theintercept--2020-06-25--Defunding the Police Must Include Ending the Surveillance of Muslims

The murder of George Floyd by Minneapolis police officers , the ensuing uprisings , and the work of Black women abolitionists like Mariame Kaba , Ruth Wilson Gilmore , and Angela Davis have sparked a global conversation with demands to defund the police .
The movement has focused primarily on state and local governments , which spend over $ 100 billion on policing every year , but has also set in its sights on federal funding of law enforcement , most prominently a community policing program known as COPS .
There are less direct ways the federal government helps perpetuate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Countering Violent Extremism grant programs that unnecessarily expose immigrant , Black Muslim communities , including Minneapolis ’ s Somali community , to law enforcement scrutiny .
To defund the police , CVE programs must also come to an end .
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security allocated a combined $ 20 million in 2016 and 2020 toward so-called Countering Violent Extremism programs that operate on the false assumption that Muslims are uniquely predisposed to commit violence and merit specialized government interventions .
Under CVE models , First Amendment-protected activities like vocalizing opposition to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are deemed “ risk factors ” and “ indicators ” of future acts of violence and are categorized as behaviors that the state must monitor .
Under the guise of stopping violence , CVE programs insidiously target Muslim communities for police interactions and surveillance by local and federal law enforcement .
Posing as a “ community-partnership , ” CVE programs have paired vulnerable Black Muslim youth with police officers , while simultaneously training police officers to pathologize dissent and criminalize mental health issues .
CVE programs have their roots in a long a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Black liberation movements .
According to declassified FBI records , the agency piloted a “ Specialized Community Outreach Team ” in 2008 to make contacts with the Somali community in Minneapolis .
One goal of the program was “ [ t ] o develop a baseline profile of Somali individuals that are vulnerable to being radicalized or participating in extremist activities in order to establish a more focused outreach effort.
” This FBI outreach was a precursor to the CVE program established by the Obama administration .
In 2011 , DHS launched @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Boston , and Minneapolis , “ in large part because of the strong relationships that local law enforcement has developed with the Somali community , ” according to a Justice Department document , which noted that the pilot programs sought to address “ violent extremist ideologies.
” Despite using ostensibly neutral language , the target demographic was Muslim youth — and in Boston and Minneapolis , Somali youth in particular .
In 2016 , CVE was formalized as a $ 10 million grant program reaching 19 cities and 25 grantees .
Nearly $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , emergency response , and criminal legal agencies .
Some nongovernmental grantees , like Crisis Intervention of Houston and the Global Peace Center , allocated portions of their CVE funds toward the training of law enforcement .
In its CVE grant application , Boston ’ s Police Foundation focused on Somali boys between the ages of 13 and 17 , claiming that their “ risk for violent extremism ” increases due to “ unaccountable times and unobserved spaces , ” and that “ [ t ] hey are enticed by their capacity to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ almost gang-like dress code.
” This profiling fractured local communities .
Public records obtained by Boston ’ s Muslim Justice League revealed a Somali liaison withdrew from the program due to concerns that “ focusing on efforts on one subgroup will ultimately create deeper divisions in our fractured society , doing more harm than good.
” Following the implementation of CVE programming in Minneapolis and Boston , Somali youth lost trust in community spaces like mosques and community associations that accepted CVE grants and collaborated with local police .
Besides directly monitoring Black @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law enforcement on “ violent extremism.
” In presentations delivered to community groups and local police departments , “ Black identity extremism ” is presented as an equivalent to white nationalism and white supremacist ideology .
However , “ Black identity extremism ” is a fictive concept resurfaced and utilized by the FBI in response to the Black Lives Matter movement — a connection hearkening back to the FBI ’ s shameful COINTELPRO program that surveilled individuals involved in 1960s Black civil rights movements .
CVE trainings recirculate the language of “ Black @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allowing Black Muslim youth to be characterized as extremists twice , based on their race and also their religion .
As Black youth lead demonstrations across the country against anti-Black police violence , CVE programs have trained police officers to recklessly interpret this political movement within the framework of criminality and counterterrorism .
federal efforts and funding , researchers at the Brennan Center for Justice and Duke ’ s Triangle Center have concluded there is no evidence that CVE programs actually prevent violence .
Additionally , civil rights and community organizations have consistently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ letters the stigma and harm that governmental targeting causes to already marginalized communities .
This year , DHS rebranded the program as Targeted Violence and Terrorism Prevention .
TVTP almost entirely replicates the 2016 CVE grant program , including an additional $ 10 million in CVE grant funding .
It separately allocates $ 70 million for additional federal law enforcement training , cybersecurity , and enhanced data collection .
Muslim organizers are not fooled by the programs new name , and they wrote to DHS in June to again demand the program ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I wrote in conjunction with the Stop CVE Coalition , notes new and egregious privacy violations within the grant program application process .
For example , any individual publicly affiliated with an organization applying to the grant program is subject to an investigation by DHS ’ s Office of Intelligence and Analysis .
DHS ’ s over-broad interpretation of “ affiliation ” means that if a mosque were to apply for a grant , any individual who posted about their attendance at the mosque on social media has “ tacitly accepted ” the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s intelligence arm could also share the results of the investigation with other DHS offices , all without notifying the subject .
This distortion of security checks provides another opportunity for DHS to investigate an individual solely on account of the community spaces they frequent .
CVE programs continue to funnel funds to police departments to interact with and monitor Black Muslim communities .
The result : Local police departments are trained to view youth as would-be terrorists , criminalizing Black Muslim youth with federal dollars and remaking local law enforcement agencies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Minneapolis , the sheriff ’ s department in Hennepin County , where George Floyd was murdered , received $ 347,600 in CVE funding in 2016 .
Floyd ’ s death was a manifestation of the brutal realities of exposing Black communities to law enforcement .
Organizers demand an end to police violence against Black communities by defunding the police .
These calls must include defunding federal surveillance programs like CVE .
It can end in Minneapolis .

Photo: Chadan Khanna/AFP/Getty Images
It started in Minneapolis.
The murder of George Floyd by Minneapolis police officers, the ensuing uprisings, and the work of Black women abolitionists like Mariame Kaba, Ruth Wilson Gilmore, and Angela Davis have sparked a global conversation with demands to defund the police. The movement has focused primarily on state and local governments, which spend over $100 billion on policing every year, but has also set in its sights on federal funding of law enforcement, most prominently a community policing program known as COPS. There are less direct ways the federal government helps perpetuate dangerous policing programs, among them controversial Countering Violent Extremism grant programs that unnecessarily expose immigrant, Black Muslim communities, including Minneapolis’s Somali community, to law enforcement scrutiny. To defund the police, CVE programs must also come to an end.
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security allocated a combined $20 million in 2016 and 2020 toward so-called Countering Violent Extremism programs that operate on the false assumption that Muslims are uniquely predisposed to commit violence and merit specialized government interventions. Under CVE models, First Amendment-protected activities like vocalizing opposition to U.S. foreign policy or attending a mosque are deemed “risk factors” and “indicators” of future acts of violence and are categorized as behaviors that the state must monitor. Under the guise of stopping violence, CVE programs insidiously target Muslim communities for police interactions and surveillance by local and federal law enforcement. Posing as a “community-partnership,” CVE programs have paired vulnerable Black Muslim youth with police officers, while simultaneously training police officers to pathologize dissent and criminalize mental health issues.
CVE programs have their roots in a long history of FBI investigations of Muslim communities and Black liberation movements. According to declassified FBI records, the agency piloted a “Specialized Community Outreach Team” in 2008 to make contacts with the Somali community in Minneapolis. One goal of the program was “[t]o develop a baseline profile of Somali individuals that are vulnerable to being radicalized or participating in extremist activities in order to establish a more focused outreach effort.”
This FBI outreach was a precursor to the CVE program established by the Obama administration. In 2011, DHS launched CVE pilot programs in Los Angeles, Boston, and Minneapolis, “in large part because of the strong relationships that local law enforcement has developed with the Somali community,” according to a Justice Department document, which noted that the pilot programs sought to address “violent extremist ideologies.” Despite using ostensibly neutral language, the target demographic was Muslim youth — and in Boston and Minneapolis, Somali youth in particular. In 2016, CVE was formalized as a $10 million grant program reaching 19 cities and 25 grantees. Nearly $5 million was awarded to law enforcement, emergency response, and criminal legal agencies. Some nongovernmental grantees, like Crisis Intervention of Houston and the Global Peace Center, allocated portions of their CVE funds toward the training of law enforcement.
CVE programs have their roots in a long history of FBI investigations of Muslim communities and Black liberation movements.
In its CVE grant application, Boston’s Police Foundation focused on Somali boys between the ages of 13 and 17, claiming that their “risk for violent extremism” increases due to “unaccountable times and unobserved spaces,” and that “[t]hey are enticed by their capacity to carry weapons, their loyalty, and almost gang-like dress code.” This profiling fractured local communities. Public records obtained by Boston’s Muslim Justice League revealed a Somali liaison withdrew from the program due to concerns that “focusing on efforts on one subgroup will ultimately create deeper divisions in our fractured society, doing more harm than good.” Following the implementation of CVE programming in Minneapolis and Boston, Somali youth lost trust in community spaces like mosques and community associations that accepted CVE grants and collaborated with local police.
Besides directly monitoring Black youth, CVE programs conduct briefings for law enforcement on “violent extremism.” In presentations delivered to community groups and local police departments, “Black identity extremism” is presented as an equivalent to white nationalism and white supremacist ideology. However, “Black identity extremism” is a fictive concept resurfaced and utilized by the FBI in response to the Black Lives Matter movement — a connection hearkening back to the FBI’s shameful COINTELPRO program that surveilled individuals involved in 1960s Black civil rights movements. CVE trainings recirculate the language of “Black extremism” to local police departments, allowing Black Muslim youth to be characterized as extremists twice, based on their race and also their religion. As Black youth lead demonstrations across the country against anti-Black police violence, CVE programs have trained police officers to recklessly interpret this political movement within the framework of criminality and counterterrorism.
Despite vast federal efforts and funding, researchers at the Brennan Center for Justice and Duke’s Triangle Center have concluded there is no evidence that CVE programs actually prevent violence. Additionally, civil rights and community organizations have consistently opposed CVE programs, noting in coalition letters the stigma and harm that governmental targeting causes to already marginalized communities. This year, DHS rebranded the program as Targeted Violence and Terrorism Prevention. TVTP almost entirely replicates the 2016 CVE grant program, including an additional $10 million in CVE grant funding. It separately allocates $70 million for additional federal law enforcement training, cybersecurity, and enhanced data collection. Muslim organizers are not fooled by the programs new name, and they wrote to DHS in June to again demand the program’s discontinuation.
The letter, which I wrote in conjunction with the Stop CVE Coalition, notes new and egregious privacy violations within the grant program application process. For example, any individual publicly affiliated with an organization applying to the grant program is subject to an investigation by DHS’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis. DHS’s over-broad interpretation of “affiliation” means that if a mosque were to apply for a grant, any individual who posted about their attendance at the mosque on social media has “tacitly accepted” the possibility they will be investigated; DHS’s intelligence arm could also share the results of the investigation with other DHS offices, all without notifying the subject. This distortion of security checks provides another opportunity for DHS to investigate an individual solely on account of the community spaces they frequent.
CVE programs continue to funnel funds to police departments to interact with and monitor Black Muslim communities. The result: Local police departments are trained to view youth as would-be terrorists, criminalizing Black Muslim youth with federal dollars and remaking local law enforcement agencies into miniature national security agencies.
In Minneapolis, the sheriff’s department in Hennepin County, where George Floyd was murdered, received $347,600 in CVE funding in 2016. Floyd’s death was a manifestation of the brutal realities of exposing Black communities to law enforcement. Organizers demand an end to police violence against Black communities by defunding the police. These calls must include defunding federal surveillance programs like CVE.
It can end in Minneapolis.


