After the Smoke Clears: Reflections on the
Green Scare

Informants, Green Scare Snitches, and Surveillance:
Interview with Lauren Regan, CLDC
Black and Green Review #3, Summer 2016

Retrieved from hitps://anarchistnews.org/content/
informants-green-scare-snitches-and-surveillance-

interview-lauren-regan-cldc

And the Rest Is History... An Interview with Daniel

McGowan
Earth First! Journal, Nov.-Dec. 2007 and Jan.-Feb. 2008

Retrieved from http://www.supportdaniel.org/medial
14

“The most effective tactic... has been to turn the
activists against each other: Interview with Will Potter
by La Cizalla Acrata, posted to Green is the New Red, April
2012
Retrieved from http://www.greenisthenewred.
com/blog/spanish-interview-international-activist-
repression/5710/

32
Informants, Green Scare Snitches, and
Surveillance: Interview with Lauren Regan, CLDC

As an attorney and long-term activist Lauren Regan has a
vantage on state and corporate surveillance that few other
activists are exposed to. Regan is the founder and Executive
Director of the Civil Liberties Defense Center based in Eugene,
OR. She has an extensive history of defending activists after
inevitable run ins with the law. She represented a number of
Green Scare defendants and has arguably spent more time
sorting through Green Scare, AETA, and other similar cases to
know about the extent of government and corporate surveillance,
disruption, provocation, and how failures of Security Culture
opened the door for them.

~Lilia, BGR

What has been one of your more profound encounters with
informants within radical action communities?

After moving to the Pacific Northwest I became involved with
forest defense campaigns, and ultimately ended up doing a

lot of legal support for my friends. Several years later Lacey
Phillabaum was one of my housemates for a short time period.
‘Then in December 2005 a bunch of my friends, fellow activists
and clients were arrested as part of the Green Scare. Lacey
came to me, freaking out that she was being asked to become an
informant, and that Stan (Stanislas “Stan” Gregory Meyerhoff)
had become an informant.

Ttold her that we would try and support her in whatever
she needed to avoid being in that situation. The next thing I
know her and her father are meeting with me and informing me
that they are about to go and meet with the FBI, and she was
going to become an informant.

‘That was that, I thought. But a couple of years later I'm
on Briana Waters’ legal team and we’re going to trial for the
first time, and she’s facing life in prison with a 2 year old baby,
and Lacey Phillabaum is testifying against her to try and put
her away so that Lacey could get less time in prison. I'm sitting

1
at the legal table watching the direct examination by the U.S.
Attorney’s Office and all of a sudden Lacey points me out, sitting
at the counsel table, and said “Lauren Regan knew what we were
doing, or she should have known.” She perjured herself and
basically tried to get me indicted.

Luckily it didn’t work.

When Lacey and her father met with you was that as a lawyer
potentially representing her, or just as a personal friend?

No, it was as a lawyer who was a friend of hers at the time.

‘The day that the Green Scare bust happened, me, Jim,
Lacey and Stan and a few other of our friends were all flying to
Costa Rica for a friends’ wedding Jim and I and several other
friends were already in Costa Rica when Stan got detained at
the airport on the way out. Lacey started calling me in Costa
Rica freaking out, and there was not much I could do at that
time. But | remember she read me the names of all the peaple
‘who had been detained, and that really scared me because there
‘were names on that lst that I could not believe would have been
involved in economic sabotage at this level.

5o thought conspiracy — this is a witch hunt — this
‘was a broader net than it needed to be. Primarily it was Daniel
McGowan’s name that surprised me the most because he worked
very closely with me on Jeff Luer’s appeal and prison support
‘campaign. So the idea that he would be Jeff’s #1 support, and so
close to being indicted himself seemed reckless. I thought there’s
10 way Daniel s involved in this, but clearly he was.

As someone who lived with Lacey do you feel that there
was behavior or personality traits that you feel made it not
surprising that she eventually went down that path?

No, and here’s why. Lacey was one of the most militant,
hardcore security culture nazis in our town. When people were
subpoenaed to the grand jury she would be standing outside the
door with a pad of paper trying to be the community scribe of
everything that was asked and everything that was said, and if

Informants, Green Scare Snitches, and Surveillance
‘you didn’t fully debrief with her you were persona non grata.
1f you disobeyed the militant culture of security culture
as people pretended to adhere to it, she was down your throat in
asecond. So for her to just fold like a house of cards upon the
first application of pressure, that was surprising.

She had been together with Stan for a while - a couple
of years maybe — and they had this awful relationship. He
punched her in the face a couple of times. They were just nasty
to each other. In my head I thought, here’s another smart woman
‘who is so insecure in herself that she’s with this piece of shit guy.
She was leagues above him in many respects.

Twondered “why are they staying together?” She’s
living with me, and he is coming over occasionally, and he’s as
dumb as a piece of toilet paper. Whenever he would come over
to my house I would remember he would often ask “How is Jeff
(Luers) doing?” Jeff is in prison at this point, and I just assumed
that because so many people knew I was Jeffs lawyer and lots of
people who weren’t really in the scene would approach me and
ask “How’s Jeff doing?”, so I never thought anything about it
that Stan was asking about Jeff.

Of course in hindsight I realized that Stan was involved
in the Romania #2 arson (Jeff was charged with Romania #1,
and Romania #2 occurred on the day Jeff's trial was supposed
to begin in the same town the arsons occurred. Romania #2 is
suspected of playing a part in the Court imposition of his original
23 year sentence) and had tremendous guilt over Jeff s sentence.

So at some point Lacey told me that her and Stan were
moving to Bend, OR. At the time, to be frank, I thought it was
a domestic violence maneuver. That he wanted to get her out of
town. But even when she moved to Bend occasionally we would
g0 hiking together and things like that.

Was it an intense experience realizing that a long term friend,
someone you had lived with, gone on hikes with, could fold so
easily?

Yeah, of course. It was the first time in my life, as well as many
other people’s lives around me, where we had to write off friends

3 Lauren Regan
asif they were dead. We were burying people left and right.
People who cooperated with the grand jury, people like Lacey,
‘we lost a dozen humans out of our community forever. That was
like a mourning process.

And if that had been it, that would have been tolerable.
But when she actually tried to take me down in addition to it,
that's when I got mad. That’s why people in this community that
have remained friends with her unfortunately can no longer be
friends with me either.

She’s very smart, and was a journalist so she’s very
good with words. Both of her parents are lawyers, she was a
debate captain, so she can be very good at persuading people.
She can be both effective and dangerous. It was a big loss to the
movement to lose her in this way, potentially over a guy too.
Because if Stan hadn’t squealed, I don’t think she would have
had any reason to. I think the reason she became an informant
‘was because he completely snitched her out, then she basically
‘wanted to stand with him.

That brings up an interesting issue that I don’t think many
‘people talk about, in terms of intimate relationships and how
often those are related to situations where people end up
informing, or there are informants that et into relationships
with people and then snitch on them. Do you feel like that's a
recurring enough theme that it's something that we should be
thinking and talking about more?

