looking for "some sort of cause or movement" to join.

"This town is a melting pot of a lot of different cultures," Sorte said.

Sorte said the agents didn't say why they returned to Pahoa.

FBI spokesman Peter Lee declined to comment on the nature of the "credible intelligence" that compelled agents from San Francisco to travel to Hawaii in search of San Diego.

This is the second and most specific alert the FBI has issued for him since he disappeared in October 2003 in San Francisco while being tailed by FBI agents. In 2011 the FBI said it had "substantive and credible" information that San Diego might have been in western Massachusetts after it received a tip prompted by an airing of the case on the television show America's Most Wanted.

San Diego's image appeared on electronic billboards from California to New York, including above Times Square, for about a week earlier this month.

Late last year, the FBI called on the public's help in locating San Diego, who was raised in an upper-middle class suburb of Marin County north of San Francisco.

His father, Edmund San Diego, was the city manager of Belvedere, a wealthy Marin County enclave. Edmund San Diego didn't return a phone call Wednesday. He has declined to talk about his son in the past.

San Diego, who was under 24-hour surveillance, gave the FBI the slip on the afternoon of Oct. 6, 2003, in downtown San Francisco.

He is charged with setting off three bombs at the two companies in the wee hours. No one was injured, and minor damage was done to the buildings, including shattered windows.

Two pipe bomb explosions struck an hour apart at biotechnology company Chiron Corp. on Aug. 28, 2003, and investigators said the second bomb was set to injure first responders. A bomb strapped with nails exploded at cosmetic maker Shaklee Corp. on Sept. 26, 2003.

The search for San Diego has spanned the globe. FBI officials have said they've talked with authorities in Germany, the United Kingdom, Costa Rica, France, Spain, Denmark, Austria, Italy, the Czech Republic, Mexico, Argentina, the Philippines and Chile.

San Diego has ties to animal rights extremist groups and is a vegan who doesn't eat food containing animal products, according to the FBI.

He also has unusual tattoos, the FBI says, including a round image of burning hillsides on his chest with the words "It only takes a spark" written below. The sides of his abdomen and back have images of burning and collapsing buildings.

San Diego has worked as a computer network specialist and with the Linux operating system and is skilled at sailing.

==

as predicted:

Trump-supporting Republican lawmaker is trying to legally define protests, like some of those erupting across the country against his candidate of choice, labeled a form of “terrorism.” In a statement issued Wednesday, Washington state Senator Doug Ericksen says he is drafting a bill that would allow for felony prosecution of protesters who “intentionally break the law...by obstructing economic activity.” Considering that almost all protest could be defined as getting in the way of business interests, Ericksen’s bill is an obvious attack on citizens’ First Amendment rights.

In an unvarnished look at the trickery we may see plenty of in Trump’s America, Ericksen says he will propose creating “a new crime of economic terrorism” which could be used against those whose protest activities “block transportation and commerce, cause property damage, threaten jobs and put public safety at risk.” Ericksen, who was Trump’s deputy campaign director in Washington state, said in the statement that he’s actually all for civil disobedience, even though he wants to make many kinds of protest—that is, constitutionally protected freedom of speech and assembly—felony offenses.

“I respect the right to protest, but when it endangers people’s lives and property, it goes too far,” Ericksen said. “Fear, intimidation and vandalism are not a legitimate form of political expression. Those who employ it must be called to account.”

Ericksen also threatened those who support protesters in their right to protest, stating, “We are not just going after the people who commit these acts of terrorism. We are going after the people who fund them. Wealthy donors should not feel safe in disrupting middle-class jobs.”

Since we’re on the subject of economic issues, it seems relevant to point out that an Associated Press investigation found during the first four months of 2013,Ericksen was “the biggest beneficiary of lobbyist expense accounts” of all Washington’s lawmakers. The AP report noted that lobbyists treated Ericksen to “free meals, drinks or golf...about every other day over the first four months of the year — and even more frequent[ly] if weekends are excluded.” Ericksen, who has been consistently poor on climate issues, had at the time just taken a leadership role in the state Senate Energy, Environment and Telecommunications Committee. The investigation found that Ericksen accepted these gifts from lobbyists who overwhelmingly “represented energy and oil companies, such as BP.”

In a statement released earlier this year, Washington State Democrats communications director Jamal Raad said, "When big oil asks Doug Ericksen to jump, his only question is 'how high?'"

As Washington ACLUspokesperson Doug Honig noted to the Seattle Times, there are already laws in place that make it illegal to imperil people’s lives and property, so Ericksen’s bill is completely redundant. Honig also pointed out that the ambiguity of Ericksen’s “economic terrorism” could make protests like those in opposition to the Dakota Access Pipeline a crime. Speaking with Fox affiliate Q13 Honig noted Ericksen’s fundamentally un-American bill would have kept African Americans from protesting their treatment in the 1960s.