theintercept--2020-06-25--Should the Populist Left Work With the Populist Right Where They Have Common Ground, or Shun Them?

Today ’ s SYSTEM UPDATE episode about this topic — with guests Krystal Ball and Nathan Robinson — can be viewed on The Intercept ’ s YouTube channel or on the player below .
within GOP politics is as clear and vitriolic as the one within the Democratic Party .
And that growing division means that , along with vehement differences , there is ample agreement on specific , consequential issues between the factions that identify as the “ populist left ” and “ populist right.
” Often there is more agreement between them than either group finds with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which they most identify .
In 2016 , Donald Trump campaigned on ( though he most certainly did not ultimately govern ) in opposition to numerous long-standing Republican orthodoxies : he railed against job-killing free trade agreements , vowed to raise taxes on the rich and eliminate corporate lobbyist control over the legislative process , venerated the need to protect and even increase social programs , and most viciously scorned the Bush family ’ s imperialism and regime change wars .
That he won the GOP nomination against highly-funded , establishment-backed candidates such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that there is at least now tolerance , if not outright support , for those positions that had been taboo in mainstream Republican politics .
Polling shows that classic left-wing economic positions such as universal health care coverage and raising the minimum wage command majority support , proving those views extend beyond left-wing precincts .
One of the political officials most devoted to and passionate about breaking up monopolistic power — long a central left-wing goal — is the right-wing Senator Josh Hawley , who also opposes international free trade organizations such as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the left-wing 1999 Seattle protests ) .
When Bernie Sanders wanted to impose limits on Trump ’ s ability to bomb Yemen , he found key support with the right-wing Tea Party Senator Mike Lee ; the same was true of Dennis Kucinich ’ s partnership with Ron Paul to audit the Fed and Cory Booker ’ s work with Rand Paul to usher in radical criminal justice reform .
The host of the most-watched Fox News program , Tucker Carlson , has railed against the evils of predatory capitalism , supported AOC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Amazon , given a sympathetic hearing to a pro-Maduro journalist opposed to regime change in Venezuela , and played a significant role in stopping air strikes against both Syria and Iran .
The reason these two factions have different names — left-wing populism and right-wing populism — is that , in addition to these convergences , they have serious and meaningful divergences .
Trump as President adhered to almost none of his orthodoxy-busting campaign rhetoric .
Hawley ’ s economic populist branding can ring hollow when set next to his support for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and his opposition to liveable wage legislation .
And Carlson ’ s repellent-to-liberalism views — led by his support for authoritarian responses to protesters and his racially divisive rhetoric — are legion .
But none of those serious divergences negates the fact that the left — which does not come close to claiming a majority of the population — finds common ground with the populist faction of the right on some of its most important political positions .
And there are millions of people across the country who identity as conservative or on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on social issues and immigration — but hold economically left-wing populist views .
The question then becomes : what should the left do in those cases ?
Should it work in conjunction with those on the right to build a majority and implement those policies , and engage in dialogue with opinion leaders and media figures on the right to reach more people who can be persuaded to think in trans-partisan , working-class terms ?
Or should it declare anyone associated with the populist right off-limits even for issue-by-issue collaboration on the ground @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
And if holding pernicious views renders those on the populist right radioactive and off-limits , why is the same not true of establishment Democrats who have led the way to construct and champion the racist prison state , the drug war , jobs-destroying free trade agreements , regime change wars from Iraq to Libya , blind support for Israeli aggression , and a whole slew of other crucial policies utterly anathema to the left ( all of which applies to Joe Biden , among others ) ?
This debate has been lurking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ realignment emerge — not just in the U.S. but across the democratic world — in the wake of the destruction wrought by the dominant neoliberal ideology .
But in the U.S. , it erupted over the last couple of weeks as the result of a vitriolic exchange between two smart , prominent left-wing commentators .
In two separate articles , Current Affairs editor Nathan Robinson compared right-wing populist media figures such as Carlson and Rising co-host Saager Enjeti to Bolsonaro , Mussolini and even Hitler to insist that “ right-wing ‘ populism ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is on the Left should have anything to do with it.
” That provoked a stinging response from one of the principal targets of Robinson ’ s critique , Enjeti ’ s Rising co-host Krystal Ball , who says “ the left should take yes for an answer ” as she argued that it is morally irresponsible not to find allies where one can and not to communicate with as many people as possible in order to implement a left-wing populist agenda .
Today ’ s episode of SYSTEM UPDATE on The Intercept @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exploring this vital question , and I speak to both Robinson and Ball about their very different views on this question .