1 think human frailty and human dysfunction on all sorts of
levels become a huge problem whenever you're dealing with
high stakes security culture issues. Whether it’s drug addiction,
or whatever it happens to be, there’s always issues like that
‘which come up,

‘Within the Green Scare you had Darren Thurston
jumping off the non-cooperation ship, as a result of pressure
from Chelsea Gerlach, who was his romantic partner at the time.
And Chelsea was specifically attempting to flip people so she
could get bonus points from the Feds. She met with many of the
non-cooperators to try and get them to flip. So there certainly

Informants, Green Scare Snitches, and Surveillance
‘were a few examples of that within the Green Scare.

On the other hand there are examples to the contrary,
like Joyanna and Nathan, who were a couple who stuck together
and did not snitch. T can see it going both ways.

On the other hand, it is my understanding that Jennifer
Kolar (Green Scare cooperating defendant), who dated Joe Dibbe
(indicted in Green Scare, never apprehended) and Jonathan Paul
(Green Scare non-cooperating defendant) at different times,
flipped her blonde hair around and wiggled her way into very
critical areas of the movement primarily because she was having
sex with activist men. She was probably not vetted as she should
have been. She not only flipped as soon as it hit the fan, but she
gave up all the passwords and technology related things that
ended up being very bad, damning evidence against a lot of
different people.

Have there been any other examples aside from “Anna”
(who entrapped Eric McDavid) that you know of, of the
FBI or corporate security actually sending people in to have
relationships with activists?

Oh yeah. There are a number of proven situations where I've
read the FBI reports myself where men have been targeted

‘with female FBI agents that posed as interested parties for the
purposes of infiltrating.

In my experience it’s been men targeted by women.
Although T know in Europe and other places it’s definitely been
the other way. And certainly with Peg Millet (one of the *Arizona
5 accused of conspiracy to sabotage nuclear power plants and
destroying power lines) and her fellow activists in Arizona, it
‘was the reverse, with a male being sent in to infitrate.

In my experience since the late 90s, I think female
agents are used more often because there are more men in the
direct action oriented frame of environmental and animal rights
stuff, and younger men with a lot of testosterone that are very
vulnerable to that type of thing; and statistically more men were
‘committing acts of direct action, that it made a lot of sense for
the FBI to be targeting men with women.

5 Lauren Regan
How do you think the Green Scare has impacted the green
anarchist/radical scene?

From traveling around the country and doing a lot of government
repression types of talks, that integrate AETA and Green Scare
related issues, I have certainly had a lot of people both long term
activists and newer ones tell me that things have been different
since the Green Scare. That things are not as active since the
Green Scare.

Ithink that may statistically be true in terms of economic
sabotage, but in terms of the grassroots movements—anti-tar
sands movement and some of the climate justice groups that
are now including undocumented immigrant communities and
things like that, I don’t see there being a huge deterrent to people

getting active along those lines, at least in the last 5-7 years or
0.

In discussions I've had with people they say that the
Green Scare had an impact because we’re not seeing arsons

anymore, but I think that the reality was that ater that binge
during the late 90 and early 20005, even people who were
participating in those actions were having some serious
reconsideration about the way the tactic was being implemented,
and the potential for serious back lash. As well as some serious
discussion going on about the effectiveness of it. Things were
being rebuilt, like Vail (Ski resort in Colorado where $12M
arson occurred). There were very few examples, Cavel West
Slaughterhouse being one of them, where the target was not
rebuilt. In nearly every other circumstance, the targeted property
‘was rebuilt or repurchased. So I think there was a lot of internal
discussion, and it was valid, and I think, a necessary discussion.
S0 it’s hard to say whether or not the underground movement
itself put limits to that, versus it actually being government
deterrence. By the time the [ Green Scare] prosecutions happened
in 2005 the actions had already pretty much stopped. Most of
them stopped in 2001, and 1 think there was 1 or 2 that happened
in 2003 Then the indictments didn’t come down till 2005. So

to say that the prosecutions were a direct result of ending that

Informants, Green Scare Snitches, and Surveillance 6
tactic, I'm not sure that factually plays out.

The FBI has been teaching very real world methods of
observation, tracking and intrusion for long time, but are
using more high-tech surveillance these days. Is it likely that
they are still using those ‘real world’ techniques?

Oh of course. As part of the FBIJTTF training they are using
‘younger agents who are tattooed, who learn vegan-talk, who
basically go to boot camp to specifically be able to integrate
themselves into anarchist / activist scenes. That is absolutely
still going on. The ability for the government to spy on activists
has only exponentially increased. In addition to government
surveillance we are also seeing an increase in ‘gray intelligence’
~ corporations spying on campaigns. Particularly in the anti-
coal, tar sands, pharmaceutical — you know — environmental and
animal rights targets, climate justice targets, all have very big
industries behind them and we’re seeing a lot of both illegal and
legal spying tactics by them as well

So you think corporate surveillance is definitely on the
increase?

Ohyes.

Do you know some examples of how people are finding out
about that? Because you wouldn’t think it would come up on
public records very often.

‘Well believe it or not, some of the private spy agencies screwed
up by voluntarily sharing their reports with the FBI and local law
enforcement agencies. Once they did that, all of those reports
are subject to FOIA and public records laws, and that's how we
actually gota lot of the stuff out.

For example, TransCanada was giving powerpoint
presentations to FBI offices and local law enforcement agencies
along the [Keystone] pipeline route. We actually got their
‘whole powerpoint presentation, which included photos of lead

Lauren Regan
organizers, and all of the federal terrorist crimes that they were
encouraging local DA’s to use against activists, and things like
that. Some of it we actually got through their own stupidity.

But there are lots of things that they can do that would
be really difficult to catch them on, particularly electronic
surveillance. A lot of the gray spies are former FBI agents, and
5o there is a real muddy zone of old and new buddying up with
each other. Old FBI calling up new FBI and saying “hey, do me a
favor and run this through the computer.”

What information do you think informants and undercover
types are particularly after? What s their core aim in terms of
the information that they are gathering?

‘Well I think from the government’s perspective one of the
main goals is psychological profiling, and attempting to map
movements and activist communities for future targeting, I think
that s a huge part of the goal. T think a lesser part of the goal is
actually trying to stop and fight crime. .

Or sometimes create crim

Right,right. Especially I think in a post-Green Scare world
‘where now, because of the level of disclosures that were made
by all of these ELF and ALF underground cell operants, the feds
are now very aware of how underground activists work. I think
that akin to the COINTELPRO era, another major interest of
the government in using spies and infiltrators is just the mere
interruption of political activity that challenges the current social
structures.

