Counterterror: Crackdown in Germany

Eight years before her trial in Vermont, when 20-year-old Kristina Berster arrived in Heidelburg to study in 1970, German young people were restless and angry. The rhetoric had turned revolutionary since the days of "Ban the Bomb." This paralleled the trajectory of American dissent. The US "New Left" had also passed a tipping point, marked by the Chicago police riots and the "days of rage" that launched the Weather Underground.

In West Germany, protest turned violent with demonstrations in Berlin and the bombing of two empty department stores by Andreas Baader and Gudrin Ensslin. The purpose of the bombing, announced Baader, was "to light a beacon" against the consumer society. Ensslin added, "We set fires in department stores so you will stop buying. The compulsion to buy terrorizes you." A superficial analysis, it nevertheless struck at the core of German complacency in a time of intensive economic development.

The couple was caught, along with some accomplices, and convicted. But not before they found support from one of Germany's leading leftist journalists, Ulrike Meinhof. When they were released in 1969 during the appeal of their cases, Baader and Ensslin went underground with Meinhof's assistance. On September 29, 1970, with the robbing of three West Berlin banks, the Red Army Faction was born. As justification, Baader explained that the first problem of the revolution was financial support.

A dark cloud of repression soon began to descend. West German police turned to automatic weapons and extreme tactics, anyone who looked like a nonconformist risked spontaneous interrogation, roadblocks became common on the autobahn, and new search, arrest, and gun laws were passed. The excuse for such a broad extension of police powers was the nationwide search for the Baader-Meinhof group. No matter that the fugitives were responsible for only five of the 1,000 robberies committed during their heyday.

Witnessing the isolation of prisoners and the alienation around her, Kristina couldn't accept it. She was already steeped in politics and radical concepts of therapy. One US thinker who exerted a strong influence, Thomas Szasz, had written about the "myth of mental illness" and the emergence of a therapeutic state. In Law, Liberty and Psychiatry he proposed that, "The parallel between political and moral fascism is close. Each offers a kind of protection. And upon those unwilling to heed peaceful persuasion, the values of the state will be imposed by force: in political fascism by the military and the police; in moral fascism by therapists, especially psychiatrists."

She was fascinated by the critique of institutional psychiatry, and simultaneously repelled by German psychiatric units where patients had no rights and anything could be interpreted as crazy. A new criminal psychiatric unit was about to be built in Heidelburg, geared toward mind control and the use of complete isolation. During the dispute over it, someone tried to set fire to the construction site.

The violence escalated with the shooting of several police officers. In response, the government widened its dragnet to root out the conspiracy. Help came from an informer, Hans Bacchus, who had been reading books on guerrilla warfare just before leaving the student scene. He subsequently supplied the police with a list of people he accused of radical activity or terrorist sympathies. Among the names was Kristina’s.

Apprehended as a suspect, she was charged with having "built up a criminal association." The maximum sentence was five years, but even pre-trial detention could mean serious time. Some suspects were already being detained in solitary for long periods. It was exactly the type of treatment she had been protesting.

Berster spent the next six months in detention, watching the erosion of her right to legal counsel. Even her lawyer's office was raided. Police alleged that Eberhard Becker had photographic files of the Heidelburg police department's employees. Although the evidence was never produced, he was barred from participating in her trial. Obstruction of justice charges were later leveled at two other attorneys representing defendants in the case.

A pattern of harassment aimed at defense attorneys was emerging. The pressure intensified with laws that permitted the exclusion of lawyers and the holding of trials without the presence of defendants. In reaction, some young people joined the Red Army Faction. Kristina went back to school, but continued her prison reform work.

In early May 1971, the Red Army decided to strike at political targets in retaliation for the bomb blockade of North Vietnam. They hit an officer's club in Frankfurt, the Augsburg Police Department, the parking lot of the State Criminal Investigation Office, and finally, on May 24, the US Army's European Supreme Headquarters in Heidelburg. A month later they were caught. At first, people thought the country would finally return to normal, easing attacks on civil liberties and ending the state of emergency. Instead, the "emergency" was institutionalized.

Red Army leaders were locked in "wipe-out detention," a luminous white world of total sterility in which fluorescent lights were always on and every window was covered. Their soundproof cells, filled with nothing but white noise, were in a section of the prison called the Dead Wing, a place off limits to all visitors except lawyers and relatives. Reading material was heavily censored, and other prisoners were never seen or even heard. When Jean-Paul Sartre saw Baader after two years in the Dead Wing, he said, "This is not torture like the Nazis. It is torture meant to bring on psychic disturbances."

This type of confinement was "the most effective way to destroy personality irreversibly,” Kristina told me. "Humans are social. When you cut that off, when people are not able to talk or relate to others, an internal destruction begins. You become catatonic, and somatic problems begin."

Despite the growing risks, she continued to fight for small improvements like allowing prisoners to see and hear one another. But reforms faced new obstacles. Not only had public sentiment hardened against the Red Army; the Right, prodded by the Springer newspaper chain, had pushed through more repression laws. A Decree on Radicals, passed in 1972, denied "a position of civil service...if the candidate has been politically active in either an extreme rightist or leftist group." Any doubt about a person's support for the "free democratic basic order" would henceforth be sufficient grounds for blacklisting. It was an effective job ban in a country with 16 percent of workers in this sector.

The Decree also permitted the executive branch to create political isolation without directly banning political parties. Instead, it created a category of "constitutional enemies." Acts no longer had to be proven; the job ban punished attitudes, and the enemies list extended to "sympathizers" who were indifferent to or critical of the state's war on terrorism. A prominent target was Nobel Prize winner Heinrich Boll, who had criticized the demagoguery of the Springer press. Conservatives tried to ban his books, and the police harassed his son. His hate mail was signed, he once noted sardonically, while complimentary notes were apt to be anonymous.

Kristina and her co-defendants became convinced that a fair trial was impossible. There was ample evidence that the outcome was rigged: exclusion orders against their lawyers, the treatment of prisoners, new laws, and Right-Wing propaganda. Therefore, in an open letter to the court they announced that they weren't showing up, and would instead hold a counter-trial at which they could present themselves for judgment. A huge audience, gathering from across Western Europe, attended that event. But many people left confused. Disagreement had erupted over the use of violence.

Although Kristina had problems with armed struggle, many people were attracted by the idea. Nevertheless, persuaded that the official trial couldn’t be just, she joined those who decided not to appear.

Chapter 19 of Prelude to a Revolution

Next: Guilt by Association

The Final Failure of Reaganomics

We’ve all seen the headlines: The government takes over troubled mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Lehman Brothers files for bankruptcy, Merrill Lynch is acquired by the Bank of America, and the government announces an $85 billion emergency loan to rescue insurance giant American International Group (AIG) as stock prices plummet. And that was just the beginning.

