Comments on: On Darren Thurston’s Statement, “Fired Back” http://www.crimethinc.com/blog/2007/12/22/on-darren-thurston%e2%80%99s-statement-%e2%80%9cfired-back%e2%80%9d/ This website will function as a clearinghouse for bulletins from participating cells, enabling readers to keep abreast of their activities and, more importantly, coordinate activities with them. Sun, 20 Jul 2008 17:24:55 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 By: root http://www.crimethinc.com/blog/2007/12/22/on-darren-thurston%e2%80%99s-statement-%e2%80%9cfired-back%e2%80%9d/#comment-10459 root Mon, 14 Jan 2008 19:21:10 +0000 http://www.crimethinc.com/blog/2007/12/22/on-darren-thurston%e2%80%99s-statement-%e2%80%9cfired-back%e2%80%9d/#comment-10459 You may be interested in a fresh view of things, my first visit since the site was revived. My first impression is of how much energy is being dissipated by this conflict - and thinking how much the hierarchy must be gloating over it and feeding from it. That some courageous people may have buckled under fear should be accepted by all of us as just one more of the consequences of the arsenal we all face every day. Somehow we have to rise above censure. You may be interested in a fresh view of things, my first visit since the site was revived. My first impression is of how much energy is being dissipated by this conflict - and thinking how much the hierarchy must be gloating over it and feeding from it. That some courageous people may have buckled under fear should be accepted by all of us as just one more of the consequences of the arsenal we all face every day. Somehow we have to rise above censure.

]]> By: xdx http://www.crimethinc.com/blog/2007/12/22/on-darren-thurston%e2%80%99s-statement-%e2%80%9cfired-back%e2%80%9d/#comment-9628 xdx Mon, 24 Dec 2007 04:06:31 +0000 http://www.crimethinc.com/blog/2007/12/22/on-darren-thurston%e2%80%99s-statement-%e2%80%9cfired-back%e2%80%9d/#comment-9628 Another note - I think a lot of these questions would become clearer if people who are interested in these cases and want to make up their own minds read the plea deals and other documents that are available to the public (they are available on ecoprisoners.org, greenscare.org, portland indymedia, and other sites). Gumby Cascadia's court hearing notes are also good and having sat through a number of the plea hearings myself, I can attest to their credibility. Darren's supporter even linked to Gumby's court hearing notes for Darren's sentencing, even though Gumby makes it clear in them that Darren is an informant! I am glad that Thurston finally released this statement because he's been promising it for a long time, and it turns out to a lot of hot air. His continued unwillingness to release the full details of his plea speaks volumes. Another note - I think a lot of these questions would become clearer if people who are interested in these cases and want to make up their own minds read the plea deals and other documents that are available to the public (they are available on ecoprisoners.org, greenscare.org, portland indymedia, and other sites). Gumby Cascadia’s court hearing notes are also good and having sat through a number of the plea hearings myself, I can attest to their credibility. Darren’s supporter even linked to Gumby’s court hearing notes for Darren’s sentencing, even though Gumby makes it clear in them that Darren is an informant!

I am glad that Thurston finally released this statement because he’s been promising it for a long time, and it turns out to a lot of hot air. His continued unwillingness to release the full details of his plea speaks volumes.

]]> By: xdx http://www.crimethinc.com/blog/2007/12/22/on-darren-thurston%e2%80%99s-statement-%e2%80%9cfired-back%e2%80%9d/#comment-9627 xdx Mon, 24 Dec 2007 03:59:57 +0000 http://www.crimethinc.com/blog/2007/12/22/on-darren-thurston%e2%80%99s-statement-%e2%80%9cfired-back%e2%80%9d/#comment-9627 Erling, the danger of Darren's statement is not that it is a complete work of fiction. He surrounds his fiction - that he is not an informant - with facts to make him sound legit (just as his supporter links to ecoprisoners.org and other websites that denounce Thurston, in order to make the free darren site look 'legit'). I will retract my speculation about his motives because his motivation is irrelevant. The rest of my comment stands. I don't think that sexual assault and informing on others are entirely the same, nor do I think they should be treated the same. If the survivor of an informant for someone reason thought the informant should be welcomed back and trusted, I would hope that this wish would not be respected. In practical terms, most informing plea deals require that the informant cooperate in all future cases and grand juries they're called for (a good example of this is the plea deal of Zachary Jenson - http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2006/07/20/zachplea.pdf ). Snitching is a breach of consent that cannot be rehabilitated or forgiven, whereas friends of mine who have been sexually assaulted have confronted and reconciled with people who've sexually assaulted them. Posing informing in terms of 'consent' is useful, but the metaphor with sexual assault only goes so far. There is also the question of multiple survivors having conflicting wishes, and in the case of informants, the informant posing a clear danger to many people other than the survivor of their actions. Another problem is that people in prison cannot so easily say exactly what they want to happen to the person who snitched on them, and even on the outside one is not really able to say what one wants to say. Good to talk about these things. Erling, the danger of Darren’s statement is not that it is a complete work of fiction. He surrounds his fiction - that he is not an informant - with facts to make him sound legit (just as his supporter links to ecoprisoners.org and other websites that denounce Thurston, in order to make the free darren site look ‘legit’). I will retract my speculation about his motives because his motivation is irrelevant. The rest of my comment stands.