‘There are FBI anti-terrorist reports that I have read
‘where they specifically say that anti-capitalist activism is one
of the hugest threats to American society, and that is because
of the buddy relationship between the government and these
giant corporate profiteers. It the government doing the bidding
of these giant industries and corporations, so anything that is a
direct challenge to that is not only being spied upon, but anyway
that they can interrupt, interfere, malign — you know — they don’t

Informants, Green Scare Snitches, and Surveillance 8
‘want that movement to build

Sometimes it's not about trying to prosecute anyone
atall, it's basically about trying to divide up a community
and interfere with successful campaigns. We see it over and
over again. But because this is a big country and a big activist
community we don’t really talk as much as we should to be able
to see that a certain thing happened in the Tar Sands campaign,
and this is happening in the wolf campaign, and the same thing
is happening here and there. What is the common situation that
is going on? A lot of times it is that the government understands,
from it's past spying, how easy it s to fuck with most activist
communities.

Again, because of the human weakness, because we
don’t leam our history and we continue to repeat it. We don’t
take ourselves as seriously as we should as movement activists.
‘The government preys on all of that and has the same playbook
that they play out all across the county over and over again.
Every couple of years they can come back and it’s a new batch of
activists and they can do the same thing again.

Speaking of which, why does security culture matter?

Security culture, in my mind, is not primarily about how to get
away with criminal activity. It is about creating an environment
and community where those that don’t want to engage in
criminal activity can be safe from grand jury subpoenas or aiding
and abetting, or conspiracy charges as well. So security culture

is an across the board agreement on how political activists —
‘who are the targets of government and other kinds of repression
—can be as strategically effective as possible and create safe
boundaries for people, as best as they can.

Along term activist did a FOIA request that came up with some
interesting information about how pre-9/11 environmentalists
were being targeted on as potential users of WMD’s. Do you
Know if there was any exposure of informants or spies in that
program / investigation?

9 Lauren Regan
‘The incendiary devices that were used i the mid-late 90's

‘were considered deadly devices, and that’s why the terrorist
enhancement stuck for a lot of the Green Scare defendants. But
over and over again we see documentation from FBI agents, as
‘well as corporate spies. For example, there is an anti-fracking
group in Pennsylvania, and it’s made up of teachers and doctors,
and once a week on Friday afternoon they get out their banner
and go down to the busy corner of this little town and they stand
there and hold their anti-fracking banner. A corporate spy had
been monitoring them, and had been writing a terrorist bullg
that they shared with law enforcement and the FBI, which is
how we ended up getting it. The bulletin repeatedly said “they’re
holding a banner and they re doing this non-violence stuff now,
but their thetoric is getting more militant and they are going

to move onto more violent activity, 5o we need to continue to
monitor them...”

Ithink that generally speaking, law enforcement, in
order to ensure the longevity of their jobs, and the continued
funding, and gross increases in funding, there has to constantly
be a threat and an increasing threat. You're never going to see
the government saying “environmentalists learned their lesson,
they’re not going to do that stuff anymore.” In the Green Scare
they said “they may be doing property damage now, but they
‘were going to be moving onto assassinations.”

Iassume that’s enhanced so much more with corporate
surveillance and private security agencies, which are so
focused on helping drive profit growth?

The way a lot of them work, say Peabody Coal for instance, they
know they can’t have in-house spies. Because if that gets back
to them, they get in trouble. So they set up and fund a separate
private entity that is half-PR firm and half-security firm. In

order for that entity to remain operational they have to produce
information that Peabody Coal wants to hear, and they have to be
validating their own job. So if they were to report “doctors and
teachers are holding a banner every Friday” they are going to be
pulled off that case, and they re not going to get paid to do that

Informants, Green Scare Snitches, and Surveillance 10
anymore. What retired FBI agent doesn’t want to just sit around
and watch a bunch of peaceniks hold a banner, versus going after
drug smugglers or something similar. They are perpetuating their
‘own economic gain through that process as well.

One of the more classic examples is the private spy
group that changes its name every other week that targets PETA
on behalf of the Ringling Brothers and big pharma. They literally
had spies employed by PETA and stole computer files, and things
like that.

A huge issue though is the extent that activists are
making the government and private spy’s jobs o easy by using
facecrack or email to put the most dirty laundry of movement
participants out into these public domains. They are basically
giving them clear road maps of where vulnerable targets for
government repression might be located, or who might be more
likely to be a snitch or an infiltrator.

For me personally whenever I see some of that stuff
happening I am really suspicious of the sources of it. It seems
unbelievable to me that someone who calls themselves an
activist, and has any level of education about what being a
political activist means, would originate or perpetuate that
type of thing in the public sphere. That's not to say that I don’t
think that in certain circumstances a community shouldn’t go to
someone’s house and do an intervention, or have some kind of
accountability process. But that accountability process should
never ever be over facecrack, or computers at all. The idea that
everybody gets to vicariously watch somebody get tarred and
feathered is ridiculous. Watch the Kardashians on TV if you want
that level of drivel. If you live across the country and you're
not involved in that campaign, you don’t get to be a part of the
accountability process. The gossip loving nature of the fallible
human just seriously gets in the way.

Rather than being worried about spies and surveillance
we really need to take ourselves a lot more seriously. People
pay lip service to security culture and then they get on facecrack
and act as if the concept doesn't exist. It’s more than just a cool
phrase while you're drinking beers with your friends. It really
does mean things to people, and those that don’t take it seriously

1 Lauren Regan
aren’t taking themselves seriously either.

Alot of times when people do air dirty laundry on social media
they use the rhetoric of “I'm just trying to keep people safe by
letting them know this information about this person.” But

if you bring up the safety of security culture it’s completely
dismissed.

‘That's right. There’s a way you can keep a community safe
‘without doing that mass distro-style thing. I remember there
‘was a person who we outed as a federal infiltrator. He was a
drug convict who was working his punishment off by trying
to5py on environmental activists. He stole money from an
environmental campaign and caused a bunch of problems and
divisions. The way we were actually able to out him was after a
couple of people ended up getting federally prosecuted, I found
in the discovery that I received from the US Attorey’s Office
all the receipts for this guy’s reimbursements and his daily log
notes. They had inadvertently turned it over to me. They quickly
realized their mistake and asked me to return them, but I had
already given them to the clients, so it was already out there. So
he got outed and then we heard that he fled town. But someone
had some understanding that he was actually headed up to

the Buffalo Field Campaign. We were able to call them, and T
remember I faxed a black and white photo of the person to them,
and said “hey this person may be heading in your direction, keep
‘your eyes out.” And they did, and they were able to shoo him on.
The idea that some mass dissemination is the only way to keep
‘communities safe is ignorant.

Tt seems to be a huge reflection on the very sudden
change in our communications, with social media having become
so central. A lot of people have grown up with that now, and
understand it as the norm.

In doing teen ‘Know Your Rights’ trainings that we've
been doing its clear that this new generation has been reared
‘with metal detectors and no sense of privacy at all. They don’t
understand what a right to privacy is, and why someone would
be up in arms about that at all. They are so acclimated to a big

Informants, Green Scare Snitches, and Surveillance 12
brother, and nothing being private ever, that that’s going to be
the new cultural norm eventually. Which is exactly what the
government has indoctrinated people to adhere to.

They have been extremely successful in that. Do you have any
thoughts on how you resist that? Do you just keep off social
media?