The government is currently debating a $700 billion bailout of distressed banks under a plan that initially proposed to give Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and the Bush administration unprecedented power. We need to "remove the distressed assets from the financial system," suggests Paulson, who resigned as CEO of Goldman Sachs to become the Treasury secretary in 2006 after amassing a personal net worth of $700 million during his time at the bank.

How did all this happen? The root of the problem can be traced back to the deregulation era that began during the Reagan administration. What George H.W. Bush once called "voodoo economics" fast became the biggest redistribution of wealth since the New Deal. The central article of faith in the "Reagan Revolution" was that money rerouted from the poor to the rich would produce a burst of productivity and economic growth. Give to the corporations and the wealthy, said the "supply side" economists, and they will invest the money in new factories, research and technology, and the country will be restored to greatness.

Did the theory work? Hardly. Rather than putting their money into jobs, research or equipment, the country’s biggest businesses went on the largest merger binge in history, buying up smaller companies in a trend that spelled less competition, less productivity, and more control of the economy in fewer hands. Multi-billion dollar corporate war chests were assembled to finance takeovers of large oil and coal companies, communications giants, and prestigious financial institutions.

After a stock market meltdown in 1987, Wall Street advised the US Treasury not to meddle in financial markets. This paved the way for consolidation around large merchant banks, institutional investors, stock brokerage firms, and large insurance companies. Complex speculative instruments – derivatives, options, futures, and hedge funds – were largely unregulated, becoming vulnerable to manipulation.

Then, in 1999, the Financial Services Modernization Act – also known as the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act – removed remaining regulatory restraints on Wall Street's powerful banking conglomerates. Repealing the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, a New Deal reform put in place in response to corruption that had resulted in more than 5,000 bank failures in the years following the 1929 Wall Street crash, commercial banks, brokerage firms, institutional investors and insurance companies were permitted to invest in each others’ enterprises and integrate their financial operations.

In short, the current financial crisis has been building for a long time. But the alarm bells didn’t start ringing until June, 2007, when two hedge funds of the New York investment bank Bear Stearns lurched toward collapse because of their extensive investments in mortgage-backed securities. They were forced to dump assets as the trouble spread to major Wall Street firms such as Merrill Lynch, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, and Goldman Sachs, which had loaned the firm money.

Over the summer, German banks with bad investments in the US real-estate market were caught up in the crisis. But the most obvious sign of trouble was the Federal Reserve’s decision on August 9 to pump $24 billion into the US banking system through large purchases of securities, while the European Central Bank made a record cash injection of $130 billion into its markets to shake off credit fears. On the same day, Wall Street suffered its second-worst decline of the year as the Dow Jones dropped by nearly 400 points.

The next day, the Fed pumped another $38 billion in temporary reserves into the financial system, but the government rejected a request for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to take on more debt. At the end of the month, President Bush announced a plan to use the Federal Housing Administration, which insures loans for low-income borrowers, to offer government-guaranteed loans to around 80,000 homeowners in default.

On Sept. 18, 2007 the Federal Reserve started cutting interest rates, citing the credit crunch on Wall Street and in the broad economy. The nation's central bank made cuts at seven straight meetings. It also agreed to start loaning money directly to Wall Street firms, rather than only to commercial banks, and to accept troubled mortgage-backed securities as collateral. In October, profits at Citigroup dropped sharply. One large financial institution after another reported heavy losses.

At the start of 2008, the Bank of America acquired Countrywide Financial in a deal that rescued the country's biggest mortgage lender. Another sign of trouble: Bear Stearns CEO James Cayne lost his job. In February, Congress approved a $150-billion spending package to stimulate the sluggish economy. In March, on the verge of collapse and under pressure by the Federal Reserve, Bear Stears was forced to accept a buyout by investment bank JPMorgan Chase at a fire-sale price. The deal was backed by Fed loans – up to $29 billion in financing to cover potential losses. In July, the California mortgage lender IndyMac collapsed and troubles deepened for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Which brings us to September 6, 2008, when Treasury Secretary Paulson announced the takeover of Fannie and Freddie, putting the government in charge of firms that own or back more than $5 trillion in mortgages. The Treasury Department agreed to provide up to $200 billion in loans to the cash-starved firms, which are crucial sources of mortgage funding for banks and other lenders. It was a bid to reverse a prolonged housing and credit crisis. By the way, this was the same week when the McCain campaign was pushing the “lipstick on a pig” charge and the candidate himself remained certain that the “fundamentals of the economy are strong.”

Both Fannie and Freddie were placed in a government conservatorship, a move that could end up costing billions. The firms own or guarantee about half the home loans in America. The government implicitly had been guaranteeing their creditworthiness, enabling them to borrow at below-market rates. But private shareholders pocketed the profits they made lending cheap money at higher interest rates.

A week later, on Sept, 15, 2008, Lehman Brothers, burdened by $60 billion in soured real-estate holdings, filed for bankruptcy after attempts to rescue the 158-year-old firm failed. Merrill Lynch also agreed to be acquired by the Bank of America, and AIG asked for a bridge loan of billions of dollars from the Federal Reserve. The $50 billion Bank of America deal creates a bank that will rival Citigroup, the biggest US bank in terms of assets. Meanwhile, stocks fell, the Dow Jones sliding 504.48 points – the worst drop since the 9/11 attacks. Stocks also posted big losses in markets across much of the globe. The day has been labeled “Black Monday."

The next day, Sept. 16, 2008, the government agreed to an $85 billion emergency loan to rescue AIG, saying failure of the company could hurt the already delicate financial markets and the economy. That was Tuesday. On Wednesday, the Dow lost about 450 points, giving it a shortfall of more than 800 for the week. Markets around the world were also having a confidence crisis, and Russia shut down its market for a third day following its worst plunge since 1998.

Last Thursday, the Federal Reserve, working with banks in Europe, Canada and Asia, pumped as much as $180 billion into money markets to combat a seizing up of lending. Republicans blasted the Treasury Department and Fed for orchestrating the AIG bailout, and the White House for not informing them of the plan. John McCain said he would fire SEC Chair Chris Cox (which the President can’t actually do), and Barack Obama called it evidence of the failure of deregulation and Bush-McCain policies.

What’s next? Most likely, a $700 billion government bailout, unspecified limitations on executive payouts, a bipartisan board to handle implementation – and, perhaps, changes in regulation of the mortgage market, forcing companies to restructure individual loans rather than foreclose them. It’s not surprising that McCain, who proposed this week that his first debate with Barack Obama be postponed because of congressional negotiations on the proposed bailout, would prefer to grandstand in DC than take questions about his changing positions. A joke in Washington these days is that the crisis seems to be turning former deregulators into socialists – at least as far as business risks are concerns.

