An open letter.

An open letter, reflecting on the recent Green Scare hearings;

It has come to my attention in the past few weeks both through my involvement with the Resist! Collective, as well as by the insistent emails from friends, that there has been quite a bit of talk circulating since the close of the Green Scare hearings in Eugene at the beginning of June. Some time ago, I made promises to post a statement at the conclusion of those hearings, and yet it has been more than a month since my return from Eugene. Unfortunately, my silence has only allowed the critical voices to grow and the misinformation about Darren to spread. Part of my reticence in writing comes from a fear of provoking more backlash against myself or others, but this of course is not all. Pride, resentment and anger have all played into my unwillingness to speak openly in the aftermath of the court hearings, a childish resistance which has no place in the building of honest and ethical community.

For those of you who do not know me, I have run Darren Thurston’s support committee and website since his arrest in December 2005, and have a close association with some others indicted in the Green Scare case including Chelsea, Joe and Rebecca. This is only one facet of my long history of activism, but it is that which is most salient to this letter. Since his decision to co-operate with the US Government’s investigation into the ALF/ELF early last summer, there have been a lot of allegations made about Darren and others which are either untrue or overblown in order to paint a particular picture. I would like to start here by explaining the truth as I have understood it as a participant and supporter in this case, then briefly talk about the personal effects of this situation, and also the greater ethics of our political movements. A dissertation this is not, I will try to be brief but thorough.

As many of you reading know, Darren decided to co-operate with the FBI investigation into his case in May of 2006 after being incarcerated for almost six months. He based his decision on the information that besides his charges in Oregon he would face additional charges in California of handling an incendiary device (albeit by conspiracy) at the Lichtfield action, which would carry a *mandatory minimum* sentence of 30 years on top of the 5-10 he was already facing. He was further made aware of the fact that three people with whom he had done the Lichtfield action had already agreed to testify against him, and that he would face the further charges in California alone (the other three indicted separately in Lichtfield were Rebecca Rubin, Joe Dibbee and Justin Solondz – all currently missing and considered fugitives by the US Government).

To put it simply, Darren was facing 35 years to life in prison and was set up for his most contentious trial entirely alone with an array of people lined up to testify against him. He had no way of winning his case, and he knew it. What he also knew when he co-operated was that eight other people had already provided information before him and so he would be providing very little (if any) new information. In this context he agreed to meet with the FBI and the US prosecutor’s office. After a lifetime of eschewing the state and decrying movement “snitches”, he did not take this decision lightly. But it is true that in making his plea agreement Darren met with the FBI and prosecutors on several occasions for debriefing sessions during which he gave information about his action at Lichtfield, additional sites he reconnoitered with others and described the activities he and Chelsea engaged in during their years underground together (2002-2005). And it is also true that he named some of the people he worked with – all of whom were already known to the FBI and most of whom were in custody.

There are two notable exceptions to this: First the case of Joe and Rebecca who are still fugitive. While Darren named names in their case, it was after receiving proof that Joe and Rebecca had already been named by a number of people, and with the sense he would not be providing any new information. By this point, Joe and Rebecca were in as much legal trouble as Darren, and there was little he could do to change that. We can only presume they have stayed fugitive all this time with the intention of not being found. The other exception involves an ex-girlfriend of Darren’s who he was involved in an aborted action with in 1997 and which the FBI was already aware of (the action was terminated due to FBI surveillance). Again, Darren made these statements with the knowledge that the statute of limitations on that crime had run out and his friend could no longer be charged for her involvement.

I do not provide these exceptions as an excuse, but to try to dispel the myth that Darren was indiscriminately naming names and providing a myriad of new information. The fact is, almost all of the new information Darren provided pertained only to his own actions and those which Chelsea had already copped to in her own debriefing process.

And to be clear, this is not because Darren was being disingenuous with the FBI but because his connections to this case were peripheral at best. Between the years of 1996 and 2001 when these actions were being committed in the US, Darren was primarily in Canada and facing his own charges (1998-2001). There has been a rumour going around that Darren got the least amount of time because he co-operated the most, which is simply not the case. Darren got the least amount of time because in this particular conspiracy the US prosecution considered him only a minor player. He was involved in a single action in 2001, and the entirety of his crime consisted of cutting fences to free wild horses while others enacted the arson committed at the site. Compare that to others involved in multiple actions/arsons over several years. If you look at this case closely you will note that two of the people who co-operated the earliest (besides Jake Ferguson) – Stan and Kevin are also doing the most significant time (13 and 12 years respectively) – so it’s pretty clear the prosecution didn’t reward co-operation that much.