Today’s SYSTEM UPDATE episode about this topic — with guests Krystal Ball and Nathan Robinson — can be viewed on The Intercept’s YouTube channel or on the player below.
A significant ideological split within GOP politics is as clear and vitriolic as the one within the Democratic Party. And that growing division means that, along with vehement differences, there is ample agreement on specific, consequential issues between the factions that identify as the “populist left” and “populist right.” Often there is more agreement between them than either group finds with the establishment wing of the political party with which they most identify.
In 2016, Donald Trump campaigned on (though he most certainly did not ultimately govern) in opposition to numerous long-standing Republican orthodoxies: he railed against job-killing free trade agreements, vowed to raise taxes on the rich and eliminate corporate lobbyist control over the legislative process, venerated the need to protect and even increase social programs, and most viciously scorned the Bush family’s imperialism and regime change wars. That he won the GOP nomination against highly funded, establishment-backed candidates such as Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio demonstrates that there is at least now tolerance, if not outright support, for those positions that had been taboo in mainstream Republican politics.
Polling shows that classic left-wing economic positions such as universal health care coverage and raising the minimum wage command majority support, proving those views extend beyond left-wing precincts. One of the political officials most devoted to and passionate about breaking up monopolistic power — long a central left-wing goal — is the right-wing Senator Josh Hawley, who also opposes international free trade organizations such as the WTO (the defining goal of the left-wing 1999 Seattle protests).
When Bernie Sanders wanted to impose limits on Trump’s ability to bomb Yemen, he found key support with the right-wing tea party Sen. Mike Lee; the same was true of Dennis Kucinich’s partnership with Ron Paul to audit the Fed and Cory Booker’s work with Rand Paul to usher in radical criminal justice reform. The host of the most-watched Fox News program, Tucker Carlson, has railed against the evils of predatory capitalism, supported AOC’s efforts to impede tax breaks to Amazon, given a sympathetic hearing to a pro-Maduro journalist opposed to regime change in Venezuela, and played a significant role in stopping air strikes against both Syria and Iran.
The reason these two factions have different names — left-wing populism and right-wing populism — is that, in addition to these convergences, they have serious and meaningful divergences. Trump as president adhered to almost none of his orthodoxy-busting campaign rhetoric. Hawley’s economic populist branding can ring hollow when set next to his support for corporate tax cuts that benefit the rich and his opposition to liveable wage legislation. And Carlson’s repellent-to-liberalism views — led by his support for authoritarian responses to protesters and his racially divisive rhetoric — are legion.
But none of those serious divergences negates the fact that the left — which does not come close to claiming a majority of the population — finds common ground with the populist faction of the right on some of its most important political positions. And there are millions of people across the country who identity as conservative or on the right — due to their views on social issues and immigration — but hold economically left-wing populist views.
The question then becomes: What should the left do in those cases? Should it work in conjunction with those on the right to build a majority and implement those policies, and engage in dialogue with opinion leaders and media figures on the right to reach more people who can be persuaded to think in trans-partisan, working-class terms? Or should it declare anyone associated with the populist right off-limits even for issue-by-issue collaboration on the ground that other views they hold are pernicious? And if holding pernicious views renders those on the populist right radioactive and off-limits, why is the same not true of establishment Democrats who have led the way to construct and champion the racist prison state, the drug war, jobs-destroying free trade agreements, regime change wars from Iraq to Libya, blind support for Israeli aggression, and a whole slew of other crucial policies utterly anathema to the left (all of which applies to Joe Biden, among others)?
This debate has been lurking for years as anti-establishment fervor and political realignment emerge — not just in the U.S. but across the democratic world — in the wake of the destruction wrought by the dominant neoliberal ideology. But in the U.S., it erupted over the last couple of weeks as the result of a vitriolic exchange between two smart, prominent left-wing commentators. In two separate articles, Current Affairs editor Nathan Robinson compared right-wing populist media figures such as Carlson and Rising co-host Saager Enjeti to Bolsonaro, Mussolini and even Hitler to insist that “right-wing ‘populism’ is simply a lie and nobody who is on the Left should have anything to do with it.” That provoked a stinging response from one of the principal targets of Robinson’s critique, Enjeti’s Rising co-host Krystal Ball, who says “the left should take yes for an answer” as she argued that it is morally irresponsible not to find allies where one can and not to communicate with as many people as possible in order to implement a left-wing populist agenda.
Today’s episode of SYSTEM UPDATE on The Intercept’s YouTube channel is devoted to exploring this vital question, and I speak to both Robinson and Ball about their very different views on this question.


theintercept--2020-06-25--Louisiana Environmental Activists Charged With “Terrorizing” for Nonviolent Stunt Targeting Plastics

Louisiana Environmental Activists Charged With “Terrorizing” for Nonviolent Stunt Targeting Plastics Giant

the long-running fight for environmental justice in Louisiana turned themselves in to police in Baton Rouge Thursday morning .
The activists , who work in a part of the state known as “ Cancer Alley , ” faced charges of “ terrorizing ” related to a nonviolent protest action .
Civil liberties attorneys are calling the charges a dramatic escalation of a yearslong effort by the fossil fuel and petrochemical industries to criminalize efforts to halt the expansion of polluting facilities in the state — part of a nationwide trend of cracking down on dissent around climate change issues .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rolfes and Kate McIntosh , stem from a seemingly innocuous activist stunt carried out in December , the day after a festival designed to draw attention to the environmental misdeeds of Formosa Plastics .
The Taiwanese petrochemical company plans to build a massive plastics manufacturing complex in a largely Black Louisiana community that has already suffered health problems linked to local industry .
In October , Formosa agreed to a $ 50 million settlement for dumping pollutants , including the small pellets that form the building blocks for plastic products known as nurdles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — the largest settlement of a Clean Water Act lawsuit filed by private citizens .
With a key environmental permit still pending for Formosa in Louisiana , the action — dubbed “ Nurdlefest ” — was meant to pressure the state ’ s Department of Environmental Quality to scrutinize the company ’ s record .
Boxes of the plastic pellets , used as evidence in the Texas case , were carted to the front of the agency , where around 75 people gathered in the rain .
What apparently terrorized community members , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pellets that appeared on the porch of an oil and gas lobbyist , with a detailed note attached , explaining what they were and their Texas origin .
“ We have delivered this package of nurdles as a reminder – Louisiana does not need anymore pollution , plastics or otherwise , ” the letter said .
“ We demand that LDEQ DENY Formosa ’ s air emissions permit application.
” The letter was signed by Concerned Citizens of Louisiana and included the phone number of Bill Quigley , the activists ’ pro bono @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leaving the nurdles around children or pets and a Formosa phone number for safely recycling the contents .
Rolfes and McIntosh , who are respectively the director of and a program assistant at the Louisiana Bucket Brigade , which provides support to groups of community members living near polluting facilities , face a maximum of 15 years in prison and $ 15,000 in fines for so-called terrorizing — defined as “ the intentional communication of information that the commission of a crime of violence is imminent or in progress or that a circumstance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about to exist ” — with the intention of causing members of the public to fear for their safety .
“ This is an unwarranted escalation because they are using the term ‘ terrorizing , ’ ” said Pam Spees , senior attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights , who is representing McIntosh and Rolfes .
“ It is imposing unfairly and inappropriately a label on people that have been peacefully working for years to raise awareness of the impact of industry on frontline communities .
To use that word in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chilling to others.
” Rolfes and McIntosh come on the heels of a series of incidents where environmental activists have been dealt hefty charges for actions challenging the petrochemical , oil , and gas industries in Louisiana .
In August 2018 , Louisiana legislators passed a law establishing a new felony charge for anyone who trespasses on critical infrastructure facilities , including chemical manufacturing facilities and oil and gas pipeline construction sites .
Over the following couple months , police used the new law to charge 15 people protesting the oil company Energy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Local prosecutors have not yet acted on the charges .
Last October , police charged Gregory Manning , the legally blind pastor of Broadmoor Community Church and a member of the Coalition Against Death Alley , with a felony for allegedly inciting a riot .
Authorities said Manning failed to immediately leave a hallway outside the office of the Louisiana Association of Business and Industry during a protest against the association ’ s influence over state politics .
A prosecutor later dropped all charges .
This spring , legislators passed an enhanced version @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would have ramped up charges for trespass during a state of emergency .
Louisiana Gov .
John Bel Edwards vetoed the bill .
To Rolfes and McIntosh ’ s attorneys , the timing of the latest charges is particularly suspect .
At 9:30 a.m. on Juneteenth , the June 19 holiday celebrating the emancipation of slaves in the U.S. , Quigley — Rolfes and McIntosh ’ s pro bono lawyer , who is also a professor at Loyola University New Orleans — received a phone call from a Baton Rouge Police Department detective @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out for the pair ’ s arrest .
( Formosa and the Baton Rouge Police Department did not immediately respond to requests for comment . )
Both the activists were en route to a ceremony at a burial site for enslaved people , located in a field where Formosa plans to build one of its facilities .
The right to carry out the ceremony had been hard-won : Formosa had fought in court for the past week to prevent community members from holding the gathering .
A judge denied the company ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The detective told Quigley that the charges had been filed in April , but they ’ d held off on issuing the warrant because of risks associated with the coronavirus pandemic .
“ It seems more than a little suspicious that this long dormant warrant was activated 12 hours after Formosa lost in court , ” said Quigley .
“ It seems like it ’ s clearly retaliation.
” Spees , the Center for Constitutional Rights attorney , said , “ If there ’ s such a danger , why wait seven months @ @ @ @ @ @ @ celebration of its liberation from slavery to send that message ?
” In response to the latest charges , local organizers are launching the Alliance to Defend Democracy to push back on the increasing criminalization .
“ Five years ago — maybe three years ago — this kind of charge against an activist would have had an isolating effect .
The movements are stronger now , ” said Spees .
“ It ’ s an overreach , and it ’ s going to backfire .
”