Vermont’s junior US Senator, Bernie Sanders, who has never been shy about his socialist leanings, wants to go further. He is proposing a surtax on the very wealthy, stronger oversight of financial institutions, and an end to deregulation policies. He also argues that huge businesses like Bank of America should be broken up so no company in the future could bring the economy down with it. In the meantime, he calls for an immediate economic stimulus package that would put people to work rebuilding infrastructure, and increasing energy efficiency and sustainable energy.

“The people who can best afford to pay and the people who have benefited most from Bush's economic policies are the people who should provide the funds for the bailout,” Sanders says. “It would be immoral to ask the middle class, the people whose standard of living has declined under Bush, to pay for this bail out while the rich, once again, avoid their responsibilities.”

Sanders’ plan includes:

* A five-year, 10 percent surtax on income over $1 million a year for couples and over $500,000 for single taxpayers to raise more than $300 billion in revenue

* Ensuring that assets purchased from banks are realistically discounted so companies aren’t rewarded for their risky behavior and taxpayers can recover the amount paid for them

* Equity stakes in the bailed-out companies so that the assumption of risk is rewarded when companies' stock goes up

* A major economic recovery package which puts people to work at decent wages rebuilding infrastructure and moving the country from fossil fuels to energy efficiency and sustainable energy

* Reinstalling the regulatory firewalls that were torn down in 1999, including re-regulating the energy markets and possibly abolishing various financial instruments that have created an enormous shadow banking system at the heart of the financial services meltdown

Finally, and most radically, Sanders calls for ending the danger posed by companies that are "too big to fail," breaking them up if necessary. “We should not be trying to solve the current financial crisis by creating even larger, more powerful institutions,” he argues.

It’s not likely that most of this plan will be embraced by Congress. But the crisis is certainly forcing the country to take a serious look at Reagan’s old claim that “government is the problem.” Even President Bush, in his remarks to the country on Sept. 24, admitted that “democratic capitalism” – which he still considers “the best system ever devised” – needs serious help. With the economy’s “fundamentals” clearly in jeopardy and the disaster wrought by deregulation and corporate excess finally exposed, government intervention has become the only way out.

Counterterror: Kristina Berster Speaks

In a courtroom crowded with supporters and gadflies, reporters and government agents, Kristina Berster took the witness stand on a Tuesday in October, 1978. After remaining silent for three months, she was about to present a defense. Her attempt to cross the border from Canada had been prompted by a mixture of fear and hope, she explained. She had been seeking refuge from "counter-terrorist" fever in her homeland. "I wanted to start a new life," she said, "to live openly once again, to have a legal existence. I was no longer able to go on with life underground."

As a student at the University of Heidelberg almost a decade earlier she had been part of the anti-war movement and joined an alternative therapy project. The purpose of the Socialist Patients Collective was to "find out the reasons why people feel lonely, isolated and depressed and the circumstances which caused these problems," she explained. But in June, 1971, as a political crackdown on dissent swept West Germany, members were accused of criminal association, based on the testimony of a police informer who later recanted.

She spent six months in detention, including three months in solitary confinement. In 1972, she was released, but a year later she faced another trial. At this point she left the country. Her next years were spent in Holland, North Africa, the Middle East, and France. But after German industrialist Hans Martin Schleyer, a former SS official, was killed she realized that it still wasn't safe. And by 1978, after the death of Aldo Moro in Italy, leaving Europe felt like a matter of survival. In May, Stern magazine, Germany's version of Life, printed the pictures of 34 "most wanted terrorist suspects." Kristina had made the list.

"Everyone arrested as an alleged terrorist is detained for between two and three years in complete isolation," she said. Before she could say more, however, the prosecution objected, the testimony was stricken, and the judge banned further statements on the political aspects of the case.

US Attorney William Gray's cross examination had an entirely different objective. By using phone logs, asking why she decided to leave Europe, and digging into the origins of her fake passport, he was searching for prior contact with the New York City boutique owner who had helped her reach the US border. The questions pointed to a hidden conspiracy; in other words, support for the original FBI scenario. Since this "simple border case" was really a vehicle to expose a plot linking foreign terrorists and US activists, conviction on a minor border violation wouldn't be enough.

Her second day on the stand Kristina explained that her instructions on how to get into the US had come from Chilean refugees living in Paris. This intrigued Gray. But he was even more eager to know where she had lived during her underground years, a line of inquiry she and her lawyers hoped to avoid. Since she’d stayed in Libya and South Yemen, Middle East countries out of favor with the US, her answers might prejudice the jury. Taking the Fifth, on the other hand, would undermine her credibility. The judge urged the lawyers to strike a deal. The countries would henceforth simply be known as A and B, and Berster would simply admit that she had felt safe during the time she spent there.

On re-direct Bill Kunstler probed her decision to leave France -- not just where and who, but why. The answer was blocked. Neither Gray nor the judge wanted testimony about her fear of persecution. "Mr. Gray opened that door," snapped Kunstler. "No, he hasn't," the judge shot back. They were close to the confrontation that had looked inevitable since the opening moments.

Just a day earlier, Kunstler had issued a warning when Coffrin let Gray ask about her underground years. "All right, Judge. You are opening it," Kunstler had said. "I am not controlling this," the judge replied. A strange admission.

"All right, as long as you are on notice that now we are going full blast," Kunstler continued. To which the judge replied hotly, "You may not be allowed to go full blast." That, too, was a warning.

Kunstler shifted to another line of questioning. Why didn't Kristina think it was wrong to enter the country secretly? It was a direct extension of questions Gray had asked, but he objected anyway. Kunstler prowled the chamber, flashing angry glances at the prosecutor and the judge. Circling the prosecution table he returned to the podium and pounded on his notes. "I want to get to her state of mind, and why she thought she was not wrong."

Coffrin wouldn't budge: No testimony on West Germany would be admitted. Kunstler was boiling mad. Shouting, he charged that the judge had ruled consistently against the defense. If the jury had been watching, that outburst might have brought a contempt citation. But they’d been herded out earlier. A decade after the Chicago conspiracy trial, Kunstler hadn’t lost his power to provoke. This time around, his powerful yet studied rage led to a private conference in which the judge merely reamed him out for "impugning" the integrity of the court.

By the following day, Coffrin's attitude softened further. Kristina would be allowed to explain why she felt that her actions hadn't been wrong. "I had been accused, originally, unjustly of things I had not done," she explained. "I was wanted for associating with people suspected of terrorism, and I knew that other people suspected and in jail had died under mysterious circumstances."

Gray objected but the testimony continued. About lying to border officials, she said, "I was afraid of being detained, checked out. If police agents found out I would be deported right away and I wouldn't get to contact lawyers and ask for asylum." But why pick the US.? "I spoke the language. It had customs and culture similar to Europe. I thought the US was independent of Germany. I thought I could find understanding and support for my situation, since this country has a long tradition of accepting refugees."