Another circulating rumour is that Darren has agreed to testify against others. While it is theoretically true that at some point he may have been called to testify against Joe and Rebecca, it is not true he can be compelled to testify against anyone at this point. Darren has now been sentenced and that sentence is not contingent on further co-operation. Additionally, Darren’s co-operation led to no new indictments as he put forward no new names, nor was anyone else pressured to co-operate based on his decision. As to why Darren doesn’t unseal his plea agreement at this point (redacted by the US prosecuting attorney as per normal procedure), it seems a moot point to go through another court application process with a lawyer who is no longer being paid for by the government when all relevant information has already been presented in open court or posted on Portland Indymedia.

Now. I think that addresses a lot of the accusations and rumours. A few more points on Darren before I move to discussing the motivations of the state and the responses of the radical movement.

Some of you know the history of Darren’s activism, but for those of you who don’t I note it for the sake of understanding why I think we need to re-evaluate the “movement” position on people caught in these complex legal situations. For over two decades (since his early teens) Darren has been a committed activist to animal, earth and human rights. First imprisoned from 1992-94 for liberating cats slated for experimentation at a University of Alberta laboratory, Darren has put his beliefs into action over and over again. The list of organizations Darren has been involved in or helped to start are numerous and include BearWatch, the Coalition for Animal Liberation, Friends of the Elaho, TAO Communications, the Victory Project, the Compassion Club, the Animal Liberation Front, the Earth Liberation Front, and many others. Darren has now acknowledged his involvement in producing The Final Nail – the seminal work in North America on shutting down fur farms – a major contributor to putting many mink farms out of business in the US in the 1990s. He additionally ran and produced many security websites and manuals for activists as well as contributing to other direct action manuals, workshops and conferences.

I do not record this here because Darren’s activist pedigree is greater than mine or anyone else’s but as a reminder that for two decades Darren gave almost the whole of himself to his beliefs and has faced prison on countless occasions as a result. To disregard all of this in a black and white maneuver now seems a tad too convenient, particularly if we don’t acknowledge his contributions to the struggle.

Although movement radicals have focused a lot on the particulars of what each individual has said or done in this situation, the FBI has taken a much more global view of the case. Their motivation from the beginning and straight through has been to “smash the network of the ELF and ALF in North America,” which they have made clear both in private debriefing sessions as well as in court filings. Smashing the network means a lot more than putting a few people in jail for long prison sentences (in fact, it means not putting people in jail for long sentences lest movement martyrs be created). Smashing the network relies on a number of things:

• Discrediting its leaders (they consider Darren a leader of the ALF/ELF, recognizing that he was well respected by others in the underground and that he often played a mediating role in disputes. In court filings the FBI actually refers to him as the Godfather of the ALF).
• Fostering distrust among those who might be thinking of re-starting such a group (getting lovers or partners to turn information on each other, for example. Who can you trust if not your Winston or Julia? A page from 1984 if there ever was one).
• Handing out sentences that are stiff enough to take years out of your life (deterrent) but do not create a sense of injustice among the general populace (making martyrs). Interesting that the US government pursued the terrorism enhancement against each of these people but declined to seek increases in sentencing. Had they done so, the outcry over what was happening would have been much more widespread or at least had longer legs.

So, the US Prosecutor in Darren’s case got up in court and talked about Darren’s extensive co-operation, how much information he had given, and how helpful he had been. Really? The prosecutor knew as well as Darren did that the information Darren provided was largely centered only on himself. Why would the prosecutor recommend Darren be recognized for that which he did not do in the main? Because they admire him secretly? Not likely. The prosecution was all too happy to applaud Darren in public because this commendation put a black mark on him (Darren as leader, Darren as universally respected in the ALF/ELF) like nothing else could have. They were happy to give him a lesser sentence if it meant people distrusted him more, and they were only too glad to talk about how helpful he had been if it meant Darren could never return as a leader in the direct action underground.

And so it has worked, this strategy, and the movement has by and large accepted everything the government has said about our friends – even the things we know to be untrue (for example, the US prosecution claimed in court that Darren ran the ALF Press Office for a number of years – which the FBI knows to be a falsehood – but it was convenient in painting the picture of Darren as leader. “See. Even your leaders will sell you out in the end”). And I acknowledge there has been no reason for people to disbelieve statements put out by the government, as we have not provided a counter to them. Trapped inside a legal process, we have been muzzled until its completion, for this is the reality when your life is hanging in legal limbo. I recognize people have been angry about this silence on my part, a certain amount of which was unavoidable – but I could have been more responsive to people’s need for information after the hearings and I wasn’t. For that I do apologize and my atonement is found in writing this long overdue letter.

