FBI, Working With Banks, Chose Not To Inform Occupy Leadership Of Assassination Plot On Its Leaders

from the gee,-thanks dept

Whatever you thought of the so-called “Occupy” movement of the past year or so, it seems clear that there has been at least a bit of overreaction to them. I mean, treating these protests, which have, by and large, been peaceful, as terrorist groups is just silly. But, as you may have seen over the past few days, that’s exactly what the FBI did (as uncovered by the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund (PCJF)), and they did it in a coordinated manner with both Homeland Security and privately held banking corporations. This certainly isn’t the first time government organizations have allowed for the appearance of impropriety this way, but just as when DHS held a press conference from Disney’s HQ, there’s a certain flaunting feeling when the coordination with private companies against the public is so blatant.

All that being said, you’d at least expect the FBI, no matter what level of corporate bowing they wish to engage in, to at least keep American citizens apprised of threats against their life. Unfortunately, it would appear the FBI disagrees when the citizens in question are Occupy leadership, as they allowed a plot to murder Occupy leadership in Texas with suppressed sniper rifles go untold until a rights group dug it up.

Last week, Digital Journal reported that the documents obtained by PCJF detailed how the FBI cooperated with the Department of Homeland Security, US military and private corporations to monitor and investigate Occupy Wall Street protesters as “domestic terrorists” and “criminals.” The documents prove that federal agencies are “functioning as a de facto intelligence arm of Wall Street and corporate America,” PCJF said.

Thorough analyses of the documents has now revealed a heavily redacted file that clearly mentions a plan to use snipers to assassinate Occupy protesters. The names of the groups or individuals involved in the murderous plot have been redacted, so it is impossible to identify them at this time. What is known is that the FBI never alerted any of the potential victims of the danger to their lives.

We’re talking heavily redacted text here, which strips out a bunch of details, but here’s the text that is available.

An identified [redacted] of October planned to engage in sniper attacks against protesters in Houston, Texas, if deemed necessary. An identified [redacted] had received intelligence that indicated the protesters in New York and Seattle planned similar protests in Houston, Dallas, San Antonio and Austin, Texas. [Redacted] planned to gather intelligence against the leaders of the protest groups and obtain photographs then formulate a plan to kill the leadership via suppressed sniper rifles.

What’s plain as day is that some group somewhere was plotting to murder OWS leadership in Texas. It’s also clear that the FBI never bothered to inform the targets of the threats against their lives. This stands in apparent contrast to how closely they worked and coordinated with private banks to handle the OWS protests as a whole. And, remember, this is the same FBI who has put tremendous effort over the past few years into breaking up its own terrorist plots. You’d think that when it had a chance to go after actual plots to assassinate leaders of a political movement, they might, you know, actually do something and then trumpet the success in stopping a real plot. Apparently not.

So the lesson here is simple. If you’re a private bank, the FBI will help you demonize non-violent protesters as “terrorists,” but if you’re a protester, you don’t get to know that you might have an infrared dot dancing on the back of your head — or have the FBI take it as serious as one of its own made up terrorist plots.

Filed Under: , , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “FBI, Working With Banks, Chose Not To Inform Occupy Leadership Of Assassination Plot On Its Leaders”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
102 Comments
Applesauce says:

Even Better

“So the lesson here is simple. If you’re a private bank, the FBI will help you demonize non-violent protesters as “terrorists,” but if you’re a protester, you don’t get to know that you might have an infrared dot dancing on the back of your head — or have the FBI take it as serious as one of its own made up terrorist plots.”

The Clear Lesson:

If you are in the illegal drug business, the HSBC scandal teaches us that the best way to maximize profit is not to sell product but to finance those who do.

Get caught selling a couple hundred dollars worth of crack – go to jail (hard time) for 20+ years.

Get caught laundering hundreds of millions of dollars of drug money, suffer a partial deferment of your bonuses. Still make millions in profits.

This is the difference between a bank and a person.