1t's going to be so hard because of course mass media and the
giant systems that have been set up, like facecrack, are reaching
millions and millions of people. Not only in the US, but around
the world. Our ‘Know Your Rights’ trainings, or any kind of
political education, are not taught in the public schools. There’s
such a tiny minority of youth that will even be exposed to any
semblance of this, that I don’t have a lot of optimism. I think the
only way that it could be really seriously reversed is if there is
some major political upheaval that occurs.

Access “Know Your Rights” training resources and more at cldc.
org

13 Lauren Regan
And the Rest is
McGowan
by the Earth First! Journal Collective

tory...: An Interview with Daniel

Editors Note: This is a two-part interview conducted in 2007,
shortly after Daniel had been sentenced to seven years in prison
as part of the FBI's “Operation Backfire” which sought to
prosecute people for unsolved Earth Liberation Front (ELF)
actions. He was released from prison in 2012.

Earth First! Journal: How are you? How have you been
adjusting to prison so far?

Daniel McGowan: I'm doing fine, all things considered, and
happy to be here at my designated facility after two months in

a Brooklyn jail and three weeks on the road. They definitely
throw you in the deep end of the pool here, and the shock of it all
is tremendous, but I'm adjusting bit by bit, day by day. Unlike
representations of prison on TV and in popular culture, things
are chill here. It's a low-security prison with lots of recreational
opportunities, dormitories with bunk beds and a lot of free
movement, That said, its prison—the prison governs every
aspect of my life. T am 1,200 miles from home and unable to take
part in activism outside the realm of writing,

Did you do anything special to prepare for prison?

My preparation and acceptance of prison began a long time
ago—before I even took part in direct actions. Once it became
likely that I was going to prison, my preparation consisted of
reading about prison, interviewing and meeting with former
political prisoners, seeing a therapist to deal with anxiety and
doing tons of legal research about where I might end up and
how to conduct myself while in prison. Additionally, I did a

lot of research on potential graduate school programs, as 1 was
determined to have a very busy time while imprisoned and
‘wanted to make the most of this “time out,” so to say. One thing
Tdid not do enough was have fun! Beset by anxiety and stress, |

4
found myself delving into the rational and computer-based side
of prison preparation at the expense of spending time with those
Tlove. It's my number-one regret about my time from February
2006, when I was released on bail, to July 2007, when I self
reported.

"Has your experience doing prisoner support for Jeffrey “Free”
Luers been useful during this ordeal?

Yes, 1 do think my experience of doing prison support for Free
and others was useful. It may not be as linear as this, but I think
‘working with people in New York City (NYC) and Oregon on
prisoner support over the years helped us hone our tactics and
strategies in support work. So, after doing it for eight years,
Twas able to be the recipient of these tactics and strategies,
‘which resulted in fairly intense and vigorous prisoner support.
For me, my friendship and correspondence with Jeff informed
my decisions greatly—knowing how he was treated by the
government, T had no illusions that the state would be fair with
my case. My experience with Jeffs case left me with no hope
for justice from the courts, the US legal system or any judge—
no matter how liberal they are perceived to be. Jeff s appellate
decision in February was easily the shining point of the year for
me.

What brought you to activism, or specifically, the radical
environmental movement?

T grew up in a neighborhood that was heavily polluted by jet fuel
released from planes landing and taking off from La Guardia
airport in Queens, New York. Cancer rates are high there, and my
childhood memories are full of times that we were not allowed

to swim in the ocean due to algae blooms or toxic waste washing
up on the shores. I grew up with images of the then-radical
Greenpeace putting themselves between whalers and whales (so
much has changed!) and learned about the greenhouse effect

and the impacts of greenhouse gasses on the environment as

an elementary school student. It wasn’t, however, until I took a

15 Daniel McGowan
life-changing trip to Thailand after graduating from college that
Tsought to be involved. While there, I hiked rainforest trails, et
environmental refugees from Burma and experienced serious
pollution. My attempts to get involved in activism floundered
until a late-night drunken stumble into Blackout Books (RIP)
and a free-pile copy of the Earth First! Journal (the one with

the “Super Freddy” with the automatic weapon guarding the
Cove-Mallard timber salet). T checked ou the directory, saw that
the NYC contact—the Wetlands Preserve—had open meetings
and a few days later attended one. There, I heard about the
Yerkes protest against primate research firsthand, as well as
letter-writing attempts to keep Captain Paul Watson from being
extradited to Norway. One month later, I took off cross-country
for the 1997 Round River Rendezvous in Crandon, Wisconsin,
got arrested for standing in front of a mining company, and the
rest is history. How’s that for a plug for the organizing effect of
the EF1J?

What role did EF! and the EFLJ play in your growth as an
activist? What role, if any, do they play in your life now?

‘The Journal has always been a major part of my activism, from
the times T would lunge at the pile we used to get at Wetlands to
submitting my first article (Mitsubishi lockdown, October 1998)
to seeing analysis of the ELF actions I was involved with. I
short-termed for the Journal in 2000 and volunteered for the two
years I lived in Eugene helping with editing, filling sample issue
‘orders and soliciting articles and artwork. The EF] was a major
reason for my move to Eugene and subsequent involvement with
the ELF and was a base for many of the activists in Eugene who
always came out for the (then) every-six-week mailing parties.
I still get the Journal, enjoy most of the writings and during my
time in prison, intend to submit articles and letters every issue.
Fora while, I thought the Journal would not recover
from its growing pains and would join the huge list of magazines
that failed or ceased publication in the last two years, but I'm
happy to read about new developments. The new (old) format
and the scrapping of horrible relationships with vampiric

And the Rest s History... 16
distributors is promising. T am also happy to see the Journal’s
‘commitment to not only listing prisoner addresses but also
seeking input and articles from them. We are still people who
have opinions and want to meaningfully participate.

What's your sense of the state of the radical environmental
‘movement? Where do you see it, and specifically EF!, heading?

‘The radical environmental movement has been the canary in
the coal mine for the last 30 years, but the future, 1 am not sure
about. We have called attention to issues long ignored by the
press and our accommodating mainstream “Group of 10,” the
huge environmental non-profits. Old-growth forests, mining,
development, mountaintop removal, biotechnology. We should
be proud of calling attention to these issues, but we need to do
more than just be the messenger—we need to actually work
toward having an impact on these issues. The decline of groups
using the name “Earth First!” is one thing people point to as a
bad thing, but if our issues are being covered or worked on by a
growing number of people and organizations, perhaps that isn’t
50 bad. Ultimately, climate change needs to be combated as a
survival issue, not just limited to an enviro issue. If we allow
climate change to be just another one of our issues, we are letting
people off the hook. To really deal with it—and trust me, I have
my doubts about our ability and desire to deal with it—we will
need more than just radical enviros doing something. At this
point, within EF!, I am curious about whether Rising Tide will
rise to the occasion and whether or not our opposition to this new
batch of coal plants will result in some actual victories.