So where does this leave us as radicals? And where does it leave me vis a vis my own activist commitments and motivations? I suppose I will answer this second question by acknowledging that if you had asked me two years ago about those who co-operate in cases like this I would have said – no way, never, no support, I would never… etc. Four years ago this strength of adherence was even more extreme, and while I never made the step of lighting a match, I traveled in circles that overlapped with those who did, and I was vocal in my support for them (as many radicals were at that time).

Even before the arrests I had begun my long move away from the politics of destruction. I was questioning the tactics and their efficacy given the current state of affairs in North America, questioning the personal damage I saw in my friends as a result of their double lives, and trying to assess whether we were giving up our true humanity in cutting ourselves off so much. What kind of a world could we possibly create from that? It was not so much a shift to pacifism as it was a re-evaluation of what was really possible and legitimate within our current context.

So when the FBI knocked on doors across the US on December 7, 2005, I was already far away from the politics – and whatever doubts I had about distancing myself were shrunk into nothing at my first realization of what was happening. In those first few days, terrorized by the unfolding
events, the only thing I could hold onto was my love for Darren and for Joe and for Rebecca and for Chelsea. And even as I write this letter, tears come to me as I am full of the things I shared with these friends over so many years of struggle. I miss them dearly, and I miss them daily – the camaraderie, the camping trips, the river swims, our shared angst about the world.

And so my response throughout this case has been motivated by this love and connection. I have continued to support Darren and Chelsea even though they did something that in “our” community would never fly – co-operating with the state’s investigation into them and others. Twenty months of weekly phone calls, two road trips to Oregon, and several dozen letters later I am honest in saying I have no regrets about my decisions. Particularly since witnessing the vitriolic and black nastiness coming out of particular direct action quarters (suggesting that prison rape and beatings is what anyone deserves is unacceptable on so many levels). I suppose we need to ask ourselves several questions about what kind of a movement we want to build from here on out – is it one based on accusations dressed as ethics, judgment and recriminations, valour-based-on-law-breaking, and self-denial (to choose a life in prison over co-operation is to deny a very deep biological need for freedom)? Or is it some other set of values?

I can’t speak to how anyone else will come out of this chapter in activism, but I know I have had to reach very far outside of myself to make any sense of these questions. It is perhaps trite to say, but I am no longer interested in activist involvements shaped by misplaced anger or a morality based on “what *I* would do”. A sense of injustice, of course. A drive towards making social and ecological improvements, no doubt. A grasp of the tools which work best in the moment, for sure. But more it is my aspiration to act out of love for the world and out of forgiveness for myself and others in every way that I can. This is so much harder for me to do than how I was. I have always found it much easier to be acerbic, cynical and angry – and I am not always successful in the daily practice of refashioning myself otherwise.

I have been very challenged lately in trying to find forgiveness for some participants in Darren’s case, and also for those who have spoken behind our backs without finding the courage to speak directly to me or to him. But as difficult as that is, it is still my work to do. Which does not mean that I expect the same in return, or that I will ever be re-admitted into certain quadrants of the “movement”. This is not something that hurts more than my pride – as those friends of mine who were closest remain my friends unreservedly – and my loss of access in radical circles is primarily about letting go of the past more than wanting to retain it.

And so to my fellow radicals – I suppose we each have to ask ourselves would any of us have made a different decision given the facts laid out above? And if we are even slightly hesitant in our answer of yes, then who are we to judge another in difficult circumstances? Do we want a movement based on martyrdom? Do we want to participate in the exclusionary silencing occurring right now as people like myself try to bring these ethical questions out into community only to be met by stone walls? Is this the movement we want to build – a mob who passes judgment without trial and who enforces a single morality that is not up for discussion or debate?

I recognize the questions above are somewhat polemic in nature, certainly positional and designed to provoke; but I am not objective at all here – and more than that – I believe that these words form a truth important in the self-reflections of radicals, and the way forward to a better world. Which is something that I pose to you is worth fighting for. Or at least fighting over.

I do not provide this letter in order to evoke tiny violins or sympathetic tears, but because I have thought much on this subject in the past few weeks and have finally come to a place where I can say it all and honestly. I hope this is the spirit in which you take what I have said above, that I am not trying to obfuscate or cajole, but bring to the light what I believe to be true about what this experience has so far been. For better analysis, understanding and stronger community – these words are what stand for me.

I am in eternal gratitude for those who struggle, those who support and those who work towards a better world. You are in my heart and in my circle.

Megan
Darren Thurston Support Ctte.