Lurker Keith says:

Re: Definition of a Terrorist

So, every protester (who, by definition, is challenging the existing order) is a terrorist, even though our CONSTITUTION allows for peaceful protests? facepalm

Also, under your definition, any CONGRESSMAN proposing changes to current law, especially radical changes, would qualify as a terrorist because they’re also “opposing the existing order.”

The problem here is that the “existing order”, at least in this country, allows for opposing said order (no matter how many idiots believe otherwise), so long as noone is endanger.

GEMont (profile) says:

Re: Re: Definition of a Terrorist

“…even though our CONSTITUTION allows for peaceful protests…”

Ummm, that would be the old Pre-9/11 Constitution you are referring to, yes?

Perhaps you missed the article.

The new Corporate Constitution, as interpreted by the USG Post-9/11, does not actually allow for peaceful protests by citizens, unless the citizens in question are military and police personnel wearing protestor garb and the protest itself is specifically performed for the purpose of creating a news story about the violence and unruliness of protestors.

Welcome to Amerika.
Please follow the yellow rubber line.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Sickening...

What part exactly was “technically legal”?

There were many aspects, perpetrated by many players, which were and still are definitely outside the bounds of what is considered legal. They were not prosecuted because it would be too difficult, too big to fail, cost too much, the list of excuses goes on.

Your attempt to change the facts is rather silly.

Mason Wheeler (profile) says:

Anyone been to the movies lately?

I saw Les Mis?rables over the weekend, and I couldn’t help but think how relevant so much of the material remains, even today. I was actually thinking, as I sat there watching the barricade scenes, “the Occupy protests could have easily ended up this way, had a few things gone just a little bit differently…”

And now I come here and see this.

btr1701 says:

Leadership?

> What’s plain as day is that some group
> somewhere was plotting to murder OWS
> leadership in Texas.

All during the height of the Occupy protests, one thing remained consistent across the country– the protesters insisted it was an organic movement with no structure and no leadership.

Maybe the reason the FBI didn’t inform the leadership about a plot against them is that there was no leadership to infomrm?

Mason Wheeler (profile) says:

Re: Leadership?

However they chose to describe themselves, it’s clear that there were people in the movement who were perceived as leaders by the redacted perpetrators. And most likely by the Occupy people themselves. No matter how hard an organization may try to set everyone equal, some will always be “more equal than others,” whether it’s officially recognized or not. It’s a fundamental fact of human nature.

GEMont (profile) says:

Re: Re: Leadership?

Perhaps they really did not know exactly who the perceived leadership was and decided to let the corporate assassination plot proceed in the hopes of both learning who they were – (to aid in the destruction of their families later) – and in ending the embarrassing protests, in a single inexpensive procedure.

After all, the assassination contracts appear to have been taken out by the banks themselves, and thus the assassins were already paid for.

DCX2 says:

Re: Re: Re: Leadership?

While this is a total red herring (it doesn’t matter if they’re leadership or not, if the FBI discovers a substantive plot against the life of an American they should inform the American whether he’s homeless or the President), you are wrong about the oath an officer swears.

“On my honor,
I will never betray my badge,
my integrity, my character,
or the public trust.
I will always have
the courage to hold myself
and others accountable for our actions.
I will always uphold the constitution
my community and the agency I serve.”

http://www.theiacp.org/PoliceServices/ProfessionalAssistance/Ethics/WhatistheLawEnforcementOathofHonor/tabid/150/Default.aspx

btr1701 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Leadership?

you are wrong about the oath an officer swears.

First, that’s a boilerplate oath that departments are free to use, but most departments develop their own. For example, that’s not the LAPD’s oath.

Second and more important, that’s not the oath a federal law enforcement officer swears, and since we’re talking about the FBI, that’s what’s really relevant. Here is the federal oath of office:

I, [name], do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

Anonymous Coward says:

Ill go first shall i

Guess the word!!!