I don’t think that sexual assault and informing on others are entirely the same, nor do I think they should be treated the same. If the survivor of an informant for someone reason thought the informant should be welcomed back and trusted, I would hope that this wish would not be respected. In practical terms, most informing plea deals require that the informant cooperate in all future cases and grand juries they’re called for (a good example of this is the plea deal of Zachary Jenson - http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2006/07/20/zachplea.pdf ). Snitching is a breach of consent that cannot be rehabilitated or forgiven, whereas friends of mine who have been sexually assaulted have confronted and reconciled with people who’ve sexually assaulted them.

Posing informing in terms of ‘consent’ is useful, but the metaphor with sexual assault only goes so far. There is also the question of multiple survivors having conflicting wishes, and in the case of informants, the informant posing a clear danger to many people other than the survivor of their actions. Another problem is that people in prison cannot so easily say exactly what they want to happen to the person who snitched on them, and even on the outside one is not really able to say what one wants to say.

Good to talk about these things.

]]> By: ret marut http://www.crimethinc.com/blog/2007/12/22/on-darren-thurston%e2%80%99s-statement-%e2%80%9cfired-back%e2%80%9d/#comment-9617 ret marut Mon, 24 Dec 2007 01:53:34 +0000 http://www.crimethinc.com/blog/2007/12/22/on-darren-thurston%e2%80%99s-statement-%e2%80%9cfired-back%e2%80%9d/#comment-9617 It's not entirely clear what Thurston's motives are, and I suggest we are cautious in speculating. The center of gravity here is that when a person signs an agreement with the state, the burden of proof to show that they are not collaborating with the state (or else to show the limits of that collaboration) falls on them. For the reasons stated above, we cannot be certain of the extent of Thurston's informing--some of the information is available to the public, some is not. This is a complex matter, for sure, and it's important that we are very intentional about the ways we discuss it as well as the positions we take. I want to emphasize that the above statement comes not from a self-righteous desire to vilify anyone, but rather from a consciousness of our responsibility to take this matter seriously. It doesn't serve us to sling accusations or call names, but we also cannot afford to brush off the question of collaboration with the state. xdx is right to direct us to the plea agreement, in which Thurston signs on to a statement implicating two as-yet unapprehended defendants. I believe that, by any conventional definition of "collaborating" or "informing," this alone demonstrates that Thurston is an informant. Informing is a breach of consent, the same as sexual assault. We don't accept it when a sexual assaulter blames his/her conduct on others or circumstances. There are a few competing trains of thought regarding how to handle sexual assaulters in our communities--exclusion, rehabilitation, etc.--but the most widely accepted principle is that we should abide by the wishes of the survivor. In this case, the survivors would include Exile and Sadie. It’s not entirely clear what Thurston’s motives are, and I suggest we are cautious in speculating.

The center of gravity here is that when a person signs an agreement with the state, the burden of proof to show that they are not collaborating with the state (or else to show the limits of that collaboration) falls on them. For the reasons stated above, we cannot be certain of the extent of Thurston’s informing–some of the information is available to the public, some is not.

This is a complex matter, for sure, and it’s important that we are very intentional about the ways we discuss it as well as the positions we take. I want to emphasize that the above statement comes not from a self-righteous desire to vilify anyone, but rather from a consciousness of our responsibility to take this matter seriously. It doesn’t serve us to sling accusations or call names, but we also cannot afford to brush off the question of collaboration with the state.

xdx is right to direct us to the plea agreement, in which Thurston signs on to a statement implicating two as-yet unapprehended defendants. I believe that, by any conventional definition of “collaborating” or “informing,” this alone demonstrates that Thurston is an informant.