“Let’s keep in mind that civil rights protesters who sat down at lunch counters could be seen as ‘disrupting business’ and ‘obstructing economic activity,’ and their courageous actions were opposed by segregationists as trying to ‘coerce business and government,’” Honig said.

He added, “The statement throws out a lot of broad rhetoric, and we’ll need to see an actual bill. But we’re already concerned that some of its loose terms appear to be targeting civil disobedience as ‘terrorism.’ That’s the kind of excessive approach to peaceful protest that our country and state do not need."

Contact information for Doug Ericksen’s office is listed on his website, should you have any thoughts you’d like to express about his proposed legislation. His office phone number—always the best way to reach a legislator—is (360) 786-7682.

Kali Holloway is a senior writer and the associate editor of media and culture at AlterNet.

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/trump-loving-gop-lawmaker-proposes-bill-define-protests-form-terrorism

==

dapl also press suppression

http://www.desmogblog.com/2016/10/12/officers-riot-gear-arrest-dozens-protesters-dakota-access-pipeline-construction-resumes

==

UK police infiltration long term

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/woman-finds-out-boyfriend-six-years-undercover-cop-spying-her-and-her-friends

==

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/:{Criminalising_civil_disobedience}:

srcwtch

The coining of the term eco-terrorism is credited by many to the Executive Director of the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise, Ron Arnold.

In the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks, the word 'terrorism' has become a potent political weapon. For years Arnold has blurred the boundaries between what constitutes civil disobedience and elevated vandalism to equal terrorism. The conflation of civil disobedience with terrorism is a calculated strategy.

Legislation using the cover of cracking down on 'eco-terrorism' - such as that currently being promoted by the American Legislative Exchange Council - is percolating its way through the legislatures of a number of U.S. states. While vandalism and criminal damage is already illegal, the attraction of such legislation is in defining "terrorism" so broadly as to ban civil disobedience.

One of the most potent tactics employed over the last twenty years in the environment movement has been through organising peaceful civil disobedience protests. Such protests often result in an issue gaining widespread media coverage prompting public discussion of important public issues and, in some cases, resulted in environmental victories.

Groups that have a high media profile also have the ability to successfully raise funds from appeals directly to millions of citizens. For the conservative movement, legislating against civil disobedience under the guise of cracking down on 'ecoterrorism' would dramatically reduce both the media profile and fundraising capacity of groups such as Greenpeace, the Rainforest Action Network and local grassroots groups.

What makes the possibility of such a legislative crackdown possible is the existence of groups - including Earth First! and the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society - that have condoned or undertaken damage to property but have stated their opposition to violence against individuals. Vandalism has also been widely attributed to other more shadowy 'groups' such as the Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front.

For PR advisers to industry, the ability to portray the existence of at least some real environmentalists that support damage to property has been a boon.

In 1991 Greenpeace International was campaigning against the use of chlorine in the pulp and paper industries due to its toxic pollution problems. This campaign caused the huge US chlorine producer, Clorox to have the Public Relations division of Ketchum Communications draft a crisis management plan based on the assumption that Greenpeace would target the household use of chlorine.

In one of many scenarios canvassed, Ketchum pondered what to do in response to a hypothetical newspaper column calling for a boycott of Clorox products and Greenpeace pickets in front of supermarkets in 10 major cities. One component of a suggested action plan was "Industry association advertising campaign: 'Stop Environmental Terrorism' calling on Greenpeace and the columnist to be more responsible and less irrational in their approach".

In June 2001, the Frontiers of Freedom sponsored an "Eco-Terror" Conference, called "Eco-Terrorism & Extremism: The Costs Imposed on Americans," addressed by republicans, right-wing activists and wise use leaders, who were determined to try and make environmentalists the domestic public enemy number one, although this would change with September 11th. Speakers included Malcolm Wallop, Orrin Hatch, Congressman GeorgeNethercutt, Ron Arnold from the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise, Steven J. Milloy"the Junkman" and R. J. Smith from the Competitive Enterprise Institute. According to FoF: "the extreme environmental movement is endangering lives, harming the environment, killing jobs and economic opportunity, and costing taxpayers millions of dollars".

At the conference Wallop and Arnold singled out Rainforest Action Network, which was labelled "one of the biggest law-breakers." More important though was that Congressman George Nethercutt outlined plans for what was described as a "a full-out legal assault on so-called 'eco-terrorism', including a bill that would convey mandatory prison sentences for violence against environmental and life-sciences research".

