Notes from Oregon eco-sabotage plea hearings 11/9/06

Thursday, November 09 2006 @ 08:39 PM UTC

Today at the new federal courthouse in Eugene, Oregon, “Operation Backfire” defendants Joyanna Zacher, Nathan Block, Daniel McGowan and Jonathan Paul entered “guilty” pleas for several eco-sabotage related charges, as part of a global resolution agreement with prosecutors. Judge Ann Aiken presided over the hearings. The change of pleas from the four defendants resolves all current “Operation Backfire” cases in Oregon. As part of this agreement, the four defendants have withdrawn their motion to obtain materials from possible National Security Agency surveillance. The global resolution agreement for the four defendants expressly indicates that Zacher, Block, McGowan and Paul accept their personal participation in crimes, but that these four have not and will not provide information on, inculpate or reveal the identities of anyone else. The four plea agreements are not sealed and are accessible to the public. The courtroom filled with supporters during these hearings; unfortunately, court staff turned away many additional people at the door. A press conference outside the court followed the four change of plea hearings.

At 9:30, Joyanna Zacher was the first defendant to submit a changed plea. Zacher pled guilty to one charge of conspiracy, plus several charges of arson and attempted arson relating to property destruction at the Joe Romania Chevrolet car dealership in Eugene and the Jefferson Poplar tree farm. Zacher’s suggested sentence is 96 months, although issues such as a proposed “terrorism” enhancement will be argued during the actual sentencing hearing. (A hearing to set a date for sentencing hearings for all four defendants is currently set for December 14.) A written statement regarding Zacher was passed amongst the audience at the court, and is included at the end of this report.

Nathan Block pled to similar charges as Joyanna, and also received a suggested sentence of 96 months. In a moment that momentarily lightened the mood in the courtroom, Block responded “I’m glad you’re not going to” when asked to confirm that it was acceptable for assistant US Attorney Kirk Engdall to read only the sections that varied from Joyanna’s plea, instead of the entire lengthy text. For Daniel McGowan and Jonathan Paul, large segments of text were incorporated by reference rather than read aloud in their entirety.

Daniel McGowan entered a plea for one conspiracy charge plus multiple charges of arson relating to sabotage at Superior Lumber and Jefferson Poplar. McGowan’s suggested sentence is 96 months; as with all other defendants, it is assumed that he will challenge the “terrorism” enhancement of up to 20 years during his sentencing hearing.
At the end of his hearing, McGowan requested to read a statement. This was an emotional time for all those in court, as McGowan choked back tears and expressed his love for his family, his strongly held beliefs and his sorrow for any hurt that he caused. (McGowan’s statement is printed at the conclusion of this report.) McGowan’s lawyers requested that McGowan’s name be removed from Jonathan Paul’s “no contact” list so that the two could discuss without lawyers for each being present, which Judge Aiken accepted.

Finally, Jonathan Paul pled to one count of conspiracy and to one count of arson relating to an action against the Cavel West horsemeat slaughterhouse in Redmond, Oregon. At the end of this hearing, Paul’s lawyer requested that Paul’s no contact list not only be moderated for Daniel McGowan, but that it be lifted from Paul entirely. Judge Aiken declined to rule on this today, but instead stated that she would rule having received information from pretrial services and the US Attorney’s Office.

Outside of court, Amanda Lee and Jeff Robinson, lawyers for Daniel McGowan, gave a press conference. Following this, Jonathan Paul’s sister Alexandra read a statement about Paul, highlighting his commitment to environmentalism and an end to animal cruelty. Cecilia Storey, partner of grand jury resister Jeff Hogg, also gave an impromptu press statement, calling for the immediate end to Hogg’s imprisonment now that the Oregon cases are fully resolved.

**

The complete plea deals are now available online:
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/11/348961.shtml

**

Statement regarding Joyanna Zacher

Joyanna has agreed to a plea offer on the condition that she acknowledges what she has done, but she will not name or inculpate any other person. The plea agreement does not require testimony; Joyanna does not intend to testify against anyone.

**

Daniel McGowan's Statement to Judge Aiken at the plea hearing

November 9, 2006

Your Honor,

This plea agreement is very important to me, because it allows me to accept full responsibility for my actions and at the same time remain true to my strongly held beliefs.