Many within EF! have observed that the number and intensity
of radical environmental direct-action campaigns seem to have
dropped significantly during the past 10 to 15 years. Do you
agree with this assessment or have any thoughts on why this
‘might be?

Not having a comprehensive diary or list of actions that qualify
as “radical environmental direct actions,” it’s hard for me to say.

17 Daniel McGowan
‘What we always have to keep in mind is that for every action
claimed through a communiqué by a group with a name, there
are tons of other unclaimed actions by people who may not
identify as activist in any way. It's well known that “ecotage”
did not originate with identifiable groups, complete with names,
guidelines and statements to the media. Our history supports this
point: The Tucson eco raiders, the Fox, billboard topplers, tree
spikers, road rippers—all existed before the rise of groups like
the ELF. So, I can’t say that any evidence points to fewer actions
overall, although 1 agree with the fact there are fewer actions
claimed by groups with public statements, etc.

As for radical environmental campaigns, it sure seems
to be true that there are less of these. When I lived in Oregon,
there were, at times, four active treesits, as well as quieter
‘campaigns by people like myself that focused on disrupting
timber sales and many lawsuits attempting to take large amounts
of forest off the chopping block. Nowadays, there seems to be
amuch-changed situation, with no active treesits in Oregon or
‘Washington and disbanded groups in these once very active
‘communities. However, it isn’t always about quantity, and there
are still efforts to protect forests, such as the Cascadia Wildlands
Projects (CWP) and lawyers like Lauren Regan who thanklessly
(and with no help from the non-profits) work hard to protect
burned Biscuit sales in souther Oregon. One good thing I just
heard is that the Clark timber sale (known better as Fall Creek
o in its early days, Red Cloud Thunder) is now canceled. Years
of occupying trees and, in later years, red tree vole surveys that
shrunk the size of the sale down to 29 acres resulted in the sale
10 longer being profitable. The groups that worked on this, from
the mainstream Oregon Natural Resources Council (now Oregon
‘Wild) to the CWP, treesitters and surveyors should be proud of
themselves for working together on different levels. We need
more of these combined efforts

Now that your sentence has started, is there anything you've
wanted to say but couldn’t until this moment?

Tsuppose now is the best time to address the issue of my

And the Rest s History... 18
cooperating codefendants. Much has been said about their
choices, which resulted in a long list of arrests, death threats and
a seemingly never-ending investigation. Let me be really clear:
‘There was a spoken and crystal-clear agreement made between
all who were involved in these actions that we would never, ever
turn each other in to save ourselves. I took that oath seriously, as
did a few of my old friends. Sadly though, not everyone did, and
instead threw us to the wolves. In one month, I went from having
three people pointing their fingers at me—a sociopathic heroin
addict (Ferguson), an intellectually diminished domestic violence
abuser turned conservative (Meyerhoff) and a meek porn store
manager and pothead (Tubbs)—to having almost all of my
codefendants selling me out. It was shocking and tremendously
hurtful, and T will never forgive them for the betrayal. The straw
that broke the camel’s back was probably when I found out

that Suzanne Savoie, an ex-lover and once close friend, told

the government of my entire illegal history from 1998-2001—
including some 10 or so actions that we did together—with
credible details. She got 51 months; I got 84—the price of
treachery is apparently 33 months.

That said, I am not willing to give these people any more
of my time and my life. I have no desire to ever hear from them
again with fake apologies or regret. Their actions are their cross
to bear—not mine. I can wake up in the morning knowing that
not only did I try to stop the destruction I saw, but that I acted
honorably when facing lie in prison.

Finally, T want to say that it was very difficult to stand
silently in court while the prosecutor said that our actions were
analogous to the actions of the KKK. I pride myself on speaking
out when I hear racist garbage like that, and I regret that I was
cowed by my surroundings and half-expected the judge to rebuke
prosecutor Stephen Peiffer for his racist and horribly inaccurate
remark.

How do you feel about the sentence you received? Were you
surprised? Disappointed? Relieved?

My sentence of seven years for two arsons is double the federal

19 Daniel McGowan
median sentence. I received six months less than what the
government asked for, due to my involvement in aboveground
and non-destructive activism from 2001 to 2005. Honestly, felt
that my activism, the fact that 1 left the ELF without pressure
from anyone and my complete lack of criminal history would
have led to a lesser sentence. But I'm not surprised, really—there
is no justice from the courts. If there were, the judge would never
have tolerated our being charged with the 924(c) counts (use

of a destructive device) which could have given me a 30-year
mandatory minimum if found guilty of one and mandatory life

in prison if found guilty of both. We called 924 (c) “the snitch
maker” because the count caused great fear and hopelessness
‘amongst those who were charged with it. Relief was certainly
something I felt after I went from facing life in prison plus 335
years to “only” eight years. I am surrounded by people whose
sentences of 20 years and more remind me that I could have
gotten a lot more time.

‘That said, I think it's imperative that we not accept these
charges and characterization of ourselves as “terrorists” (eco,
domestic or otherwise). We should never accept the overarching
tactics the government uses to get people to break.

Most of your codefendants decided to cooperate with the
government by informing on you, the other non-cooperating
defendants and each other. From early on, you were very clear
about your refusal to do this. When and how did you decide

to make this commitment? Was this a difficult decision? How
‘much pressure was on you to inform on others, and how did
you withstand this pressure?

1 decided a long time ago that I would never cooperate with a
situation I might find myself in years later. Before I took part
serious actions, I thought long and hard about it. Frankly,
‘was not a hard decision to make and I think it plays to my
personality—which is very stubborn at times! Once I was
arrested, I clammed up and tried my best to ignore what was
going on—TI was cold, hungry and in a cell that was freezing
‘with the lights on, but I knew that this was temporary and that

And the Rest s History... 20
Twould soon have a lawyer. Legal trainings that I had been to

a dozen times suddenly made sense as I saw the silly attempts
that were made to get e to talk. Specifically, Eugene cop Greg
Harvey told me that the 924 (c) count was the same count that
Chris McIntosh pleaded to, that he knew I had a niece and that T
shouldn’t bankrupt my family, and that I should be smart and talk
‘with the prosecution as “the door is open now but it's closing
soon.” I saw this attempt for what it was and reasserted my right
to silence over and over to them.

T can’t say there was much pressure put on me by
others—all my friends and family understood my decision to not
cooperate. My codefendant Gerlach did wage a “choose life”
campaign, seeking to meet with every defendant and lawyer and
tell them that we should “choose life” and not be martyrs! This
‘was a very obvious attempt to gain credence with the prosecution
and at her sentencing, she and her lawyer attempted to cash
in on this, stating that she got many people to cooperate. Of
course, this is true in the case of her private meeting with Darren
Thurston, who left a joint agreement with me and Jonathan Paul
shortly after this meeting with Gerlach (and started cooperating
with the government after that point). Her meeting with my
lawyer and private investigator provided me with a lot of insight
into the mind of someone who cooperates and the lengths
that they will go to in their quest to lessen their time in jail. A
document of notes regarding Gerlach’s attempts to get me to
inform will be made public soon on wwsw.supportdaniel.org.