When she stepped down from the witness stand the defense rested its case.

Chapter 18 of Prelude to a Revolution

Next week: Germany in the 1970s & Cracking Down on Freedom

Counterterror: Kunstler Takes the Case

"Kristina Berster's lawyer says most Vermonters in the court district where she is scheduled for trial on immigration charges have been irreparably prejudiced by publicity identifying her as a suspected West German terrorist.

"Attorney William Kunstler asked federal Judge Albert Coffrin Tuesday to dismiss the case against Miss Berster, 28, who faces eight counts for attempting to enter the United States illegally last July...

"To buttress his claim of pretrial publicity, Kunstler put Burlington journalist Greg Guma on the stand to testify that newspapers, television and radio stations in Chittenden County consistently have identified Miss Berster as a member of a terrrorist gang..."

--UPI, September 19, 1978

The security force at the federal building was ready for a siege when the Berster trial began. US Marshalls, security specialists and assorted agents roamed the five floors with walkie-talkies. Packages and handbags weren't permitted into the courtroom, and no one except the lawyers could speak with the infamous defendant.

After a week of jury selection the air was thick with intrigue. US Attorney William Gray insisted that he was merely prosecuting a simple border case, yet one in which the bail was set at $500,000. Bill Kunstler shot back that the issues were far from simple and the FBI was very much involved.

Kunstler had taken the case pro bono within a few weeks of Kristina Berster’s arrest. For the legendary lawyer, famous for defending political dissidents, it was an attractive and significant battle: a defendant seeking political asylum from a country that had begun indicting even "radical" lawyers. "This case goes far beyond Kristina Berster," Kunstler announced after offering his services. "I am very concerned with West Germany's treatment of so-called terrorists and the so-called left wing lawyers who defend them."

By late September he and several other attorneys, along with headquarters for the new Berster Defense Committee, were installed in the home I shared with Robin and Doreen. There we underwent a quick course in courtroom dynamics and Kunstler's blend of legal jujitsu and theatrics. So compelling were the issues, and so high the stakes, that I began to devote most of my time to the trial.

Two weeks later, I was laid off. Rather than welcoming insider coverage of the state's hottest story, Vanguard Press Editor Jim Martin rejected my stories. Luckily, I was able to begin filing reports for Pacifica Radio. Perhaps it was naïve, but at first I gave little thought to the possible consequences. I also didn't consider how the FBI might react to support for the defendant. Thus, when the US attorney claimed that no local surveillance had been initiated, I tended to believe him. Three years later I discovered that he’d been less than candid.

From Kristina's first appearance in court, it turned out, the FBI had conducted an intensive investigation of her backers. The operation’s code name was TERCROSS. Covert activities included stake outs and surreptitious photography, and follow up long after the trial ended. FBI documents, eventually obtained by members of the Defense Committee, revealed that the case provided a pretext to continue and extend surveillance of the local left, which had begun years before. After its exposure, the official line was that TERCROSS had been launched to trace links between Vermont activists and "foreign terrorists."

Among other things, Freedom of Information Act documents revealed that the US Attorney had personally approved photo surveillance during the trial, as long as it was handled discreetly "and without detection." According to the FBI's analysts, this was warranted because some of Kristina's supporters may have known her prior to her arrival from Europe. One memo indicated that the FBI told the US Marshall and local police about a possible link between the Defense Committee and "terrorist activity in the United States."

TERCROSS was later merged with another project, GILROB, which referred to a bank robbery investigation. Gray was advised during the trial "that special agents from Boston division would be traveling to Burlington for the purpose of observing and possibly photographing Kristina Berster supporters present at the trial." Perhaps under pressure, he expressed no reservations but urged secrecy.

During the trial, we had no proof that any of this happened. All Kunstler could do was ask to subpoena Director Webster, a maneuver that failed to impress the judge. After eight days in court merely to reach the opening statements, Judge Coffrin was becoming impatient. He looked not at the lawyer but at the clock.

"Something happened before July 20," Kunstler blustered. He was talking about the media campaign launched with Webster's press conference. "The FBI was up to something. If the jury found out that the FBI pursued this case on the basis of an agreement with a foreign government, they could acquit the defendant."

After two weeks the normally calm prosecutor was equally adamant. Gray reminded the judge that Kunstler often used the FBI as a whipping boy. He had successfully made a similar argument to prevent West German experts and US lawyers from testifying about conditions in Germany. "If selective prosecution is tried before this jury, then Assistant US Attorney O'Neill and I would have to testify," argued Gray. "Really, the FBI has no significance on the issues involved."

Kunstler took another tack. "Mr. Gray says this is like all other cases," he reminded the judge. "He made this a jury issue in his opening statement. We have the right to rebut, and we need to determine what went on. Who did Webster talk to, and what did the Germans want?"

"It was my decision to prosecute," Gray protested. Kunster shot back, "Your honor, this may have been beyond Mr. Gray's control." Coffrin wasn’t swayed. After a lunch break he denied the subpoena request without providing an explanation.

Chapter 17 of Prelude to a Revolution

Next: Kristina Berster Speaks

Counterterror: The Berster Case

Preventing violence is a key goal of law enforcement. If the methods are proper and legal, even aggressive efforts aimed at "potentially" violent activities raise few fundamental questions. But when governments go beyond that, targeting people or groups for their views, associations, or criticisms of government policies, they tread on forbidden constitutional ground.

In the 1969 US Supreme Court case, Brandenberg v. Ohio, the majority made it clear: The government can’t legally "forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or law violation except where such advocacy is directed toward inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." In other words, without establishing a "clear and present danger," regimes that try to suppress speech or punish people for their associations are out of bounds.

By the time that ruling was issued, of course, the federal government had been engaged in a covert program directed a domestic targets for years. In a 1976 report by the US Senate Select Committee to Study Government Operations, COINTELPRO was described as "a sophisticated vigilante operation aimed squarely at preventing the exercise of First Amendment rights of speech and association, on the theory that preventing the growth of dangerous groups and the propagation of dangerous ideas would protect the national security and deter violence." The dubious premise, explained the report, was that law enforcement must "do whatever is necessary to combat perceived threats to the existing social and political order."

Perhaps on those grounds, but clearly at the instigation of major corporations, the intelligence community actively infiltrated and spied on anti-nuclear activist groups in the late 1970s. At the time I was already concerned about the loose and misleading use of the word “terrorist.” Still, until I met Kristina Berster I had no idea how far anti-terror “preparedness” could go.