Two leaders of the long-running fight for environmental justice in Louisiana turned themselves in to police in Baton Rouge Thursday morning. The activists, who work in a part of the state known as “Cancer Alley,” faced charges of “terrorizing” related to a nonviolent protest action. Civil liberties attorneys are calling the charges a dramatic escalation of a yearslong effort by the fossil fuel and petrochemical industries to criminalize efforts to halt the expansion of polluting facilities in the state — part of a nationwide trend of cracking down on dissent around climate change issues.
The accusations against the activists, Anne Rolfes and Kate McIntosh, stem from a seemingly innocuous activist stunt carried out in December, the day after a festival designed to draw attention to the environmental misdeeds of Formosa Plastics. The Taiwanese petrochemical company plans to build a massive plastics manufacturing complex in a largely Black Louisiana community that has already suffered health problems linked to local industry. In October, Formosa agreed to a $50 million settlement for dumping pollutants, including the small pellets that form the building blocks for plastic products known as nurdles, into Texas’s Lavaca Bay — the largest settlement of a Clean Water Act lawsuit filed by private citizens.
With a key environmental permit still pending for Formosa in Louisiana, the action — dubbed “Nurdlefest” — was meant to pressure the state’s Department of Environmental Quality to scrutinize the company’s record. Boxes of the plastic pellets, used as evidence in the Texas case, were carted to the front of the agency, where around 75 people gathered in the rain.
What apparently terrorized community members, however, was a container of the pellets that appeared on the porch of an oil and gas lobbyist, with a detailed note attached, explaining what they were and their Texas origin. “We have delivered this package of nurdles as a reminder – Louisiana does not need anymore pollution, plastics or otherwise,” the letter said. “We demand that LDEQ DENY Formosa’s air emissions permit application.”
The letter was signed by Concerned Citizens of Louisiana and included the phone number of Bill Quigley, the activists’ pro bono attorney.
The Baton Rouge Police Department apparently agreed that the plastic particles were threatening. “A note was observed on the top of the package indicating not to open the container as the contents could be hazardous. Police requested Hazmat to be contacted,” spokesperson Don Coppola told The Intercept. Although the note discouraged against removing the nurdles or leaving them around children or pets, it did not describe them as “hazardous.” It included a Formosa phone number for safely recycling the material.
Rolfes and McIntosh, who are respectively the director of and a program assistant at the Louisiana Bucket Brigade, which provides support to groups of community members living near polluting facilities, face a maximum of 15 years in prison and $15,000 in fines for so-called terrorizing — defined as “the intentional communication of information that the commission of a crime of violence is imminent or in progress or that a circumstance dangerous to human life exists or is about to exist” — with the intention of causing members of the public to fear for their safety.
“This is an unwarranted escalation because they are using the term ‘terrorizing.’ To use that word in a context like this is potentially damaging and chilling to others.”
“This is an unwarranted escalation because they are using the term ‘terrorizing,’” said Pam Spees, senior attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights, who is representing McIntosh and Rolfes. “It is imposing unfairly and inappropriately a label on people that have been peacefully working for years to raise awareness of the impact of industry on frontline communities. To use that word in a context like this is potentially damaging and chilling to others.”
The charges against Rolfes and McIntosh come on the heels of a series of incidents where environmental activists have been dealt hefty charges for actions challenging the petrochemical, oil, and gas industries in Louisiana.
In August 2018, Louisiana legislators passed a law establishing a new felony charge for anyone who trespasses on critical infrastructure facilities, including chemical manufacturing facilities and oil and gas pipeline construction sites. Over the following couple months, police used the new law to charge 14 people protesting the oil company Energy Transfer’s Bayou Bridge pipeline, as well as a journalist. Local prosecutors have not yet acted on the charges.
Photo: Courtesy of the Louisiana Bucket Brigade
Last October, police charged Gregory Manning, the legally blind pastor of Broadmoor Community Church and a member of the Coalition Against Death Alley, with a felony for allegedly inciting a riot. Authorities said Manning failed to immediately leave a hallway outside the office of the Louisiana Association of Business and Industry during a protest against the association’s influence over state politics. A prosecutor later dropped all charges.
This spring, legislators passed an enhanced version of the critical infrastructure law, which would have ramped up charges for trespass during a state of emergency. Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards vetoed the bill.
To Rolfes and McIntosh’s attorneys, the timing of the latest charges is particularly suspect. At 9:30 a.m. on Juneteenth, the June 19 holiday celebrating the emancipation of slaves in the U.S., Quigley — Rolfes and McIntosh’s pro bono lawyer, who is also a professor at Loyola University New Orleans — received a phone call from a Baton Rouge Police Department detective, notifying him that a warrant was out for the pair’s arrest. (Formosa and the Baton Rouge Police Department did not immediately respond to requests for comment.)
“It seems more than a little suspicious that this long dormant warrant was activated 12 hours after Formosa lost in court. It seems like it’s clearly retaliation.”
Both the activists were en route to a ceremony at a burial site for enslaved people, located in a field where Formosa plans to build one of its facilities. The right to carry out the ceremony had been hard-won: Formosa had fought in court for the past week to prevent community members from holding the gathering. A judge denied the company’s final appeal only the night before.
The detective told Quigley that the charges had been filed in April, but they’d held off on issuing the warrant because of risks associated with the coronavirus pandemic. “It seems more than a little suspicious that this long dormant warrant was activated 12 hours after Formosa lost in court,” said Quigley. “It seems like it’s clearly retaliation.”
Spees, the Center for Constitutional Rights attorney, said, “If there’s such a danger, why wait seven months and pick the day of a community celebration of its liberation from slavery to send that message?”
In response to the latest charges, local organizers are launching the Alliance to Defend Democracy to push back on the increasing criminalization.
“Five years ago — maybe three years ago — this kind of charge against an activist would have had an isolating effect. The movements are stronger now,” said Spees. “It’s an overreach, and it’s going to backfire.”
Correction: June 26, 2020
An earlier version of this story said that, in 2018, police used a new Louisiana law to charge 15 people protesting Energy Transfer’s Bayou Bridge pipeline. It has been changed to reflect that 14 protesters and one journalist were charged. The article has also been updated to include comment from the Baton Rouge Police Department.


theintercept--2020-06-26--Trump Suggests Navy Sent $5 Billion to Wisconsin Firm to Help Him Win Election

The president ’ s startling admission came as he veered off-script during a speech to employees of Fincantieri Marinette Marine , the firm chosen by the Navy on April 30 to build 10 new guided-missile frigates for its FFG ( X ) program .
The Wisconsin firm was chosen over rivals that build ships in Alabama , Mississippi and Maine — three states that are far less important in the electoral college .
In what sounded like a confession that his administration is corruptly using federal funds to boost his re-election campaign , President Donald Trump told workers at a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one of the big factors ” in the Navy awarding a $ 5.5 billion contract to their firm was , “ your location in Wisconsin , if you want to know the truth.
” As he read aloud a description that the frigates would be the “ fastest , most advanced , and most maneuverable combat ships anywhere on the ocean , ” Trump looked up and ad-libbed : “ I hear the maneuverability is one of the big factors that you were chosen for the contract .
The other is your location @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know the truth.
” The president then boasted that the “ massive deal ” would boost employment in the state , which he won by less than 23,000 votes in 2016 , by allowing the firm to keep “ your 1,500 full-time employees ” on staff and hire another 1,000 people “ all across the shipyards in Wisconsin.
” ( The shipbuilding firm actually employs 2,500 people in Wisconsin right now , not 1,500 . )
Trump also claimed that “ an estimated 15,000 additional new jobs will be created through the Wisconsin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the contract .
Moments later , Trump changed that estimate to 9,000 new jobs , without explaining why .
Both estimates seem to be vastly inflated .
Rep. Mike Gallagher , a Wisconsin Republican who serves on the House Armed Services Committee , said in April that the contract could create “ more than 5,000 direct and indirect jobs ” over the course of its 10-year duration .
The projection seemed to come from Fincantieri , the shipbuilding firm , which told reporters that the contract could create 1,000 new jobs at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ company ’ s suppliers .
The president ’ s remarks , which were transcribed by the White House , could be grounds for one of the three firms that lost out on the contract — Ingalls Shipbuilding of Pascagoula , Mississippi , Austal USA of Mobile , Alabama and Bath Iron Works of Bath , Maine — to file a protest with the Government Accountability Office ’ s Procurement Law Division .
As the U.S .
Naval Institute ’ s news site reported earlier this month , none of the firms contested the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bid was accepted , which is normally when protests are filed .
But there is nothing normal about the commander-in-chief publicly admitting that the government contracting process was corrupted by political considerations .
A spokesperson for Ingalls declined to comment on the president ’ s remarks .
Austal USA and Bath Iron Works did not immediately reply to questions from The Intercept about whether they might file a protest given this new information .
A spokesman for James Geurts , the assistant secretary of the Navy for research , development and acquisition , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in spending each year , also did not reply to a request for comment .
In his speech , which he frequently delivered as if he was at a campaign rally rather than an official appearance , the president also joked about his ignorance of why the Navy ’ s FFG ( X ) shipbuilding project had that name .
After reading the letters aloud , Trump mistakenly said , “ FX !
Is that good ?
FX !
” The president then suggested that “ nobody knows ” what those initials stand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ explained this month , “ FF means frigate , G means guided-missile ship… and ( X ) indicates that the specific design of the ship has not yet been determined.
” In another portion of the speech devoted to praising himself , Trump also claimed that he had personally intervened in the design of the new Navy frigate .
“ The ships that they were building , they looked terrible .
I changed designs .
I looked at it .
I said , ‘ That ’ s a terrible looking ship .
Let @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ll cost you the same , and maybe less , ' ” the president told workers at the shipyard .