I hope that you will see that my actions were not those of terrorist but of a concerned young person who was deeply troubled by the destruction of Oregon’s beautiful old-growth forests and the dangers of genetically modified trees.

After taking part in these two actions, I realized that burning things down did not fit with my visions or belief about how to create a better world. So I stopped committing these crimes.

This last year has been a very trying time for my family and I would like to extend my deepest love, admiration and appreciation to them for standing by me through a very difficult time. I would also like to apologize to the workers of the companies I targeted. I never intended to hurt people, so when I read about things like family photos being destroyed, I felt great remorse. I am truly sorry for the harm that I caused.

Your Honor, after May of 2001, I put myself back on the path of open and positive activism. Since then I have focused on helping victims of domestic violence, campaigning for the environment, and advocating for prisoners. While my commitment to pursuing a better world has not and will not change, I have changed the way I am pursuing those goals. My agreement with Mr. Paul, Mr. Block and Ms. Zacher to come together and resolve this case by taking responsibility for what we did is an important step in moving forward to have what I hope will be a positive impact on my community. Thank you for allowing me a few moments to speak to you this morning.

**

Post-Appearance Statement Regarding Jonathan Paul’s Guilty Plea

The hallmark of Jonathan Paul’s life is personal responsibility.

When he learned that mink were being inhumanely treated, he took it upon himself to infiltrate and expose that industry. When he learned of the cruelty being suffered by laboratory animals, he took it upon himself to liberate them. When old-growth forests were threatened with destruction, he put his body between the trees and the chainsaws. When the moratorium on whale-hunting was breached, he put himself between the hunters and the hunted. And when he saw that wild horses – the personification of the American spirit – were being cruelly slaughtered, he acted to stop the slaughter.

Mr. Paul’s guilty plea today, and the terms of the agreement that made it possible, are two more manifestations of his life-long commitment to personal responsibility. Mr. Paul alone is responsible for his decision to assault the Cavel West slaughterhouse. He appreciates the government’s recognition of this by allowing him to accept that responsibility without expecting him to blame or insisting that he implicate others.

When Mr. Paul saw the flames engulf the Cavel West slaughterhouse in Redmond, Oregon, he realized that fire was an unacceptable means to an end, no matter how compelling. He immediately abandoned arson as a valid way of making the mistreatment of animals unprofitable.

Mr. Paul has been, and will continue to be, a person deeply committed to the betterment of our society and the elimination of animal and human suffering. Since 1997, a major focus of his life has been fighting fire, qualifying as a volunteer firefighter and emergency medical technician. Perhaps his greatest fear in acknowledging his responsibility for the arson at Cavel West is that it may disqualify him from continuing to serve in these ways.

Mr. Paul retains the hope that humans will embrace environmental sustainability and renounce animal cruelty and exploitation. He intends to continue to pursue these goals in an ethical and transparent way.

Notes from Oregon eco-sabotage plea hearings 11/9/06 | 40 comments | Create New Account

The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 10 2006 @ 08:56 AM UTC

Looking Back on our Lives/ Looking Forward

After the battle of Seattle the corporate media descended on Eugene, Oregon and began a circus show to highlight the 'eugene anarchists'. It spent a lot of time focusing on the philosophies of certain bio-privitimists like John Zerzan.

The corporate elite does not do anything by accident. It was an intentional move to both create fear in the middle class towards 'ecological radicals' and to simultaneously give 15 seconds of fame to certain radicals and anarchists who had been in Seattle. By giving this drug of fame to people, some who gave their 'real' names to the cameras, was a carefully calculated game of cat and mouse in the psychic labyrinth of the materialist world. It made the anarchists feel more powerful and important than they really are/were to the struggle in Seattle and elsewhere. It also provided a tool in beginning the dismantlement of a movement that had the potential to shift the power relations in the ecotopian bioregion and possibly spread beyond.