On July 3, 1978, my son Jesse Lloyd Guma had been born, the most satisfying, life-altering moment I had ever experienced. Two weeks later, Robin was nesting and I was back from a week covering stock car racing when we heard that someone had been arrested crossing the border from Canada. The newspapers were calling her a terrorist.

The public first heard about Kristina Berster on July 20, about four days after her arrest. Attempting to cross into the US on foot, she’d become lost and been nabbed by a Customs agent. At first, the FBI knew only that she was a West German citizen wanted for something called "criminal association," a crime that didn’t exist in the US. The source of the charge was her previous membership in a radical therapy group, the Socialist Patients Collective. According to German authorities, some of its members may later have joined the notorious Red Army Faction, also known as the Baader-Meinhof group, a radical underground dedicated to armed struggle.

This stale and circumstantial evidence was enough to launch a nationwide terrorist scare. For FBI Director William Webster the arrest was a chance to buttress his claims that urban terrorism was on the rise, part of his campaign more agents and expanded authority to investigate US citizens who were "reasonably believed" to be involved in "potential" terrorist activities. So far, his requests had been denied. Instead, criticism of the Bureau was mounting as Congress discussed a charter to define and limit its activities.

Webster's July 20 press conference had a clear purpose: to announce that a foreign terrorist had been caught in a conspiracy with US citizens. Break out the duct tape! His remarks stopped short of calling Berster a member of Baader-Meinhof, but the Bureau's press spokesmen quickly contacted their favorite reporters as off-the-record sources to provide the additional details. The next morning newspapers across the country spread the news in bold headlines:

TERRORIST HELD AFTER ATTEMPT TO ENTER U.S.

Some accounts even printed an agent's wild speculation that Berster had come to Vermont in order to assassinate the president of BMW. He was planning a visit to Rutland.

One of the first Vermont reporters contacted was Burlington Free Press reporter Mike Donoghue, who had just about the best police contacts in the state. He received a wake up call about the arrest early on July 20, then ripped some AP copy that directly called her a Baader-Meinhof member. When I asked later about the source of his story, he declined to say. But the managing editor of another Vermont daily, The Rutland Herald, revealed that FBI press officer Tom Harrington had fed the information to his reporter.

Harrington denied it, obviously. "We didn't put her with any group," he claimed. Nevertheless, most US newspapers that day called her a terrorist, without hesitation spreading that very dangerous word. But such a ruse could be maintained only for a short time. A week later, another FBI press official issued a low-key retraction. Although barely noticed, the statement admitted that the Bureau had no evidence that Berster was a terrorist. The change in official position had been forced on the FBI after West German officials issued their own statement, calling her a "fringe figure" whom they might not even bother to extradite. In any case, she was now an illegal alien facing federal conspiracy charges in the US.

By then I’d become embroiled in the case. Several of our friends had formed a defense committee, and, in early August, I visited the Albany lockup to speak with the "terrorist" in person. What I heard was a tale of persecution and flight. The resulting cover feature, published in the “back to school” issue, put the Vanguard Press on the map. The cover photo showed an intense young woman in shackles under heavy guard. “Was Kristina Berster Tried and Convicted by a Prejudiced Press?” asked the cautiously provocative headline. Inside, I presented her side of the story, and examined both the FBI's "disinformation" efforts and the media's willingness to spread the distortions.

The Vanguard’s new editor Jim Martin was worried that we might be going too far, and decided to hedge his bet with a disclaimer. Describing me as a member of the Defense Committee (not actually true), he noted that my story raised questions about "objectivity and conflict of interest."

Fortunately, he concluded at least that objectivity is a myth, and that my "pro-Berster sentiments" didn’t prevent me from doing my job. Still, my credibility was on the line and the FBI's manipulation of the media had proven effective. Kristina Berster might be technically innocent until proven guilty, but in the eyes of the public she was a terrorist until proven otherwise.

Chapter 16 of Prelude to a Revolution

Next week: Bill Kunstler in Court, Kristina Berster on the Stand

VT Candidate Pledges to Prosecute Bush

Charlotte Dennett, who entered the race for Vermont Attorney General this week, readily admits that it will be an uphill battle. But the Vermont Progressive Party’s candidate does have one thing going for her – an issue with the potential to mobilize voters upset about the Iraq War. At her first press conference, sitting next to renowned prosecutor and author Vincent Bugliosi, she pledged to prosecute George W. Bush for murder if elected and appoint Bugliosi as a special prosecutor to take on the job. (See video clips below)

Bugliosi had come to Vermont specifically to back Dennett’s bid against incumbent Attorney General William Sorrell, who has held the job since 1997. “There is no better state to bring this forward,” Dennett said, pointing to the fact that Vermont has lost more soldiers per capita than any other state during the war and that voters at 36 Town Meetings have called for Bush’s impeachment.

“No man is above the law,” Bugliosi argued, explaining that a state Attorney General can prosecute Bush for conspiracy to commit murder after he leaves office. The key is to establish “overt acts” that prove there was a conspiracy to mislead the country into war, he said. Bugliosi pointed specifically to Bush’s frequent public statements, which were broadcast nationally, and the recruitment of Vermonters to fight in Iraq. “Any Attorney General can do this,” he said.

Dennett, who has been practicing law since 1997, is also an investigative journalist. "When I read Mr. Bugliosi’s meticulously-argued case," she has explained, "it struck a chord with me as a Vermonter and an American citizen.”

Bugliosi has won 105 out of 106 felony jury trials and is best known for prosecuting Charles Manson. Yet his most recent book, The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder, has proven highly controversial. Mainstream media outlets have declined to review it or interview him, Bugliosi noted. Asked what explains the reaction, he speculated that the Right Wing in the US has frightened many people into silence. Thus, “the establishment has decided Bush should not be held accountable,” he said.

In recent days, there have been renewed calls to go after the president. For example, Seattle Congressman Jim McDermott has announced that he wants to see Bush impeached, whether or not he’s still in office. He has joined a call from Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich to launch impeachment proceedings, and has cited Bugliosi’s book as part of the reason for his decision.

Although pleased that McDermott is calling for impeachment, Bugliosi thinks congressional action doesn't go far enough. "Impeachment alone would be a joke for anyone interested in justice," he says. His recommendation is that a state official – Dennett, for example, if she is elected – should prosecute Bush for murder in the deaths of American soldiers fighting in Iraq.

On the campaign trail, Democratic Vice Presidential candidate Joe Biden recently said that an Obama/Biden Administration would pursue criminal charges against Bush over the treatment of captured terrorists held at the US Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay. “If there has been a basis upon which you can pursue someone for a criminal violation, they will be pursued,” Biden pledged at a Florida campaign stop.

Earlier this year, Barack Obama took a similar position, stating that he would look at whether Bush violated laws. But fearing that such a position could undermine their chances of victory, Biden subsequently softened his position, telling the Philadelphia Daily News that he didn’t want the start of an Obama/Biden term to look like a “witch hunt.”