More recently Marc Levin, a lawyer and president of the American Freedom Center seized upon a report by Public Interest Watch attacking Greenpeace. After reviewing a number of incidents of damage to property attributed to the Animal Liberation Front and Earth Liberation Front, Levin sought to smear Greenpeace with the ecoterrorism tag. "While these acts of ecoterror are clearly illegal, few people realize that the money used to commit many of these crimes may have been illegally laundered through tax-exempt organizations whose donors - individuals and nonprofit foundations unaware of the laundering - receive tax deductions," he wrote in the New Jersey Law Journal.

Levin flagged the move by the U.S. Department of Justice to sue Greenpeace for the April 2002 boarding of a cargo ship approaching Miami that was laden with timber from the Brazilian rainforests. Without skipping a beat, Levin conflated Greenpeace's peaceful protest with ecoterrorism, which, he argued, justified an IRS crackdown. "Prosecuting ecoterrorists has proved difficult; they have a "cell" structure and lack centralized leaderships or membership rosters. But this is precisely why it is critically important that the IRS does its part to immobilize ecoterror groups by investigating how moneys flow through tax-exempt organizations to affiliates," he wrote.

It is a theme echoed by Neil Hrab from the Competitive Enterprise Institute in an article published in the 2004 edition of Organization Trends, a publication of the conservative Capital Research Center. Hrab complained of groups undertaking direct action that "seldom are they threatened with loss of their nonprofit tax status unless an outside party undertakes a difficult and costly challenge". [1]

In Australia draft legislation defining charities sought to disqualify groups involved in civil disobedience from qualifying for tax deductibility. The Executive Director of the corporate funded think tank, the Institute of Public Affairs, Mike Nahan, was enthusiastic about the proposed changes, acknowledging that the disqualifying purposes "will threaten the charity status of several organisations".

"For example Greenpeace, which regularly engages in trespass and other breaches of the law, would have its charity status threatened by a requirement to not break the law," he wrote. [2] After an outcry from community groups the proposal has been shelved.

Government's have also used their broad discretionary powers in issung travel documents as a way of punishing advocates of civil disobedience. In September 2005 the Australian Government revoked the six-month visitors visa of Scott Parkin, an environmental and peace activist from the Houston Global Awareness Collective. Parkin was arrested, six weeks after he arrived in the country, on "character grounds" and imprisoned pending deportation. [3] Government officials refused to explain to Parkin or his lawyers the basis for re-assessing his status.

Australian Greens Senator Bob Brown suspects Parkin was arrested because of his campaigning against the military contractor Halliburton.[4] Two weeks ago Parkin spoke at a protest outside the Sydney office of KBR, a Halliburtonsubsidiary. [5] A barrister representing Parkin, Julian Burnside, has indicated he will lodge an appeal against his re-classification with the Migration Review Tribunal. "If all Mr Parkin has done to be assessed a security risk is to peacefully protest his opinions, then we are in serious trouble," Burnside said. [6]

Other SourceWatch resources

• Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act
• eco-terrorism hoaxes
• Stop Eco Violence
• Intimidating democracy
• Intimidating foundations
• Intimidating public interest groups
• Australia Revokes Scott Parkin's Visa
• Vandalism of John Gay's house

External links

• Copy of Kethcum's Leaked Draft Clorox Crisis Management Plan (4.6MB Pdf file) See page 9
• Greenpeace USA Media Release on Copy of Kethcum's Leaked Draft Clorox Crisis Management Plan
• M. Martin "Congressman Blasts Eco-Terror", United Press International, June 14, 2001.
• Marc Levin, "Beyond Simple Protest", New Jersey Law Journal, November 3, 2003.
• Neil Hrab, "'Direct action' The Tactics of radical activism: part 1: how environmental groups use violent tactics to advance their agenda, Organization Trends, February 2004.
• Mike Nahan, "'Charities' that are really political lobbyists must be exposed", The Age, August 8, 2003.
• Jonathan Birchall, "Activists' hands tied for 7 years", Financial Times, October 24, 2004.
• Bill Berkowitz, "Chilling dissent: As the Bush Administration ratchets up domestic spying the FBI is collecting 'research' reports on 'direct action' environmental groups produced by right wing think tanks", Media Transparency, January 25, 2006.

Category: 

• Activism

==

http://insideclimatenews.org/news/14052015/whats-behind-indias-crackdown-social-justice-climate-activists

India has recently ramped up attacks on environmental and development organizations that work on climate, clean energy and sustainability issues. The world’s largest democracy has frozen bank accounts, restricted international donations, and in some cases prevented the organizations’ staffers from traveling abroad.