The occupations at Warner Creek, and Redwood Summer in 1990 brought together direct action activists and old time union organizers and old school loggers. It was a fear of a fusion of these currents in an economy that was on a dead-end road of clearcuts, the potential of real human solidarity and effective organizing tactics and strategy that caused the FBI to bomb Judi Bari and Darryl Cherny's car. It wasn't because they were eco-saboteurs, it was because they were effectively uniting people who were natural allies in the war against big timber. This was a far greater threat to the power establishment than the occasional forest service headquarters going up in flames. Yet to this day how many up and coming forest defenders have read Judi's Timber Wars as compared to reading Green Anarchy or some of Zerzan's rantings against all civilization? This is not by chance, this is a deliberate result of the power structure looking at the threat of the radical envionmental movement uniting with the labor movement and other currents of the peace and justice movement that actually took place on the streets of Seattle. The deliberate attempts by the state and corporate media to drive wedges between the steelworkers and the spokes council direct actioners began immediately and continues to this day, some might say culminating in the streets of Miami during the FTAA protests when the lack of solidarity between the unions and direct action faction was so painfully evident.

The system wanted/s us to believe that it is extreme tactics that make us radical, that score us cool points with our companeras/os. They wanted us to believe that it was the sound of breaking glass that shut down the WTO meeting in Seattle. This is patently not true. What shut down the WTO meeting was a coordinated and international effort of unions and NGO along with intense bravery of direct action tactics. Don't get me wrong, I love a good fire, I love the thought of going up against the police in the streets if we have the numbers to pull it off, but tactics do not a revolutionary strategy make. Revolutionary strategy requires an infrastructure to be built that can sustain and move foward. Tactics minus strategy is suicide. In the face of eco-cide, suicide is often an honorable option, in fact all of us should have our hats off to the defendants in these cases. But we should also find ourselves culpable in not creating an effective movement that was/is as attractive to young radicals as the fires that were started.

We need to stand with these defendants, stay in touch with them, all of us constantly learning from eachother and preparing the infrastructure that will be alive and growing when they are released/freed from their maximum security installations back into the minimum security prisions of our cities. We stand at a incredibly critical time for our planet and our social movements. Anarchy is not chaos, nature is not chaos, it is highly organized and interdependent, outwardly spiraling and relational to its core.

Long live the blockade,
long live the barricade,
long live the warriors who have been caught in the cages,
and long live the intelligent mind of all species to adapt, change, transform.

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 10 2006 @ 10:01 AM UTC

I find it disheartening that folks are cooperating and pleading guilty, thus siding with the enemy, and siding with the destruction of the Earth.

pleading guilty is not cooperation

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 10 2006 @ 10:14 AM UTC

The four folks who plead guilty made it clear that a condition of their plea is not implicating anyone else. that is NOT cooperation. so you can save the personal purity bit and start supporting these four people.

Authored by: Admin on Friday, November 10 2006 @ 10:40 AM UTC

I really don't understand why any of these people pled guilty before having their day in court in front of a jury. The odds are pretty good that some of these people could have gotten off totally, due to a technicality or a favorable jury verdict or some other legal event.

This looks like another case where lawyers screwed over radical activists.

I'm very disappointed with these people. I think they let lots of people in the movement down by folding without a fight.

Chuck0

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 10 2006 @ 11:22 AM UTC

The chance of getting a favorable jury is iffy at best. And defendants are more likely to get a worse sentence when tried by jury.

Although it is unfortunate that they went without a fight and decided to plead not guilty, it is far better than deciding to cooperate and name and testify against other.

Similarly, it is these people who had the courage to commit these acts and are the ones putting their lives on the line, so it should be their decision about how easy they want their trial to be when caught (of course barring all acts of snitching).

Lastly, as a reason of principle, I would hope all future defendents will not cooperate in any way and put the burden of proving guilt on the prosecutor/state.

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 10 2006 @ 11:31 AM UTC

as someone who's spent some time in jail, i can fully understand why somebody would be willing to plea in exchange for less jail time. prison is a life-sucking place, and i think a lot of people would do what they could to stay out of there. these people can do better on the outside than they can on the inside, for themselves, and for whatever "movement" exists. criticizing these people when you haven't done the time that they are facing sounds very empty.

Authored by: Admin on Friday, November 10 2006 @ 11:35 AM UTC

Well, I'm going to criticize these people because I want to articulate what I'm thinking. I'm sure other people are thinking the same things. I've never done prison time, but I've done a night in jail. I understand a little bit about wanting to do less jail time, but still, if these people had gone collectively to trial, they could have gotten off.

