Taking aim at the Occupy movement

An identified _____ as of October [2011] planned to engage in sniper attacks against protesters in Houston, Texas, if deemed necessary. An identified _____ had received intelligence that indicated the protesters in New York and Seattle planned similar protests in Houston, Dallas, San Antonio and Austin, Texas. _____ planned to gather intelligence against the leaders of the protest groups and obtain photographs, then formulate a plan to kill the leadership via suppressed sniper rifles.\

*     *     *     

On 13 October 2011, writer sent via email an excerpt from the daily _____ regarding FBI Houston's _____ to all IAs, SSRAs and SSA _____. This _____ identified the exploitation of the Occupy Movement by _____ interested in developing a long-term plan to kill local Occupy leaders via sniper fire.

Those are excerpts from documents obtained by Dave Lindorff through a FOIA request to the FBI regarding the Occupy movement. This is how seriously someone took the Occupy movement given the economic conditions and events happening around the world in 2011.

Through my work with the National Lawyers Guild I represented members of Occupy Houston, and their supporters, who were arrested during their "occupation" of downtown Houston. In the course of that representation a colleague, Greg Gladden, uncovered documents regarding the infiltration of the Occupy Austin movement by officers with the Austin Police Department. The documents also spelled out the involvement of the FBI and other law enforcement agencies.

Never during the course of our representation of the Occupy Houston protesters did we hear anything about a plot to kill the leadership of the Occupy movement in Houston. If the information contained within these documents is true, it raises some very serious questions.

Just how scared of the Occupy movement was the government? Or, maybe the question should be just how scared were business leaders and their lackeys in the government? The Occupy protests were a mass movement that had the potential to catch fire. That they didn't is due to the government's crackdowns and, I would argue, on the lack of a cohesive message from the movement.

The more important question is, obviously, who was behind the alleged plot to assassinate Occupy leaders in Houston? Why did the government redact any identification information about whose plot it was? Is that information redacted because it would expose confidential sources, or is it redacted because the FBI was behind the alleged plot?

I must admit that I have a very hard time believing that the assassination plot was a government-hatched plan. The more effective tactics in shutting down the movement were either driving the protesters out of the parks or waiting them out. Sending in snipers to kill protesters seems like a massive overreaction.

Of course maybe the FBI had infiltrated right-wing groups opposed to the Occupy movement and were running an undercover operation to put the groups out of business. If that were the case, how much of this alleged plot was cooked up by group members and how much of the idea was planted in their heads by undercover agents?

Whatever the answers to the questions may be, we know that something was up. We know that the Houston FBI knew about the plot and that they provided no warning to the Occupy protesters in Tranquility Park.

We also know that the FBI characterized the Occupy movement as a terrorist organization - apparently because the participants dared to question the status quo and the government's role in the economic collapse.  For those of y'all who are okay with our government's domestic surveillance programs under the belief that the programs are keeping us safe, just take a moment to think about how low the bar is for the government to label a group as being a terrorist organization.

See also:

"FBI Document - "[DELETED]" plots to kill Occupy leaders "If Deemed Necessary," by David Lindorff, WhoWhatWhy (June 27, 2013)

-- Please note that Mr. Lindorff's story is inaccurate with regard to my role in the defense of the Occupy the Port protesters who were charged with felony offenses. I represented one protester charged with a misdemeanor arising out of that protest. --

  FBI Docs Referencing Sniper Murder Plot

Spying on the 99 percent

Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech... or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. -- 1st Amendment

But just because the Bill of Rights says you can air your grievances, it doesn't mean the government has to just sit there and take it. With a treasure trove of FBI documents obtained through a Freedom of Information request, the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund, has exposed the extent to which the FBI and law enforcement agencies around the country spied on the Occupy! movement.

The FBI and Department of Homeland Security treated the Occupy protesters as domestic terrorists as they mobilized agents for the benefit of big banks and Wall Street. The FBI was particularly concerned about protests on the West Coast that targeted major ports.

Those concerns manifested themselves in Texas where members of an Austin Police Department task force infiltrated the Occupy Austin group and helped produce the so-called "sleeping dragons" used by protesters at the Port of Houston to prevent trucks from entering the port.

Documents obtained from the Austin Police Department paint a picture of a handful of officers who not only kept on eye on protesters but who became actively involved in the planning and carrying out of actions.

The question arises as to just why the FBI, Department of Homeland Security and local law enforcement agencies were so interested in the Occupy movement. These documents also raise questions as to what role the government should be playing in domestic surveillance operations.

