Guardian: Banks, FBI, DHS worked together against OWS.

[SirNitram]

Link

It was more sophisticated than we had imagined: new documents show that the violent crackdown on Occupy last fall – so mystifying at the time – was not just coordinated at the level of the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, and local police. The crackdown, which involved, as you may recall, violent arrests, group disruption, canister missiles to the skulls of protesters, people held in handcuffs so tight they were injured, people held in bondage till they were forced to wet or soil themselves –was coordinated with the big banks themselves.

The Partnership for Civil Justice Fund, in a groundbreaking scoop that should once more shame major US media outlets (why are nonprofits now some of the only entities in America left breaking major civil liberties news?), filed this request. The document – reproduced here in an easily searchable format – shows a terrifying network of coordinated DHS, FBI, police, regional fusion center, and private-sector activity so completely merged into one another that the monstrous whole is, in fact, one entity: in some cases, bearing a single name, the Domestic Security Alliance Council. And it reveals this merged entity to have one centrally planned, locally executed mission. The documents, in short, show the cops and DHS working for and with banks to target, arrest, and politically disable peaceful American citizens.

The documents, released after long delay in the week between Christmas and New Year, show a nationwide meta-plot unfolding in city after city in an Orwellian world: six American universities are sites where campus police funneled information about students involved with OWS to the FBI, with the administrations' knowledge (p51); banks sat down with FBI officials to pool information about OWS protesters harvested by private security; plans to crush Occupy events, planned for a month down the road, were made by the FBI – and offered to the representatives of the same organizations that the protests would target; and even threats of the assassination of OWS leaders by sniper fire – by whom? Where? – now remain redacted and undisclosed to those American citizens in danger, contrary to standard FBI practice to inform the person concerned when there is a threat against a political leader (p61).

As Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, executive director of the PCJF, put it, the documents show that from the start, the FBI – though it acknowledges Occupy movement as being, in fact, a peaceful organization – nonetheless designated OWS repeatedly as a "terrorist threat":

"FBI documents just obtained by the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund (PCJF) … reveal that from its inception, the FBI treated the Occupy movement as a potential criminal and terrorist threat … The PCJF has obtained heavily redacted documents showing that FBI offices and agents around the country were in high gear conducting surveillance against the movement even as early as August 2011, a month prior to the establishment of the OWS encampment in Zuccotti Park and other Occupy actions around the country."

Verheyden-Hilliard points out the close partnering of banks, the New York Stock Exchange and at least one local Federal Reserve with the FBI and DHS, and calls it "police-statism":

"This production [of documents], which we believe is just the tip of the iceberg, is a window into the nationwide scope of the FBI's surveillance, monitoring, and reporting on peaceful protestors organizing with the Occupy movement … These documents also show these federal agencies functioning as a de facto intelligence arm of Wall Street and Corporate America."

The documents show stunning range: in Denver, Colorado, that branch of the FBI and a "Bank Fraud Working Group" met in November 2011 – during the Occupy protests – to surveil the group. The Federal Reserve of Richmond, Virginia had its own private security surveilling Occupy Tampa and Tampa Veterans for Peace and passing privately-collected information on activists back to the Richmond FBI, which, in turn, categorized OWS activities under its "domestic terrorism" unit. The Anchorage, Alaska "terrorism task force" was watching Occupy Anchorage. The Jackson, Michigan "joint terrorism task force" was issuing a "counterterrorism preparedness alert" about the ill-organized grandmas and college sophomores in Occupy there. Also in Jackson, Michigan, the FBI and the "Bank Security Group" – multiple private banks – met to discuss the reaction to "National Bad Bank Sit-in Day" (the response was violent, as you may recall). The Virginia FBI sent that state's Occupy members' details to the Virginia terrorism fusion center. The Memphis FBI tracked OWS under its "joint terrorism task force" aegis, too. And so on, for over 100 pages.

Jason Leopold, at Truthout.org, who has sought similar documents for more than a year, reported that the FBI falsely asserted in response to his own FOIA requests that no documents related to its infiltration of Occupy Wall Street existed at all. But the release may be strategic: if you are an Occupy activist and see how your information is being sent to terrorism task forces and fusion centers, not to mention the "longterm plans" of some redacted group to shoot you, this document is quite the deterrent.

There is a new twist: the merger of the private sector, DHS and the FBI means that any of us can become WikiLeaks, a point that Julian Assange was trying to make in explaining the argument behind his recent book. The fusion of the tracking of money and the suppression of dissent means that a huge area of vulnerability in civil society – people's income streams and financial records – is now firmly in the hands of the banks, which are, in turn, now in the business of tracking your dissent.