How do you feel about the support that some of the
informants continue to receive from some folks in the radical
environmental movement?

Ithink it's sad that some people in the radical enviro movement
still support informants from this case. I can understand in some
‘way a situation in which a friend is dismayed by the actions
taken by another friend who is an informant and thus, I do not
begrudge them that. However, there is a huge difference between
supporting a friend privately without using movement money
(making sure they have commissary and letters) and publicly

2 Daniel McGowan
supporting these people, soliciting money from the movement,
asking magazines to send them free subscriptions and obscuring
the truth about the depth of their cooperation. I won't delve too
deeply into the situation with Darren Thurston, but I will say
this: Thurston is a cooperating witness against the people in the
hfield Bureau of Land Management ELF action. Some of
these people are informants themselves, but a few people are
not. Thurston told the government the timeline of the action—
‘what he did and what other people did, specifically. It does not
matter that he and his support person both say the government
already knew this. That is their assertion, not a fact—and either
‘way, that idea of “they already knew it” has been so thoroughly
discredited over the last 30 years that I'm surprised it can still be
spoken without meeting universal derision. The assertion made
is that Thurston will not have to testify against the three people
he told the government about either because a) they won't be
caught, or b) he will be in Canada by that point and won’t have
to testify. Sadly, most people that the FBI deems “fugitives” are
‘caught (e.g. Peter Young, Sara Olson, James Kilgore) so that
really isn’t too much consolation. Secondly, if Darren thinks
Canada is a refuge, maybe he should read a little about the

cases of Leonard Peltier, Tre Arrow, John Graham or Jeremy
Hintzman (US conscientious objector). Of course, maybe the US
government told him that they wouldn’t need him, but that's just
conjecture. His plea agreement s available to the public, except
for the paragraphs dealing with the cooperation he offered, which
are siill sealed. So, we are lft in the dark, really, because his
support people and Thurston himself keep his plea agreement
and FBI debrief forms sealed. I think that anyone who reads the
‘court reports can see that not only did the prosecution call him

a remarkable cooperating witness but his lawyers also lauded

his cooperation. Ask yourself how a former Animal Liberation
Front (ALF) prisoner, banned from the US and caught with a
fake green card, more than 20 fake IDs, guns and drugs, and a
participant in an ELF arson at a government facility gets not only
2 37-month sentence but no terrorism enhancement? How much
proof do people need?

And the Rest s History... 2
There seems to be a pretty massive divide between the radical
environmental movement’s anti-snitch rhetoric (e.g., “snitches
get stitches”) and the movement’s actual response to snitches.
What do you make of this divide, and what are its implications
for the movement’s chances of discouraging snitching?

T have lttle tolerance for the whole pro-violence against snitches
thing, Not only is it phony—lets be real, no snitches in our
movement “get sitches”—but I find it counter to what we
believe in. We are not the Irish Republican Army. We are not
Marxist-Leninist rigid cadre organizations that punish weakness
‘with personal violence. Some of the comments on Portland
Indymedia were so useful to the prosecution that they must have
been posted by law enforcement of some kind—especially after
the agents moaned to my lawyers that I was spearheading this
‘campaign against the snitches. Again, 1 want to be crystal-clear: T
don’t support violence against informants in my case

Tdo support their complete and total ostracization from
the movement, as I think they are dangerous people. They have
shown themselves to be so self-centered in their outlook as to
sell people out when they swore up and down they never would.
(Here’s a funny aside: The biggest informants were the ones
‘who were the most tough and militant at the time of the actions.
‘What does that say?) No welcome back should be given to these
people. When you think of their actions and feel that, at one
point, they were honorable people trying to do their best to make
the world better, that i fair. But keep in mind, the people who
sold me out are not the same people anymore.

As far as the movement’s chances of discouraging
snitching, 1 do think the movement has a responsibility to
educate new peaple who get involved, so that they can know
their own history. My understanding of my case and my views
are greatly informed by the past: the Justin Samuel debacle and
how Darren Thurston was sold out by someone involved in his
1992 Animal Liberation Front. Knowledge is power, and you
can begin to see how things were done in the past and how they
could be done in the future.

I'm concerned with the historical legacy of my case

23 Daniel McGowan
and am hoping that people learn lessons from it. One thing I
hope people can see is that you do not have to sell your friends
out. Also, arson is a very serious thing, and the consequences
are lifelong. You will be connected to people for the rest of
your life if you choose to do any direct actions. I think that the
movement can show principled, strong and long-term support
for defendants, and this can serve as a discouraging factor in
informing. Support from the movement helped me solidify my
positions and made it a lot easier. If we can show one another
that we will be there for one another, then the prospects of
snitching will be less.

Overall, I think that the movement needs to have an
honest and frank discussion about these tactics, who seems to
choose them and what that means for the prospects of prison.

What led you to decide that sabotage was not an appropriate
tactic—or at least, not an appropriate tactic for you?

1 decided that using arson and sabotage were not the right tactics
for me shortly after the Jefferson Poplar action. Part of it was my
experience dousing SUVs and trucks with gasoline and being
profoundly affected by that. It just didn’t feel right. I started

to realize that all that was in my future was more destruction,
and that destroying things doesn’t make a movement. In our
situation, T felt that we were too far removed from the broader
environmental movement to even be complementing their
efforts. There was also this sort of ticking clock I thought
about—regarding whether we were getting closer to someone
getting hurt. Some of my co-defendants started exhibiting
behavior that was scary to me, and it dawned on me that our
goals were very different. To me, arson and sabotage are means
to.an end. I really did not take pleasure in destruction like some
of my old friends did.

1 decided to take some time off to clear my head after a
particularly disappointing meeting—what the prosecutors call
“the last book club meeting”—where we discussed our goals
and why we did what we did. Although I risked my life with
these people, it was surprising, to say the least, to find out how

And the Rest s History... 2
divergent our ideas were. I was dismayed by growing factions
that felt that what we were doing was not enough, at a time when
Ifelt we should be pulling back, engaging only in sabotage
actions that could bolster bridges between us and aboveground
campaigns,

My time in Canada was full of new possibilities. I saw
how indigenous people were resisting forest destroyers in their
territory. T saw aboveground but militant and creative forest
defense campaigns being fought in the Elaho wilderness, and I
met inner-city harm-reduction activists working to decriminalize
heroin users and work for safe injection sites. Inspired by their
public and yet unapologetic militant stance, I came back to the
US and made my break with the (ELF) final.

On Democracy Now, you told Amy Goodman that the solidarity
action with Jeffrey “Free” Luers—the Romania action, which
he believes was partly responsible for his original 22-year,
eight-month sentence—made you “start to look at [your]
actions as being very dangerous and having repercussions
beyond [your] control.” Gan you explain in more detail what
you meant by this? To what extent should radical activists

be required to anticipate or even feel responsible for the
government repression that arises in response to their actions?