Informing is a breach of consent, the same as sexual assault. We don’t accept it when a sexual assaulter blames his/her conduct on others or circumstances. There are a few competing trains of thought regarding how to handle sexual assaulters in our communities–exclusion, rehabilitation, etc.–but the most widely accepted principle is that we should abide by the wishes of the survivor. In this case, the survivors would include Exile and Sadie.

]]> By: erling http://www.crimethinc.com/blog/2007/12/22/on-darren-thurston%e2%80%99s-statement-%e2%80%9cfired-back%e2%80%9d/#comment-9603 erling Mon, 24 Dec 2007 01:04:10 +0000 http://www.crimethinc.com/blog/2007/12/22/on-darren-thurston%e2%80%99s-statement-%e2%80%9cfired-back%e2%80%9d/#comment-9603 You know, if you want to say that Thurston has no credibility, fair enough. But that you have chosen to do so by generating the absurd fiction that he is making everything up to generate prison support - when he already has prison support and is serving out the last year of his sentence - unfortunately leaves you with no credibility to speak of either. You know, if you want to say that Thurston has no credibility, fair enough. But that you have chosen to do so by generating the absurd fiction that he is making everything up to generate prison support - when he already has prison support and is serving out the last year of his sentence - unfortunately leaves you with no credibility to speak of either.

]]> By: xdx http://www.crimethinc.com/blog/2007/12/22/on-darren-thurston%e2%80%99s-statement-%e2%80%9cfired-back%e2%80%9d/#comment-9571 xdx Sun, 23 Dec 2007 21:34:50 +0000 http://www.crimethinc.com/blog/2007/12/22/on-darren-thurston%e2%80%99s-statement-%e2%80%9cfired-back%e2%80%9d/#comment-9571 To quote Sadie and Exile (who have read many of the court documents not released to the public): "...it has come to our attention that perhaps through naivete and perhaps through the deliberate spreading of misinformation, there has been some confusion over who amongst the indictees is worthy of prisoner support; meaning to us: who has NOT made statements implicating others, as the purpose of such statements is the further prosecution and imprisonment of others. Let us make this clear: all those amongst the indictees who have been apprehended, other than Ms. Waters, Mr. McGowen, Mr. Paul, obviously the authors of this piece; the so-called Ms. Zacher and Mr. Block, and sadly Mr. Rodgers, have dishonored themselves, their families and the very lineage of struggle which they themselves were once an integral part of, by becoming vicious traitors and handmaids of the state. To actively support these indictees who have been apprehended but not aforementioned is to support not only our incarceration but to wish that same fate upon many others currently living as fugitives or being sought similarly. If there are those amongst you reading this who feel the need to make excuses for those responsible for our imprisonment, we would ask you to refrain from offering a Janus-faced 'support' to us also, as it is completely antithetical to the reasons for our captivity." Even if you read the publicly available plea deal that Thurston signed ( http://greenscare.org/pdfs/ThurstonRedactedPlea.pdf ) it contains information about Rubin and Dibee, which Thurston puts his signature on being true. He is a snitch and is only attempting to spread misinformation so that he can get support while he is in prison - support which he should NOT receive, no matter how many times he apologizes or "comes clean". His statement is essentially bullshit. To quote Sadie and Exile (who have read many of the court documents not released to the public): “…it has come to our attention that perhaps through naivete and perhaps through the deliberate spreading of misinformation, there has been some confusion over who amongst the indictees is worthy of prisoner support; meaning to us: who has NOT made statements implicating others, as the purpose of such statements is the further prosecution and imprisonment of others. Let us make this clear: all those amongst the indictees who have been apprehended, other than Ms. Waters, Mr. McGowen, Mr. Paul, obviously the authors of this piece; the so-called Ms. Zacher and Mr. Block, and sadly Mr. Rodgers, have dishonored themselves, their families and the very lineage of struggle which they themselves were once an integral part of, by becoming vicious traitors and handmaids of the state. To actively support these indictees who have been apprehended but not aforementioned is to support not only our incarceration but to wish that same fate upon many others currently living as fugitives or being sought similarly. If there are those amongst you reading this who feel the need to make excuses for those responsible for our imprisonment, we would ask you to refrain from offering a Janus-faced ’support’ to us also, as it is completely antithetical to the reasons for our captivity.”

Even if you read the publicly available plea deal that Thurston signed ( http://greenscare.org/pdfs/ThurstonRedactedPlea.pdf ) it contains information about Rubin and Dibee, which Thurston puts his signature on being true. He is a snitch and is only attempting to spread misinformation so that he can get support while he is in prison - support which he should NOT receive, no matter how many times he apologizes or “comes clean”. His statement is essentially bullshit.

]]>