In what sounded like a confession that his administration is corruptly using federal funds to boost his re-election campaign, President Donald Trump told workers at a shipyard in Wisconsin on Thursday that “one of the big factors” in the Navy awarding a $5.5 billion contract to their firm was, “your location in Wisconsin, if you want to know the truth.”
The president’s startling admission came as he veered off-script during a speech to employees of Fincantieri Marinette Marine, the firm chosen by the Navy on April 30 to build 10 new guided-missile frigates for its FFG(X) program. The Wisconsin firm was chosen over rivals that build ships in Alabama, Mississippi and Maine — three states that are far less important in the electoral college.
As he read aloud a description that the frigates would be the “fastest, most advanced, and most maneuverable combat ships anywhere on the ocean,” Trump looked up and ad-libbed: “I hear the maneuverability is one of the big factors that you were chosen for the contract. The other is your location in Wisconsin, if you want to know the truth.”
The president then boasted that the “massive deal” would boost employment in the state, which he won by less than 23,000 votes in 2016, by allowing the firm to keep “your 1,500 full-time employees” on staff and hire another 1,000 people “all across the shipyards in Wisconsin.” (The shipbuilding firm actually employs 2,500 people in Wisconsin right now, not 1,500.)
Trump also claimed that “an estimated 15,000 additional new jobs will be created through the Wisconsin supply chain,” as a result of the contract. Moments later, Trump changed that estimate to 9,000 new jobs, without explaining why.
Both estimates seem to be vastly inflated. Rep. Mike Gallagher, a Wisconsin Republican who serves on the House Armed Services Committee, said in April that the contract could create “more than 5,000 direct and indirect jobs” over the course of its 10-year duration. The projection seemed to come from Fincantieri, the shipbuilding firm, which told reporters that the contract could create 1,000 new jobs at the shipyard and 4,000 more at the company’s suppliers.
The president’s remarks, which were transcribed by the White House, could be grounds for one of the three firms that lost out on the contract — Ingalls Shipbuilding of Pascagoula, Mississippi, Austal USA of Mobile, Alabama and Bath Iron Works of Bath, Maine — to file a protest with the Government Accountability Office’s Procurement Law Division. As the U.S. Naval Institute’s news site reported earlier this month, none of the firms contested the decision during the 30-day period after the bid was accepted, which is normally when protests are filed. But there is nothing normal about the commander-in-chief publicly admitting that the government contracting process was corrupted by political considerations.
A spokesperson for Ingalls declined to comment on the president’s remarks. Austal USA and Bath Iron Works did not immediately reply to questions from The Intercept about whether they might file a protest given this new information.
A spokesman for James Geurts, the assistant secretary of the Navy for research, development and acquisition, who oversees more than $100 billion in spending each year, also did not reply to a request for comment.
Even if none of the other defense contractors complains about Trump’s comment on how the contract was awarded, he seemed to be describing a violation of the Hatch Act, a law that prohibits federal employees from engaging in political activities while performing their official function.
As Nick Schwellenbach, a senior investigator at the Project On Government Oversight, observed after Trump blurted out that the Navy contract was awarded due to the shipyard’s location in an important electoral college state, the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, the independent federal investigative agency that enforces the Hatch Act, concluded in a 2007 report on improper political activities by a Bush administration official: “One can imagine no greater violation of the Hatch Act than to invoke the machinery of an agency, with all its contracts…in the service of a partisan campaign.”
While the president and vice president are exempt from Hatch Act restrictions, Schwellenbach explained, White House officials are not. Last year, the head of the OSC, Henry Kerner, wrote to Trump to recommend that he fire Kellyanne Conway for repeated violations of the law.
In his speech, which he frequently delivered as if he was at a campaign rally rather than an official appearance, the president also joked about his ignorance of why the Navy’s FFG(X) shipbuilding project had that name. After reading the letters aloud, Trump mistakenly said, “FX! Is that good? FX!” The president then suggested that “nobody knows” what those initials stand for. As the Congressional Research Service explained this month, “FF means frigate, G means guided-missile ship… and (X) indicates that the specific design of the ship has not yet been determined.”
In another portion of the speech devoted to praising himself, Trump also claimed that he had personally intervened in the design of the new Navy frigate. “The ships that they were building, they looked terrible. I changed designs. I looked at it. I said, ‘That’s a terrible looking ship. Let’s make it beautiful. It’ll cost you the same, and maybe less,'” the president told workers at the shipyard.
#Trump says he personally changed the design of navy ships to make them look better.
pic.twitter.com/ziMnxZNfmg — Michael Holmes (@holmescnn) June 25, 2020
“I said, ‘This is not a good-looking ship, let’s change the design of it.’ And I got people in, and we looked at different designs,” Trump added. “And look at what you’re doing, how beautiful it is. They gave me a beautiful model that’s absolutely…. It’s like a yacht with missiles on it.”
As the Green Bay Press Gazette reported in April, Marinette Marine, which has built ships in Wisconsin since the 1940s, was acquired by the Italian yacht-maker Fincantieri in 2009. The firm’s winning frigate design is based on an Italian warship that already exists, and was not designed by the president.
Updated: Friday, June 26, 1:51 p.m. PDT
This article was updated to add information about how the president’s claim that a Navy contract was awarded to a firm in Wisconsin to benefit him politically could point to a violation of the Hatch Act.


theintercept--2020-06-26--Controversial Data-Mining Firm Palantir Vanishes From Biden Adviser's Biography After She Joins Camp

Controversial Data-Mining Firm Palantir Vanishes From Biden Adviser's Biography After She Joins Campaign

to the 2020 election , former Vice President Joe Biden ’ s campaign is putting together a foreign policy team for a potential future administration .
Among those described as being part of the team is Avril Haines , former deputy director of the CIA during the Obama administration .
According to an NBC News report from last week , Haines has been tapped to work advising on policy , as well as lead the national security and foreign policy team .
In addition to her past national security work and impressive presence in the D.C. think tank world , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a former consultant for the controversial data-mining firm Palantir .
Haines ’ s biography page at the Brookings Institute , where she is listed as a nonresident senior fellow , boasted of this affiliation until at least last week , when it suddenly no longer appeared on the page .
The nature of the consulting work that Haines did for Palantir is not clear .
As of press time , requests for comment to her , the Biden campaign , Palantir , and Brookings were not answered .
Prior to being removed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the data-mining company was listed alongside a long list of other affiliations that were similarly pared down .
The affiliation — and its apparent disappearance — raises questions for a campaign that has posed itself as the antithesis to President Donald Trump ’ s far-right governance .
Co-founded by a far-right , Trump-supporting tech billionaire , Palantir , whose business has benefited from a slew of government contracts , has been accused of aiding in the Trump administration ’ s immigration detention programs in the U.S. and helping the Trump administration build @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s information technology systems have given the Trump administration the ability to carry out mass deportations that have been tearing apart and terrorizing our immigrant communities , ” said Yasmine Taeb , senior policy counsel at Demand Progress , a group that marshals support for causes ranging from human rights to transparency .
Haines ’ s biography on the Brookings site was captured by the Wayback Machine , which archives websites , on May 9 .
At that time , the page showed the Palantir affiliation .
A printout of the Google @ @ @ @ @ @ @ June 20 — the same day that Biden ’ s campaign announced Haines as an adviser — shows the affiliation .
By June 25 , the Google cache shows the Palantir affiliation has disappeared ; it is not clear when between those dates the listing was removed .
The ties to the Trump administration aren ’ t the only aspect of Palantir ’ s history that raises questions .
The company has also been accused in the past of plotting to intimidate journalists involved in reporting documents released by WikiLeaks .
And Palantir @ @ @ @ @ @ @ another move that appears to put the company out of step with the current political moment .
The company also aided the National Security Agency by creating the tools to facilitate worldwide spying .
The firm ’ s co-founder , Peter Thiel , is a billionaire libertarian financier with close links to the Republican Party .
A rare , prominent Silicon Valley supporter of Trump ’ s 2016 presidential bid , Thiel spoke at the Republican National Convention that year .
He has emerged as a generous contributor to a variety of right-wing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , however , the Daily Beast reported that Thiel has been privately grumbling about Trump ’ s handling of the coronavirus crisis and has so far withheld public or financial support for the president ’ s reelection campaign .
Thiel ’ s political giving in this cycle has been limited to supporting Kris Kobach , a Kansas politician , Trump ally , and immigration hard-liner who is running for the U.S. Senate .
In recent months , the Biden campaign seems to have capitalized from Trump ’ s collapsing national popularity .
Polls @ @ @ @ @ @ @ battleground states , show Biden taking impressive leads over the incumbent .
As his campaign gains relative momentum , the composition and affiliations of his transition team is looking more like an early indicator of how he would govern once in office .

