Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Santa Cruz Indymedia
U.S.
Global Justice & Anti-Capitalism
Government & Elections
Health, Housing & Public Services
Police State & Prisons
Racial Justice
Common Ground co-founder Brandon Darby admits to role as FBI informant (at RNC '08 and more)
See bottom for letter from Brandon Darby, co-founder of Common Ground in New Orleans, admitting to role as informant.
Below is a statement by a group of Austin-based community organizers that
documents that a local activist, Brandon Michael Darby of Austin, is a
government informant/provocateur.
Brandon now publicly acknowledges that he is working with the FBI and has
been for some time.
Sometimes You Wake Up and It's Different: Statement on Brandon Darby, the
'Unnamed' Informant/Provocateur in the "Texas 2" Case from Austin, Texas
As part of the wave of government repression against activists protesting
at the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minnesota in September,
2008, the FBI arrested two men from Texas, Bradley Crowder (22) and David
McKay (23), and indicted them for allegedly possessing molotov cocktails.
Crowder and McKay have been in jail since the RNC. They have not been
granted bail and their trial has been postponed indefinitely. They are
facing 7 to 10 years in federal prison.
As outlined in the affidavit against Crowder and McKay (found here:
http://media.houston.indymedia.org/uploads/2008/09/090808_mckay_affidavit.pdf),
the case was built almost entirely on the statements of two informants
covertly working with the FBI, identified in the affidavit as
"Confidential Human Sources" or just "CHS".
One of these informants was working in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area ("CHS
2" in the affidavit) and has been previously identified as Andy/Panda by
people familiar with the situation and the informant. This statement ends
speculation and anticipation concern about the identity of the other
informant who was operating in Texas and Minnesota.
Using FBI documents previously unknown to us, but recently provided by one
of the defendant's defense teams, we have positively confirmed the
identity of the unnamed informant ("CHS 1" in the affidavit) as Brandon
Michael Darby of Austin, Texas, based on the following evidence:
1) The FBI documents detail private conversations between Darby and
several individuals named in the documents, including scott crow and Lisa
Fithian, who have closely reviewed the documents and confirmed that they
had the conversations in question with only Darby. In addition they can
confirm his participation in events reported in the documents.
2) In verbatim reports from the informant to the FBI, the language,
personality, skills, and interests of Darby are readily apparent to those
who know him.
3) Cross-referencing the time line provided by the FBI in the documents
with people familiar with the situation and course of events shows that
Darby was in a position to have the incriminating conversations with McKay
referenced in the affidavit.
4) In all of the documents Brandon Darby's name is conspicuously absent
from any and all meetings and events which he attended and was involved
in. In fact Darby's name only appears at the end of all the documents in a
confession made by David McKay upon his arrest in Minnesota.
Numerous people familiar with both Brandon Darby and the legal situation
of Crowder and McKay have verified this information.
Over the years Brandon Darby has established strong ties with individuals
in many different radical communities across the United States. While it
is not yet clear how long or to what extent Darby has been acting as an
informant, the emerging truth about Darby's malicious involvement in our
communities is heart-breaking and utterly ground-shattering to those of us
who were closest to him.
Darby operated in and around the Austin community for about 6 years, and
this is the same Brandon Darby who participated in the Common Ground
Collective in New Orleans during 2005-2006. Based on the evidence we have,
Brandon has been giving the state information since at least November
2007, but there is also information that suggests his informant activities
may go back further, at least to 2006 or earlier. In the documents, Darby
makes numerous remarks that are inflammatory and often untrue or grossly
taken out of context. There is also compelling evidence to suggest that
Darby, more than just reporting on Crowder and McKay's activities, was
actively encouraging, enabling, and provoking the two men to take illegal
action.
We recognize that suspicions and accusations of Darby have been
circulating for some time now, including one corporate media article by
David Hanners in the St. Paul Pioneer Press on October 29, 2008. Our aim
in releasing this information is to clear the confusion that has
circulated in the last few months.
We want to point out that while the conclusions of these suspicions and
accusations turned out to be correct, these conclusions were not based on
any verifiable facts, and thus, their public airing was inappropriate and
irresponsible. When these accusations surfaced, we did what we could to
quash them, trusting what we believed to be true about people in the
absence of any compelling evidence to the contrary. Having been presented
with new evidence, we are acting on it promptly and deliberately.
Through the history of our struggles for a better world, infiltrators and
informants have acted as tools for the forces of misery in disrupting and
derailing our movements. However, even more dangerous to our communities
than setting people up, turning them in, or gathering information,
informants sow seeds of fear, paranoia, and distrust that fester and grow
in paralyzing and destructive ways. We must be forever vigilante against
deceptive, malicious and manipulative actors, while we defend the trust
and openness that give our communities cohesion and power.