The actions come just seven months ahead of international climate treaty talks in Paris in December, and are inspired by fear that foreign interests are trying to curb the nation's economic growth. India is the world's third largest emitter of carbon dioxide, behind China and the United States, and home to millions of the world's people most vulnerable to global warming impacts such as flooding, extreme heat and sea level rise. As a result, India will play a crucial role in the negotiations. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has stressed in recent international speeches that his nation must take a leadership role in the "pressing global problem" of climate change.

Environmentalists said his administration's attacks on the very civil society groups that have been integral in pushing India and other nations to take action on climate change "could hamper the country’s global standing" at the talks, according to Divya Raghunandan, program director of Greenpeace India.

Greenpeace India has had its foreign donations repeatedly frozen—and later unfrozen by Indian courts—over the last year. In late April, the green group learned government officials had frozen seven of its bank accounts that are built largely on domestic donations, which make up approximately 70 percent of its $3.2 million annual budget. The maneuver put the organization in danger of having to shutter its operations in the country before the end of the month. No other country has restricted Greenpeace in this way.

Since opening in 2001, Greenpeace India has been one of the most vocal anti-coal groups in the country, bucking the Modi administration's all-of-the-above, pro-fossil fuel energy strategy. The group successfully blocked coal mining in the Mahan forest in central India after a four-year legal battle and civil disobedience campaign. The organization, which has a staff of 340, also persuaded tea companies to phase out pesticides after it conducted an investigation into their health impacts on workers and consumers.

Greenpeace is hardly the only such organization facing government strictures. The Ford Foundation, 350.org and the ClimateWorks Foundation have seen their donations into India restricted or questioned by federal agencies as well. Nearly 9,000 NGOs (non-government organizations) were notified last month that their licenses to receive funding from abroad had been revoked. So far, even basic details about these groups, such as the issues they work on, haven't been revealed.

The maneuvers haven't completely paralyzed the organizations. Several groups, however, have shifted their focus to less volatile issues or toned down their protests since the attacks began. 350.org, for example, has shifted its focus from stopping coal production to fighting air pollution, but even that work has come under fire recently.

The government's concerns about foreign funding stem from the economic slump that India experienced between 2010 and 2013: its growth rate dropped 5 percentage points in four years. According to an Indian intelligence report leaked last year, government officials believe foreign-based environment and development groups were being paid by foreign interests to purposefully curtail the country's economic growth by subverting projects like coal mines and timber harvesting.

William Antholis, an expert in climate change, international negotiations and development at the University of Virginia, said it is "hard to read what is happening" in India.

"The crackdown on foreign-funded NGOs may be an attempt for Modi to create space so he can act in a way [on climate change] that is not perceived as being influenced by foreign pressure," Antholis said. "But this could also simply be Indian nationalist xenophobia."

The idea that civil society organizations "reduced Indian GDP by a number of percentage points is simply absurd," said Raghunandan. "We are a tiny gnat compared to India’s giant corporations. The idea that a group of a few hundred people have such enormous influence over the Indian economy smacks of paranoia."

The real threat, Raghunandan warned, flows from the top, not the bottom.

"We are being muzzled," he said. "Unless this block on our domestic accounts is removed, our future is in real doubt."

Conflict and Climate

Climate change and power in India are hugely complicated and challenging issues. Parts of the country still lack electricity while blackouts are near daily occurrences in others. In 2012, amidst extreme heat and a late monsoon season that meant hydroelectric plants were generating less than average energy, over 600 million people—half of the entire country and twice the population of the United States—lost power.

Modiserved as leader of the western Indian state of Gujarat from 2001 to 2014. In that time, he transformed the area's power system into India's most expansive and reliable. He did it largely by restructuring the electrical grid, cracking down on electricity theft, and charging residents for their power usage—a novel practice in the country at the time. Modi also embraced an all-of-the-above energy strategy, expanding coal, hydroelectricity, and renewable power generation.

When he ran for prime minister of India in 2014, Modi campaigned on the promise of applying the power reforms in Gujarat to the rest of the country. He has spoken openly about the need for international climate action and expansion of renewable energy, calling the latter "a personal and national priority" during a visit with President Barack Obama earlier this year. But environmentalists disagree with Modi's strong support for a growing fossil fuel sector in India, said Hoda Baraka, a 350.org international spokeswoman who has been watching the situation in India closely. Already, Modi has fast-tracked coal mining projects in several parts of the country. The government plans to double India's domestic coal use by 2019. Political and environmental experts say India, not China, could be the biggest hurdle in reaching an international agreement on climate change in December.

When Modi talks about the growing need to tackle climate change, Baraka said, “It is a contradiction that cannot be overlooked.”