In the run-up to the 2020 election, former Vice President Joe Biden’s campaign is putting together a foreign policy team for a potential future administration. Among those described as being part of the team is Avril Haines, former deputy director of the CIA during the Obama administration. According to an NBC News report from last week, Haines has been tapped to work advising on policy, as well as lead the national security and foreign policy team.
In addition to her past national security work and impressive presence in the D.C. think tank world, Haines has in the past described herself as a former consultant for the controversial data-mining firm Palantir. Haines’s biography page at the Brookings Institute, where she is listed as a nonresident senior fellow, boasted of this affiliation until at least last week, when it suddenly no longer appeared on the page.
The nature of the consulting work that Haines did for Palantir is not clear. As of press time, requests for comment to her, the Biden campaign, Palantir, and Brookings were not answered. Prior to being removed from the Brookings page, the connection to the data-mining company was listed alongside a long list of other affiliations that were similarly pared down.
The affiliation — and its apparent disappearance — raises questions for a campaign that has posed itself as the antithesis to President Donald Trump’s far-right governance. Co-founded by a far-right, Trump-supporting tech billionaire, Palantir, whose business has benefited from a slew of government contracts, has been accused of aiding in the Trump administration’s immigration detention programs in the U.S. and helping the Trump administration build out its surveillance state.
“Palantir’s information technology systems have given the Trump administration the ability to carry out mass deportations that have been tearing apart and terrorizing our immigrant communities,” said Yasmine Taeb, senior policy counsel at Demand Progress, a group that marshals support for causes ranging from human rights to transparency.
Haines’s biography on the Brookings site was captured by the Wayback Machine, which archives websites, on May 9. At that time, the page showed the Palantir affiliation. A printout of the Google cache of the page as recorded on June 20 — the same day that Biden’s campaign announced Haines as an adviser — shows the affiliation. By June 25, the Google cache shows the Palantir affiliation has disappeared; it is not clear when between those dates the listing was removed.
The ties to the Trump administration aren’t the only aspect of Palantir’s history that raises questions. The company has also been accused in the past of plotting to intimidate journalists involved in reporting documents released by WikiLeaks. And Palantir has also provided services to police — another move that appears to put the company out of step with the current political moment. The company also aided the National Security Agency by creating the tools to facilitate worldwide spying.
The firm’s co-founder, Peter Thiel, is a billionaire libertarian financier with close links to the Republican Party. A rare, prominent Silicon Valley supporter of Trump’s 2016 presidential bid, Thiel spoke at the Republican National Convention that year. He has emerged as a generous contributor to a variety of right-wing causes across the country. In 2020, however, the Daily Beast reported that Thiel has been privately grumbling about Trump’s handling of the coronavirus crisis and has so far withheld public or financial support for the president’s reelection campaign. Thiel’s political giving in this cycle has been limited to supporting Kris Kobach, a Kansas politician, Trump ally, and immigration hard-liner who is running for the U.S. Senate.
In recent months, the Biden campaign seems to have capitalized from Trump’s collapsing national popularity. Polls across the country, including in key battleground states, show Biden taking impressive leads over the incumbent. As his campaign gains relative momentum, the composition and affiliations of his transition team is looking more like an early indicator of how he would govern once in office.


theintercept--2020-06-26--Law Enforcement Scoured Protester Communications and Exaggerated Threats to Minneapolis Cops, Leaked

Law Enforcement Scoured Protester Communications and Exaggerated Threats to Minneapolis Cops, Leaked Documents Show

reveal that , in the wake of George Floyd ’ s killing , local and federal law enforcement agencies repeatedly told police in Minnesota that they were under attack .
The fears stoked by the warnings appear to have set the stage for the police ’ s escalating , violent response to the protests , including the widespread use of tear gas , percussion grenades , and rubber bullets , sometimes fired at close range .
The documents show that law enforcement leadership warned of potential threats from antifa and “ black racially motivated violent extremists , ” as well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Federal and local agencies collected intelligence drawn from private online messaging groups and Slack channels , according to the documents .
The agencies also tracked Facebook RSVPs to peaceful protest events , including a suburban candlelight vigil .
The window into the police ’ s internal memos came thanks to a trove of documents called Blueleaks , which were published on the website Distributed Denial of Secrets .
The site ’ s founder told Wired that the documents came from the hacking collective Anonymous , or someone claiming to be affiliated with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ among the documents told the Intercept they were “ illegally obtained , ” but no questions have been raised about their authenticity .
The documents on Minnesota are from a host of local and federal law enforcement agencies and coordinating offices that worked to share information between them .
While the documents reveal concern over groups with a professed commitment to unrest , like the far-right group Boogaloo , they also suggest a tendency to categorize standard protest behavior as a threat to police .
For instance , a May 28 document from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ body that coordinates among various law enforcement agencies , warned that police should look out for a dizzying array of suspicious behaviors , including people possessing balloons or bike locks and wearing masks — a description that includes many of those who took to the streets during the pandemic .
Similar warnings were issued in other parts of the country .
A May 29 briefing from the Joint Regional Intelligence Center , which coordinates federal , state , and local intelligence in the Los Angeles area , said that protesters might use “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , frequently violent action.
” Though some examples of these tactics offered in the document would constitute crimes , others were entirely lawful and widespread activities like monitoring police scanners and communicating over encrypted apps to direct “ ground movement.
” The documents also warn of a number of impending events that apparently never came to pass .
A May 30 update from the Multi-Agency Command Center , a temporary coordinating agency under the Minnesota Department of Public Safety that was activated on May 29 , mentioned “ unconfirmed reports of the possibility @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the immediate metro being targeted.
” Other warnings were hazy : A command center update , also from May 30 , described “ unconfirmed reports of extremist group activity in Minnesota related to civil unrest.
” A spokesperson for the Minnesota Department of Public Safety declined to comment , adding , “ We will not respond to questions based on illegally obtained documents.
” The Multi-Agency Command Center ended its operations on June 7 .
Some of the substantial property damage in the Twin Cities in the days following George Floyd ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , with the Minneapolis Police Department ’ s Third Precinct burned to the ground and various police vehicles vandalized .
But , though there were reports of rocks being thrown at officers , an incident of shots fired at a police car , and scattered law enforcement injuries during the protests , even a list distributed by the Multi-Agency Command Center of nationwide officer injuries and deaths during the protests includes no examples from Minnesota .
Unjustified fear has long played into abuse in policing .
“ Since they know that they are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” James Baldwin wrote of the police in The Nation in 1966 .
“ One can not possibly arrive at a more surefire formula for cruelty.
” According to Dan O ’ Flaherty and Rajiv Sethi ’ s book “ Shadows of Doubt : Stereotypes , Crime , and the Pursuit of Justice , ” undue security service fears based on errant information have historically contributed to police killing and injuring civilians .
The anxiety that pervades the leaked documents from Minneapolis seemed to be reflected in the extreme police reaction throughout the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ across the country .
In Minneapolis , the police and other security services were accused of undertaking confrontations with demonstrators and residents alike , including advancing on peaceful protests using “ less-lethal ” munitions and tear gas , and attacking on-lookers standing on their own porch .
“ In the weeks since Floyd ’ s death , we have seen many videos and pretty well substantiated reports of unjustified police use of force , including several questionable homicides , ” said O ’ Flaherty .
“ These incidents make you scratch your head @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They knew the whole world was watching.
’ The most cogent explanation is fear.
” The warnings began soon after Floyd ’ s death .
On May 27 , the day before Minneapolis ’ s Third Precinct burned , the Minnesota Fusion Center published a bulletin titled “ Possibility for Increased Threatening Activity towards Law Enforcement and Government Officials following Worldwide Coverage of Minneapolis In-Custody Death.