“An identified [undercover agent] of October planned to engage in sniper attacks against protesters in Houston, Texas, if deemed necessary. An identified [undercover agent] had received intelligence that indicated the protesters in New York and Seattle planned similar protests in Houston, Dallas, San Antonio and Austin, Texas. [Agents] planned to gather intelligence against the leaders of the protest groups and obtain photographs then formulate a plan to kill the leadership via suppressed sniper rifles.”

Jay (profile) says:

This isn’t the first time that the FBI is on the wrong side of history. During the 60s, Hoover investigated MLK and his “communist” leaning. He ignored the racists that plotted against the civil rights leader and it wound up killing MLK.

When people that are dangerous are ignored, it seems the FBI can’t be bothered to investigate the people that need it. Instead, their entire focus is on those looking to change the social order.

They’ll never learn from their own short-sighted view of the world. As they’ve stated, “They want to throw people in jail”

That’s far different from actually trying to do a good job of protecting the public.

btr1701 says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

The Park Service prevented some arrests
of occupy protestors in NYC. They wouldn’t
allow the NYPD to make arrests at the stock
exchange.

The Park Service only has jurisdiction on the actual NYSE property, and then only to protect it as a national landmark.

Any violation of the law that occurs on the public streets and sidewalks around the building is NYPD jurisdiction and the Park Service has no say in it. And even on the NYSE grounds, if a violation of state law occurs there, it’s NYPD jurisdiction to investigate and arrest.

It would be just like if one staffer murdered another in the White House. Neither the Secret Service nor the FBI would have jurisdiction to investigate that crime. It would be a matter for the homicide cops in the DC Metro Police.

Loki says:

” I mean, treating these protests, which have, by and large, been peaceful, as terrorist groups is just silly.”

I don’t find it silly at all. As governments become increasingly tyrannical/authoritarian (and how anyone paying the least amount of attention can argue ours isn’t moving increasingly in that direction) any sort of civil disobedience or challenge to authority will be deemed as terrorism and/or traitorous (thousands of years of history have shown this to be so, even in the most neutered of history textbooks).

As examples like this become more and more commonplace (almost at an exponential rate at this point), all it does is highlights how out of control the government and the major corporations are becoming. and there is nothing silly about that.

I’ve argued for close to a decade now that the only significant difference I see when I compare the US today with the American Colonies of the 1750s, is that the people pulling the strings today control massive corporate conglomerates instead of being powerful lorded landholders. Of course, that also means that it’ll very likely be a couple more decades before tensions mount to the breaking point and the majority of people can still live with their heads in the sand.

Anonymous Coward says:

KILL ALL WESTERNERS

what part of “KILL ALL WESTERERS, whenever, wherever it is possible to do it” are you having trouble understanding ?

what part of jihad do you also have trouble with, (btw it DOES NOT mean Holy War).

it means to struggle.

Jihad =

“fighting against those who fight against us.”

just like masnick does against those he sees as the enemy, like the LAW’s of your country, copyright, copyright holders (including himself), patents, inventors, companies, industries, they are all against Masnick.. (in his mind)..

Zakida Paul says:

Re: KILL ALL WESTERNERS

Yes, jihad means struggle but not struggle in the sense of “fight the infidels”. It is most commonly used in terms of an inner spiritual struggle. The “greater jihad” is the inner struggle by a believer to fulfil his religious duties. This is a non-violent meaning that is stressed by Muslims.

Besides, what has Muslim jihad got to do with the Occupy movement?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: KILL ALL WESTERNERS

“It is most commonly used in terms of an inner spiritual struggle.”

I am quite sure, that the MOST common use for that term is NOT about any inner spiritual struggle. That might have been it original intension but the COMMON use of that terms most certainly means a lot different than that..

everyone by now knows what the common use for the term Jihad means..

“common use” is not the term you were looking for I am sure, possibly historical use, or original intended use, but today, it’s common use, is what we have TODAY..

like the common use of the word “gay” is not the same as the common use of the word gay today, as it was 40 or 50 years ago.