Remember that only 10% of the money donated to WikiLeaks can be processed – because of financial sector and DHS-sponsored targeting of PayPal data. With this merger, that crushing of one's personal or business financial freedom can happen to any of us. How messy, criminalizing and prosecuting dissent. How simple, by contrast, just to label an entity a "terrorist organization" and choke off, disrupt or indict its sources of financing.

Why the huge push for counterterrorism "fusion centers", the DHS militarizing of police departments, and so on? It was never really about "the terrorists". It was not even about civil unrest. It was always about this moment, when vast crimes might be uncovered by citizens – it was always, that is to say, meant to be about you.

Ignoring the editorializing.. There's nothing good to come of corporate and state power merging.

[Block]

Merging, no. There is, however, a need for co-ordination however as far as things like cyber crime and fraud go. while the documents are heavily redacted, the bank security stuff seems to be mostly related to sharing information on current anti-fraud efforts and recently detected attempts to commit fraud, and since the FBI is responsible for law enforcement where those activities are concerned it makes sense that an agent would meet with representitives of local banks.
There are actually several officers who write things that I find pretty encouraging, "We notified the subject that if she had no knowledge of specific threats it would be a violation of subject B's first amendment rights to further investigate" and a couple other statements like that. Also Jacksonville wanted to set up a line to talk with the leader of the local Occupy to remove elements she thought were becoming too violent.
I'd like to read what's redacted, of course, but I don't think what's there proves any sort of overarching conspiracy theory to supress OWS. The links made to terrorism are actually from outside groups like the "Black masks" and Anonymous that seems to use OWS as an excuse according to the original docs. I'd assume so much of the information regarding the sniping plans is redacted because its an ongoing investigation.

[Iron Bridge]

There's nothing sinister here apart from the scale.

Banks "sitting down with FBI officials to pool information about OWS protesters harvested by private security" == some guy is camping on your lawn, you take a picture with your camera phone and give it to the police.

[Kamakazie Sith]

There's nothing sinister here apart from the scale.

Banks "sitting down with FBI officials to pool information about OWS protesters harvested by private security" == some guy is camping on your lawn, you take a picture with your camera phone and give it to the police.

Some guy who sits on his lawn is suddenly employed by private security? Also, what does taking a picture of someone do exactly? Does it provide you with their name, date of birth, address, any useful information? If I've misunderstood your point please clarify.

This is information obtained by security working on bank property and likely obtained from people trespassing on bank property. Not from some random citizen taking a picture of some yahoo...

[Iron Bridge]

There's nothing sinister here apart from the scale.

Banks "sitting down with FBI officials to pool information about OWS protesters harvested by private security" == some guy is camping on your lawn, you take a picture with your camera phone and give it to the police.

Some guy who sits on his lawn is suddenly employed by private security? Also, what does taking a picture of someone do exactly? Does it provide you with their name, date of birth, address, any useful information? If I've misunderstood your point please clarify.

This is information obtained by security working on bank property and likely obtained from people trespassing on bank property. Not from some random citizen taking a picture of some yahoo...

I mean, you take a picture of the guy who is squatting on your lawn so the police can identify him.

Name, date of birth, whatever, is no different provided it was obtained lawfully. Most or all of that data is publicly available with minimal effort.

[Kamakazie Sith]

I mean, you take a picture of the guy who is squatting on your lawn so the police can identify him.

Name, date of birth, whatever, is no different provided it was obtained lawfully. Most or all of that data is publicly available with minimal effort.

Usually that information is obtained by using the media and broadcasting the picture or posting it on a government website. Then another person that knows your subject will give you an ID. Very advanced identification techniques aren't used for people in the OWS league.

[Col. Crackpot]

There's nothing sinister here apart from the scale.

Banks "sitting down with FBI officials to pool information about OWS protesters harvested by private security" == some guy is camping on your lawn, you take a picture with your camera phone and give it to the police.

camping, shitting, pissing and fucking on your lawn. And screaming at you every time you walk outside.

[Broken]

Link

and even threats of the assassination of OWS leaders by sniper fire – by whom? Where? – now remain redacted and undisclosed to those American citizens in danger, contrary to standard FBI practice to inform the person concerned when there is a threat against a political leader (p61).

As Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, executive director of the PCJF, put it, the documents show that from the start, the FBI – though it acknowledges Occupy movement as being, in fact, a peaceful organization – nonetheless designated OWS repeatedly as a "terrorist threat":

So a peaceful organization's leaders are threatened with assassination complete with a method, but no one against whom these threats were made is informed as per usual FBI practice. Was the FBI so wrapped up in seeing OWS as a terrorist threat that they forgot they are supposed to protect all American citizens, not just the ones they sat down in conference rooms with?

[Block]

So a peaceful organization's leaders are threatened with assassination complete with a method, but no one against whom these threats were made is informed as per usual FBI practice. Was the FBI so wrapped up in seeing OWS as a terrorist threat that they forgot they are supposed to protect all American citizens, not just the ones they sat down in conference rooms with?

