portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article

COINTELPRO : Eliminate violent protestors from our ranks

COINTELPRO - The FBI's domestic dissent elimination program - your tax dollars at work.

homepage: homepage: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/COINTELPRO/cointelpro.html

what's your point? 21.Nov.2002 16:08


and what would you term "violence?"

what is legitimate dissent in your eyes?

hopefully it's more than permitted marches and ballot measures.

NO ONE recommended violent protest, Sean 21.Nov.2002 17:31

GRINGO STARS gringo_stars@attbi.com

Sean, do you honestly think that COINTELPRO would try and sway you and other peaceniks away from their peace-bowls? Your ineffective methods of begging powerlessly are what the ruling elite wish for in a well-behaved population. If anyone challenges your state-sponsored ideas about how to protest, do you think they are government agents? My understanding is that agents infiltrate groups that are a threat, not groups that are meekly complicit and peaceful.

I didn't recommend "violent protest," I recommended SMASHING THE STATE:

article 21.Nov.2002 20:49


Date: Thursday, November 21 @ 09:52:23 EST
Topic: Law and Order

By A.C. Thompson, San Francisco Bay Guardian

Perhaps the story of Malaysia Airlines Flight 91 is a harbinger of things to come for the nascent peace movement.

The Sept. 8 flight was poised to take off from Newark, N.J., for Dubai, United Arab Emirates, and a final destination of Kabul, Afghanistan, when agents with the Federal Bureau of Investigation strode aboard. The G-men escorted seven passengers off the plane and into a room where they were interrogated for six hours. Flight 91 took off without the group.

Their offense? Signing up for a two-week "Reality Tour" of bomb-pocked Afghanistan, a junket organized by San Francisco-based human rights group Global Exchange.

"They wanted to know about Global Exchange," says one of the detainees, Glenda Marsh, a Sacramento peace activist and state-employed biologist. "They asked me if I'd heard the people I was traveling with make anti-American statements."

Now Marsh is preparing to file a Freedom of Information Act request to see if the FBI is compiling a dossier on her.

Hints of a new wave of COINTELPRO-style government surveillance first surfaced in fall 1999 as protesters gearing up for the World Trade Organization's meeting in Seattle complained about infiltration by undercover cops and federal agents. After Sept. 11, 2001, the feds embarked on an unprecedented and brazen campaign of domestic spying. Leading the charge, Attorney General John Ashcroft signaled his intent to spy on law-abiding religious congregations and political groups and pushed through the USA PATRIOT Act, which vastly expanded the government's phone-tapping and e-mail-monitoring powers and broke down barriers between the Central Intelligence Agency and the FBI. Now there's mounting evidence that government agents - returning to the ways of J. Edgar Hoover - are monitoring political dissidents.

According to Steve Filandrinos, the Global Exchange staffer who organized the tour, the FBI agents wanted to know why the group, which included five Afghan Americans, was headed overseas and who was sending them there. The tours, Filandrinos explains, "are a way to give Americans a chance to connect with Afghans involved in the reconstruction process, to make sure Americans know what's going on there, and to bear witness to the [U.S.-led] bombing."

While the waylaid tourists eventually made it to Kabul, their fun with the federal government wasn't over. Flying into Los Angeles International Airport Sept. 20, one member of the group was grabbed by U.S. Customs Service agents outside the airport, and another was called at home by the FBI for more questioning eight days later.

The Global Exchange incident echoes the widely reported hassles of Jan Adams and Rebecca Gordon, founders of War Times, a San Francisco publication critical of President George W. Bush's passion for dropping ordnance on foreign countries. On Aug. 7, Adams and Gordon were attempting to fly from San Francisco to Boston when they were detained by police and informed that their names were on a list of people under scrutiny by the FBI. "We can only assume that the government is laboring under the misapprehension that we're terrorists," Adams says.

Neither woman has ever been charged with any serious crime, though both have been arrested for civil disobedience.

After calls to police headquarters and two searches by airport security, Adams and Gordon were escorted onto the plane.

There are several ways all of this government scrutiny could play out. If the new peace movement develops the muscle to paralyze major cities - la antiglobalizers - it may find the feds doing more than discreetly keeping tabs and occasionally pulling suspected troublemakers off airplanes. There's the real possibility that FBI agents will covertly slip into the movement with the aim of crippling it from within (a favored tactic in the 1960s against the Black Panthers and the New Left) or enticing more-militant activists to participate in felonious behavior (as the bureau did more recently with Earth First! and the militia and white separatist movements).

"Surveillance and intelligence gathering are back," asserts Dennis Cunningham, an attorney who has sued the FBI repeatedly, most recently on behalf of Earth First!ers Judi Bari and Darryl Cherney. "What's to stop them from engaging in disruptive activity designed to neutralize a movement?"

