Dissent or Terror: How the Nation’s Counter Terrorism Apparatus, in Partnership with Corporate America, Turned on Occupy Wall Street

May 20, 2013

DBA Press and the Center for Media and Democracy release the result of a year-long investigation: “Dissent or Terror: How the Nation’s Counter Terrorism Apparatus, In Partnership With Corporate America, Turned on Occupy Wall Street.”

The report, a distillation of thousands of pages of records obtained from counter Herb dog bwterrorism/law enforcement agencies, details how state/regional “fusion center” personnel monitored the Occupy Wall Street movement over the course of 2011 and 2012. Personnel engaged in this activity at fusion centers include employees of municipal, county and federal counter terrorism/homeland security entities. Such entities include local police departments, the FBI and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (including U.S. DHS components such as the Transportation Security Administration).

The report also examines how fusion centers and other counter terrorism entities that have emerged since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 have worked to benefit numerous corporations engaged in public-private intelligence sharing partnerships.

While the report examines many instances of fusion center monitoring of Occupy Wall Street activists nationwide, the bulk of the report details how counter terrorism personnel engaged in the Arizona Counter Terrorism Information Center (ACTIC, commonly known as the “Arizona fusion center”) monitored and otherwise surveilled citizens active in Occupy Phoenix, and how this surveillance benefited a number of corporations and banks that were subjects of Occupy Phoenix protest activity.

Report with photos (4.2 MB):

Download (PDF, 3.96MB)

Report in plain text (562 KB):

Download (PDF, 549KB)

Report Appendix :  [Note: documents contained in an appendix to this report are referenced throughout. The appendix is available though DBA Press and SourceWatch at the URLs listed above. While many central documents are contained in this appendix, the appendix does not contain all referenced documents. For further documentation, consult the source materials archive.]

Download (PDF, 28.27MB)

View Source Materials Archive.

While small glimpses into the governmental monitoring of the Occupy Wall Street movement have emerged in the past, there has not been any reporting– until now– that details the breadth and depth of the degree to which the nation’s post-September 11, 2001 counter terrorism apparatus has been applied to politically engaged citizens exercising their Constitutionally-protected First Amendment rights.

The report reveals for the first time:

– How law enforcement agencies active in the Arizona fusion center dispatched an undercover officer to infiltrate activist groups organizing both protests of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and the launch of Occupy Phoenix– and how the work of this undercover officer benefited ALEC and the private corporations that were the subjects of these demonstrations.

– How fusion centers, funded in large part by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, expended countless hours and tax dollars in the monitoring of Occupy Wall Street and other activist groups.

– How the U.S. Department of Homeland Security has financed social media “data mining” programs at local law enforcement agencies engaged in fusion centers.

– How counter terrorism government employees applied facial recognition technology, drawing from a state database of driver’s license photos, to photographs found on Facebook in an effort to profile citizens believed to be associated with activist groups.

– How corporations have become part of the homeland security “information sharing environment” with law enforcement/intelligence agencies through various public-private intelligence sharing partnerships. The report examines multiple instances in which the counter terrorism/homeland security apparatus was used to gather intelligence relating to activists for the benefit of corporate interests that were the subject of protests.

– How private groups and individuals, such as Charles Koch, Chase Koch (Charles’ son and a Koch Industries executive), Koch Industries, and the Koch-funded American Legislative Exchange Council have hired off-duty police officers– sometimes still armed and in police uniforms — to perform the private security functions of keeping undesirables (reporters and activists) at bay.

– How counter terrorism personnel monitored the protest activities of citizens opposed to the indefinite detention language contained in National Defense Authorization Act of 2012.

– How the FBI applied “Operation Tripwire,” an initiative originally intended to apprehend domestic terrorists through the use of private sector informants, in their monitoring of Occupy Wall Street groups. [Note: this issue was reported on exclusively by DBA/CMD in December, 2012.]

The full report, along with accompanying articles, may also be viewed on SourceWatch: http://ows.sourcewatch.org

Posted in Criminal Justice, Domestic Surveillance, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Homeland Security, Investigative report, Jiffy Squid, Lobbying and Special Interests, Media matters, Occupy Wall Street, Private Defense/Intelligence Industries, Public records, Public-private partnerships, Surveillance state | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off

“Operation Tripwire:” the FBI, the Private Sector and the Monitoring of Occupy Wall Street

“Operation Tripwire”– the FBI, the Private Sector and the Monitoring of Occupy Wall Street

Jump to source materials archive for this article.