I also want to know if anything the defense lawyers got from the government about the government's investigation will be made public?

Destroy the U.S.A.!

Authored by: Admin on Friday, November 10 2006 @ 12:29 PM UTC

Post deleted for personal attacks against a moderator. Make your point without insulting Infoshop staff.

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 10 2006 @ 12:56 PM UTC

you can't feel dissapointed just because you wanted to see people stand up to the state with bravery and say fuck you. but they are seriously rolling the dice when they go to trial, and i think it's nice to see that these people will not be spending the rest of their lives in jail. i appreciate their decision because it means that we have to do support for them while on th inside for less years... look how long we have to support Free for, imagine 4 more people who get stuck in that situation.

this is definately a good thing.

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 10 2006 @ 02:34 PM UTC

They could have gotten off? Is that before or after so many co-defendants agreed to cooperate? Would thier chance of winning been probable after one person snitched? Three? Five?

You've spent a night in jail, did you spend longer than that in law school? Not to extoll "expert professionals", especially overworked PD's, but the realistic expectation for aquital is, I'm sure both a topic that came up amongst those involved as well as an estimation that would require specific training....

I for one am glad they will be getting out of prison. period. they were looking at a lifetime's worth of prison. That's a mighty big gamble there, and I applaud thier fortitude in securing a non-cooperation clause, and can only wish them the best in the (yet to come) terrorism enhancement hearing/sentencing.

Authored by: Admin on Friday, November 10 2006 @ 02:50 PM UTC

Of course they could have gotten off! Yes, the odds were against them, but there is always a chance in any legal proceeding. One doesn't have to be a lawyer or have gone to law school to be aware of the numerous court cases where people went free even when the government conspired against them. I would rather take that small chance and have my day in court than to ever cooperate with the state's desire to put me behind bars.

Chuck0

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 10 2006 @ 11:37 PM UTC

i had to plead guitly to something I DIDN'T DO to avoid spending several years in prison when i was younger. it was not a political issue, and i was not asked to implicate/cooperate, which i would not have done. my lawyer told me it was my best option. sometimes i wish i had gone to trial, but if i had...who knows. all i am saying is that i don't think that anyone who has not been in that position should criticize these people. you don't know what you'd do until you're there.

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 10 2006 @ 11:44 PM UTC

also, i agree that you should articulate what you're thinking, but i am only articulating my experience, and what it has led me to believe. i hope it promts you you rethink your position. so please don't delete my thoughts, they are valid too, and i am trying to express them in a way that is not percieved as attacking you.

Authored by: dave negation on Friday, November 10 2006 @ 11:44 AM UTC

Hi Chuck0 -

I can understand, but disagree with, your feelings of disappointment.

The four who took pleas yesterday fought hard -- and their lawyers, especially Daniel McGowan's lawyers Amanda Lee and Jeff Robinson, fought strongly alongside them -- so that nobody other than the defendants were inculpated, named or otherwise jeopardized by these plea deals.

I can't speculate as to exactly what would have happened had Zacher, Block, McGowan and Paul brought their charges to trial, but I don't think that one can flippantly say that their odds were "pretty good." The prosecution had the assistance of a growing number of informants, and I'm not sure that it is appropriate for us to demand that anyone risk it all -- some faced a maximum sentence of over a thousand years -- on the chance that they would get off on a procedural issue or some such thing.

As long as they don't inform, the defendants can say what they want, as far as I'm concerned. And people can disagree or not with what is said, too.

These four defendants still need vigorous support, especially while the government is attempting to place the "terrorist" jacket on them at sentencing. Also, please remember and support Jeff Hogg, who has been jailed in Oregon since May for refusing to cooperate with a related grand jury. Now that there are no eco-sabotage cases going to trial in Oregon, Hogg's incarceration must end immediately (of course, it should never have happened in the first place.) Finally, make resources available for and stand by Briana Waters, who is facing extremely serious charges from "Operation Backfire" in Washington federal court and who asserts her innocence on all charges.