India's wind and solar electricity increased 13 percent in the last year, but the nation is still the world's third-largest coal consumer, after China and the United States. Federal officials argue an all-of-the-above energy strategy with expansion of both fossil fuels and renewables is the only way they will be able to grow their economy and provide reliable power to the 77 million people still living without electricity in the country today. The country's long-term plan is to expand, and increase the tax on, coal production to fund large-scale renewable energy projects. Modi said he hopes to spend $100 billion to reach 175 gigawatts of renewable power by 2022.

"There is no way India is going to grow its economy without growing coal," Antholis said. "The idea that Prime Minister Modi can't make positive pledges to climate without stopping coal is holding India to a higher standard than we're holding China or even ourselves."

'On the Chopping Block'

Environmentalists have long faced pushback from governments for their campaigns. Russia arrested 30 Greenpeace activists in 2013 for trying to board drilling rigs in the Arctic Ocean.The Canadian Security Intelligence Service labeled environmental activists in Canada "a threat to national security" because of their attempts to block the controversial Keystone XLpipeline project, which would carry carbon-intense tar sands crude from Alberta to refineries in Texas. In the U.S., the Federal Bureau of Investigation spied on anti-Keystone XL activists in Houston, labeling them "environmental extremists." 

But environmental leaders said the recent crackdown in India is particularly worrisome because the nation's 68-year-old democratic system is chiefly considered stable. India, which is home to 1.25 billion people, has one of the highest voter turnouts in the world—66.4 percent in the 2014 election, compared to the United States' 57.5 percent....

==

Another week, another instance comes to light of governments targeting peaceful environmental activists. This latest document leak finds that South Korea asked for an assessment from South Africa of whether Greenpeace International Executive Director Kumi Naidoo constituted a “security threat against the president of South Africa during the G20 summit to be held in South Korea.”

The cables are part of a leaked cache from South Africa’s spy agency that shows efforts by a number of countries to keep close tabs on dissenters. The request was made in the run-up to the 2010 summit, and listed Naidoo alongside two other “dangerous persons” who were later arrested during a terrorist raid in Pakistan. In an otherwise unamusing document, Naidoo’s first name is amusingly misspelled “Kimi.”

Another document in the cache alluded to some sort of cooperative effort between the CIA and intelligence agencies in the U.K., Australia, and South Africa “to provide the CIA with a deeper understanding of the potential for ramping up renewable and clean energy in key parts of the world and a better understanding of the collection capabilities and interests on renewables in the UK, South Africa and Australia.” From *The Guardian*:

The reasons for the CIA’s interest are not clear. It may see climate change as a potential source of conflict and want to explore possible consequences. Some see a potentially more sinister motivation.

A senior US climate scientist, Alan Robock, based at Rutgers University in New Jersey, expressed concern this month that the CIA and other intelligence agencies were funding climate change research to learn if new technologies could be used as potential weapons.

The document casting Naidoo as a potential terroristic threat puts South Korea among a host of governments recently discovered to be targeting Greenpeace. The Indian government cracked down on the group, as well as other international environmental NGOs, ahead of Obama’s recent visit to the country, and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, irked by the group’s anti-Keystone activism, named Greenpeace alongside the Sierra Club and Tides Canada in a leaked document outlining potentially violent threats to Canadian infrastructure.

Environmental activists have also faced some heat in the States recently. Grist’s own Heather Smith wrote last month that FBI agents have been paying visits to anti-Keystone activists, asking for information while also saying that there’s no investigation underway. Bloomberg reported this week that the intelligence behind those FBI visits could be coming from TransCanada, the company that wants to build the Keystone XL pipeline. Reporter Isaac Arnsdorf writes that local authorities along the pipeline’s route had been warned that homegrown extremists were targeting the project:

That risk assessment, laid out in documents obtained through open-records requests, wasn’t provided by law enforcement. It was provided by TransCanada Corp., the Calgary-based company that has waged a long campaign to sell America on Keystone XL and the Canadian crude it would carry. President Barack Obama vetoed Congress’s approval of extending the pipeline, but the fight is far from over.

Few understand the threats facing corporations better than corporations, and few could argue with putting safety first. Yet the alarms TransCanada raised in Nebraska … were part of a broad campaign for Keystone XL, the documents suggest. Time and again, in private e-mails and closed-door meetings with federal, state and local law enforcement, the Canadian company characterized peaceful opponents engaged in constitutionally protected protest as dangerous radicals or worse. …

TransCanada representatives have met with law-enforcement officers in at least two states. Hundreds of pages of meeting logs, police e-mails and other documents obtained by Bloomberg suggest TransCanada provided intelligence on protesters’ activities and, at times, helped guide law enforcement’s response.