Now we must get on with the work of supporting the "Texas 2". In light of
these revelations and what we know about Brandon Darby, we believe they
were set up and that the charges should be dropped. We urge you to join us
in a campaign to "Free the Texas 2"
In solidarity,
The Austin Informant Working Group
For questions , comments or concerns please contact us:
texas.solidarity [at] gmail.com
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Brandon Darby admits to working with FBI
Fwded message:
To All Concerned,
The struggles for peace and justice have accomplished significant change
throughout history. I've had the honor to work with many varying groups
and individuals on behalf of marginalized communities and in various
struggles. There are currently allegations in the media that I have
worked undercover for the Federal Bureau of Investigation. This
allegation no doubt confuses many activists who know me and probably
leaves many wondering why I would seemingly choose to engage in such an
endeavor. The simple truth is that I have chosen to work with the
Federal Bureau of investigation.
As compelling as the natural human desire to reason and express oneself
can be, regardless, I must hold my comments at this time on certain
aspects of the situation. That said, there are a few statements and
generalizations I will make relating to my recent choices.
Though I've made and will no doubt continue to make many mistakes in
efforts to better our world, I am satisfied with the efforts in which I
have participated. Like many of you, I do my best to act in good
conscience and to do what I believe to be most helpful to the world.
Though my views on how to give of myself have changed substantially over
the years, ultimately the motivations behind my choices remain the same.
I strongly stand behind my choices in this matter.
I strongly believe that people innocent of an act should stand up for
themselves and that those who choose to engage in an act should accept
responsibility and explain the reasoning for their choices.
It is very dangerous when a few individuals engage in or act on a belief
system in which they feel they know the real truth and that all others
are ignorant and therefore have no right to meet and express their
political views.
Additionally, when people act out of anger and hatred, and then claim
that their actions were part of a movement or somehow tied into the
struggle for social justice only after being caught, it's damaging to
the efforts of those who do give of themselves to better this world.
Many people become activists as a result of discovering that others have
distorted history and made heroes and assigned intentions to people who
really didn't act to better the world. The practice of placing noble
intentions after the fact on actions which did not have noble
motivations has no place in a movement for social justice.
The majority of the activists who went to St. Paul did so with pure
intentions and simply wanted to express their disagreements with the
Republican Party. It's unfortunate that some used the group as cover for
intentions that the rest of the group did not agree with or knew nothing
about and are now, consequently, having parts of their lives and their
peace of mind uprooted over.
There is no doubt in my mind that many of you reading this letter will
say and feel all possible bad things about my choices and for me. I made
the choice to have my identity revealed and was well aware of the
consequences for doing so. I know that the temptation to silence or
ignore the voice of someone who you strongly disagree with can be
overwhelming in matters such as this one; and no doubt many people will
try to do just that to me. I have confidence that there will be a few
people interested in discussion and in better understanding views
different from their own, especially from one of their own. My sincere
hope is that the entire matter results in better understanding for everyone.
Many of you went against my wishes and spoke publicly in defense of me.
Those involved were correct when they wrote that I wasn't making my
choices for financial reasons or to avoid some sort of prosecution. They
were incorrect that my ideology didn't support such choices. One
individual who publically defended me stated that they didn't believe I
was working undercover because the government would have used my access
to take down a more prominent activist if the allegations were true. If
indeed the government or I was interested in doing so, it could have
happened in such a manner. However, the incorrect notion that the
government was out to silence dissent was the cause for the mistake made
by that person. In defense of the individuals who openly did their best
to do what they thought was defending me, they did not know the truth
and they had no way of knowing the truth due to their ideological and
personal attachments to me. It's unfortunate that the
truth couldn't have come out sooner and that the needed preparations
for such a disclosure take time. I really did mean it when I said that I
didn't want to discuss it and that I didn't want folks addressing the
allegations.
Again, I strongly stand behind my choices in this matter. I'm looking
forward to open dialogue and debate regarding the motivations and
experiences I've had and the ethical questions they pose.
In Solidarity,
Brandon Michael Darby
All are welcome to contact me via email. Please understand if it takes
me awhile to respond.
brandonmichaeldarby [at] gmail.com
documents that a local activist, Brandon Michael Darby of Austin, is a
government informant/provocateur.
Brandon now publicly acknowledges that he is working with the FBI and has
been for some time.
Sometimes You Wake Up and It's Different: Statement on Brandon Darby, the
'Unnamed' Informant/Provocateur in the "Texas 2" Case from Austin, Texas
As part of the wave of government repression against activists protesting
at the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minnesota in September,
2008, the FBI arrested two men from Texas, Bradley Crowder (22) and David
McKay (23), and indicted them for allegedly possessing molotov cocktails.
Crowder and McKay have been in jail since the RNC. They have not been
granted bail and their trial has been postponed indefinitely. They are
facing 7 to 10 years in federal prison.
