FBI Document—"[DELETED]" Plots to Kill Occupy Leaders "If Deemed Necessary"

There was a time when children in America felt safe because of the letters FBI.. Heros.. Now, they are little more than the Stazi thugs of some Totalitarian Mafia. It is sad and pathetic..

This is pretty stunning information, so because of that I feel the need to reserve judgment until there is more context.

I do find it hard to believe this was anything but hot air/big gun talk from some wacko fringe "militia", or lone individual even - because quite honestly if it was some organized government thing, it would have been the dumbest move of all time: to make martyrs out of innocent people and completely electrify an already charged situation.

The proper way to diffuse the Occupy situation was to drown it out in mainstream propaganda about dirty free-loading hippies who don't know anything about the world and just want government handouts, rather than the totally lucid and intelligent voices who were speaking out against blatant systematic corruption and injustice.


I do find this thread very telling however on the political schism and predisposed groupthink that dominates ATS these days. If the OP was about a plot targeting the Tea Party I bet this thread would have waaaay more flags by now, and hundreds of comments full of outrage and knee-jerk reactions. Make it about Occupy and even ATS' #1 anti-gubbermint fanboy suddenly starts defending the FBI...

Originally posted by olaru12

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000


This really isn't America anymore.

Are you really that naive?

Quashing dissent is American as apple pie. Want to see the youtube videos of the civil rights marches, Kent State, peoples park, Viet Nam protests, Chicago 68, labor movement marches, etc?

It's not going to change either! Anyone care for a nice piece of boiled frog?

Naive? For once.. please stow the "they're out to get everyone" nonsense and LINK to something more than paranoid musings of delusions. Sorry, but sometimes I do get sick of the degree of paranoia some people have going clear out BEYOND where it's termed a treatable illness.

Some paranoia is healthy and caution is just a form of it. TOO much? Well, they have medication for that with doctors and nice men with white coats and padded rooms. :shk:



If America has EVER SEEN targeted assassination of protesters in a similar fashion, outside the HIGH profile murder of Martin Luther King and the street wars of the Panthers (mutual combat is the term there) then please, support it. Somehow. With anything solid. Having read the majority of material out of the Church/Pike hearings and The United States House of Representatives Select Committee on Assassinations, I'd love to be surprised by something I have NOT read about on this topic. At least seen in passing.



America has NOT made a habit of sanctioned murder of civilian protest in the public square and suggesting it isn't just wrong and ignorant, it helps make the CURRENT outrage more acceptable by making it easier to say "ho hum.. it's happened before, it's just happening again is all".

Yes... I am aware of the Whiskey Rebellion. I'm also aware of things like the Lincoln County Wars, some of the Indian Battles where their "protest" was called an "uprising" and I've even done a wee little reading about Woodrow Wilson and his ilk for what REAL violation of rights in America looks like. We're not even close to that level yet. Not remotely close.

However, ASSASSINATION of Americans by sniper rifle, like my fellows in Occupy, IS A NEW THING and it's NOT BEEN a norm of ANY kind before. If you want to claim it, prove it...or drop it.

NOT EVERY DAMN THING SOMEONE SAYS ON THIS WEBSITE NEEDS CHALLENGED AND INSULTED LIKE IT'S JUST SPORTING FUN. Especially when it's challenged by total horse crap.



Now... Why am I pissed off? MY FAMILY WAS WITH ME IN ST LOUIS. In one specific moment that comes to mind, my SON was BEHIND ME in line of fire to those bastards on a balcony, west of camp. They put children in danger with their guns and there were CHILDREN in the camp that was chem-bombed as well.

Kids didn't matter to them. Not one bit. America HAS changed. It's changed profoundly and it's changed for the worse. This criminal in the White House has taken the "change" of the LAST criminal to sit in that office and turned it into a modern art masterpiece of outright tyranny!

* BY the way.... Most of the above is general and could have been said with a couple. Nothing strictly personal. However, you mention the People's Park Massacre in your litany of incidents that didn't include targeted assassination.