Dave N

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 10 2006 @ 12:22 PM UTC

Chuck0, I think you're off the mark second-guessing their legal strategy right now. The four are operating within a set of extremely limited options. Demanding that they risk everything on the hope of 100% victory at trial is wildly unfair. And loose talk about their "odds" being "pretty good" is just irresponsible, period.

It takes an extraordinary amount of bravery to demand and get a non-cooperation agreement as a baseline condition of the plea agreement. The four have stuck to their principles at significant personal cost to themselves. There are very few people on this earth who have earned the right to be "disappointed" in such honorable people.

Authored by: Admin on Friday, November 10 2006 @ 12:38 PM UTC

There is nothing "irresponsible" in pointing out that many things could have happened during the trials which could have put them in a better situation than they are by pleading guilty now. Yes, I know that the state was going to use testimony from other "members" of ELF, but that doesn't mean that the government has an open and closed case. The government *never* has an open and closed case, although they can get their way by manipulating the process and intimidating people into taking pleas.

I understand that this situation is complex, but people have the right to express their opinions about these cases. There is no one "right" take on what these activists should have done. Those of you who think you can get away with insulting me or anybody else who expresses their opinion here will find your irresponsible words quickly deleted.

I'm disappointed in these developments, although it's good to hear that they aren't going to snitch on any other people. I'm expressing my feelings--I'm not going to pretend to have feelings I don't have right now.

Chuck0

Authored by: Admin on Friday, November 10 2006 @ 12:41 PM UTC

Insult deleted and user's IP banned for two months.

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 10 2006 @ 01:07 PM UTC

I don't mean to insult you and I don't want to get involved in a flame war.

Constructive criticism is fine and necessary, but especially now as these four activists approach sentencing, people need to be focused on positive action to seek the lowest possible sentence.

This is depressing news for everyone, most of all the defendants, their families, and their friends. Those of us who are not in their position have a great luxury in being able to judge from their actions and decisions from a distance.

We should be committed to helping them on principle, especially in light of their remarkable strength in refusing to cooperate in any way with the government's repression against the radical environmental movement.

The plea agreement has unleashed a well of emotion in activist circles and the anger and sorrow that we all feel should be directed against the government, not spent infighting.

Write a letter to the judge, to the media, to the defendants themselves, host a benefit, speak out, get involved in the December 7th actions (see greenscare.org for info). Keep it positive and support these noble fighters in a dark hour.

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 10 2006 @ 01:23 PM UTC

This is a reply addressing your position, not you personally. I respect everyone's right to have an opinion, just as I respect that we can engage in a respectful debate.

In response to your comments, I strongly feel it is detrimental to portray these four people negatively right now. They are facing years in prison, have refused to name anyone else, and they deserve all the support we can give them.

You wrote that the "government *never* has an open and closed case, although they can get their way by manipulating the process and intimidating people into taking pleas." Not so.

Actually, when the government has informants willing to say anything to get a reduced sentence, and can conduct its case with court rulings that have allowed government attorneys to hide all kinds of evidence from the defendants, they do indeed have "an open and closed case." Especially when there are so many unknowns that might come up in a jury trial, not least of which are the whims of the individual judge who happens to preside over the case.

Going to trial would have been an enormous gamble for these four people. Their decision should be viewed for what it is: the right choice in horrendous circumstances.

Authored by: Admin on Friday, November 10 2006 @ 01:31 PM UTC

I disagree. What's more, we all have a right to criticize these people. Are we supposed to wait 9-20 years until they get out of prison in order to express our opinions about their decisions? No, of course not.

One of the reasons why I'm speaking up about this is because this is about much more than just the Green Scare defendents. It's about all of us. If the government finds it easy to go after these people, just imagine what they are going to do to the rest of us who engage in far more mainstream methods of dissent. It's important to have an open, critical discussion about these cases because there is much more at stake than just the freedom of these comrades.

While I am at it, I should also express my disappointment with the support network for these people. They actively discouraged people early on from organizing protests in behalf of these defendents. I think that a vocal campaign of protests may have shifted the terrain for these cases. We will never know because we weren't out in the streets in support of these people.

Chuck0

Authored by: Sam_Saoirse on Saturday, November 11 2006 @ 10:28 AM UTC

Nobody is discouraging you from organizing a protest.