Kumi “Kimi” Naidoo, for his part, said he wasn’t particularly surprised that spy agencies were keeping tabs on him. “Sadly, the assumption that we make, especially after the Edward Snowden leaks and the Wikileaks information came out, is that we are heavily monitored and under constant surveillance,” he told Al Jazeera. “But it’s one thing assuming that it’s happening; it’s a little numbing and chilling to have it confirmed.”

==

But much of the dirty work of intimidation is carried out by a network of right-wing groups that operate with a wink and nod from the administration, allied with unscrupulous legislators, Koch-funded lobbyists, and new right-wing media outlets set up by out-of-state billionaires. The most obvious of these intimidation efforts is a digitized, searchable online database of the one million people who signed a petition demanding Walker’s recall. The barely unstated purpose of this list is to keep petition signers from being hired by pro-Walker businesses. Walker himself withdrew the student representative nominee for the Board of Regents because his name appeared on the list.

People who do not limit their dissent to petition signing can expect harsher treatment. Opponents of Walker’s mine deregulation legislation, crafted specifically to allow Florida billionaire Chris Cline to open an iron mine in northern Wisconsin (and Walker’s one and only “jobs initiative”) have been attacked openly in right-wing outlets like the Bradley-funded “Media Trackers,” and behind the scenes by state legislators. Mine opponents have had their jobs threatened, sometimes with success. Many have received death threats.

==

http://insideclimatenews.org/todaysnews/09022015/anti-oil-sands-activists-us-are-getting-visits-fbi

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/anti-oil-sands-activists-in-the-us-are-getting-visits-from-the-fbi/article22851903/

==

snowden says US human rights spied on incl Am Int'l

==

Attempting to solve homelessness by making life harder for the homeless is common -- and similarly unsuccessful -- around the country. As Adam Peck notes in  Think Progress, shutting down the center is one example of a larger pattern of the criminalization of homelessness and poverty. Instead of investing in resources to aid the needy, authorities restrict the activities of homeless people and groups that offer services. Ironically, when they lead to fines and arrests they cost cities much more than it would cost to provide adequate housing.

Laws that ban sitting or lying down in public, camping, and panhandling enable police to move the homeless out of the nice parts of town.  Going after groups who feed or shelter the homeless can serve a similar function, preventing them from assembling in certain spaces.

In several cities, authorities have cracked down on groups who give out food to the hungry, as Peck points out. In Raleigh, North Carolina volunteers were threatened with arrest over the summer. No one was led away in cuffs, but that's not unprecedented. In 2011, over 20 Food Not Bombs volunteers were arrested when they refused to comply with an ordinance that limited food-sharing in parks to only twice a year. The Mayor called them "food terrorists."

More than 30 citiesnow have or have sought to establish laws that restrict food sharing and penalize groups that feed the needy in public places the New York Times reported, even as more Americans go hungry.

She is, in the eyes of the law, America's most dangerous eco-terrorist: a self-confessed serial arsonist who resorted to fire and destruction to register her opposition to the fur industry and genetically modified crops.

But to those who know her and to some legal experts, the 22-year jail term handed to Marie Mason, 47, is a consequence of America's preoccupation with terrorism in the post-9/11 world.

She is serving the longest sentence of any convicted animal rights or environmental militant, including several activists responsible for greater destruction.

"It is obvious the government is trying to send a message – to have a chilling effect, not only on my action, which of course transgressed the laws, but also on 30 years of above-ground actions in the environmental rights spheres," Mason told the Guardian in her first interview since she was sentenced last month.

Mason was convicted on the evidence of her fellow arsonist and ex-husband, Frank Ambrose. He was jailed for nine years.

"It's very, very sad. These are karmic things that Frank will have to deal with on his own," she said.

The explosive fire Mason and Ambrose set at Michigan State Universityon 31 December 1999 caused nearly $1m (£680,000) of damage to buildings and equipment, but no death or injuries. The target was the office of the director of a genetically modified crop research programme into moth-resistant food crops for Africa, funded by the US Agency for International Development and the biotechnology company Monsanto.

Professor Daniel Clay, who worked at the institute in 1999 and is now the director, said the attack had a severe impact on the staff. "It really was a shock," he said. "It was a very difficult period for all of us. People were frightened and we asked ourselves how close did this come to physically harming someone."

However, Mason's lawyer, John Minock, who filed an appeal against the sentence last week, argues that 22 years is excessively harsh. Mason got a much longer sentence than several militants recently convicted of setting fire to logging camps and vehicles in Oregon and Washington states – including Stanislas Meyerhoff who received 13 years for setting 11 fires and causing $30m in damage.