As outlined in the affidavit against Crowder and McKay (found here:
http://media.houston.indymedia.org/uploads/2008/09/090808_mckay_affidavit.pdf),
the case was built almost entirely on the statements of two informants
covertly working with the FBI, identified in the affidavit as
"Confidential Human Sources" or just "CHS".
One of these informants was working in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area ("CHS
2" in the affidavit) and has been previously identified as Andy/Panda by
people familiar with the situation and the informant. This statement ends
speculation and anticipation concern about the identity of the other
informant who was operating in Texas and Minnesota.
Using FBI documents previously unknown to us, but recently provided by one
of the defendant's defense teams, we have positively confirmed the
identity of the unnamed informant ("CHS 1" in the affidavit) as Brandon
Michael Darby of Austin, Texas, based on the following evidence:
1) The FBI documents detail private conversations between Darby and
several individuals named in the documents, including scott crow and Lisa
Fithian, who have closely reviewed the documents and confirmed that they
had the conversations in question with only Darby. In addition they can
confirm his participation in events reported in the documents.
2) In verbatim reports from the informant to the FBI, the language,
personality, skills, and interests of Darby are readily apparent to those
who know him.
3) Cross-referencing the time line provided by the FBI in the documents
with people familiar with the situation and course of events shows that
Darby was in a position to have the incriminating conversations with McKay
referenced in the affidavit.
4) In all of the documents Brandon Darby's name is conspicuously absent
from any and all meetings and events which he attended and was involved
in. In fact Darby's name only appears at the end of all the documents in a
confession made by David McKay upon his arrest in Minnesota.
Numerous people familiar with both Brandon Darby and the legal situation
of Crowder and McKay have verified this information.
Over the years Brandon Darby has established strong ties with individuals
in many different radical communities across the United States. While it
is not yet clear how long or to what extent Darby has been acting as an
informant, the emerging truth about Darby's malicious involvement in our
communities is heart-breaking and utterly ground-shattering to those of us
who were closest to him.
Darby operated in and around the Austin community for about 6 years, and
this is the same Brandon Darby who participated in the Common Ground
Collective in New Orleans during 2005-2006. Based on the evidence we have,
Brandon has been giving the state information since at least November
2007, but there is also information that suggests his informant activities
may go back further, at least to 2006 or earlier. In the documents, Darby
makes numerous remarks that are inflammatory and often untrue or grossly
taken out of context. There is also compelling evidence to suggest that
Darby, more than just reporting on Crowder and McKay's activities, was
actively encouraging, enabling, and provoking the two men to take illegal
action.
We recognize that suspicions and accusations of Darby have been
circulating for some time now, including one corporate media article by
David Hanners in the St. Paul Pioneer Press on October 29, 2008. Our aim
in releasing this information is to clear the confusion that has
circulated in the last few months.
We want to point out that while the conclusions of these suspicions and
accusations turned out to be correct, these conclusions were not based on
any verifiable facts, and thus, their public airing was inappropriate and
irresponsible. When these accusations surfaced, we did what we could to
quash them, trusting what we believed to be true about people in the
absence of any compelling evidence to the contrary. Having been presented
with new evidence, we are acting on it promptly and deliberately.
Through the history of our struggles for a better world, infiltrators and
informants have acted as tools for the forces of misery in disrupting and
derailing our movements. However, even more dangerous to our communities
than setting people up, turning them in, or gathering information,
informants sow seeds of fear, paranoia, and distrust that fester and grow
in paralyzing and destructive ways. We must be forever vigilante against
deceptive, malicious and manipulative actors, while we defend the trust
and openness that give our communities cohesion and power.
Now we must get on with the work of supporting the "Texas 2". In light of
these revelations and what we know about Brandon Darby, we believe they
were set up and that the charges should be dropped. We urge you to join us
in a campaign to "Free the Texas 2"
In solidarity,
The Austin Informant Working Group
For questions , comments or concerns please contact us:
texas.solidarity [at] gmail.com
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Brandon Darby admits to working with FBI
Fwded message:
To All Concerned,
The struggles for peace and justice have accomplished significant change
throughout history. I've had the honor to work with many varying groups
and individuals on behalf of marginalized communities and in various
struggles. There are currently allegations in the media that I have
worked undercover for the Federal Bureau of Investigation. This
allegation no doubt confuses many activists who know me and probably
leaves many wondering why I would seemingly choose to engage in such an
endeavor. The simple truth is that I have chosen to work with the
Federal Bureau of investigation.
As compelling as the natural human desire to reason and express oneself
can be, regardless, I must hold my comments at this time on certain
aspects of the situation. That said, there are a few statements and
generalizations I will make relating to my recent choices.
Though I've made and will no doubt continue to make many mistakes in
efforts to better our world, I am satisfied with the efforts in which I
have participated. Like many of you, I do my best to act in good
conscience and to do what I believe to be most helpful to the world.