Organize for the December 7th day of action:
http://greenscare.org/1206call.html

Authored by: Admin on Saturday, November 11 2006 @ 03:33 PM UTC

Actually, several of us were discouraged from organizing protests in 2005, right after the government arrested these people. Several people were even drafting a call for protests, but we were contacted by friends of one of the defendents and discouraged from pursuing our call to action.

I can understand the cautionary attitude of the friends and family right after the arrests, but I think that an immediate campaign of protests would have built up a visible movement against the Green Scare.

Chuck

Authored by: Admin on Friday, November 10 2006 @ 01:19 PM UTC

Thanks comrade for your irresponsible comments! Your IP has now been banned too. Fucking asshole.

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 10 2006 @ 02:39 PM UTC

I think that the folks who have been following Operation Backfire and who have read through all the court files and plea deals of the snitches, realize that the feds had the goods on the 4 non-cooperators. I'm certain that when the dust clears on this , that Jake the snakes wire tap recordings and the evidence provided by the other snitches all but guaranteed double digit sentences for all of them. This takes into consideration the stuff that get thrown out because of illegalbehavior by the state. Even thought the state had all the evidence they needed for conviction, these four did not submit to the states demands to implicate others and sell their soul to them for life. They did the honorable thing and took personal responsibility for their actions, and said to the state, "yeah i did it, here's why did it, now let's get this over with so i can do my time and come back out and fight the system" Is this dishonarble? Is this not revolutionary enough? It certainly was not an easy choice for them, and for people to bag on them for not being revolutionary enough is nonsense.

Authored by: Admin on Friday, November 10 2006 @ 02:57 PM UTC

I want to point out to our readers that the Infoshop collective decided several months ago to allow open discussion on Infoshop News about the Green Scare cases. This was a modification of our brief experiment with special moderation of these discussions, which had been instituted because of concerns that talk here could affect ongoing court cases.

While we encourage open discussion on these cases and the bigger issues raised, people still have to follow Infoshop's moderation guidelines (link is at the top right of this page). This means that people are not allowed to insult or disparage any Infoshop News moderator, staff member, or volunteer. People should not attack other users. You cannot question or criticize moderation decisions. If you stick to discussing ideas and not making arguments personal, you will be okay here. And I have a right to post my ideas and feelings, even if you take exception with them.

Chuck0

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 10 2006 @ 03:25 PM UTC

I have to say I completely agree with Chuck0 on this. This is a vital anarchist forum and it is very important that we follow the rules. Also, it is essential that we don't abuse other users or make ad hominem attacks. You should state your position, not just call somebody a name.

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 10 2006 @ 08:36 PM UTC

All legal battles with lots of issues are basically free style combat. Judging what tactics people adopt to survive that combat from outside the information loop is speculative at best. Once europeans used actual people to do real battle to make legal decisions--in many ways not much has changed.

I have been in jail, I also have been to law school and am a criminal defense lawyer. I am not saying that folks with legal training are in a unique position--but spending 8 hours a day in the courts/jails/criminal justice system does lend itself ot making observations.

One is any confusion between "justice" and the "criminal justice system". Its that justice word that confuses people--the current system has nothing do do with justice at all--its about money. You are the systems ATM--most courts have atms in them and charge you for everything. Even in jail you making money for the county thats holding you. Rid yourself of any illusion of fairness, rationality or fairness and you will be better prepared to deal with jail, the courts and the state.

1000 years in jail is along time. I spent time in jail before law school and will tell you it sucks. Actually I am in jail allot now to--and can tell you that all my clients want the hell out bad. I always thought it was ironic that the state would take environmentals--people who love the outdoors and punish them by cramming them in concrete cages under fake light.

These folks didn't rat out their comrades. When the majority sold their souls to the devil looking at long sentences these people threw the dice with their lives and stayed to principle. I think thats what is the victory here. We have people in our movement that risked there lives in jail when the majority of their comrades squeeled like pigs.

Heros--these people are heros. They had no idea that the feddies had used warrantless wiretaps when they threw the dice. They put their chips up to the table and let it ride--they gambled their lives--and are still gambling, refusing to rat.