” At that point , the protests in Minneapolis had been overwhelmingly peaceful .
But the document described “ threats directed toward the four MPD ” officers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ including the publishing of personal details about two of the officers online .
The bulletin urged all employees of the Minneapolis Police Department , including administrative staff , to look for suspicious people and vehicles and to “ consider varying travel plans to avoid surveillance.
” As further evidence that police were in danger , the dispatch offered examples of property damage , including photos of a vandalized police squad car and a broken police station window , as well as a threatening tweet sent to the Minneapolis Police Department ’ s Twitter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ specifically discusses targeting the four MPD officers , individuals may seek to harm any law enforcement personnel , ” the bulletin stressed .
In the days that followed , the Minnesota Fusion Center and the Hennepin County Sheriff ’ s Office Criminal Information Sharing and Analysis Unit disseminated the RSVP counts for protest-related events , apparently taken from Facebook .
“ At the time of reporting , 833 people indicated online that they are attending , while 3,300 people appear interested , ” read a note about a protest event titled “ Justice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — Free Them All.
” “ I ’ m laughing because we know they ’ re monitoring us , ” said Sam Martinez , a spokesperson for one of the organizations that planned the event , the Twin Cities Coalition for Justice 4 Jamar .
Martinez estimated that 5,000 people attended and said organizers had not heard of any violence taking place , adding that the monitoring was “ ridiculous.
” The documents make clear that , in some cases , law enforcement had visibility into private communications .
A dispatch from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ June 1 described a “ private social media chat app post ” that advocated targeting National Guard soldiers .
According to the police document , the post claimed that members of the National Guard are “ easy targets who are barely trained at all.
” Other intelligence disseminated in the reports was gleaned from Slack .
A June 6 report from the Multi-Agency Command Center contended that “ a revolutionary anti-capitalist group ” in Minneapolis had collected details on law enforcement ’ s whereabouts , adding that the group ’ s members “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ intelligence to the Antifa portion of the group.
” The information was attributed to the FBI .
In these two cases , it is unclear whether law enforcement had infiltrated the online groups or were tipped off by a member .
In another instance , the FBI received a tip from “ a sensitive source with excellent access ” about channels on the messaging app Telegram used by protesters to coordinate and “ ‘ keep people safe from police ’ during riots.
” The document noted that these included “ ‘ announcement channels @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ and ‘ chat/coordination channels ’ in several cities.
” And the documents show that the Hennepin County Sheriff ’ s Office kept tabs on RSVPs to even small events favored by families and clergy , such as a Peace and Prayers BBQ at a church in North Minneapolis and a candlelight vigil in Maple Grove , a placid suburb .
Tanwi Prigge , one of the organizers of the vigil , said that she and her co-hosts had alerted police ahead of time , and that officers had helped direct traffic at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s office declined to comment . )
The Multi-Agency Command Center reports , disseminated multiple times each day , include lists of upcoming protests and gatherings across the state .
The authors of the reports were self-conscious of the potential for their surveillance to violate the Constitution .
“ Individuals or groups named in this product have been identified as participating in activities that are protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution , ” a disclaimer repeated on several of the reports notes .
“ However , based on known intelligence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is possible the protected activity could invite a violent reaction towards the subject individuals or groups , or the activity could be used as a means to target law enforcement.
” Much of the anxiety about attacks on law enforcement centered on so-called extremists .
On Saturday , May 30 , agencies noted a change in the tone of the protests .
“ Domestic violent extremists are attempting to structure the protests to target specific symbols of state , local , and federal authority , ” a Department of Homeland Security intelligence note @ @ @ @ @ @ @ say that the department had “ high confidence ” that “ during the period of darkness from 30 to 31 May the violent protest movements will grow and DVEs ” — domestic violent extremists — “ and others will seek to take over government facilities and attack law enforcement.
” One precedent cited in the document for such violence is the case of Micah Johnson , who killed five Dallas police officers during a July 2016 protest against police violence .
The document dubiously described him as a “ black supremacist extremist.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his involvement with what the FBI termed “ black identity extremist ” groups consisted of him searching and liking Facebook pages .
In Minneapolis , the agencies closely monitored the activities of various individuals that the reports framed as Black extremists .
One report noted , for example , that members of a “ black racially motivated violent extremist ” group “ planned to travel to the Government Center in Minneapolis ” on May 31 .
The same document , dated May 30 , warned of “ credible information ” from a “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leader of a black separatist group ” was armed , had participated in demonstrations in Ferguson , Missouri , and was “ likely to be violent.
” While it is unclear what agency the “ Federal partner ” refers to , the FBI has previously used questionable labels like “ black separatist , ” “ black racially motivated violent extremist , ” and “ black identity extremist ” for disparate groups and individuals , as Intercept investigations have shown .
Yet no major Black activist group has proven to be a significant violent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The anti-fascist movement known as antifa also came in for special scrutiny .
Intelligence from a “ federal partner ” described in a May 30 document suggests that Minneapolis ’ s Fourth Precinct could be a target for violence , apparently based on a social media post by a leader of the “ General Defense Council ( GDC ) , ” which the document refers to as “ a branch of Antifa.
” Antifa is not an organization but rather a wide-ranging , leaderless movement .
The officer may have been referring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s General Defense Committee , which does identify as anti-fascist .
A June 1 report from the Multi-Agency Command Center warned , “ Antifa will utilize vehicle borne improvised explosive devices ( VBIEDs ) to launch attacks against National Guard and law enforcement agencies , ” also citing intelligence collected by a federal partner .
It continued : “ The vehicles will bear fictitious license plates.
” The warnings turned out to be unfounded .
There is no evidence that any groups used car bombs against military or police targets during the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also monitored right-wing and white supremacist groups , the documents show .
Most of the evidence cited apparently came from the internet , but a June 4 bulletin from the sheriff ’ s office noted that “ members of the ‘ Boohajideen , ’ ” a term affiliated with the Boogaloo movement , had been spotted claiming to protect historically Black neighborhoods in North Minneapolis .
Two documents noted the alleged presence of the white supremacist Aryan Cowboys .
A June 1 report said that the Minneapolis Hells Angels had allegedly brought “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Minnesota to Minneapolis for protection .
A report few days later noted that a source claimed motorcycle gang members with apparent white supremacist views had discussed “ inciting riots while posing as Antifa members ” and added that such individuals “ have in fact participated in civil disturbances while posing as Antifa members.
” As protests across the nation continued in the following weeks , police violence against protesters mounted .
In Minneapolis , officers shot a rubber bullet at a photographer , who lost her eye , and pepper-sprayed nonviolent demonstrators from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that at least 40 police brutality lawsuits have been filed across the U.S. in the wake of the protests .
Minnesota law enforcement , however , remained fixated on threats to officers .
In the second week of protests , the Minnesota Fusion Center disseminated an appendix listing officer deaths and injuries across the U.S. , and asked agencies to share additional incidents .
No corresponding data about the myriad wounds protesters , media , and bystanders suffered at the hands of police attempting crowd control was included .
The leaked documents from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ never be verified .
They warn of a “ truck full of Texas residents with AR-15s ” and “ busloads of people coming from Chicago ” headed to the protest area .
They also give a few telling examples of overreaction .
“ A rental vehicle was reported downtown Minneapolis in a parking ramp with Florida plates and radio equipment within , ” read a dispatch from the sheriff ’ s office .
“ Security later confirmed it belonged to a media crew staying at the hotel.
” Another , from May 30 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ police department “ made contact with individuals from Wisconsin.
” The group had been en route to a protest but had changed their minds , according to the document : “ The parties stated they had gotten cold feet and decided to go home .
”