Another possibility is that prosecutors could start collecting information on movement leaders with an eye toward using the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations statute. Designed to take down mafiosi and loaded with stiff penalties, RICO targets key members of groups that engage in a pattern of criminal activity, and the case could be made that protesters who repeatedly disrupt business as usual fit that bill. In fact, that case has already been made: the RICO statute was employed by the National Organization for Women in a 1998 civil suit against abortion clinic blockaders in Chicago. The save-the-fetuses side lost and was ordered to pay $255,000 in damages.

Ashcroft's baby, the PATRIOT Act, includes some language similar to that of RICO, and could be put to use as well.

Cunningham speculates that "we'll see them use the PATRIOT Act first. They want to put it to the test, see what they can do with it."

Since you asked... 21.Nov.2002 21:05

Sean Henderson lohan1@msn.com

That link was for information about the activities of COINTELPRO and how they try to sabotage peace effort.

However, in my opinion:

I feel it's perfectly natural to feel anger and want to destroy a system that very much resembles a cage with little chance of escape (if that's how you choose to look at it.)

There might even be times when it is practical or effective to use violence - but right now in our society - it doesn't seem like a good idea.

There are many people who sincerely believe that violence is the right approach to take.. so why don't we discuss the outcome of such approaches.

For those of you that say that there is no chance to make change using the given system.. I can sympathize with the sentiment but I don't see that reality... I believe that we can still revolt peacefully in America - all we need to do is bind together.

That's my opinion.

If anyone thinks that they have a good plan for using violence - I would hope that they spend alot of time thinking it through and seek the counsel of others for conflicting viewpoints before acting.

Lose the Illusion, Sean 21.Nov.2002 23:06

GRINGO STARS gringo_stars@attbi.com

Sean, I understand the hope for peaceful system change. I would much prefer a peaceful solution on how to change our economic and political system. But your hope of peaceful change is an illusion. And in this case, you need to educate yourself. Hope for and the Illusion of peaceful change are corporate-media-sponsored lies. representative government was established to discourage change, not encourage change. The Founding Father$ knew this, and that is why they created the U.S. government to be virtually unchangeable. The class system has been strengthened throughout the years, and more and more money is being taxed from the poor and middle-classes and flowing upwards to already filthy-rich corporations. Where is the change? I suggest you study history, Sean. Violence, or the threat of violence is amazingly effective in bringing real change in the U.S. The U.S. is psychotically violent, if we are to psychologically profile an entire country's psyche as a whole. Sean, I respect your will towards acting peacefully here in the States, but that is of no use to any Iraqi or Colombian or N. Korean or Afhgani or Yemeni.

Remember when people voted FOR referendums like medical marijuana and voluntary assited suicide? And remember how, even though a majority of the populace wanted this, the government declared the peoples' will unconstitutional (which it wasn't) so nothing changed?

The fact is that the political elite ALL happen to be personally wealthy, and ALL have a personal stake in a capitalist system. It is a government OF the rich, BY the rich, and FOR the rich, and they studiously ignore the will of the working class EVERY SINGLE TIME. If they want a war theywill have it. When people try and take something from them, ANYTHING AT ALL, they are in big trouble - the offenders will be subject to violence. The plutocrats use violence to enforce their wills, and no ruling class has EVER voluntarily left the stage of history without being pushed off. The people of the U.S. ARE bound together. But they are made complacent and then ignored by the powers-that-be. Your hope for peace and your illusions of peaceful change are reinforced by their media and your passive techniques are at most slightly annoying to them. Contemplate this.

And please, actually READ this article:

You are correct about timing, though 21.Nov.2002 23:18

GRINGO STARS gringo_stars@attbi.com

Sean, you are right: the time is not yet right for revolution. Your belief that we can all change the system peacefully if we just band together is evidence of that. You need to educate yourself about what is really going on. We need more people to finally see that our government is vampiric, redundant, useless, harmful, and unchangeable. It will be awhile until people see the necessity of regime change HERE in the U.$. But with George The Second and Mr. Poindexter fulfilling their capitalist tool duties by refining the empire into an even more intrusive and totalitarian state, it won't be long.

adf 22.Nov.2002 05:15


more likely than not,the current age will only end after some level of armed revolution and probably on after several gradualist revolutions culmanation in blood shed. this is not a call for violent revolution, but rather an analytical prediction based on the nature of power.
anyways i agree with gringo stars, but only in part. Revolution is a process that is created,mold and sculpted. Revolution is more that armed vanguard violence or guerrilla warfare, it is several things primarliy infrastructure and movement. in other words revolution is here, but it is not objectively correct to take up arms in the united states, were as it is in most areas of africa,asia, latin america and the middle east.

Re: adf 22.Nov.2002 06:51


The current-age will end with the hydrocarbon abuse that powers it: globalization is powered by oil!

The shutdown sequence has started (the production figures are available on the web at eia.doe.gov, a proper reading -- like noticing the the production fall started *before* the reichstag fire -- gives the answer about the how long will the fourth reich last) and there's nothing the Oil Moguls in the white house can do a thing about it, that's why they're terrified, cranking up the vaterland --err, meant Homeland security crap et al.