Though my views on how to give of myself have changed substantially over
the years, ultimately the motivations behind my choices remain the same.
I strongly stand behind my choices in this matter.
I strongly believe that people innocent of an act should stand up for
themselves and that those who choose to engage in an act should accept
responsibility and explain the reasoning for their choices.
It is very dangerous when a few individuals engage in or act on a belief
system in which they feel they know the real truth and that all others
are ignorant and therefore have no right to meet and express their
political views.
Additionally, when people act out of anger and hatred, and then claim
that their actions were part of a movement or somehow tied into the
struggle for social justice only after being caught, it's damaging to
the efforts of those who do give of themselves to better this world.
Many people become activists as a result of discovering that others have
distorted history and made heroes and assigned intentions to people who
really didn't act to better the world. The practice of placing noble
intentions after the fact on actions which did not have noble
motivations has no place in a movement for social justice.
The majority of the activists who went to St. Paul did so with pure
intentions and simply wanted to express their disagreements with the
Republican Party. It's unfortunate that some used the group as cover for
intentions that the rest of the group did not agree with or knew nothing
about and are now, consequently, having parts of their lives and their
peace of mind uprooted over.
There is no doubt in my mind that many of you reading this letter will
say and feel all possible bad things about my choices and for me. I made
the choice to have my identity revealed and was well aware of the
consequences for doing so. I know that the temptation to silence or
ignore the voice of someone who you strongly disagree with can be
overwhelming in matters such as this one; and no doubt many people will
try to do just that to me. I have confidence that there will be a few
people interested in discussion and in better understanding views
different from their own, especially from one of their own. My sincere
hope is that the entire matter results in better understanding for everyone.
Many of you went against my wishes and spoke publicly in defense of me.
Those involved were correct when they wrote that I wasn't making my
choices for financial reasons or to avoid some sort of prosecution. They
were incorrect that my ideology didn't support such choices. One
individual who publically defended me stated that they didn't believe I
was working undercover because the government would have used my access
to take down a more prominent activist if the allegations were true. If
indeed the government or I was interested in doing so, it could have
happened in such a manner. However, the incorrect notion that the
government was out to silence dissent was the cause for the mistake made
by that person. In defense of the individuals who openly did their best
to do what they thought was defending me, they did not know the truth
and they had no way of knowing the truth due to their ideological and
personal attachments to me. It's unfortunate that the
truth couldn't have come out sooner and that the needed preparations
for such a disclosure take time. I really did mean it when I said that I
didn't want to discuss it and that I didn't want folks addressing the
allegations.
Again, I strongly stand behind my choices in this matter. I'm looking
forward to open dialogue and debate regarding the motivations and
experiences I've had and the ethical questions they pose.
In Solidarity,
Brandon Michael Darby
All are welcome to contact me via email. Please understand if it takes
me awhile to respond.
brandonmichaeldarby [at] gmail.com
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
it should also be pointed out that Darby not only officially started snitching on activists before the RNC plan was hatched, but also snitched on close friends of his like Common Ground Co-Founder Scott Crow and activist Lisa Fithian. people he's worked side by side with for years. it's a truly despicable act to sell out your friends to the feds.
i read in the statement that Darby's betrayed comrades did not publicly accuse him when the first troubling infro started to emerge .I'm sure some are now condemming them for that. They're wrong . Accusations without solid evidence does far more damage than good. One of the age old tactics of real Cops is to plant seeds of doubt and mistrust among the left, including putting phony ''snitch jackets'' on people .
Several times during my activist ''career '' i have seen dedicated folks smeared as ''agents '' because of some dispute over tactics, strategy, funds , (radical groups will really fight tooth and nail over their meager resources ! ) and so on .
Now in this case the suspicions were correct. But it was still correct to withold judgement until solid evidence was produced . (Like this confession )
Several times during my activist ''career '' i have seen dedicated folks smeared as ''agents '' because of some dispute over tactics, strategy, funds , (radical groups will really fight tooth and nail over their meager resources ! ) and so on .
Now in this case the suspicions were correct. But it was still correct to withold judgement until solid evidence was produced . (Like this confession )
It's interesting to read all the comments via the Houston link about how he acted in a sexist, macho fashion at Common Ground, and tended to drive good volunteers away.
Yeah - visiting relatives in a snowy area last week, I watched a neighbor who is or was an FBI agent kept unsuccessfully dig his car out of the snow. Relatives said that when the power had been our 4 days, they had been invited for dinner by the agent, and that made me wonder what it would have been like if I had been visiting - "so, what do you do over in San Francisco?". I mean, their family was entirely fine when I knew them in elementary school.