Newly leaked documents reveal that, in the wake of George Floyd’s killing, local and federal law enforcement agencies repeatedly told police in Minnesota that they were under attack. The fears stoked by the warnings appear to have set the stage for the police’s escalating, violent response to the protests, including the widespread use of tear gas, concussion grenades, and rubber bullets, sometimes fired at close range.
The documents show that law enforcement leadership warned of potential threats from antifa and “black racially motivated violent extremists,” as well as vaguely described social media users. Federal and local agencies collected intelligence drawn from private online messaging groups and Slack channels, according to the documents. The agencies also tracked Facebook RSVPs to peaceful protest events, including a suburban candlelight vigil.
The window into the police’s internal memos came thanks to a trove of documents called BlueLeaks, which were published on the website Distributed Denial of Secrets. The site’s founder told Wired that the documents came from the hacking collective Anonymous, or someone claiming to be affiliated with the group. Government officials whose files appeared among the documents told the Intercept they were “illegally obtained,” but no questions have been raised about their authenticity. The documents on Minnesota are from a host of local and federal law enforcement agencies and coordinating offices that worked to share information between them.
While the documents reveal concern over groups with a professed commitment to unrest, like the far-right group Boogaloo, they also suggest a tendency to categorize standard protest behavior as a threat to police. For instance, a May 28 document from the Minnesota Fusion Center, a post-9/11 body that coordinates among various law enforcement agencies, warned that police should look out for a dizzying array of suspicious behaviors, including people possessing balloons or bike locks and wearing masks — a description that includes many of those who took to the streets during the pandemic.
“In the weeks since Floyd’s death, we have seen many videos and pretty well substantiated reports of unjustified police use of force. ‘What were they thinking? They knew the whole world was watching.’ The most cogent explanation is fear.”
Similar warnings were issued in other parts of the country. A May 29 briefing from the Joint Regional Intelligence Center, which coordinates federal, state, and local intelligence in the Los Angeles area, said that protesters might use “Black Bloc Tactics” involving “collective, frequently violent action.” Though some examples of these tactics offered in the document would constitute crimes, others were entirely lawful and widespread activities like monitoring police scanners and communicating over encrypted apps to direct “ground movement.”
The documents also warn of a number of impending events that apparently never came to pass. A May 30 update from the Multi-Agency Command Center, a temporary coordinating agency under the Minnesota Department of Public Safety that was activated on May 29, mentioned “unconfirmed reports of the possibility of affluent neighborhoods and areas outside of the immediate metro being targeted.” Other warnings were hazy: A command center update, also from May 30, described “unconfirmed reports of extremist group activity in Minnesota related to civil unrest.” A spokesperson for the Minnesota Department of Public Safety declined to comment, adding, “We will not respond to questions based on illegally obtained documents.” The Multi-Agency Command Center ended its operations on June 7.
Some of the substantial property damage in the Twin Cities in the days following George Floyd’s killing was indeed directed at law enforcement, with the Minneapolis Police Department’s Third Precinct burned to the ground and various police vehicles vandalized. But, though there were reports of rocks being thrown at officers, an incident of shots fired at a police car, and scattered law enforcement injuries during the protests, even a list distributed by the Multi-Agency Command Center of nationwide officer injuries and deaths during the protests includes no examples from Minnesota.
Unjustified fear has long played into abuse in policing. “Since they know that they are hated, they are always afraid,” James Baldwin wrote of the police in The Nation in 1966. “One cannot possibly arrive at a more surefire formula for cruelty.” According to Dan O’Flaherty and Rajiv Sethi’s book “Shadows of Doubt: Stereotypes, Crime, and the Pursuit of Justice,” undue security service fears based on errant information have historically contributed to police killing and injuring civilians.
The anxiety that pervades the leaked documents from Minneapolis seemed to be reflected in the extreme police reaction throughout the days that followed, as protests spread across the country. In Minneapolis, the police and other security services were accused of undertaking confrontations with demonstrators and residents alike, including advancing on peaceful protests using “less-lethal” munitions and tear gas, and attacking on-lookers standing on their own porch.
“In the weeks since Floyd’s death, we have seen many videos and pretty well substantiated reports of unjustified police use of force, including several questionable homicides,” said O’Flaherty. “These incidents make you scratch your head. ‘What were they thinking? They knew the whole world was watching.’ The most cogent explanation is fear.”
Monitoring Protest Activity
The warnings began soon after Floyd’s death. On May 27, the day before Minneapolis’s Third Precinct burned, the Minnesota Fusion Center published a bulletin titled “Possibility for Increased Threatening Activity towards Law Enforcement and Government Officials following Worldwide Coverage of Minneapolis In-Custody Death.” At that point, the protests in Minneapolis had been overwhelmingly peaceful. But the document described “threats directed toward the four MPD” officers involved in Floyd’s killing — including the publishing of personal details about two of the officers online.
The bulletin urged all employees of the Minneapolis Police Department, including administrative staff, to look for suspicious people and vehicles and to “consider varying travel plans to avoid surveillance.” As further evidence that police were in danger, the dispatch offered examples of property damage, including photos of a vandalized police squad car and a broken police station window, as well as a threatening tweet sent to the Minneapolis Police Department’s Twitter account. “While recent online chatter specifically discusses targeting the four MPD officers, individuals may seek to harm any law enforcement personnel,” the bulletin stressed.
In the days that followed, the Minnesota Fusion Center and the Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office Criminal Information Sharing and Analysis Unit disseminated the RSVP counts for protest-related events, apparently taken from Facebook. “At the time of reporting, 833 people indicated online that they are attending, while 3,300 people appear interested,” read a note about a protest event titled “Justice 4 George Floyd — Stop Police Crimes — Free Them All.”
“I’m laughing because we know they’re monitoring us,” said Sam Martinez, a spokesperson for one of the organizations that planned the event, the Twin Cities Coalition for Justice 4 Jamar. Martinez estimated that 5,000 people attended and said organizers had not heard of any violence taking place, adding that the monitoring was “ridiculous.”
The documents make clear that, in some cases, law enforcement had visibility into private communications. A dispatch from the Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office on June 1 described a “private social media chat app post” that advocated targeting National Guard soldiers. According to the police document, the post claimed that members of the National Guard are “easy targets who are barely trained at all.”
Other intelligence disseminated in the reports was gleaned from Slack. A June 6 report from the Multi-Agency Command Center contended that “a revolutionary anti-capitalist group” in Minneapolis had collected details on law enforcement’s whereabouts, adding that the group’s members “used the Slack messaging app to pass intelligence to the Antifa portion of the group.” The information was attributed to the FBI.
In these two cases, it is unclear whether law enforcement had infiltrated the online groups or were tipped off by a member.
In another instance, the FBI received a tip from “a sensitive source with excellent access” about channels on the messaging app Telegram used by protesters to coordinate and “‘keep people safe from police’ during riots.” The document noted that these included “‘announcement channels,’ ‘police scanner channels,’ and ‘chat/coordination channels’ in several cities.”
And the documents show that the Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office kept tabs on RSVPs to even small events favored by families and clergy, such as a Peace and Prayers BBQ at a church in North Minneapolis and a candlelight vigil in Maple Grove, a placid suburb. Tanwi Prigge, one of the organizers of the vigil, said that she and her co-hosts had alerted police ahead of time, and that officers had helped direct traffic at the event. (The sheriff’s office declined to comment.)
The Multi-Agency Command Center reports, disseminated multiple times each day, include lists of upcoming protests and gatherings across the state. The authors of the reports were self-conscious of the potential for their surveillance to violate the Constitution. “Individuals or groups named in this product have been identified as participating in activities that are protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution,” a disclaimer repeated on several of the reports notes. “However, based on known intelligence and/or specific, historical observations, it is possible the protected activity could invite a violent reaction towards the subject individuals or groups, or the activity could be used as a means to target law enforcement.”
“Extremists”
Much of the anxiety about attacks on law enforcement centered on so-called extremists. On Saturday, May 30, agencies noted a change in the tone of the protests. “Domestic violent extremists are attempting to structure the protests to target specific symbols of state, local, and federal authority,” a Department of Homeland Security intelligence note stated. The document went on to say that the department had “high confidence” that “during the period of darkness from 30 to 31 May the violent protest movements will grow and DVEs” — domestic violent extremists — “and others will seek to take over government facilities and attack law enforcement.”
One precedent cited in the document for such violence is the case of Micah Johnson, who killed five Dallas police officers during a July 2016 protest against police violence. The document dubiously described him as a “black supremacist extremist.” In fact, Johnson acted alone and his involvement with what the FBI termed “black identity extremist” groups consisted of him searching and liking Facebook pages.
In Minneapolis, the agencies closely monitored the activities of various individuals that the reports framed as Black extremists. One report noted, for example, that members of a “black racially motivated violent extremist” group “planned to travel to the Government Center in Minneapolis” on May 31. The same document, dated May 30, warned of “credible information” from a “Federal partner” that “a Minneapolis-based leader of a black separatist group” was armed, had participated in demonstrations in Ferguson, Missouri, and was “likely to be violent.”
While it is unclear what agency the “Federal partner” refers to, the FBI has previously used questionable labels like “black separatist,” “black racially motivated violent extremist,” and “black identity extremist” for disparate groups and individuals, as Intercept investigations have shown. Yet no major Black activist group has proven to be a significant violent threat to the public in the U.S.
The anti-fascist movement known as antifa also came in for special scrutiny. Intelligence from a “federal partner” described in a May 30 document suggests that Minneapolis’s Fourth Precinct could be a target for violence, apparently based on a social media post by a leader of the “General Defense Council (GDC),” which the document refers to as “a branch of Antifa.” Antifa is not an organization but rather a wide-ranging, leaderless movement. The officer may have been referring to the Industrial Workers of the World’s General Defense Committee, which does identify as anti-fascist.
“Antifa will utilize vehicle borne improvised explosive devices (VBIEDs) to launch attacks against National Guard and law enforcement agencies.”
A June 1 report from the Multi-Agency Command Center warned, “Antifa will utilize vehicle borne improvised explosive devices (VBIEDs) to launch attacks against National Guard and law enforcement agencies,” also citing intelligence collected by a federal partner. It continued: “The vehicles will bear fictitious license plates.” The warnings turned out to be unfounded. There is no evidence that any groups used car bombs against military or police targets during the protests in Minneapolis.
Law enforcement agencies also monitored right-wing and white supremacist groups, the documents show. Most of the evidence cited apparently came from the internet, but a June 4 bulletin from the sheriff’s office noted that “members of the ‘Boohajideen,’” a term affiliated with the Boogaloo movement, had been spotted claiming to protect historically Black neighborhoods in North Minneapolis. Two documents noted the alleged presence of the white supremacist Aryan Cowboys. A June 1 report said that the Minneapolis Hells Angels had allegedly brought “approximately 75” Aryan Cowboys from northern Minnesota to Minneapolis for protection. A report few days later noted that a source claimed motorcycle gang members with apparent white supremacist views had discussed “inciting riots while posing as Antifa members” and added that such individuals “have in fact participated in civil disturbances while posing as Antifa members.”
Focus on Officer Injuries
As protests across the nation continued in the following weeks, police violence against protesters mounted. In Minneapolis, officers shot a rubber bullet at a photographer, who lost her eye, and pepper-sprayed nonviolent demonstrators from their moving vehicles. CBS News reported that at least 40 police brutality lawsuits have been filed across the U.S. in the wake of the protests.
Minnesota law enforcement, however, remained fixated on threats to officers. In the second week of protests, the Minnesota Fusion Center disseminated an appendix listing officer deaths and injuries across the U.S., and asked agencies to share additional incidents. No corresponding data about the myriad wounds protesters, media, and bystanders suffered at the hands of police attempting crowd control was included.
The leaked documents from Minneapolis are filled with rumors that may never be verified. They warn of a “truck full of Texas residents with AR-15s” and “busloads of people coming from Chicago” headed to the protest area. They also give a few telling examples of overreaction. “A rental vehicle was reported downtown Minneapolis in a parking ramp with Florida plates and radio equipment within,” read a dispatch from the sheriff’s office. “Security later confirmed it belonged to a media crew staying at the hotel.”
Another, from May 30, noted that officers from a nearby police department “made contact with individuals from Wisconsin.” The group had been en route to a protest but had changed their minds, according to the document: “The parties stated they had gotten cold feet and decided to go home.”