Twant to be very frank about the Romania action. It ruined
Free’s chance of a jury trial. Now, of course, a jury trial may
have sent him to prison for a long time as well, but we will
never know. Romania was serious and dangerous because it was
horibly timed and showed a very poor logic—that somehow
going back to the site of the original arson would have some
positive effect on Jeff. This strategy was really poor, and the
action was perceived by many as rather adolescent and tau
Did the people who took part in this action mean to
harm Jeff? No, of course not. The thing s, our actions do have
unintended consequences, and 1 feared that this group would
continue to be interested in engaging in similar actions. I felt
personally responsible for Jeffs outcome—not because I was
involved, but because I was out of town and couldn’t stop the

2.

2 Daniel McGowan
action. Shown the communiqué afterward, I pleaded to have
Free’s name removed from it and was rebuffed.

I think radical activists really need to consider their
impacts on prisoners. Personally, I think “solidarity actions” are
sort of creepy and centered way too much on us and not on the
issue at hand. A prosecutor’s wet dream is for a solidarity action
to happen in the midst of a legal case. Any action dedicated
to someone on tral or in a legal case will be fodder for the
prosecution. That is just a fact, based on seeing it happen in
many cases. Some people may like these actions—to them I say,
to each their own.

Your support group was one of the first to form following
the December 2005 arrests, and it appears to be one of the
‘most visible and effective prisoner support groups currently
operating. Do you have any insight into why this is? Do you
‘have any advice for folks doing prisoner support work?

My support group is a bunch of badasses led by my wife,
Jenny—who despite all claims that she is not an activist, is one
of the best organizers I have ever met! The shock of my being
ripped out of our city was a major factor in the fast response to
my arrest: I was arrested at 4:12 p.m. on December 7, 2005, and
the court room was packed the next day. My friends were able
to mobilize a lot of the people I had worked with during the past
five years in New York City. My family, employer, co-workers,
fellow students and friends were out in full force, aided by the
simple fact that my family got everyone this information really
fast. T remember being in jail in Eugene, Oregon, and not only
finding out that I had a lawyer ready to be interviewed and hired,
but that T had a website and listser, and letters were already
being generated for a bail hearing that I didn’t even know was
planned! My friends chose to fight like hell for me, and I think
that made all the difference. Living in New York, a huge and
rich city, they hosted more than 50 benefits for me in the last two
years and contributed massive amounts to my legal defense fund,
as well as those of many of the other Green Scare defendants.

1 this something you can leam? I think good prisoner

And the Rest s History... 2%
and defendant support grows out of deep relationships with
people and a lot of mutual aid. I had put eight years into prisoner
support, and I had met and worked with a large number of people
in NYC against the Republican National Convention. I feel like
the support I gave out was reciprocated.

Twould also like to see people who are not well-known
receive a lot of support. That would be a good goal: Can we
support those we do not know but who nonetheless deserve our
support?

My best advice is to let the defendant/prisoner guide the
‘work in some way, and to be flexible and work with their family
and legal team. Its challenging but worth it in the end.

What's the best way that people can show their support for
you?

T have received such insane support that I could never give
anything but praise for those who have helped me out. T suppose
the best way people can show their support is to engage in
activism of some kind—the kind that is long-term and promotes
ecological sanity in our society. Yup, it’s a clichéd answer for
sure, and I feel silly writing it, but it the truth. T get lots of mail,
books and magazines. Really, another great thing is for people
to get others to take a look at the Green Scare cases, and help
those defendants and prisoners out. 1 also have a special place in
my heart for Joyanna “Sadie” Zacher, Nathan “Exile” Block and
Jonathan Paul, 5o keep an eye out for them, and ask them what
they need. For more information, check out www.greenscare.org
[site appears defunct as of 4/2017].

Finally, I want to ask that people consider the partners,
‘wives, husbands, boyfriends, girlfriends and families of those
indicted and imprisoned. We are not in this alone, and our
families and partners bear an awful burden.

This Summer, you were accepted into Antioch University
McGregor’s distance learning masters program. Can you tell
us more about this? Do you have any other goals or plans for
your time in prison?

2 Daniel McGowan
Twas accepted into an environmental sociology program at
Antioch University that is self-directed, and, attended a residency
in April. I am responsible for recruiting my own instructors and
creating syllabi, as well as keeping up with the workload like any
student. 1 am on a leave of absence right now, due to my time

in transit. 1 will be starting the program again in the Winter. The
Antioch staff has been really open to working with me and has
not hesitated at all, despite the many obstacles that this program
represents for me as an incarcerated student. With luck and hard
work, it will take me a litrle more than two years. I am also lucky
to have a crew of graduate students on the outside who have
helped me tremendously with my writing and preparation for a
graduate-level program.

As for other plans, I am consistently exercising a lot
these days and trying to take advantage of the track and many
machines they have here. So far, I prefer rowing and a stationary
bike, but Tintend to add weights into the mix soon, too. The
Bureau of Prisons makes you work, so I will be starting a job
as an orderly tomorrow. Hopefully, that won’t stop me from
studying too much. 1 also intend to catch up on a huge reading
list and correspond with a lot of people that I have not been able
to for some time now, due to my sort of frantic schedule on the
outside.

What concerns you? What inspires you?

A major concern I have is that the cases that comprise the
Green Scare will spread fear and paralyze people from action
and organizing. Like Wil Potter (“Green Is the New Red”) has
pointed out, legislation like the Animal Enterprise Terrorism

Act and the federal crime of terrorism (which I and most of
my-codefendants received) have the potential to create a severe
chilling effect on activism. Its difficult, because it's necessary
to speak of what happened, but we have to balance that with the
paralysis that can set in from too much analysis or worrying.
Tthink that groups like my support crew learned during this
ordeal that action is indeed the antidote to despair—that moving,
struggling and advocating for our friends’ futures and the

And the Rest s History... 28
movement is what we need to do to combat this fear factor.

T'm concerned that my case seems too complex, and,
thus, people will get confused by things like the names of who
cooperated or didn’t, the names of the charges and will “check
out.” This does not bode well for a movement that needs to
‘combat amnesia and stop history from repeating itself. Of
course, so much of what is happening in our movement and
society concerns me—ongoing and endless war, seemingly
impending war in Iran, the day-to-day ecological destruction that
seen as normal, activists in our movement facing serious time
in prison, the fallacy of white people wanting to build a 700-mile
fence on our so-called border, and hearing the word “faggot” and
other slurs more times in the last three months than in the last 15
years and that being seen as okay.

Lately, I've been inspired by beautiful writing about
resistance and emotions. Something about this ordeal has really
affected my sensibilities, and I find myself crying when I think
of solidarity and the support I have received and things like
sibling relationships, friends who have passed on this past year
or so, and our prospects. I'm inspired by brave people—the quiet
kind who seek no accolades and who keep at it, day after day,
‘with no end in sight and with no victory assured. I'm inspired
by the selflessness of my co-defendant, Jonathan—svho could
have gone to trial and fought his charges further, not having the
30-year mandatory minimum count, but took the plea bargain to
save us from spending the rest of our lives in prison. Finally, I
am inspired by my wife and partner, Jenny, whose dedication and
support I am so appreciative of.