Not to try and be a bit more topic on this page.. people should certainly learn about "violence"; not to say that going into the streets helps, just saying that people should stockpile ammo and guns in case, well, they come-a-lookin for you later. You know, like US colons did in 1776.

Thanks for the productive discussion BTW.

RE: Revolution 22.Nov.2002 08:45

Sean Henderson lohan1@msn.com

Maybe you're right, maybe it will come to violent revolution - who can say. Right now, we still do have the power to change our government - I think the reason that the progressive groups are not more effective is because they are fragmented - and the government would like us to stay this way. Yes, I still believe there is hope to make change in this country without violence - and if violence were to be effective, the anti-government groups would have to be much more unified.

I think the place to start is the education of the masses, people are just plain ignorant - knowning what most activists know about the government would bring alot more people over to the progressive point of view.

We need some practical plans on how to reach more people with the truth, such as:

1. Free public media coverage for all candidates.
2. Anti-slander laws for politicians.
3. No more 'campaigns' or 'contributions.'
4. Socialistic control of the media - hard to define this without writing a book (basically just taking media direction away from corporations.)
5. Abolish the electoral college.

Some more ideas that I've heard but wouldn't 'suggest' ;) :

1. Covert, criminal organizations that steal from the corrupt to donate to progressive causes.
2. Covert organizations to sabotage corporate influence.

realists? or blinkered? 22.Nov.2002 10:15


and there must be a violent revolution?
and then, define violence. or try to. but try to define it for me? don't you dare. i have the right to make my own definitions.

and then, i hear in the terms "violent revolution" a denial of all the other factors which support, nourish, and create revolution, which are necessary, and which are not violent! the revolution that i would like to see is the one where every human and other living being is honored, even if they are threatening me and i must kill them, or be killed. can you bear to see your enemy as other than a cardboard cutout? can you bear to see how the "nonviolent" support and feed (are necessary, in the moment, to) the "violent", and vice versa? can you see how nonviolence is violence to the people who seek other means to defend themselves? can you see how sometimes breaking the spell by force is the kindest thing you could do?

i doubt that any of you would ask an ecosystem to survive without diversity. yet, you insist on saying that the revolution will happen in a single way. i don't want to live in a monoculture. any monoculture.

huh? 22.Nov.2002 11:21


what are you saying? do you know?

VIOLENCE 22.Nov.2002 12:38

GRINGO STARS gringo_stars@attbi.com

I don't want to play word games. As long as we've decided to conduct this discussion in the english language, let's stick to violence as meaning "injure to living thing" and use vandalism as "injure to a non-living thing." This is just a suggested definition so that we may better communicate, since TECHNICALLY violence is all the following:

* exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse

* injury by or as if by distortion, infringement, or profanation : OUTRAGE

* intense, turbulent, or furious and often destructive action or force

* vehement feeling or expression : FERVOR

* a clashing or jarring quality : DISCORDANCE

* undue alteration

The above dictionary definitions of "violence" are why some people think that vandalism is "violent" but I disagree since that seems to be part of the capitalist construct to be horrified by the destruction of all-important property. I prefer to call that VANDALISM instead.

OK Now can we be done with word-games?


My recommendation to Sean for violent revolution was better stated in a comment I posted in the thread he started entitled LIBERAL DISILLUSIONMENT. OF COURSE violence is not the end all of any revolution. This thread is kind of a continuation of that one. It must be a COMPLETE change in life-style, philosophy, and economic system.

RE: Violence 22.Nov.2002 13:08

Sean Henderson lohan1@msn.com

Gringo Stars - I was at first very reluctant to understand what you had to say because of the wording around violence - but I think alot of things you have posted are very vital and true - such as the fact that existing methods of trying to change the system are not effective - this is obvious as Bush sits in his palace and plots world domination with his cronies.

I think violence should be the very last resort and we should be careful about even hinting of suggesting it...

However, after saying that I can't help but think that I would love to see an intelligent group of progressive activists sabotage government corruption and steal from those that have stolen so much from us. This could be done without violence....

yes, i know what i'm saying 23.Nov.2002 13:13


although thank you all for asking.

my point is that, unless you force anyone to believe your definitions of violence/nonviolence, you are dealing with different definitions and must figure out a way, politically and socially, to honor this, unless you are genuinely excited about creating a world (through force, cause that's the only way you are going to be able to do it) where everyone thinks the same and has the same culture.

i am saying that i believe it is possible to honor a different definition while - get this - not actually otherwise altering your personal beliefs about what is right and good, or your personal actions.

i am saying that i am sick of other people telling me what is and is not the radical thing for me to do, regardless of whether they fall into the "violence" or "nonviolence" camps. i've come to the point where i'm overjoyed when people speak for themselves, not for me. and i'm especially pleased when they leave room for me to speak, as well.

and i am far, far from alone. many potential allies, no matter which camp you are in, feel the same way, at least, judging from the conversations i have had. and in my experience, the more people are supported in what they are, the more strength they have to make the impossible, possible. to reach beyond themselves to create a working revolution.

but hey, since i'm not using your language, or telling you what to do, feel free to ignore me.