At this point, Dennett’s chances of victory aren’t strong. Although Vermont Progressives have elected representatives to the state legislature, no candidate has yet come close to winning a statewide race. Anthony Pollina, the Progressive standard bearer who ran for governor in 2000 and received 24.8 percent of the vote in a 2002 race for Lt. Governor, decided this summer to run for governor as an Independent in hopes of broadening his base.

Sorrell, a Democrat, has enjoyed bi-partisan support, and received enough write-in votes in Vermont’s recent primary to appear on the November ballot as both the Democratic and Republican candidate. Nevertheless, a strong turnout for Dennett would send the message that the idea of prosecuting Bush is something to seriously consider.

In 2007, Vermont's State Senate passed a resolution calling on the US Congress to impeach Bush over his handling of the war. But House Speaker Gaye Symington, a Democrat who is currently running for governor against Republican incumbent James Douglas, argued at the time that the move wasn’t appropriate prior to a Congressional investigation. During the House proceedings, about 400 Vermonters from 102 communities showed up at the State House but the resolution was defeated. Vermont's congressional delegation has shown little interest in the idea.

The question raised by Dennett’s promise to pursue prosecution of Bush is whether anger about the war – and how the public and Congress were misled – are enough to create a competitive race against a successful incumbent. Vermonters don’t register by party, and identification as Democrats and Republicans is weaker than in most states. But it remains to be seen if the race can become an unofficial referendum. In essence, a strong turnout for Dennett would mean that Vermont voters want to take the lead in turning a former president into a criminal defendant.

If nothing else, the campaign could produce a great bumper sticker: Prosecute Bush. Elect Dennett.

Video Report on Charlotte Dennett’s Pledge



Bugliosi testifies before House Judiciary Committee

Pacifica Meltdown: The Price of Democracy

Rob Robinson, a member of Pacifica Radio’s National Board representing WPFW in Washington, DC, has been working on programming issues for years. In 2006, he finally succeeded in getting a National Programming Policy adopted, although several key elements were sidetracked and few people have read it. In early September, at a meeting of the network’s Programming Committee, he explained again that stations are losing listeners and not meeting on-air pledge goals. The current programming schedules aren’t attracting enough people, he argued, and the audience is aging. “I’m not trying to dictate to management,” he promised, yet he stressed that some accountability is needed.

The Committee’s main business that night was to deal with a series of new proposals Robinson had put forward in his role as chair. But those on the phone were also thinking about a motion referred to them by the Pacifica National Board. Concerned about listenership, the Board was asking the Committee to consider a series of “performance requirements” for managers developed by KPFK director Grace Aaron.

The basic idea is that Program Directors, Station Managers, and the Executive Director should be working to increase listenership by 7 percent each quarter, or else have their failure to do so “kept on file” as part of performance evaluations. Some Board members had problems with the idea. “Magical thinking doesn’t work,” said KPFA Director Bonnie Simmons. “I can’t imagine people working under this system.” Others called it reckless, arbitrary, and punitive.

In the end, the motion was passed, but mainly because it would be referred to the Programming Committee for further consideration. When the Committee met, however, it wasn’t ready to deal with the issue, and Robinson said that his intention wasn’t “to implement a specific growth rate.” Still, one of his proposals was to establish “quantifiable programming goals designed to reach new listeners, convert them and get renewals.”

Another was to develop “objective measures to evaluate programs and schedules.” Revenue isn’t the only way to measure a show’s success, he said, but there should be “incentives” to free up space and develop new programs. Since the 16-member Committee didn’t have a quorum, it was clear from the start that no decisions would be made. But that would have been unlikely anyway, since there was disagreement about most of Robinson’s ideas. George Reiter, a director representing KPFT in Houston, saw the proposal for evaluating programs and schedules as a way to spark change, but Simmons found it troubling and advised asking the staff how they felt. “We shouldn’t throw lofty but impossible things at the stations,” she cautioned. KPFK Board Member Sherna Gluck looked for common ground, suggesting that people needed to be reminded that the current national policy hasn’t been implemented.

Robinson also urged that resources be allocated to reach larger audiences “by helping current shows and developing new programs.” WBAI Board members Lisa Davis and Cathy Davis were uncomfortable with that, noting that cutbacks at their station are being considered and the staff there should determine the needs. Next, Robinson suggested that money be “reallocated” to produce “quality news programs, documentaries, and specials,” noting that most stations don’t carry the network’s “Headline News” service and too often rely on soft-edged “talking head” interviews. Several people objected strongly to his analysis and defended their local news operations. The real problem, several people asserted, is training.

When Robinson proposed “national access to local airwaves,” the chorus of objections was almost unanimous, even when he stressed collaboration and local initiatives. Simmons and Lisa Davis opposed the suggestion that stations “must carry” any program. “Mandating builds in failure,” Simmons argued. The consensus was that the National Programming Coordinator should suggest some local shows for national distribution, but stations shouldn’t be forced to air them.

Another idea was to consolidate and coordinate the network’s news operations. After discussing the uniqueness of local news, as well as Free Speech Radio News and the DC News Bureau, the group agreed that better communication would help but the proposal itself should be dropped.

Finally, Robinson urged more aggressive digital distribution of programs. Cathy Davis agreed but added that it should be handled “station by station,” while Simmons argued that the real issue is “getting people to focus” on the network’s best shows.

In the end, while there seemed to be agreement that improving programming would eventually increase revenue, the Committee remained stymied on how to do it. The overall thrust was that stations and their staffs are best equipped to make any needed changes, and forcing the issue won’t help. Robinson’s assertions that Pacifica currently has no standards, that station schedules haven’t significantly changed for years, and that listeners are rejecting them failed to persuade.

The stalemate over programming reflects a more general problem, the difficulty in making any substantive changes with a management and governance structure that imposes a complex deliberative process, and requires input from literally hundreds of people prior to any action. Complaints about this often bring the response, “Democracy is messy.” But there’s more to it. If a group of people – for example, a local Board faction, or a group of unpaid staff members – or the management at one or two stations objects to something, they can usually block it by demanding consultation, threatening to protest, or simply ignoring the idea. One obvious result is that there has been no new ongoing national programming in a decade, since the launch of Democracy Now! Less obvious, but equally troubling, is the failure to adopt network-wide policies in key areas.

Pacifica has about a dozen national committees dealing with finances, governance, personnel, audits, programming, the internal election process, affiliates, allegations of racism and sexism, and so on. It also has a Coordinating Committee, which is supposed to keep the process moving. But many committees have trouble consistently achieving quorum, resulting in a work backlog, or are divided along various factional lines. The one committee that has been explicitly avoided in the 2002 bylaws is an “executive committee,” which could allow some decisions to be made when other parts of the system break down. Yet, some directors clearly have more influence than others.