I bet my life before--but never my life in jail. A lifetime of degrading searches, sticky floors, to cold air conditioning, crowded conditions and never to hike in a forest again--what a gamble. But these people took it all and put it on the table and told the state to fuck off they would give their lives before they would ever turn on a comrade.

For some reason that makes me proud.

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 10 2006 @ 08:59 PM UTC

Like I said above, constructive criticism is fine, but it should come from the standpoint of ultimately supporting those who are taking unbelievable amounts of heat from the state.

All the Green Scare targets have faced hardship that I cannot imagine. The four who reached plea agreements this week faced horrific repression and withstood it enough to hold to their commitments and ideals, and not inform on anyone under any circumstances.

We can quibble about their choices from the outside looking in, but should be mindful when doing so in a public forum that our words inevitably reflect on them.

Botom line: these folks have been brave, and those of us who respect and admire their dedication and bravery need to be supporting them, not slagging them. In our privileged position, our responsibility is to them, and not the other way around.

To my mind, respect for the courage and strength of the 4 non-cooperating defendants trumps anonymous people's privilege to post comments on an internet forum.

Authored by: Admin on Friday, November 10 2006 @ 09:55 PM UTC

"Botom line: these folks have been brave, and those of us who respect and admire their dedication and bravery need to be supporting them, not slagging them. In our privileged position, our responsibility is to them, and not the other way around."

Nobody is slagging these Green Scare defendents. Nobody is saying that they shouldn't be supported. On the other hand, they have made legal decisions which are fair game for discussion. This is a very public case and the decisions these people make affect many other activists, because the government will act in the future according to what happens in these cases. They do have a responsibility to us.

"To my mind, respect for the courage and strength of the 4 non-cooperating defendants trumps anonymous people's privilege to post comments on an internet forum."

You know, I'm fucking tired of how activists abuse the word "privilege" to poison open discussions and bully people into accepting certain points of view. Those of us who are posting here are lucky to not be in the shoes of the Green Scare defendents, but there is no fucking privilege here. Let people discuss these issues without labelling them using words like "privilege." You don't know where these comentators are coming from. You don't know what kind of activism they do or their experience with the legal system.

Chuck0

The decisions of Snitches

Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 11 2006 @ 08:09 AM UTC

"This is a very public case and the decisions these people make affect many other activists, because the government will act in the future according to what happens in these cases."

I remain amazed by the fact that this discusssion is ongoing and the focus is still on the decisions of the only four folks who held out and stood by their prinicples. This is especially true given the number of other folks who turned snitch and are seemingly given a pass in regards to how their actions have affected not only our friends and comrades, but also our movements.

When Jeff Hogg is eventually released for having refused to cooperate with a grand jury, will the criticism come that he should have stayed in jail, informing the state that they can't tell him where to go? (Yes, that is rhetorical)

The decisions of snitches reflect upon and affect our movement more so than the decision to understand one's chances and fight together to force a deal that the government did not want to make. This plea agreement was not handed to the four non-cooperating codefendants, it was fought for. The support that has been shown those four so far is part of what made it possible. That much is a known fact.

Speculation, flights of fancy, and "coulda, shoulda, woulda's" reflect on the movement's ability to support folks when most in need as do any of the decisions made over the past several days.

Authored by: Admin on Saturday, November 11 2006 @ 08:24 AM UTC

You are "amazed that this discussion is ongoing"?

What do you want? A movement of people who censor themselves? Some kind of authoritarian leftism where people don't speak their minds?

That is unacceptable. People should speak their minds.

And your contribution here means that you are contributing to the ongoing criticism and analysis.

Chuck

Authored by: Admin on Friday, November 10 2006 @ 09:05 PM UTC

My (hopefully) last comment about this. I can understand the decision that these four defendents made given the situation and the threatened prison time. I respect their decisions and their solid stance about not snitching on others. My comments above were an expression of some feelings I have about this news. It's another perspective. I have conflicting feelings about these questions and issues, but we should all make an effort to express and listen to different perspectives. Having an open discussion is important for us and our movement. The Green Scare cases were unique, but there will probably be similar cases in the future, so it benefits all of us to explore different perspectives openly.

Chuck0

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 10 2006 @ 09:15 PM UTC

wow chuck os comments really got allot of people fired up.

I read back in the chain trying to see what chuck o said that got everyone inflamed.