Zakida Paul says:

Re: Re: Re: KILL ALL WESTERNERS

You know contrary to what right wing US press tells you, the majority of Muslims do NOT want to see the destruction of the West. They simply want to practice their faith in peace as is their right. It is an extremely small (though admittedly vocal) minority who has twisted, not only the meaning of jihad, but also the entire Muslim faith into something it is not just to justify the things they do. That is NOT mainstream Islam.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 KILL ALL WESTERNERS

if you notice inside every religious community of sufficent size are groups of fanatic nuts either trying or planning to go after others who follow other gods or none.

Mostly they are disorganized and while individually dangerous, as a whole they do not threaten the world as a whole,

Sometimes A truly evil individual, or group comes along, capable of manipulating significant numbers of these fanatic nuts.

(in the US, westbrough church, in Afganistan, the taliban)

All large enough Communities of moderate believers have fanatics in their midst. These communities need to care for their vulnerable members. and perhaps watch out for and deal with those in their midst, willing to twist, distort religion for gain.

Personally I Contend that the US government are better at containing/controlling those who would manipulate the fanatics in the US. than the relevent religious community in the US.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 KILL ALL WESTERNERS

Hmmm…I have my doubts about that, looking at places like Pakistan, Indonesia, Afghnistan you don’t get a sense that this is a minority, in fact the majority of people want to kill westeners or any other infidel for that matter.

Islam in those parts is like Christianity in the middle ages, dangerous.

nasch (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: KILL ALL WESTERNERS

I am quite sure, that the MOST common use for that term is NOT about any inner spiritual struggle. That might have been it original intension but the COMMON use of that terms most certainly means a lot different than that..

Common use by whom, Muslims or Rush Limbaugh? Where are you getting your information about what this Arabic word means?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: KILL ALL WESTERNERS

as you are probably aware there is a massive disconnect with “literal use” and common use..

do you read the bible as a literal work ?

or do you read the bible for it’s common use idea’s, or not at all.

most people (except a large number of americans) do not consider the bible a literal truth, if it were and you broke a commandment you would be killed (by God), that does not seem to happen, but it’s common use (don’t kill people for example) is still a viable concept..

and no I do not intent to cook my baby in it’s mothers milk either, which is a literal biblical construct..

nor do I think eating fish is an abomination, or that slavery is ok.. or it is ok to kill a slave owner and do a runner.. (moses)..

John Fenderson (profile) says:

Re: KILL ALL WESTERNERS

what part of “KILL ALL WESTERERS, whenever, wherever it is possible to do it” are you having trouble understanding ?

I understand it. But outside of the standard percentage of extremist crazies that every society has, this is not the mindset at all.

Jihad =

“fighting against those who fight against us.”

Then the correct course of action is clear: we should stop fighting against them so they’ll stop fighting against us.

Anonymous Coward says:

“The protest received additional attention when the internet hacker group Anonymous encouraged its followers to take part in the protests, calling protesters to “flood lower Manhattan, set up tents, kitchens, peaceful barricades and Occupy Wall Street””

FLOOD LOWER MANHATTEN,, and you do not consider that an act of terror ??

” Juravich and others have however said that conflict can be important in attracting attention, with much to be gained if occupiers are seen as victims of the violence, providing occupiers keep their own aggression strictly within limits.” !!!!!!

“In the words of one occupier, it can help them gain media coverage if they “make things a little sexy and badass””

” Not all occupiers have upheld the commitment to nonviolence, with aggressive tactics being used in Spain from as early as 15 June, and with some journalists saying the New York branch of the movement did initially accept protestors who had not signed up to nonviolence.”

“By November 2011, media sources began to report an increase in violence, with allegations of sexual assault and incidents of violence from occupiers against the police, including one officer allegedly stabbed with scissors.”

“In late January 2012, the movement’s commitment to nonviolence was questioned after clashes with the police that saw about 400 arrests in the U.S. city of Oakland.”

“”It was organized by a very militant anarchist segment of the movement;”

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

if you are terrified then does that make whoever is responsible for your terror to be terrorists ?