Anyhow, Darby's statement on why he decided to do this made me wonder when he was approached by the FBI (before, or in the middle stages of his contributions to volunteering or 'activism'). The fact that he didn't know how to act appropriately could suggest that it was quite early on. His disruptive influence would make you think he was doing this deliberately (and thus is dishonest in his statement about only wanting to police the rare 'bad' people in the movement. At the same time, different behavior doesn't necessarily mean anything because tons of people join projects who were just liberals and primarily know their politics from reading, and socialize in other circles. Also, youth cultures or different areas of the country can all have their own customs.
If you think about it, the FBI probably would find anyone inside an activism circle because it should be extremely difficult for them to send one of their own people in, and quickly take a leadership role. Anyone could show up at Common Ground, but it sounds like Darby was running things, and regularly antagonized new volunteers and sent them away. So, it sounds like the FBI approached this guy after he already was active.
Unless your experience is different than mine, I rarely hear about people who are approached to be an informant, and turn down the FBI. I would expect most decent friends to turn them down. So this suggests that they are able to find weak people facing drug charges. Yet, Darby apparently had no criminal charges or vulnerabilities? That's weird.
Another possibility that crossed my mind when watching this FBI neighbor is that people with law enforcement in their family could easily be influenced. I find that once someone moves to a different city or changes circles, it is easy to let your focus or loyalty to friends become weaker. There are tons of examples of people who totally change over five years because they have a fluid, unstable personality. Maybe that guy had police in his family who knew of his involvement in politics, and that's how they picked him out?
I think that there would be only extremely limited cases where I would work with police - that would be if I know someone was the worst person ever - like they were a murderer, or just the worst bully who went around violently beating people up - and somehow the community couldn't take care of it on their own. In the case of those students who were arrested on the way to the RNC - they didn't sound so bad at all. They apparently just were in sort of a fantasy world, bringing some shields to pass out to others, but with no projectiles, knives, anarchist bombs etc. to use against the security.
Yeah - visiting relatives in a snowy area last week, I watched a neighbor who is or was an FBI agent kept unsuccessfully dig his car out of the snow. Relatives said that when the power had been our 4 days, they had been invited for dinner by the agent, and that made me wonder what it would have been like if I had been visiting - "so, what do you do over in San Francisco?". I mean, their family was entirely fine when I knew them in elementary school.
Anyhow, Darby's statement on why he decided to do this made me wonder when he was approached by the FBI (before, or in the middle stages of his contributions to volunteering or 'activism'). The fact that he didn't know how to act appropriately could suggest that it was quite early on. His disruptive influence would make you think he was doing this deliberately (and thus is dishonest in his statement about only wanting to police the rare 'bad' people in the movement. At the same time, different behavior doesn't necessarily mean anything because tons of people join projects who were just liberals and primarily know their politics from reading, and socialize in other circles. Also, youth cultures or different areas of the country can all have their own customs.
If you think about it, the FBI probably would find anyone inside an activism circle because it should be extremely difficult for them to send one of their own people in, and quickly take a leadership role. Anyone could show up at Common Ground, but it sounds like Darby was running things, and regularly antagonized new volunteers and sent them away. So, it sounds like the FBI approached this guy after he already was active.
Unless your experience is different than mine, I rarely hear about people who are approached to be an informant, and turn down the FBI. I would expect most decent friends to turn them down. So this suggests that they are able to find weak people facing drug charges. Yet, Darby apparently had no criminal charges or vulnerabilities? That's weird.
Another possibility that crossed my mind when watching this FBI neighbor is that people with law enforcement in their family could easily be influenced. I find that once someone moves to a different city or changes circles, it is easy to let your focus or loyalty to friends become weaker. There are tons of examples of people who totally change over five years because they have a fluid, unstable personality. Maybe that guy had police in his family who knew of his involvement in politics, and that's how they picked him out?
I think that there would be only extremely limited cases where I would work with police - that would be if I know someone was the worst person ever - like they were a murderer, or just the worst bully who went around violently beating people up - and somehow the community couldn't take care of it on their own. In the case of those students who were arrested on the way to the RNC - they didn't sound so bad at all. They apparently just were in sort of a fantasy world, bringing some shields to pass out to others, but with no projectiles, knives, anarchist bombs etc. to use against the security.
I have known Brandon for years and have only the greatest respect for him and his years of work as an activist. I know that he made his decision to work with the FBI after a great deal of thought and soul searching. But he recognized the threat of violence from a small contingent within the Austin activist community and he did not feel he could stand by and do nothing.
Rather than engage in ad hominem attacks, let's look at the facts. Brandon's assessment that some people were planning a violent disruption of the RNC is supported by the facts. Some of the affinity group designed and constructed a trailer full of spiked riot shields long before they travel to the RNC. Granted, spiked shields are not lethal but they are certainly violent. And when the shields were confiscated the same group bought the materials for, and assembled, a number of firebombs. The eight firebombs that were recovered weren't 'alleged' or 'hypothetical', they were real. Had they been used on the RNC they had the potential to injure or kill a number of people. If you read the transcripts you'll see that Brandon spoke against the firebombs but he was ignored. The two who were arrested were not arrested for exercising their right to protest, they were arrested for their choice to build illegal and potentially lethal firebombs. That's the reality, deal with it.
