TBH I wouldn't be surprised if these organizations are infested with FBI agents.
In the UK, there was an informant for MI5 in the IRA for years codenamed Steaknife. It turned out he was the head of IRA internal security, it was his job to hunt moles. He was the perfect agent. I seem to remember a story of a mafia don who turned out to be an informant, which seems wild to me.
slip the feds a little juice tidbit here or there and he gets to run his empire a few months longer. repeat over and over until the feds get smart.
I mean, it's not as though other mafiosi turn informant because they yearn for justice...
These days it looks to me like Extinction Rebellion (XR) are being run by spies, since all their activities are so counter-productive in terms of making people hate environmentalism.
XR seem to be trying to distance themselves, but it's too late, I don't think most people distinguish between them.
Anything to antagonize working class people.
At the same time you also tend to be a higher value target for external actors compared to young, new, members of an organisation. So in the young end of it you'd prefer infiltration to recruiting informants, in part because young informants also tend to be less reliable than old, for the reasons above. If it's your agent loyalty isn't as brittle as when you've convinced someone to become a traitor.
When news of government or other external actors having gained access breaks, you typically don't want your infiltrators to become known if you can avoid it. It's different in some settings, antifascists commonly do the opposite and try to protect their informants so they can keep working if they move on to another far right group, while their infiltrators sometimes go public with what they've done.
There's also "Jimmy the Weasel" Fratianno who turned FBI informant. In Ovid Demaris' book "The Last Mafioso: The Treacherous World of Jimmy Fratianno", he quotes Jimmy even laughs about being one, taking money from FBI and still running his rackets for a time.
And you're missing a key feedback loop. The feds typically "create" an informant by digging up dirt on someone and blackmailing them into ratting on their buddies in exchange for non-prosecution. This informant then has a huge f-ing reason to radicalize the group and see to it that they do or attempt to do something worthy of prosecution so that they can make good on their promise to the feds.
So otherwise potentially benign groups wind up getting turned into hotbeds of extremism basically because the feds demand extremists to prosecute.
This is a workflow that dates back at least as far as the war on drugs where you'd have small time traffickers would get turned into informants and then work tirelessly to push their boss's or suppliers business to the next level while collecting evidince for their handlers. It was used on racist and religious extremist groups in the 80s and 90s and then on muslim religious groups in the 00s and now you're seeing it again with right wing groups.
I think the outcry is actually mostly media-oriented, because the media for the last generation has been filled with ex-Agents and funded by the Fed. The media is sad to see these organizations attacked, because the media is run by people with emotional bonds to those agencies.
Good riddance to all of them!
I have been saying it for over a decade, the western world is having a crisis of principals, not a crisis of policy. The inability to implement good policy (both public and private) is a symptom.
The attacks are premised on them being too leftist and needing to be replaced in their function by new/rebuilt organizations that are more friendly to the Right, which is the source of the center to center-left opposition to them (the Left itself is more focussed on criticizing the tactics of the center-to-center-left opposition than the regime.)
If they are trying to close in on the intelligence and police state because it's not vicious enough against folks they don't like (which includes me and a lot of folks I care about) then a "new and improved" CIA / FBI isn't a "good" thing.
I generally hate the US gov for it's history of doing objectively evil things (I pass by a former "residential school" every time I drive into town), but replacing it with something even more vicious and authoritarian doesn't improve the situation.
By contrast it's not surprising to me that as we go the other direction, the far right is less able to understand that these situations are structurally necessary for the operation of the systems that they support. Convincing those folks that it's not simply who is in charge is likely impossible. It will sound stupid, perhaps, but I have heard convincing arguments that the idea that systems are defined by "who is in charge of them" is fundamentally why "antisemitism" ends up being central to both the conspiracy folks and the fascists.
It seems entirely consistent that the people most alarmed about law enforcement and intelligence being handed over figures who are indicating they don’t intend to use it in a principled manner are critics who’ve seen how even less extreme more accountable people have used these roles poorly. The new team seems headed in a direction that might make poor past iterations look principled.
“Burn it all down” is good cover for people who want to selectively burn things down for their benefit (but not their things).
That would make sense if... there had been accountability in the past for the law enforcement and intel folks who abused their power. So far there's been no accountability ever for any of them no matter what they've done. If that continues and the only change is the targets then that will be very bad indeed, but that's not what Trump and friends are saying, and they seem to want to reduce the size of the agencies in question, which will necessarily reduce the number of targets they can acquire, or the extent to which they can persecute them -- unless of course AI makes them much more efficient in the future, say. Not that there's any guarantee that these agencies will ultimately be reduced in size. But if I take what they're saying at face value and they deliver on it, then I think we're looking at an overall improvement.
I never implied that they were.
> a federal agency [...] influences them into becoming informants. It's quite common for the FBI to frame this as "helping to keep people safe"; leaders in groups like this are frequently easy to manipulate with flattery.
> And you're missing a key feedback loop. The feds typically "create" an informant by digging up dirt on someone and blackmailing them into ratting on their buddies in exchange for non-prosecution.
I missed no such thing. Did you even read my comment?
> compromised after a federal agency threatens the leadership with jail time
[0]https://www.npr.org/2011/08/21/139836377/the-surge-in-fbi-in...
That's fascinating. I read about McVeigh years ago and knew he was motivated by Waco but I had no idea he actually witnessed it. Here is a short two minute video I found on the topic: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/oklahom...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gretchen_Whitmer_kidnapping_pl...
It's something most grass roots activists don't feel intuitively at all.
They look for spies among their own level but it's almost always going to be the organisers, the helpers, the ones with the van, the one that can print your posters, the one with a bit of spare cash, the dude who can set up your server and the friendly friend with time to help you personally that are the spies.
Logically it makes sense for a spy to be placed as high as possible to get more information, and yet activists look for spies among the rank and file. They look for odd people to label as the spy. They expel the outsider. They suspect the ones that don't fit in. But the spy is going to be a well adjusted normal insider that they already trust, almost always!
I find it so interesting. It happens again and again. It's probably the same pattern for any group that attracts any government attention.
It really feels counterintuitive that someone who has got to the top would be the one to turn, but it also makes sense that they would be the one's targetted.
People attracted to this stuff tend to be fairly dysfunctional as well. Even in successful revolutionary movements, the early people always get purged.
Because, at that point, the government has exactly one play left... to make everyone so afraid of compromise-proofing that no one bothers. This isn't unprecedented, by the way. Silk Road and Dread Pirate Roberts was a similar situation, and they used illegal NSA surveillance to unmask him and parallel construction (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction) to prosecute.
When they have a monopoly on violence and trillion dollar budgets, you're going to lose even if you have superior tactics.
This is not a new thing.
These people are typically the true believers in the Republic. They also believe they are taking down existential threats to the republic. Finally, they believe in defense in layers.
You know what they don't believe in? Playing fair.
No. I wouldn't count on new homeland security leadership appointees having a "free hand" in practice. All of them will discover that their phone, internet and location activity is known to the security agencies. All of that information is also known for their associates. Couple that with the fact that you're dealing with new appointees whose ideology is essentially based more in superiority rather than patriotism, and it points to a lot in that data trove that would be of interest to the kind of people who keep the FBI running from the shadows.
In fact, my bet is that this series of appointees will be far more easily controlled than ones appointed by some red, white and blue boy scout with a martyr complex like McCain would have been for instance. I'd wager there are probably some people in our homeland security infrastructure who actually prefer our appointed leadership be comprised of people who are more malleable.
they may not have had that bias before, but I'd bet in 6 months, when stocked full of MAGA new-hires, it's a different story.