My Father worked with some of the guys who were in Uniform at People's Park. His first department after Vietnam was the Alameda County Sheriff's Department. I heard about that incident from his reading the reports and scene documentation of what happened there. When cops are getting re-bar sharpened to a point like a sewing needle thrown down at them from positions above? People are going to get hurt. Not everything is as clear as it may first seem on these things.

reply to post by dreamingawake


This opinion will not please the occupy movement but there is an actual pressing and genuine need to track down those whom created this document and proposed this policy as they are criminals of the very first degree, they are not patriot's to your American system or country but are oppressive terrorists whom need to be urgently dealt with and made examples of if you Americans are ever to restore your government and law enforcement agency's to full public accountability , the soviets used men such as these, the Nazis used men such as these so what does that say for a country that allows this to have ever existed at such a level inside the very agency that was meant to protect those very right's.

Not for readers
Port scan
IP: 110.75.162.239
Attacker name "Unknown 110-75-162-239.aliyun.com"
Will track you back and send digital spike thank you on behalf MODSEC DEC 74alpha975471
You will be posted and toasted.

what i find MOST shocking about this thread is not that the FBI knew about plots, and did nothing, but that people participating in this thread can't be bothered to read the articles, and because of that, think that the FBI itself, was hatching the plots...

what the hell, people...

Originally posted by TheCrimsonGhost
Just thought I would point out it was the Partnership for Civil Justice fund that request the info, not "Washington, DC".

Not sure what the FBI was suppose to do here... nothing happened so what do you think they should have done? Pretty scary stuff nontheless, makes me want to stay as far away from those types of protests as possible. I have always known local police forces were corrupt, I grew up with the LAPD, so it doesn't really surprise me. But I think things would have to get pretty crazy before SWAT snipers start taking protesters out.

edit on 6/28/2013 by TheCrimsonGhost because: (no reason given)

well, given that the word "investigation" is in the name of the friggin agency, you'd think they might, oh, i dunno....investigate?

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by dreamingawake

 

Based on what I read at their site I do not take them to be credible and as such their assertion of trust us we checked is meaningless. No name or contact information of who they spoke to or anything else verifiable, just a trust us.

If it is true, so what? What does "if deemed necessary" mean? What would you like the FBI to do, since per your article they state if there was any intelligence leading them to suspect anything was put in motion to harm civilians they would have taken appropriate action?

If there is a beef here, it might lie with the agency planning this, not the FBI.

because even planning to kill people "as a contingency", in this context, where the targets are civilians, is still conspiracy to commit murder...

reply to post by Daedalus


Given the information we have, it would appear they did investigate it. The issue at hand in this discussion is the fact that they investigated and found some shocking things, and then didn't act on it at all apparently... do we agree? So the question remains the same, what should the fbi have done? Arrest the police agency involved? However happy that would make me, if the FBI did something about corrupt police, I doubt it's gonna happen. They are on the same team after all, in case you forgot. The FBI probably would have sent in back up snipers in case the SWAT snipers missed.

Originally posted by TheCrimsonGhost
Not sure what the FBI was suppose to do here... nothing happened so what do you think they should have done?

Are you serious? I find your comment quite unbelievable. Do you actually understand this situation? Because if you do, then "what they should have done" is pretty obvious.

The FBI, which is a federal Law Enforcement agency, charged with the protection of the USA and its citizens, had information that someone (name redacted? That seem strange as well) was actively planning to murder legal, peaceful protesters.


What they should have done, at the very least is approach the leaders of the Occupy movement, the supposed targets for these attacks, and given them a friendly heads up. That's the very least. "Oh hey, guys... regardless of whether we agree with your little protest here, we just thought it common courtesy to warn you that we have intel saying that someone is planning on maybe blowing your heads off from some rooftop."

This seems to me like some sort of complicated double blind preventative measure, than a genuine threat. The FBI would have been forced to act if they had even the merest inkling of ANY threat to innocent lives, but the government clearly did not want people massing in various key places, and causing disruption to the normal flow of events.

One way of reducing the numbers of people who are prepared to protest these issues in the streets, would be to create a narrative which has some shadowy group, which the FBI are unwilling to act against, plotting to blow away anyone who wishes to repeat that period of citizen action. The subtle meaning of this being, that if it happens again, a group will act against the protestors, the FBI and law enforcement will either be involved, or merely fail to prevent such an attack.