"Giving her a 22-year sentence is like using a cannon to shoot a mouse," Minock said. "She is a 47-year-old, mild-mannered woman with no previous criminal record other than trespassing."

The FBI had singled out militant environmentalists and animal rights activists as domestic security threats even before the 9/11 attacks. Since then, the courts have used domestic terrorism laws to stiffen the punishment for politically inspired violence.

Mason is a prime example. "We are definitely seeing more severe sentences post-9/11, no doubt about it," said Heidi Boghosian, the director of the National Lawyers Guild. "We have seen a trend of using the terrorist label and federalising a lot of criminal activities that would have gotten a far less stringent sentence before."

Lauren Regan, an Oregon lawyer who defends environmental militants, calls it the "green scare".

To those in Mason's home city of Detroit who know her, her elevation to the ranks of America's most dangerous criminals came as a shock. Afixture in activist circles, she was bright and charming, but unfocused – a woman who had an advanced degree in chemistry but lived near the poverty line.

They saw her as a doting mother to her adult son and teenage daughter, a soft touch who took in stray dogs and named them after revolutionary heroines, an amateur folk singer and a passionate supporter of various causes. But not, they say, the organiser of a series of attacks.

"She is one of those people that, whenever there would be a demonstration, she would be there," said Peter Werbe, a Detroit broadcaster who has known Mason for 20 years. "I don't think she ever rose to prominence as a figure in the city."

A long-time acquaintance said: "If you look at the court documents, Frank is always the one lighting the fire, she is always the one spray-painting the wall. That, in a nutshell, is who she is. Marie is always the support staff."

Mason met the man who was to become her third husband in 1998. Ambrose, now 34, was well-known among forestry activists in the mid-west and was leading a workshop for activists.

Mason says there was an instant attraction. The two were soon living together and married, although the relationship was troubled.

At about 9pm on New Year's Eve 1999, the couple entered an office in the Institute of International Agriculture at Michigan State University and doused it with petrol.

The arson, by Mason's own account, was botched. A fireball set her hair on fire, forcing the couple to run before she even managed to write her slogan, "No GMO".

The next day, the pair set fire to a logging camp. She has also admitted to burning boats belonging to the owner of a mink farm.

When asked whether the fires might have terrified staff and students at the university, she said: "It was intended as an enlightenment moment that people would see what is going on beneath the surface."

Clay argues his institute's research was aimed at creating a more sustainable agriculture, an ambition he believes should be shared by environmentalists. "It was most important to us that the perpetrators were caught and that justice was served," he said.

The couple nearly got away with it but were caught in March 2007. By then, the two had split up.

Ambrose, who was cleaning out his possessions, left gas masks, fuses, maps and explosives in a rubbish dump. The material was discovered by a man who called the authorities. Eventually, the gas masks led the FBI to Ambrose, who agreed to turn informer. He wore a wire and gave Mason a mobile phone, to help the FBI monitor her conversations.

Mason, in her jail cell, has often thought about those talks. "I did think that some of our conversations were very strained and strange but I attributed that to the fact that Frank was a very nervous person and he was under a lot of pressure," she said. "I was the last to know that Frank was unreliable."

Additional reporting by Damian Carrington.

• This article was amended on Wednesday March 25 2009  http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/mar/24/marie-mason-speaks-from-jail

will p:

Which are, in your opinion, the “low points” of the movement which make it vulnerable to repressive attacks like the green scare, the AETA…?

The strategy behind the government’s tactics is fragmentation. In discussing this, I think it’s helpful to visualize social movements as having a “horizontal” and “vertical” component. The intention is to separate these movements horizontally, and create rifts between them and the broader left. Animal rights activists and environmentalists are therefore depicted as ideological extremists who, if they have their way, will stop you from eating meat and driving cars and having pets. There are of course already tensions between these movements and the more traditional left, but campaigns by corporations and politicians intend to exacerbate them. If these movements are not seen as part of a broader social justice struggle, it is easier for other leftist and progressive groups to turn their backs on their repression.

Similarly, there is a campaign to fragment these movements vertically. Aboveground lawful groups are told that they must condemn underground groups, and if they do not they will also be treated as terrorists. This two-prong strategy — breaking these movements away from other social movements, and breaking the aboveground away from the underground — isolates those who are being targeted and intensifies the repression.

So, to answer your question more directly, the most effective tactic for repressing these movements has been to turn the activists against each other, either by pressuring them to become informants or by pressuring them to publicly condemn each other.

In the case of the prisoners who decided to cooperate, did they receive minimum sentences or are they serving similar sentences to the people who decided not to cooperate? Are they receiving any support from the movement?