On Sept. 7, when 11 members of the National Board convened in hopes of moving forward with a “strategic recovery plan” to deal with Pacifica’s current financial problems, nothing could be done because the other 11 Board members didn’t show up. This approach – preventing a decision through non-participation – is relatively common. It could be argued that such a response represents democracy in action – the withdrawal of consent – but the immediate result is inaction.

The meeting demonstrated the dynamics of the Board split. Those attending included two directors each from KPFK, KPFT and WPFW, three from WBAI (the winners in a highly contested election that led to a lawsuit), one director representing affiliate stations, and one from KPFA. All but two just joined the Board this year. The absent members included the other affiliate director, one from WBAI, plus the remaining three KPFA delegates (including the Board chair), and the remaining six directors from the other three stations, including the chairs of the Coordinating and Finance committees. Three in that group were elected by station staffs, and a majority have served on the Board for two years or more. In other words, the turnout suggests that the Board’s leadership, and most directors representing KPFA and staff, are at odds with a new insurgent group.

The bylaws impose some rules that have been difficult to follow. For example, the National Board is supposed to meet in person four times a year in specific months and a prescribed rotation between station areas. But this requirement has frequently been sidestepped, and the most recent quarterly meeting was postponed, then cancelled. Two attempts to change this meeting requirement have failed, due in part to other strict amendment requirements, and another attempt is currently underway. But another section of the bylaws says that amendments can only be put forward once every 12 months, so if several are proposed they all must be handled at the same time – unless the Board decides otherwise by a two-thirds vote.

At the moment, at least five possible amendments are in the pipeline. In addition to the one allowing the Board to reduce the number of in-person meetings (if two-thirds of the Board deems it necessary due to “emergency conditions”), proposals include allowing amendments at any time during a given year; a new category of “monthly” Board meetings that can be held by telephone, video conferencing or other means; allowing earlier election of Affiliates Directors, so that they can be seated along with others in January; and, possibly, elimination of bylaws language that describes the duties of election supervisors.

The election supervisor amendment is being considered in response to concerns that classifying national and local election supervisors as contractors despite the inclusion of their qualifications and specific job descriptions may violate California employment law. The solution being considered is to strike anything that describes job requirements or duties.

If the Board decides to move forward, any proposed changes – also according to the Bylaws – will have to be posted on the Foundation’s website and announced two times daily on all five sister stations for 60 days before each Local Station Board (LSB), as well as the Pacifica National Board (PNB), votes. All the voting must occur during the same month.

Fortunately, Pacifica isn’t electing new local board members this year. That will happen in 2009 and 2010, using a process that takes up to nine months and can cost $200,000. But each station will vote in January on who should represent it on the PNB, and after that, the National Board will have to reconstitute itself, holding new elections for officers and committee membership. That process can take up to two months, further slowing down the Board’s work.

In the midst of all this, Pacifica will have to fill some key management vacancies – Executive Director and Human Resources Director, and KPFA will continue to struggle with whom to appoint as permanent General Manager in the midst of an emerging local revolt. In addition, the PNB will be looking at a new job description for its Chief Financial Officer.

Last Spring, at the urging of Executive Director Nicole Sawaya, the Board decided that national financial staff should report to her. But Sawaya is leaving, and the Personnel Committee has meanwhile voted not to incorporate that reporting requirement into the new job description, while giving the CFO responsibility for investing Pacifica’s funds and managing its banking relationships. Thus, the situation may return to where it was before.

None of these problems are insurmountable. But the current financial crunch won’t make things easier, and, as if things weren’t tough enough, Hurricane Ike forced KPFT off the air on September 12. According to Sawaya and GM Duane Bradley, the staff is all right and power will soon be restored, but the transmitter site was burglarized. This is the longest period that the Houston station has been off the air since it was bombed about 38 years ago.

When the next ED is chosen, she or he is very likely to have a smaller national staff, and thus less ability to coordinate resources or advance new initiatives. There will be union negotiations at stations, a new Pacifica election season, and lingering complaints and lawsuits to resolve. At WBAI the cash crunch is severe enough that the PNB may be forced to either further tap Pacifica’s line of credit, let the station fail, or consider the unthinkable – sale of a station.

A decade ago, when the rumor that a station might be sold began to circulate, it added fuel to an already smoldering revolt. This time, if the option of selling an “asset” is publicly voiced by those in charge, the response could be different. The confederal structure put in place after the “Save Pacifica” movement makes change difficult, but also stresses that individual stations have a right to chart their own paths. The Local Board and management at KPFA, Pacifica’s flagship station, don’t always see eye to eye, but they do agree that the current crisis could put the station at risk. That makes it unlikely that KPFA’s stability will be further leveraged to save a sister station.

In a Sept. 12 open letter to KPFA supporters, a group of managers underlined the seriousness of the situation as the station prepares to begin a delayed on-air fund drive on Sept. 18. “Given the Pacifica Network's current financial condition,” they write, “if we don't raise the money we need soon, KPFA could have to close its doors.”

Yes, democracy is messy. But cleaning up this mess, with a divided Board and a fragile national structure, may well require sacrifices that put Pacifica’s version to the ultimate test.

To find out more, read Part One and Two of this series:

Part One: Quiet Meltdown on Planet Pacifica

Part Two: Budgeting for Triage

The Pacifica National Board met in Washington, DC, Sept. 19-21.To access archived recordings, go to http://www.kpftx.org/. See agenda below. Sources for these articles include meetings of the Pacifica National Board, National Finance Committee, Coordinating Committee, and Personnel Committee, LSB minutes, and members of the Pacifica community who provided information on condition of anonymity.

PNB meeting, Sept. 19 - 21, 2008: Preliminary Agenda

Friday, Sept. 19

10:00 AM - Executive Session, with legal update

12:00 - Lunch

1:00 PM - Open Session

Welcoming Remarks; roll call, approval of agenda/minutes

Executive Director's state of the network address

Updates: General & Specific

2:00 PM - By-law revisions

3:00 PM - Executive Session; solutions, strategies

4:00 PM - break

5:00 PM - Open Session - Host station presentation

5:45 PM - Public comment

7:00 PM - Reception

Saturday, Sept.20

9:00 AM Sharp – All Day Session: Finances/Budgets

Presentation and approval of 7 budgets; personnel issues; implications for re-organization; National Office staffing issues/ transition

Sunday, Sept.21

8:00 AM - PNB Public Session

Audit Committee report & presentation of new firm; report out on work; ED report

10:30 Public comment

11:30 Committee reports

Spooking the Anti-Nuclear Movement

My weekly column for the Vermont Vanguard Press, cheekily titled “Immediate Release,” offered interviews and ongoing stories. In cover features I meanwhile tackled complex topics like privacy and the growing dossier industry, environmental threats, and the struggle within the Vermont court system over the role of Side Judges, a unique system of county judicial power via non-lawyers. For human interest I profiled towns, creating word pictures of people and Vermont ways.