Supposedly the role of of law enforcement is to serve the local community in making the community safe for its residents. These officers, after all, are employees of the local community and answer, in theory, to the members of the community.

In this case the federal government was busy handing out grants for local communities to create what have been referred to as "fusion centers" where members of various law enforcement agencies could get together and share intelligence on protesters.

Keep in mind that these protesters were upset about the growing gap between the very wealthy and the rest of us in this country. These young men and women were standing up and publicizing the fact that the financial crisis was caused by the major banks and Wall Street and that the primary "victims" were ordinary workers and homeowners. The Occupy movement was all about highlighting the fact that our government was busy handing out money hand over fist to the very folks who caused the problem while ignoring the plight of the ordinary folks caught in the middle.

But god only knows we can't have that debate in this country. We can spend all the time in the world arguing about abortion or whether President Obama has a valid birth certificate. But it's off limits to discuss the shortcomings of capitalism or alternative economic systems.

The same President Obama who was happy to let the world know he was a community organizer back in Chicago authorized the surveillance and infiltration of the Occupy movement.

And what does such an operation tell us about our government's priorities? Millions of people are unemployed - some for years - and others have lost their homes, yet we're going to spend our money on a massive domestic spying operation for the benefit of corporate America.

The Occupy protesters gathered to petition the government regarding their grievances. Their government responded by spying on them and sending in agent provocateurs to incite criminal activity that likely would never have happened otherwise.

FBI to review thousands of cases for faulty forensics

Oops.

Now the FBI is reviewing thousands of cases dating back to 1985 to determine if anyone was wrongly convicted as the result of hair and fiber evidence tested by the FBI. The cases being reviewed include cases filed in state courts where the evidence was tested by the FBI.

According to The Washington Post, the FBI was aware of problems in their forensic unit but chose not to divulge that information to the defendants or their attorneys. The review is being conducted with the Innocence Project and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

“These recent developments remind us of the profound questions about the validity of many forensic techniques that have been used over the course of many decades and underscore the need for continuing attention at every level to ensuring the scientific validity and accuracy of the forensic science that is used every day in our criminal justice system.” -- Michael Bromwich 

If that name sounds familiar it's because Mr. Bromwich conducted the investigation into the morass known as the HPD Crime Lab a few years back.

The root of the problem is the way so-called crime labs operate. These "labs" are arms of state or local law enforcement agencies - so the people testing the evidence are employees of the same entity that arrested the suspect in the first place.

The set-up creates a glaring conflict of interest that most criminal judges are loathe to do anything about. The analysis is passed off as valid science even though the analyst is employed by law enforcement. The employees of the crime lab see themselves as part of the same team as the police. And this creates a massive problem.

Over in the civil courthouse, such an arrangement would raise more than a few eyebrows. The civil courts are accustomed to arguments regarding the validity of a particular test or conclusion. Courts routinely conduct hearings to determine whether or not a particular expert witness will be allowed to testify. Conclusions, assumptions and observations are scrutinized by both attorneys and judges.

But over in the criminal courthouse, where lives, not dollars, are at stake, judges will rarely prevent an analyst from testifying for the state - even though all of his training was provided through the police department and is based on what another officer taught him. Judges in the criminal courts think nothing of allowing an officer to testify as to the validity of the horizontal gaze nystagmus test despite the fact the officer has no knowledge of how the eye works or why alcohol supposedly causes nystagmus.

Analysts with little or no scientific training are allowed to testify as to the results of forensic tests when they can't even explain why a certain procedure is followed.

Control of crime labs must be taken out of the hands of law enforcement. The labs must be accessible to both the defense and the state. Judges need to take another look at Daubert and Frye and, in Texas, Kelly and Mata to remind themselves what their role as gatekeeper means. Defense attorneys need to learn more about the science behind the testing and need to learn to question the analysts' basic assumptions.

Let me out!

What would J. Edgar Hoover say if he were alive today?

It appears that FBI agents, including supervisors, cheated on an open-book test covering the FBI's policies for conducting surveillance on citizens of the good ol' US of A. Agents worked together, used cheat sheets or took advantage of a software problem to answer questions regarding how agents can conduct investigations without treading on the rights of the citizenry (there's that damn Fourth Amendment again).

These are the people who run domestic surveillance on groups that espouse views that could be considered anti-government. These are the people who collect data and evidence to use against those the government deems to be terrorists.

If they can't be trusted to take a test, how can they be trusted to carry out investigations in which the rights of the citizenry are under attack? If they will lie when signing an oath that they took the test without anyone's assistance,  what's to stop them from lying on the stand?