By Beau Hodai, December 30, 2012

Records obtained from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) by DBA Press and the Center for Media and Democracy (DBA/CMD) through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request indicate that the FBI employed tactics under a “counter terrorism” initiative called “Operation Tripwire” in the monitoring of Occupy Wall Street (OWS) activists.Herb dog bw

[Note: records referenced in this article were obtained by DBA/CMD on November 8, 2012, as a partial response to a FOIA request submitted by DBA/CMD to the FBI on June 7, 2012. DBA/CMD have been analyzing these incomplete materials along with other public records to tell a more complete story of the pattern of domestic surveillance that has been underway.]

“Tripwires,” Mall Cops, and “Radical Cheerleaders

On October 19, 2011, an FBI agent filed a report, titled “Domain Program Management [,] Domestic Terrorism,” detailing an October 11 briefing given to “Jacksonville Executive Management” (EM) and a supervisory special agent (SSA) “Counter Terrorism Program Coordinator.” The subject of the October 11 briefing had been the potential growth of the OWS movement throughout north/central Florida. (All agent names were redacted from this, and other, FBI reports.)

“During the 11 October intelligence meeting, writer advised EM of the Occupy venues and further advised that they may provide an outlet for a lone offender exploiting the movement for reasons associated with general government dissatisfaction,” wrote the agent, who went on to say that special areas of concern were Daytona, Gainesville, and Ocala, where “some of the highest unemployment rates in Florida continue to exist.”

As such, the report’s author recommended that the Counter Terrorism Program Coordinator, “consider establishing tripwires with the Occupy event coordinators regarding their observance of actions or comments indicating violent tendencies by attendees” (emphasis added). Continue reading

Posted in Corruption, Domestic Surveillance, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Homeland Security, Jiffy Squid, Occupy Wall Street, Public records, Surveillance state | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off

National Security Agency telecom surveillance archive: Jewel v. NSA, et al.

Former National Security Agency (NSA) analysts, and others, discuss the scope of the agency’s domestic telecommunications surveillance program in statements issued from September through November, 2012, in Jewel v. NSA, et al. (United States District Court of Northern California).

We’ll let the words of these informed individuals speak for themselves.

“I agree with Mr. [Thomas] Drake’s assessment that everything changed at the NSA after the attacks on September 11. The prior approach focused on complying with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The post September 11 approach was that the NSA could circumvent federal statutes and the Constitution as long as there was some visceral connection to looking for terrorists.”

– former NSA analyst J. Kirk Wiebe.

“The NSA has the ability to do individualized searches, similar to Google, for particular electronic communications in real time through such criteria as target addresses, locations, countries and phone numbers, as well as watch-listed names, keywords and phrases in email. The NSA has the ability to do individualized or small scale searches for particular electronic communications in real time. It also has, or is in the process of obtaining, the capability to seize and store most electronic communications passing through its U.S. intercept centers.”

– former NSA analysts J. Kirk Wiebe, Thomas Drake and William Binney.

Continue reading

Posted in Miscellaneous | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off

Buying Influence: how the American Legislative Exchange Council uses corporate-funded “scholarships” to send lawmakers on trips with corporate lobbyists

DBA Press, Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) and Common Cause release report detailing national ALEC ‘scholarship fund’ spending

Download Report.

“Buying Influence: how the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) uses corporate-funded ‘scholarships’ to send lawmakers on trips with corporate lobbyists,” authored by CMD Executive Director Lisa Graves, offers a detailed accounting of where these ALEC “scholarship” funds come from, how they benefit their legislative recipients and how the use of such funds benefit ALEC’s private sector/special interest members.

The report offers, for the first time, a comprehensive nationwide overview of ALEC “scholarship” spending, revealing an estimated $4 million in travel, rooming at swank resorts and gourmet dining events, handed out since 2006 to state lawmakers by lobbyists representing many of the nation’s largest corporations/special interests. These corporations/special interest groups comprise the bulk of ALEC’s private sector membership. And, thanks to various legal loopholes, these gifts handed out under the ALEC banner have largely been hidden from public disclosure. Continue reading

Posted in Bribery, Conflicts of interest, Corruption, Investigative reporting, Jiffy Squid, Lobbying and Special Interests, Public-private partnerships | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off