Is there anything else you want to say to Journal readers and
the EF! community?

First off, I want to thank anyone has picked up a pen to write to
me or my co-defendants, has donated any money to help us pay
for our lawyers, has sent supportive emails and letters, or has
hosted benefits. Your support does mean something to me, and
Twill never forget it. T want to say that my co-defendants and
Tare human—just like you. We make mistakes; indeed, I have

2 Daniel McGowan
made many mistakes, like speaking to an old friend on a wiretap,
allowing myself to grow overly cautious in my legal defense and
not appreciating my wonderful life until so much of my freedom
‘was ripped away.

Tdid what I did—not cooperating—because I honor
my word to my allies. There is nothing inherently different in
me that influenced that decision. You too are capable of acting
‘with integrity, and 1 implore people to truly think through
the consequences of your actions and work on building deep
relationships that are able to withstand the pressures of legal
battles that may happen 20 years from now. I erred in allowing
myself to get desperate and lash out at entities that caused me
great frustration. There are other ways of affecting change,
although they may not give you the instant gratification that
some actions will, nor will your actions be considered the most
militant,

‘We need to have serious conversations about whether
militantancy is truly effective in all situations. Certainly, direct
action is a wonderful tool, but from my experience, it may not
be the most effective one at all times or in all situations. This
opinion will land me in disregard by both the militants (many
of whom are hypertheoretical and, thus, their opinions exist in
asort of vacuum) and my enemies (who accuse me of playing
both sides of the story). The truth is that things are more complex
than that. In some instances, direct action is the most effective
tactic. For instance, in 1999, I was involved in an action that
destroyed a tremendous amount of genetically modified (GM)
grass and equipment belonging to the company testing it. The
risks of the GM grass were verified, and groups even sued to stop
it—claiming that the GM grass would inevitably spread to the
forests and grasslands, polluting them with herbicide-resistant
or faster-growing GM grass. The action happened in 1999, but
it took six years for the courts to rule in the plaintiff’s favor,
mposing a moratorium on the growing of GM grass. Actions
that are understood by the public and seen as logical can have a
positive impact on pre-existing campaigns and struggles.

On the other hand, T have to admit that T have been
involved in some hare-brained actions that I am not proud of,

And the Rest s History... 30
that were fueled by an intense need to “just do something.” We
need to balance our need to do something about what we see
happening with strategy and a healthy understanding of the risks
inherent in these actions. By “actions,” I am not just speaking of
sabotage but any action on any campaign.

‘These discussions are the sort of articles that need to
appear in the pages of the Journal. Despite the fact that my
particular case is over, it’s imperative that we discuss tactics
and strategies in a way that people can actually hear and listen
to what each other are saying. Someone once told me that many
activists are not into criticizing actions that have been taken by
the ELF because they want to support the defendants and that
any criticism of the actions may be perceived as a diss on the
people. I appreciate the sentiment and the consideration, but I
think, now that much of the case is over, we should soon start
to have these dialogues. 1, for one, can take any criticism levied
on me regarding actions that I have been involved in. In that
‘way, we can move the conversation forward on how to resist
ecological destruction in a serious and principled way, without
losing 50 many of our friends to prison, burnout and despair.

Bl Daniel McGowan
“The most effective tactic... has been to turn the
activists against each other’: An interview with
Will Potter

by La Cizalla Acrata

One of the most rewarding aspects of my work has been the
‘opportunity to leam about activist projects around the world, and
in some cases contribute in whatever small way I can. A while
back I was contacted by a collective of anarchist translators in
Spain (you read that correctly — how great is that?) and asked
to interview. Here is the result. The translation is available at

La Cizalla Acrata, “Entrevista con Will Potter, autor del libro
“Green is the New Red."”

-Will Potter

Please, introduce yourself and your book “Green is the New
Red”

Hello, everyone. T am an independent journalist based in
‘Washington, DC. My work has been featured in publications
including the Los Angeles Times, Mother Jones, and National
Public Radio. The focus of my writing and lecturing is how
political activists are being labeled as “terrorists” by corporations
and the U.S. government. Green Is the New Red exposes how
animal rights and environmental activists have become the
Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) “number one domestic
terrorism threat.” My book is written as narrative, telling the
story of some members of the Earth Liberation Front, Stop
Huntingdon Animal Cruelty and other groups while also

ing how corporations manufactured the idea of “eco-
terrorism.”

When we talk about the AETA [Animal Enterprise Terorrorism
Actl, the Green Scare... Can we say it has achieved their goal?
I mean, have you noticed, there in the USA, that animal rights
and eco-activists work have deceased since these repressive
strategies begun?

n
‘This is a very difficult question to answer, because social
movements, by their nature, are always changing. However, it

is undeniable that these tactics have had a chilling effect, which
means that they have made many activists think twice about what
they say and do because they are concerned about being labeled
aterrorist. That being said, the animal rights and environmental
movements in the United States are vibrant and growing, There
has been a resurgence of non-violent civil disobedience in
protest of climate change, and animal rights activists are using
undercover investigations very effectively.

1 guess the mass media have supported this kind of repression.
How much importance did they have (or are having at the
‘moment) in criminalizing activists? Did some paper, TV
channel... show some form of criticism about it?

For the most part, journalists in the United States have failed
to critically examine these tactics. I would argue that one of

the reasons that “eco-terrorism” became such a threat is that
mainstream journalists used this term without questioning the
source. In recent months we have seen more and more criticism
of laws like the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, but for the
most part these have not received much attention at all.

As you know, here in Spain some activists have been charged
with animal liberation related stuff. They are (or were) all
involved with legal campaigning. The comparison with the
SHAC 7 or the Austrian activists case is inevitable. Do you
think laws like the AETA can have some “copycat” laws in
other countries?

Absolutely. Spain, Austria, Finland, and elsewhere are
experience similar copycat prosecutions. The corporate-led
‘campaigns to demonize animal rights and environmental activists
as “eco-terrorists” have indeed become intenational in scope. 1
‘would argue that this is an example of how these tactics are not
“state repression,” as leftists generally describe it, but “corporate
repression”. The state may be carrying out these tactics, but only

3 ‘Wil Potter
because corporations are seeking to protect their profits around
the world.

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, T 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.

S0, 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?

“The most effective tactic...” 3

‘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.

Please, let us know which are for you the most notable
information sources about repression against activists, Green
Scare.... (I mean web pages, zines, books... whatever)

A good overview of the many tactics used against activists
throughout U.S. history is Beyond Bullets: The Suppression
of Dissent in the United States by Jules Boykoff. For prisoner
information, the Earth Liberation Prisoners Support Network
runs a great email list with the latest updates.

And of course, www.greenisthenewred.com has become
a clearinghouse of news on these issues. I hope people reading
this will also consider checking out my book, Green Is The New
Red: An Insider s Account of a Social Movement Under Siege.

35 ‘Wil Potter