Do we know they weren't niformed of death threats? Or was there a specific threat? Did it go beyond some group saying "We should kill their leaders with sniper fire" to "I'm going to target person X for assassination!"?

[Simon_Jester]

Block, Crackpot, Iron Bridge: What's mostly disturbing here is the sense that of course federal agencies will work to protect the banks by disrupting and cracking down on anti-bank protests. That the banks have a right to protection, but the protests do not. And that it's okay for law enforcement to respond to a long-term protest by figuring out how to break it up, even if that means police brutality and bullshit like closing parks randomly at one in the morning without telling anyone in advance you're going to do it.

Because that's a political statement about which parts of our society matter, and which parts don't. Law enforcement is supposed to be politically neutral. Protecting property from active criminals is part of their job description. So is dealing with random disruptive vagrants. But breaking up a political movement because the bank finds it inconvenient isn't keeping that neutrality.

[Block]

Block, Crackpot, Iron Bridge: What's mostly disturbing here is the sense that of course federal agencies will work to protect the banks by disrupting and cracking down on anti-bank protests. That the banks have a right to protection, but the protests do not. And that it's okay for law enforcement to respond to a long-term protest by figuring out how to break it up, even if that means police brutality and bullshit like closing parks randomly at one in the morning without telling anyone in advance you're going to do it.

Because that's a political statement about which parts of our society matter, and which parts don't. Law enforcement is supposed to be politically neutral. Protecting property from active criminals is part of their job description. So is dealing with random disruptive vagrants. But breaking up a political movement because the bank finds it inconvenient isn't keeping that neutrality.

None of that is in the documents in question. At all.

[Simon_Jester]

[blinks]

Uh, yes, it is?

My impression is that the documents describe methods by which law enforcement and banking can label a political movement 'terrorist,' seriously consider shooting their leaders, or make it impossible to donate money to the group. And by which law enforcement can in turn carry out political harassment and (metaphorical) 'hits' on behalf of large companies.

At which point they are all about law enforcement lending its legal power and authority to a political statement. The statement is about who in this society has a right to an opinion. When the bank's fortune is in danger because protestors want laws that restrict their activities, they get to work with the FBI. When my fortunes are in danger because the banks blew my money on fraud, I don't get to work with the FBI, because the bank executives are 'too big to jail.'

[Block]

[blinks]

Uh, yes, it is?

My impression is that the documents describe methods by which law enforcement and banking can label a political movement 'terrorist,' seriously consider shooting their leaders, or make it impossible to donate money to the group. And by which law enforcement can in turn carry out political harassment and (metaphorical) 'hits' on behalf of large companies.

At which point they are all about law enforcement lending its legal power and authority to a political statement. The statement is about who in this society has a right to an opinion. When the bank's fortune is in danger because protestors want laws that restrict their activities, they get to work with the FBI. When my fortunes are in danger because the banks blew my money on fraud, I don't get to work with the FBI, because the bank executives are 'too big to jail.'

Your impression is wrong. Read the documents, not the interpretations posted by others. It's just sitreps and warning orders which are the equivalent of someone saying "Hey here's a heads up."

[Eulogy]

Warning orders involve treating peaceful protesters like rabid psychopaths? Did you even read the many stories about prisoner mistreatment at the hooves of the pigs, who are bought by the banks?

[Block]

Warning orders involve treating peaceful protesters like rabid psychpaths? Did you even read the many stories about prisoner mistreatment at the hooves of the pigs, who are bought by the banks?

That's nice, that has what to do with what's in these documents? No where in this does it say anything about how to treat protestors, give any suggested plans of action, or anything of the sort. It in fact repeatedly mentions informing people who request meetings with Special Agents that the FBI can't act without a specific threat as it would be a violation of the first amendment.

[Iron Bridge]

Block, Crackpot, Iron Bridge: What's mostly disturbing here is the sense that of course federal agencies will work to protect the banks by disrupting and cracking down on anti-bank protests. That the banks have a right to protection, but the protests do not. And that it's okay for law enforcement to respond to a long-term protest by figuring out how to break it up, even if that means police brutality and bullshit like closing parks randomly at one in the morning without telling anyone in advance you're going to do it.

Well as I understand

1. Many OWS protests were not wholly peaceful but targeted bank property and employees.

2. To the extent they were peaceful they were still "occupying" public land for their own purposes. While it's generally accepted one can do this for a brief period to make a political point, it is not legitimate for one group to permanently colonise parks &c. and monopolise them for their own purposes, which is what was happening.

So the crack down on OWS camps - which occurred quite some time after the camps initially appeared - seems perfectly in-keeping with the spirit of the law, and banks' assistance doesn't seem less reasonable than any interested bystander assisting the police with their normal activities.

I don't necessarily defend the manner in which they were cleared out.