Lethal violence is never an acceptable form of protest. There is no moral distinction between firebombing a convention crowd for one's cause and flying hijacked airliners into skyscrapers for one's cause.
Isn't the very core motivation for activism the desire to make the world better? More just? So save your condemnation for the people who chose to build the firebombs, and for the members of the affinity group who knew about the firebombs and who chose to do nothing to prevent their use. What's the appropriate term for someone who has the ability to prevent a tragedy or a crime and choses instead to stand by and let it happen? "Inactive activist" is an oxymoron so I prefer the term "moral coward". These are the people you need to be damning.
Edmund Burke, the Irish philosopher said "All that is necessary for evil to prevail is that good people do nothing". Whether or not you agree with his actions, Brandon is a good person who could not stand by and do nothing.
Rather than engage in ad hominem attacks, let's look at the facts. Brandon's assessment that some people were planning a violent disruption of the RNC is supported by the facts. Some of the affinity group designed and constructed a trailer full of spiked riot shields long before they travel to the RNC. Granted, spiked shields are not lethal but they are certainly violent. And when the shields were confiscated the same group bought the materials for, and assembled, a number of firebombs. The eight firebombs that were recovered weren't 'alleged' or 'hypothetical', they were real. Had they been used on the RNC they had the potential to injure or kill a number of people. If you read the transcripts you'll see that Brandon spoke against the firebombs but he was ignored. The two who were arrested were not arrested for exercising their right to protest, they were arrested for their choice to build illegal and potentially lethal firebombs. That's the reality, deal with it.
Lethal violence is never an acceptable form of protest. There is no moral distinction between firebombing a convention crowd for one's cause and flying hijacked airliners into skyscrapers for one's cause.
Isn't the very core motivation for activism the desire to make the world better? More just? So save your condemnation for the people who chose to build the firebombs, and for the members of the affinity group who knew about the firebombs and who chose to do nothing to prevent their use. What's the appropriate term for someone who has the ability to prevent a tragedy or a crime and choses instead to stand by and let it happen? "Inactive activist" is an oxymoron so I prefer the term "moral coward". These are the people you need to be damning.
Edmund Burke, the Irish philosopher said "All that is necessary for evil to prevail is that good people do nothing". Whether or not you agree with his actions, Brandon is a good person who could not stand by and do nothing.
Regarding these shields, and this being the action that caused this Brandon Darby fellow to finally call federal police in - is there any information available about the degree to which Darby may have known the arrested shield makers, and could have helped motivate them.
This seems like a pertinent bit of information, as much of that thread in Houston describes him as energetically talking about macho actions in relation to the police. Perhaps this is something that only a few people could know, and it isn't generally available yet. Were the arrested group part of his circle, or did he just come across them? Are there any other cases where Darby actually advised people to stop their risky behavior or tone down their action?
This seems like a pertinent bit of information, as much of that thread in Houston describes him as energetically talking about macho actions in relation to the police. Perhaps this is something that only a few people could know, and it isn't generally available yet. Were the arrested group part of his circle, or did he just come across them? Are there any other cases where Darby actually advised people to stop their risky behavior or tone down their action?
Philip is full of it . First off there is no proven ''violent conspiracy '' at St Paul . So far we just have unproven allegations by the Feds and Minnesota cops . Their evidence seems to be agent provacteur fantasies of guys like Darby .
Secondly let's assume for the sake of argument that there is an individual or small group that advocates or try to carry out stupid , counterproductive violent actions . You deal with with among yourselves (for numerous reasons ) Why ? One reason is that those people might be informers/provacteurs themselves . So you turn them in to their police handlers ?
And even if they are what they say they are,the FBI and Police have NO moral or political legimaticy or crediablity to deal with situations like that. They have too much blood on their hands. Among many examples here in Oakland a Bay area transist authority cop just shot a unarmed guy by shooting him as he laid on his stomach on a BART station platform early New years morning . We should trust these guys ?
Secondly is Philip so naive that he believes that if some well meaning pacificist idiot approached the FBI about some crazy activist that the Feds would leave it at that ? They would say that's for your infro , now that you now are a CI (Confidential Informant ) we would to know what you know about who's organizing this upcoming rally in Chicago , the Anti-WTO actions in Montreal etc.
NO COLLABARATION WITH OUR ENEMIES !
Secondly let's assume for the sake of argument that there is an individual or small group that advocates or try to carry out stupid , counterproductive violent actions . You deal with with among yourselves (for numerous reasons ) Why ? One reason is that those people might be informers/provacteurs themselves . So you turn them in to their police handlers ?