Their sentences vary, but those who cooperated with the government received comparable prison sentences to those who refused. Some of the cooperating prisoners have received support from a handful of people within the movement, but the majority of the grassroots and “radical” components of these movements strongly oppose supporting them in any way.

==

http://grist.org/politics/judge-demands-tech-companies-hand-activist-data-over-to-chevron/

===

Intimidating public interest groups

Jump to: navigation, search

The dramatic increase in the number and influence of public interest groups over recent years has alarmed conservative groups. In response, there has been a flurry of attempts to establish on-line databases to monitor non-profit groups. For all the bluster accompanying these projects, few have amounted to much.

Another strand in their strategy has been developing the intellectual rationale and rhetoric on how curtailing non-profit groups is consistent with maintaining a healthy democracy.

The **Capital Research Center**'s**Green Watch** - which gained $50,000 in funding from ExxonMobil in 2002 and 2003 - is perhaps the most effective at profiling the "liberal environmentalist movement". [1][2]

Others, such as ActivistCash.com purport to 'expose' activist groups, while in reality providing little more than information that is publicly available. The ActivistCash.com website was launched in December 2001 with profiles on only 16 activist groups. By January 2003 it had crept up to only 33. In the next eighteen months to June 2004 only an additional six groups had been added to the database.

Public Interest Watch (PIW) was launched in September 2002 by Mike Hardiman. Hardiman, the principal of the public relations and lobbying company Hardiman Consulting, was also a lobbyist for the 'wise use' group, the American Land Rights Association. The group seems to have been primarily a vehicle to attack Greenpeace. On the basis of a review of IRS 990 forms, PIW filed a complaint with the IRS urging an investigation claiming that the perfectly legal transfer of funds between 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) arms amounted to 'money laundering'. Hardiman resigned in January 2004 . In March 2004 Lewis Fein was appointed as an interim Executive Director.

However, PIW appears to be a phantom organisation. Asked if the organization had had filed an IRS return Fein said "I believe so". Nor was he able to state who the Board members were or whether the address listed on the website was in fact an office address rather than the residential address of a board member.

In May 2003 the National Center for Public Policy Research, established the Envirotruth website, which it claims "sheds light on the environmentalist movement, offering information about their tactics, terrorist acts and fundraising machines." Like most of the other profiling sites, it is long on hype and short on details. In 2003 Exxon Mobil contributed $30,000 to underwrite the project. [3]

The Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise's RANamuck website targeting the San Francisco-based Rainforest Action Network has not been updated since September 2002. Similarly, its PETA Probe site was last actively updated in late 2002.

In June 2003, with a great deal of fanfare, the American Enterprise Institute unveiled NGOWatch.org, a joint project with the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies. The site, they claimed, would "expose the funding, operations and agendas of international NGOs". However, one-year later sections of the site remain "under construction" while the actual profiles on groups are spartan.

The launch of the NGOwatch site co-incided with a conference on NGO's co-hosted with the Australian conservative think tank, the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) The IPA itself launched a specialist newsletter, NGO Watch, in April 2001 to profile human rights, development and environmental organisations. However, faced with little subscriber support, the October 2002 edition was the last. "It just wasn't financially sustaining, there weren't enough buying the product," said IPA Senior Fellow, Gary Johns told Inter-Press Service.

While some of these projects have floundered or been abandoned by their sponsors it would be a mistake to conclude they have no effect. In part, their role is to create a climate in which non-profits divert scarce resources away from their core mission or soften their advocacy.

While there are thousands of non-profit environmental and other non-profit groups, only a handful appear to have been singled out for specific attention. The key groups featured by one or more of these groups are:

• Conservatives target the Sierra Club
• Conservatives target the Natural Resources Defense Council
• Conservatives target Greenpeace
• Conservatives target the Rainforest Action Network
• Conservatives target the Dogwood Alliance
• Conservatives target the Environmental Working Group
• Conservatives target the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals

Other SourceWatch resources

• Intimidating democracy
• Intimidating foundations
• Criminalising civil disobedience
• War on NGOs
• Trade Practices Amendment (Small Business Protection) Bill 2007 (Australia)

External links

• Interview with Bob Burton, June 10, 2004.
• Bob Burton, "Calls to Reign in NGOs Dismissed by Critics", Inter-Press Service, April 9, 2004.
• Gary Johns and John Roskam, "The Protocol: Managing Relations with NGOs", Institute of Public Affairs, April 2004.
• Michael Marx, "Thinking Like a Network Series: Preparing for the Backlash to Marketplace Campaigns", Business Ethics Network Newsletter, May 2005.

Category:

• Activism