[Broken]

Do we know they weren't niformed of death threats? Or was there a specific threat? Did it go beyond some group saying "We should kill their leaders with sniper fire" to "I'm going to target person X for assassination!"?

The article stated that no one who was targeted was informed of the threats, nor have I heard of the FBI coming out to correct the article by telling us they did what they do when other leaders are threatened. As for the specific threat

1. An identified [redacted]as of October planned to engage in sniper attacks
against protestors in Houston, Texas, if deemed necessary. An indentified [redacted] had
received intelligence that indicated the protesters in New York and Seattle planned similar protests in
Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, and Austin, Texas. [redacted] 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. (Note: protests continued throughout the weekend with approximately 6000
persons in NYC. "Occupy Wall Street" protests have spread to about half of all states in the US, over a
dozen European and Asian cities, including protests in Cleveland 10/6-8/1 1 at Willard Park which was
initially attended by hundreds of protesters

Note that this is the entirety of page 61. This paragraph is literally the only bit not redacted out of the document. We don't know how the FBI learned this information or even what group was threatening to assassinate people with sniper fire, but it most likely would be someone the government was already keeping an eye on.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I have one very serious objection to these claims. It refers to the personnel employed by the only bank mentioned, a Federal Reserve branch, as private security. This is not true. The Federal Reserve is not a part of the federal government, but like private corporation railroads, has had the right to raise police since the late 19th century. Federal Reserve police are legally full police with full police powers, who are funded by the Federal Reserve but independent insomuch as they do not follow commands of civilians but are simply a privately funded, chartered organization to uphold laws in a certain sector of the country. Federal Reserve Police are therefore members of all the normal networks sharing information between police agencies because they are police. There was no conspiracy of banks.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Also, campus police are usually full state police with state police powers and legal authority to enforce laws. They sure as heck are in both Washington State and Rhode Island, in both cases I've already watched people get pulled over on state highways for speeding by speed traps set up by campus cops... They share information with the Feds just like the State Patrol does, because their powers and scope of authority are identical.

[Kamakazie Sith]

The article stated that no one who was targeted was informed of the threats, nor have I heard of the FBI coming out to correct the article by telling us they did what they do when other leaders are threatened. As for the specific threat

If they identified the suspect in question then he/she was likely arrested which is why the name is redacted probably due to pending trial. Therefore no need existed to inform unnamed individuals of a potential neutralized threat. Also, if the targets were not identified then who were they supposed to notify?

[Kamakazie Sith]

By the way these documents are just intel briefs. Collection of information distributed to law enforcement in those areas that are likely to be affected. If the information comes from a credible source and contains information useful to law enforcement then it will be distributed. Basically, it is a result of efforts to get law enforcement agencies to share information. So, these organizations are working together in a "share information" sort of way. The author just exaggerates the scope by several orders of magnitude.

[ChaserGrey]

Also, campus police are usually full state police with state police powers and legal authority to enforce laws. They sure as heck are in both Washington State and Rhode Island, in both cases I've already watched people get pulled over on state highways for speeding by speed traps set up by campus cops... They share information with the Feds just like the State Patrol does, because their powers and scope of authority are identical.

Ain't necessarily so, at least not in all states. In Massachusetts, for example, large colleges like UMass have sworn departments, but eensy weensy colleges like the ones I went to have unsworn campus security that are basically rentacops. Not legally empowered to make arrests, start investigations, or mete out consequences beyond kicking you off campus or making a citizen's arrest. You'd have to investigate the specific school in question to see what their situation is.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Also, campus police are usually full state police with state police powers and legal authority to enforce laws. They sure as heck are in both Washington State and Rhode Island, in both cases I've already watched people get pulled over on state highways for speeding by speed traps set up by campus cops... They share information with the Feds just like the State Patrol does, because their powers and scope of authority are identical.

Ain't necessarily so, at least not in all states. In Massachusetts, for example, large colleges like UMass have sworn departments, but eensy weensy colleges like the ones I went to have unsworn campus security that are basically rentacops. Not legally empowered to make arrests, start investigations, or mete out consequences beyond kicking you off campus or making a citizen's arrest. You'd have to investigate the specific school in question to see what their situation is.

I think you misunderstood. Duchess was saying that all agencies that have the title "police" are in fact police. She is correct. If a campus is so small it only has security then they will be called campus security and not police.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Yep, exactly. UP Railway Police, BNSF Railway Police, Norfolk Southern Railway Police, University of California Police, University of Rhode Island Police, and Federal Reserve Police, all of the above are all actual real police agencies with sworn peace officers who can make arrests and enforce law, and in most states have identical authority to that state's own State Police officers.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Even a lot of small school campus securities are made up of ex-cops with close personal and professional ties to local departments anyway, and they usually have a history of collaborating together and clear procedures for doing so.