And even if they are what they say they are,the FBI and Police have NO moral or political legimaticy or crediablity to deal with situations like that. They have too much blood on their hands. Among many examples here in Oakland a Bay area transist authority cop just shot a unarmed guy by shooting him as he laid on his stomach on a BART station platform early New years morning . We should trust these guys ?
Secondly is Philip so naive that he believes that if some well meaning pacificist idiot approached the FBI about some crazy activist that the Feds would leave it at that ? They would say that's for your infro , now that you now are a CI (Confidential Informant ) we would to know what you know about who's organizing this upcoming rally in Chicago , the Anti-WTO actions in Montreal etc.
NO COLLABARATION WITH OUR ENEMIES !
Phil raises a point with the firebombs. Let's say that there actually was a pair of people who were even thinking of carrying guns and proactively shooting.
Everyone knows this is highly unlikely in reality. There were virtually no actual violent attacks on police in the USA at demos in the last 10 years, including the famous Seattle WTO protest in 1999 which I attended. At their most intense, US protests involve people obstructing streets with their bodies, and pushing newsracks in the street, and occasionally throwing bottles at windows. If there had ever been an actual molotov cocktail thrown at a demo, we would constantly hear references to it, to justify stronger policing.
But let's imagine that members of a new Charles Manson cult were going to show up and break new ground in protest tactics... how should the community police this themselves? Talking with a friend, we agree that when even slightly edgy things are proposed (such as an idea to alter a billboard at night) it usually fizzles as people who express interest won't show up.
I bet you that if Brandon Darby actually feels candid or honest about what he writes, and his desire to help the world, he will have almost zero resistance in moving on to new organizations. Lots of people drop out if they have children at age 27, then move on to other jobs like fundraising for major democratic organizations, or just move to a new city. The threat of rejection by activists is fairly weak motivation to prevent people from informing for this reason. Other strategies have to be tried. Perhaps 'no snitching' rules are more effective where people can't move due to poverty.
Everyone knows this is highly unlikely in reality. There were virtually no actual violent attacks on police in the USA at demos in the last 10 years, including the famous Seattle WTO protest in 1999 which I attended. At their most intense, US protests involve people obstructing streets with their bodies, and pushing newsracks in the street, and occasionally throwing bottles at windows. If there had ever been an actual molotov cocktail thrown at a demo, we would constantly hear references to it, to justify stronger policing.
But let's imagine that members of a new Charles Manson cult were going to show up and break new ground in protest tactics... how should the community police this themselves? Talking with a friend, we agree that when even slightly edgy things are proposed (such as an idea to alter a billboard at night) it usually fizzles as people who express interest won't show up.
I bet you that if Brandon Darby actually feels candid or honest about what he writes, and his desire to help the world, he will have almost zero resistance in moving on to new organizations. Lots of people drop out if they have children at age 27, then move on to other jobs like fundraising for major democratic organizations, or just move to a new city. The threat of rejection by activists is fairly weak motivation to prevent people from informing for this reason. Other strategies have to be tried. Perhaps 'no snitching' rules are more effective where people can't move due to poverty.
Why was it necessary to automatically go to law enforcement merely because people allegedly threatened violent acts? Why not engage the alleged would-be perpetrators, bringing in other individuals and groups if necessary, and engage in a type of scaled diplomacy, which if necessary, would involve the THREAT of disclosure to law enforcement, so as to prevent the violent acts from occurring. Why not try reasoning with them? Why automatically refer them, and other individuals, to law enforcement, and not just in any law enforcement, but the FBI?
I initially gave Darby the benefit of the doubt, but this is adding up to him either being a COINTELPRO pawn, or active collaborator. Or maybe he's just plain unstable, and therefore easy to manipulate. In any case, the damage is done.
I initially gave Darby the benefit of the doubt, but this is adding up to him either being a COINTELPRO pawn, or active collaborator. Or maybe he's just plain unstable, and therefore easy to manipulate. In any case, the damage is done.
Nobody was going to firebomb a convention crowd you fucking moron. Fuck you and your fucking liberal pacifism.
If you read this article - the timing of first contact with the FBI in November 2007 brings into question whether Darby could have been responding to RNC planning
http://www.twincities.com/ci_11352449
It says that he testifies that the two Austin men came up with a firebomb idea because they were angry that their shields had been seized. This means that he couldn't have decided that things had escalated beyond an intolerable point where police needed to be brought in because then he would have contacted them in September 2008. What happened in November 2007
http://www.twincities.com/ci_11352449
It says that he testifies that the two Austin men came up with a firebomb idea because they were angry that their shields had been seized. This means that he couldn't have decided that things had escalated beyond an intolerable point where police needed to be brought in because then he would have contacted them in September 2008. What happened in November 2007
Again, the point isn't whether people were talking about doing it, or planning on doing it. That's not really the issue. It's what Darby did. He went to the FBI and collaborated with them to bring about criminal charges on the alleged plotters. Who says that the FBI and various law enforcement groups are the only actors capable of resolving something like this?