That June, I returned to the anti-nuclear movement. In 1978 the Clamshell Alliance was at a crossroads. A legal rally had been held near the nuclear construction site, a shift away from civil disobedience that allowed over 15,000 people to gather peacefully. But some Clams felt that the spirit and process of the organization was being undermined. They also had evidence that it was under surveillance and possibly infiltrated. At a conference in New Hampshire, suspicion flowed powerfully beneath the surface. My article was called “Clam Watching.”

Many Clamshell members supported "public control of energy" through municipal energy groups. But some saw the goal as simply "Stopping Seabrook" or building momentum for action on related issues like the mysterious death of nuclear safety researcher Karen Silkwood. Others viewed the organization's central mission as internal, things like developing "a nonviolent lifestyle," building networks, "fostering love of the earth," and "local communication." A few urged national lobbying, while still others suggested that the Alliance help build "a world base for socialism."

By the end of the weekend much had been shared, but "consensus" on the big issues was elusive. One area of agreement was public action that November to commemorate the mysterious death of Karen Silkwood. A case against Kerr-McGee was in the Oklahoma courts, where lawyers for the Silkwood family charged that she had been under surveillance and the FBI conspired to suppress evidence of spying. Silkwood lawyer Dan Sheehan claimed that a national spy ring was involved in illegal surveillance of anti-nuke activists like Silkwood, and mentioned links between the FBI, CIA, the federal Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA) and the quasi-private Law Enforcement Intelligence Unit (LEIU).

The charges weren’t far-fetched. Since 1974, surveillance, harassment, and infiltration of nuclear power opponents had been deemed "necessary" to prevent "terrorist” incidents. To make his point Sheehan subpoenaed Paul Wormeli, Vice President of Operational Systems of Arlington, Virginia, to shed some light on the covert activities. Wormeli was a key figure in the escalation of anti-nuclear surveillance. Until 1977, he had been deputy administrator of LEAA; in 1971 he’d helped create the Interstate Organized Crime Index (IOCI), while acting as coordinator of SEARCH, California's criminal justice technologies group. In 1976, Richard Velde, another LEAA official, had explained in a memo to Deputy Attorney General Harold Tyler Jr. that the future use of IOCI would relate to "terrorist control." It subsequently became the FBI's National Crime Information Center.

Wormeli's knowledge wasn’t restricted to LEAA. When its Boston office was dismantled in October 1977, he, Velde and other LEAA guys established a consulting firm called Operational Systems (OSI). According to its spokesman George Campbell, they subsequently went to work for the Public Service Company of New Hampshire, major backer of the Seabrook plant. Campbell admitted that Wormeli’s group gave PSC "public relations input on how to discredit Clamshell," though he denied that the group's work included “intrusive” surveillance techniques.

Wormeli had even approached New Hampshire Governor Meldrin Thompson to obtain security work from the state, a plan that included electronic surveillance. Despite Thompson’s apparent rejection, OSI soon began to work with the New Hampshire State Police. Clamshell leaders were sure that the State cops, probably with OSI assistance, had launched surveillance before the 1978 legal rally. In fact, the authorities admitted photographing people who attended a crucial meeting of the Coordinating Committee. The Alliance also had a list of phones believed to be tapped.

Some Vanguard Press readers may have been shocked by my story, but the facts came as no surprise to most anti-nuclear activists. The previous year Thompson had publicly called Clamshell’s mass occupation at the Seabrook nuclear site a "cover for terrorism." Afterward, some Clams obtained documents from the State Police indicating that the U.S. Labor Party, which promoted nuclear power in its extremist literature, provided the “information,” including the accusation that Clamshell members were "terrorists." Working through its National Caucus of Labor Committee (NCLC) the Labor Party then shifted its focus to Vermont, at the instigation of an appointee to the Vermont State Nuclear Advisory Panel.

New England wasn't the only target of pro-nuclear intelligence groups. During a Los Angeles City Council hearing on a proposed nuclear facility, the L.A. Police Department had assigned two officers to photograph and videotape witnesses critical of the plan. Similar incidents were being reported in Philadelphia, New Jersey, and Georgia. In at least one case, the use of informers and agents-provocateurs had been confirmed. During the trial of activists arrested during the 1977 Abalone Alliance occupation of the Diablo Canyon plant in California, evidence surfaced that two local police officers had infiltrated the group. They were reportedly the only ones to suggest the use of violence.

During testimony before the Vermont Nuclear Advisory Panel, NCLC spokesman Jon Gilbertson, a pro-nuclear expert who once worked for General Electric, denied that his group was anything but a vocal pro-nuclear lobby. Activists charged that NCLC itself was a "terrorist" organization. Yet the strangest aspect of the NCLC's introduction into Vermont energy politics was the origin of its invitation. Nancy Kaufman, an attorney known for her public interest work on utility cases, had helped make the contact to expose the "anti-technology" bias of nuclear opponents.

A former Liberty Union candidate, Kaufman had once labeled herself a socialist. But she and Bernie Sanders had publicly resigned from the party in 1977. Kaufman said she had changed her mind about nukes; jobs outweighed the possible dangers. Bernie didn’t talk about nukes. He just called the party “sad and tragic” and said it wasn’t working anymore.

While a self-proclaimed socialist was entering the pro-nuclear camp, a conservative Republican was moving in the opposite direction. Sen. John Howland of rural Windsor County had been making strong anti-nuclear statements since the spring. "We are just now beginning to realize that we have been conned for a generation," he said, exposing the many hidden costs of nuclear power. The companies had "overbuilt their capacity," and Construction Work in Progress fees, the way utilities obtained investment capital by passing on costs to customers in advance, should be prohibited, he advised. He was eventually joined by the Democratic Party, which called for a moratorium on nuclear construction. The political spectrum was going through a shuffle. Terms like "liberal," "conservative," and "radical" didn’t have as much meaning when applied to issues like nuclear power.

Activists were digging in their heels and making connections, so direct action and other protest tactics wouldn’t end soon. But neither would watching and infiltrating the young social movement, a dynamic that created a rough double-bind for the activists – working to build trust while staying skeptical, if not suspicious, about unfamiliar supporters or anyone advocating tactics other than nonviolence. Fortunately, the intelligence community had neither the time nor the resources to spy on everyone disillusioned with nuclear power and weapons. Then again, with federal and state money, plus incentives from an industry under attack, it was hard to predict just how far the things might go.

Chapter 15 of Prelude to a Revolution

Next: A Vermont Terrorist Scare Begins