This group, and their actions have instilled terror in your, they have created terror where it did not exist before.. the very definition of a terror group is a group that instils terror when acting as a group.

it was not the Government instilling the terror, it is the protesters who resort to violence and other terror tactics that have resulted in your feelings of terror.

the Government would be out of control, if they allowed

Zakida Paul says:

Re: Re: Re:

There you go again, painting everyone with the same brush as rabid right wingers are prone to do. Yes, some of the protesters were bent on violence but the overwhelming majority were simply exercising their right to peaceful protest. The fact that the US government can treat peaceful protesters in such a way is what has terrified Ninja.

Ninja (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Thank you. I’ve met Occupy protesters here in my city. They are just ordinary people looking for alternatives. Actually I think it’s a pity that it wasn’t as big as in the US.

this AC is a good example of a regular American. Blind to the truth, scared of everything that is new and different from the established system. The bright side is that there are people in the Us that actually want change. Some of them are in those protests.

Anonymous Coward says:

Quote:

FLOOD LOWER MANHATTEN,, and you do not consider that an act of terror ??

I call it research and development into temporary living apparatus.

About your other allegations, well, go back to the 80’s and see if people haven’t behaved themselves lately.

Even the police had show some restraint, although less than the occupiers, if we get all the reports of blue on OWS and OWS on blue, the blue score is probably higher there.

Ninja (profile) says:

Re: terrorist OWS

First of all the movement has no leaders. At most a few that speak for the majority. Second I DO NOT BELIEVE they had those. Guns maybe and perfectly normal if your country allows you to have and walk with them but mass attack chemicals? Please.

If the news is true then I will stick to the infiltration tactics. It is fairly obvious that there are people infiltrated in those movements with the intent of discrediting the thing as a whole. GOVERNMENT SPONSORED.

Always take news with a grain of salt. Revert back to Kim Dotcom story where the news came as if he had shoot the police, resisted arrest and so for, all of the claims proven false after the real facts started coming to light.

The Real Michael says:

Re: Re: terrorist OWS

Exactly. There’s just no way that I’m buying this nonsense about OWS protestors sitting on deadly chemicals for an attack, unless they’re sent in by the government. An ordinary citizen wouldn’t have access to that sort of thing anyway, so this whole thing smacks as a plot to infiltrate and demonize-by-association.

It’s ironic how when protests erupted in middle eastern countries such as Egypt, Obama got on stage and praised the people for acting in a democratic fashion, yet now we learn how the FBI, in collusion with banks, was plotting to kill OWS “leaders” with snipers. That should tell you something.

I think I understand why such a thing was leaked. They’re intentionally releasing this info in order to try to dissuade people from protesting in the future by stirring up fear of being killed by the government. In other words, it’s an indirect threat. You see, in order to be afraid of their guns, you have to be afraid of death. No matter how big and powerful these people like to imagine themselves to be, they’re still only flesh and blood and once their time comes, all their accumulated wealth and delusion of power will be gone in an instant. All that will be left is their soul as they stand before God.

Don’t fear the government nor any other worldly power.

btr1701 says:

Re: Re: terrorist OWS

If the news is true then I will stick to the
infiltration tactics.

Of course. Someone always trots this nonsense out whenever liberal groups are caught behaving badly. The meme goes something like this:

Conservatives caught being racist/behaving badly = proof that conservatives are bad, racist people.

Liberals caught being racist/behaving badly = proof that conservatives have infiltrated the liberal group in order to discredit them, because we all know that liberals are pure as the driven snow and they would never do or say anything negative like that.

btr1701 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 terrorist OWS

I thought this was about chemical weapons; when did racism enter the discussion?

That’s what the / symbol is for. It’s generally understood among people with even a basic grade school-level education to be shorthand for the word ‘or’.

But you’re right to call me on it. I really shouldn’t assume even a rudimentary level of intelligence among many of the commenters here. I will endeavor to be more puerile for you folks in the future.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...