The ambiguity of certain elements of the document, is made all the more troublesome by it, and by the specificity and clarity of the threat against the Occupy movement. But of course, if it were known to the general public, what group, or organisation was plotting in this way, then the law enforcement community would be forced to act against it, since no matter what one thinks of the Occupy movement, the law on this point seems clear. What ever organisation is alleged to exist and constructed these plots, basically conspired to murder large numbers of protestors (i.e. more than three) which is of course, against the law.

This is why it seems to me to be a device to keep people away. An unspecified group, with an unclear manifesto, which seems to be immune to normal levels of law enforcement scrutiny, is a much more terrifying threat than a KNOWN organisation, which has clear motivations, and is as much subject to arrest and dismantling as any other terroristic, or organised criminal gang.

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by dreamingawake

 

Based on what I read at their site I do not take them to be credible and as such their assertion of trust us we checked is meaningless. No name or contact information of who they spoke to or anything else verifiable, just a trust us.

If it is true, so what? What does "if deemed necessary" mean? What would you like the FBI to do, since per your article they state if there was any intelligence leading them to suspect anything was put in motion to harm civilians they would have taken appropriate action?

If there is a beef here, it might lie with the agency planning this, not the FBI.

There is a further link off that site going to the papers themselves, in fact a heap of stuff obtained under the FOIA.

It also includes FBI meetings with just about everybody and their granny in the corporate world, and other, 'fusion groups' who would refer to OWS in the manner of criminal activities or anarchists blah blah. There is even a heads-up in there with reference to an OWS shooting threat against police. It will take an age to read it all, but there are also a majority of, (as in a lot of) pages not released.

www.justiceonline.org...

To find the subject document click on pages menu on the top bar of the documents, click No:5 then go to page 61. Reading there it looks as though the attacks could have included, Houston, Austin, San Antonio and Dallas.
That makes it a little more conspiritorial. Perhaps 'Identified' could mean the FBI themselves, CIA, or CIA undercover in police forces, or police themselves. The receiver of the documents under FOIA should be given at the end of all documents in that section.

reply to post by Daedalus


From the documents:

On 13 October 2011, writer sent via email an excerpt from the daily _____ regarding FBI Houston's _______ to all IAs, SSAs and SSA _______. This ___ identified the exploitation of the Occupy Movement by _____________ interested in developing a long-term plan to kill local Occupy leaders via sniper fire.

IA, SSA, and SSRA are probably acronyms for informative agent, supervisory special (or senior) agent, supervisory senior resident agent. The rest of the wording is very curious and could be highly subjective as it could read that it's reporting an individual or entity that displayed interest in assassination and is being investigated or is interested in cooperation with FBI Houston as they were the holders of the said information and the overall language used. That's the problem right there. It can be interpreted in a number of ways. Let's play hangman, shall we? The fun thing about redaction is that what it is covered has the same font size as the surrounding wording. Number of hidden characters can be easily counted in this manner through measurement of the redacted area.

8 1/2 cms in length or 41 character spaces for the redaction following "exploitation by". If it were a governmental agency, it would've been shortened to an acronym and would have been around 1 cm in length. Whoever it was had a long formal name. Considering its length and further identifying information supplied, I can honestly state that there are groups in the stated area that do fit the length but I refuse to mention it out of deep concerns.

From the second document:

An identified _______ as of October planned to engage in sniper attacks against protestors in Houston, Texas, if deemed necessary

The redaction at 4 1/2 cm contains 30 characters and there is a phrase relating to the above that would actually fit perfectly. Additional retractions also show very possible variants of the original that would fit with the total content. I'm not going to go into further detail because it's actually pretty scary. However, in all fairness, I will say this. I think that there may have been an extraordinary circumstance as to why FBI Houston may have done nothing in regards to the plot and I am fully respecting the need for redaction. Hell, I went back and redacted myself.

