Did ‘anarchist violent extremists’ seek to infiltrate federal courtrooms? The Guardian has doubts.
To say that the federal government is the problem is often a safe assumption. But, in its coverage of an FBI document that purports to detail the infiltration and breakup of a potentially criminal enterprise, The Guardian not only fails to prove the case but barely even tries to make it.
The report, which concerns the ordeal suffered by unjustly surveilled suspects, is written entirely from their perspective. Taking a scandalized tone, the article details the FBI’s successful efforts to infiltrate a chat on Signal, an encrypted communications platform that is “widely used by activists.” It dings the Feds for declining to “make clear” how it accessed this closed communications network, and The Guardian’s reporters tie that ambiguity to the FBI’s other efforts to infiltrate and deter activists who attempt to frustrate (or far worse) the work of law enforcement agencies like Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
But it sure seems like the FBI did divulge the methods it used to gain access to this chat. According to the document on which the report is based, a “sensitive source with excellent access” — which is to say, a confidential informant — gave the FBI the keys.
The chat “is a private/invite-only, encrypted Signal application group chat created by the identified [individual],” the document read. “In private encrypted online chats, the identified [individual] is known to instruct protest participants to use violence against [law enforcement].”
The Guardian’s credulity is comically evident in its willingness to describe the surveilled members of the Signal chat “courtwatch” as mere “court watchers.” Perhaps the Feds cut corners here, as the left-wing publication implies. But, if we were to take the FBI at their word, the bureau surveilled this group based on probable cause.
The FBI branded the members of this cadre “anarchist violent extremists” (AVEs), a term of art the FBI uses to distinguish potentially terroristic left-wing actors within the broader universe of “domestic violent extremists.” What’s more, the Feds indicated that this chat featured conversations between users discussing “how to improve future activities” near federal courthouses.
Chat participants collected “critical information,” including “photos and videos of law enforcement officers, including their badges, faces, names, license plates, law enforcement vehicles, and the interior of federal facilities,” and they discussed how to surreptitiously “gain access to federal courtrooms.” Given the increase in “extremist actors targeting law enforcement officers and federal facilities” and the evidence compiled, the investigation seems relatively prudent.
But then, so, too, is The Guardian’s skepticism toward the FBI’s allegations. The memo is short on details, and it does not provide “specifics or evidence” to explain why it describes the targets of its investigation as AVEs. That skepticism should be tempered by the evidence that this activist network sought to infiltrate federal courtrooms at a time when the number of deadly attacks on federal law enforcement is spiking. Contrary to The Guardian, it seems like the Feds got this one right.