And for the record, law enforcement LOVES futile, isolated, uncoordinated spurts of violence, because it gives them the justification to mete out a disproportionate response. That's why law enforcement is behind most of said spurts; because they view it as just another step in a dance they not only move to, but orchestrate and conduct as well.
Moral of the story; if you think some of your activist friends are planning something violent, try to talk them out of it.
The fact that Darby was so quick to collaborate with the FBI, and collaborated so extensively, is what is really damning of him.
And for the record, law enforcement LOVES futile, isolated, uncoordinated spurts of violence, because it gives them the justification to mete out a disproportionate response. That's why law enforcement is behind most of said spurts; because they view it as just another step in a dance they not only move to, but orchestrate and conduct as well.
Moral of the story; if you think some of your activist friends are planning something violent, try to talk them out of it.
The fact that Darby was so quick to collaborate with the FBI, and collaborated so extensively, is what is really damning of him.
"Some of the affinity group designed and constructed a trailer full of spiked riot shields long before they travel to the RNC"
In fact the "spikes" the affidavit refers to are halved traffic barrels and the spikes are screws protruding from an added window on the shield that doesnt protrude more than an eighth of an inch. Hardly enough to cause anyone real damage.
So save your condemnation for the people who chose to build the firebombs, and for the members of the affinity group who knew about the firebombs and who chose to do nothing to prevent their use.
Brandon is the one who PAID for the alleged supplies in a Minneapolis wal-mart. This evidence was suppressed because of his affiliation with the FBI. Do you really think he was so gravely morally opposed to an action he himself probably carried out if he actually paid for the items? And let us not forget in that house where the items were found it was in a common area of the basement and most of them were in a duffle bag that didnt belong to either of the texas 2. The assembly couldve been done by anyone in that house and one of the texas 2 was arrested on the first day of action. What conclusion would you draw?
I believe the term "moral coward" belongs to those who continue to support Brandon despite evidence that he has been working with the Feds as far back as 2006 and still want to canonize him as a hero who turned at the last minute to prevent violence. It is naive and misguided. All of support should go to these two kids who were manipulated by Brandon.
In fact the "spikes" the affidavit refers to are halved traffic barrels and the spikes are screws protruding from an added window on the shield that doesnt protrude more than an eighth of an inch. Hardly enough to cause anyone real damage.
So save your condemnation for the people who chose to build the firebombs, and for the members of the affinity group who knew about the firebombs and who chose to do nothing to prevent their use.
Brandon is the one who PAID for the alleged supplies in a Minneapolis wal-mart. This evidence was suppressed because of his affiliation with the FBI. Do you really think he was so gravely morally opposed to an action he himself probably carried out if he actually paid for the items? And let us not forget in that house where the items were found it was in a common area of the basement and most of them were in a duffle bag that didnt belong to either of the texas 2. The assembly couldve been done by anyone in that house and one of the texas 2 was arrested on the first day of action. What conclusion would you draw?
I believe the term "moral coward" belongs to those who continue to support Brandon despite evidence that he has been working with the Feds as far back as 2006 and still want to canonize him as a hero who turned at the last minute to prevent violence. It is naive and misguided. All of support should go to these two kids who were manipulated by Brandon.
It's a bit fascinating that this story is presently in the New York times this morning, and not only that, it's a highlighted item on the cover of the web page. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/05/us/05informant.html
Brandon Darby is a Snitch, Liar, Hypocrite and Agent Provocateur.
For more information:
http://brandondarby.com
"So save your condemnation for the people who chose to build the firebombs, and for the members of the affinity group who knew about the firebombs and who chose to do nothing to prevent their use.
Brandon is the one who PAID for the alleged supplies in a Minneapolis wal-mart."
Who are you and where are you getting your information from? I have been following this case closely, and these two comments seem to come out of thin air. I'm not defending Brandon in any way, just want to make sure we all have our facts straight and don't start making stuff up like the FBI.
Brandon is the one who PAID for the alleged supplies in a Minneapolis wal-mart."
Who are you and where are you getting your information from? I have been following this case closely, and these two comments seem to come out of thin air. I'm not defending Brandon in any way, just want to make sure we all have our facts straight and don't start making stuff up like the FBI.
What would Brandon have to gain by this??? Answer that. All you wanna be activist. Everything is right as long as it is against the system. Wrong. These guys were trying to hurt people and needed to be stopped. Brandon was in a bad place, first of all if he goes to the authorities he will be skinned alive by the activist community if he doesn't people could be hurt. I think he took the right choice. You "activist" need to grow up and see what is really important. First of all violence is the last resort of the ignorant. Violence is too easy, try doing it the hard way. How do you think Martin Luther King or Gandhi, or even Obama would have handled this and trust me those people got more done than all your groups put together with no violence. I guess their way is to hard for you guys
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$230.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network