Originally posted by WhiteAlice




From the second document:

An identified _______ as of October planned to engage in sniper attacks against protestors in Houston, Texas, if deemed necessary

The redaction at 4 1/2 cm contains 30 characters and there is a phrase relating to the above that would actually fit perfectly. Additional retractions also show very possible variants of the original that would fit with the total content. I'm not going to go into further detail because it's actually pretty scary. However, in all fairness, I will say this. I think that there may have been an extraordinary circumstance as to why FBI Houston may have done nothing in regards to the plot and I am fully respecting the need for redaction. Hell, I went back and redacted myself.

It also includes the mention of, Austin, San Antonio and Dallas. You could also say FBI, or CIA written in full and spaces perhaps.

Originally posted by WhiteAlice


Hell, I went back and redacted myself.

edit on 29/6/13 by WhiteAlice because: nervousness makes for errors

edit on 29/6/13 by WhiteAlice because: redacting myself further

edit on 29/6/13 by WhiteAlice because: more self redaction

Well... might as well have deleted you whole post. Please do not take offense, but this is precisely why nothing changes.

If something is genuinely scary, then guess what? EVERYONE OUGHT TO KNOW ABOUT IT! De-mystification is not just about empowering people and taking the curtain down so that everyone can see the monkey working the controls of the world, but about being honest with ourselves about the dangers human kind faces, from itself, from its people, and from those who seek to govern them.

Once you have accepted the general callousness of the human condition, like many people here on this site, there is no need for fear in any case, so I have but one question for you...

...Just what was so scary that you "redacted" it from your post?

Originally posted by smurfy
It also includes the mention of, Austin, San Antonio and Dallas. You could also say FBI, or CIA written in full and spaces perhaps.

In-house correspondence pertaining to other agencies would still be their acronym. Additionally, specific descriptive word sets for the large string are a perfect match within both documents, which leads me to be pretty darn confidant that I hit the nail on the head. It confirms out through multiple redacted identifiers and other unredacted identifying information. What is redacted is very specific identifying information and it is redacted for a very good reason. If it were agency foul play that matched, I would say so because, as a fellow US citizen, I have as much interest as any other in the preservation of the First Amendment. I can honestly say that that is not the conclusion that I drew. If anything, I would say that the FBI office of Houston made some determinations in the matter that for reasons that I fully comprehend. If anything, I think they didn't redact enough, which is really pretty weird for me to say but if I could draw some serious conclusions based on the methodology used, well, so could the group that was doing the plotting.

reply to post by TrueBrit


In part, it's self preservation because what it would pertain to would be an extremely radical group. Maybe that's an irrational fear but considering I'm a mom with two children, my duty is to them, first and foremost. The fact that it's redacted means that the agency involved doesn't want people to know. If I were correct, then the entire context of the post would have been eliminated and for good reason. I further redacted because I was concerned in regards to what it all implied when taken as a whole. Why I didn't just delete my whole post was because, based on what accusations in this thread have been thrown about, I also felt that it was important to let people know that there is a fit within the redactions that does NOT imply the government was willing to commit murder on what would be construed as relatively peaceful political dissenters. People were drawing one or two conclusions about the documents without seeing a highly possible third. It's just as much my responsibility, should I realize that potential, to suggest that there may be a third alternative to what is being presented. If you still don't get it, then I'm sorry but you'll just have to live with it. Or you could do the same technique yourself using the supplied information in the content and figure it out on your own.

reply to post by WhiteAlice


I give up. I am sick of this. It doesnt matter what the danger is, who is behind it, there is always SOME bloody reason that someone who knows the score, or at least finds themselves easily able to locate the data required, cannot or will not just get the balls out and put the damned words on the page for people to see, without it all being some terrifying ordeal for them.

They fear for thier children, they fear for thier lives, they fear for thier dog, or for the fabric of society itself. Fear, no matter how justified is never an excuse for failing to do the right damned thing.

reply to post by TrueBrit


If that is the conclusion about me that you wish to draw, then so be it but you would be wrong as I feel that, if I see something that I perceive to be an abuse of governmental power, I will publicly make that observation because that is the very reason why the First Amendment exists as it is supposed to work in assuring that open discourse can exist to provide a check against government. However, I will point out that there is still yet a third alternative as to why I redacted myself that has zero to do with self interest.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


Real anarchists do not act in this manner.