1. He wished the d's had stuck it out to the bitter end.
2. He thought the support crew was wrong to discourage demos cause it might of helped.

big deal. i don't see this as black propaganda. there just questions--ones that apparently drew some rather vehement responses.

i question everything--i dont think thats so bad. i distrust any attacks on questioning--even when I dont like the questions myself, but even that can be informative.

ask all the bloody questions you want chucko. everbody else please remember that two reasonable people CAN differ on a point. questioning tactics and strategy is healthy--as is the practice of tolerance.

zatoichi

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 10 2006 @ 10:28 PM UTC

Yep, it was the quote cited above that prompted me to respond earlier today. And I did so without slinging personal insults, something I consciously choose to avoid.

As for being "enflamed," I will acknowledge I have strong feelings about this issue. To me, these four people are not anonymous representatives of "the movement." One is a dear friend, and it is challenging to read a portrayal of the person as going down "without a fight," knowing the hell that person is dealing with, while still avoiding naming names and maintaining integrity.

Authored by: Admin on Friday, November 10 2006 @ 11:17 PM UTC

I'm going to remind readers one more time that personal attacks directed against me will not be tolerated here. I am not the subject of this news story.

Chuck

Authored by: Sam_Saoirse on Saturday, November 11 2006 @ 02:21 AM UTC

Chuck,

I've read all the comments here and have felt compelled to reply. This is not directed at you personally but is trying to engage in dialog based on this discussion and the content of the above article.

I have been doing legal support in Philly and the Bay Area for a little while now. I can't speak for the folks in Oregon but I can tell you that neither I nor any group I have worked with ever said that supporters should not act in solidarity with targeted activists. Quite the opposite actually. There are many events that attempted to raise awareness and encourage action from the community. But, I have to say, that many people just stayed home. Getting people out to hearings at 9:00am is, unfortunately, difficult.

Legal support is hard, grueling and thankless work. Maybe some of the responses you have received stem from frustrations the support people feel. I know that many support teams feel unsupported themselves.

Just based on the work I have been doing with Josh Wolf and on the grand juries in SF I can say that we need your support with actions and events happening from Kansas City to New York to Nola. This needs to happen now (it needed to happen yesterday).

If you are interested in networking in order to create a more effective response please message or email me privately. If you delete this message please email me anyway :)
sam (at) midnightspecial.com

Authored by: Sam_Saoirse on Saturday, November 11 2006 @ 02:30 AM UTC

errr....that would be midnightspecial.net

:)

Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 11 2006 @ 02:32 PM UTC

Hey Chucko this doesnt have anything to do with you--its not an attack. I just wrote this essay from reading this discussion and now that its getting some circulation I thought I would post it to the list it came from.

We have people like this in our movement.

There has been a

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 12 2006 @ 04:44 PM UTC

Nobody needs to be criticizing or second-guessing the decisions of activists facing life in prison or their top-shelf attorneys because those idiots who long to make martyrs out of our friends and comrades are not helping anyone except maybe the state and the captitalists. Save insightful ideas about praxis and strategy for the organizing we can all be doing to free the non-cooperating greenscare indictees and all political prisoners and prisoners of war----and to further the goals of the truly liberatory social movements.

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 04 2007 @ 10:12 AM UTC

It's important to discuss the difficult decisions these people made at trial, but i would rather discuss/learn about the ways the NSA and other government agencies were surveilling these people. This information would definitely make it easier for people to know what mistakes not to make in the future, and possibly even allow individuals to identify and address/nullify some forms of infiltration and surveillence.

So is there an article on that topic? I definitely think that a discussion about the ways the state gathered evidence on these individuals is necessary to keep this type of shit from happening again.

Maybe someone with more information about the tactics utilized by the state in this situation could start an article? That would be awesome.

Main Menu

Submit Articles and Events

Follow Infoshop on ...

User Functions

Recent I-News Features

Infoshop Hot Links

Independent Media

Blogroll

Other Infoshop News

Events

Poll

Older Stories

Sunday 07-Feb

Saturday 06-Feb

Friday 05-Feb

Notes from Oregon eco-sabotage plea hearings 11/9/06

What's Related

Story Options

Trackback