The Vermont trial of an alleged “terrorist” revealed the danger of guilt by association, and how disinformation creates a false narrative. In 1978 FBI manipulation proved effective: Kristina Berster might be technically innocent until proven guilty, but in the public’s opinion she was a terrorist until proven otherwise.
Chapter Two: Guilt by Association
TERRORIST HELD AFTER ATTEMPT TO ENTER U.S.
— Rutland Herald, July 21, 1978
The birth of my son Jesse on the evening of July 3, 1978, moments before Burlington’s annual fireworks display, was one of the most incredible experiences of my life. Robin Lloyd and I had made a life-changing decision — to co-parent a child. But just three weeks later, after a brief break from political journalism and parenting to cover stock car racing, another incredible journey began.
Someone had been arrested crossing the border illegally from Canada. The FBI and newspapers called her a terrorist. Friends in the peace and feminist movements said the opposite: she was the victim, a student fleeing repression and seeking asylum.
In June, I had reported on related concerns in the anti-nuclear movement. The Clamshell Alliance was at a crossroads. A legal rally had been held near the Seabrook 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 had been infiltrated. At a conference in New Hampshire, paranoia flowed powerfully beneath the surface.
The suspicions were not unwarranted. Since 1974, surveillance, harassment, and infiltration of nuclear power opponents had been deemed "necessary" by public officials to prevent "terrorist” incidents. In 1977, New Hampshire Gov. Meldren 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, had provided the “information,” including the accusation that Clamshell members were "terrorists." The Party was led by right-wing conspiracy monger Lyndon LaRouche. Working through its National Caucus of Labor Committee (NCLC), the Labor Party had expanded its focus to Vermont, at the instigation of Nancy Kaufman, 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.
The arrest of Kristina Berster was a potential bonanza for agencies and organizations promoting a strong “counterterrorist” response. The general public first heard about her on July 21, several days after she was caught. The FBI knew only that she was a West German citizen wanted there for something called “criminal association.” The crime 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 have later joined the notorious Red Army Faction, also known as the Baader-Meinhof group, a radical underground movement dedicated to armed struggle.
Though highly circumstantial, the “evidence” was enough to launch a nationwide terrorist scare. In those days most Americans were much easier to convince. For FBI Director William Webster in particular, it was an opportunity to back up his claims that urban terrorism was on the rise. The Bureau was pushing for more agents and expanded authority to investigate citizens who were “reasonably believed” to be involved in “potential” terrorist activities. So far, the funding was stalled. Instead, criticism of the FBI increased as Congress discussed a charter to define and possibly limit the Bureau’s future activities.
Webster’s press conference had a simple but important — and deceptive — goal: to convince the country that a foreign terrorist had been caught in a conspiracy with Americans. He stopped short of calling Berster a member of Baader-Meinhof. But FBI spokesmen were already contacting their favorite reporters as off-the-record sources to provide additional details. The next morning daily newspapers across the country spread the news in big headlines. Countless papers, from the Washington Post to the Rutland Herald, used the same basic line, “Terrorist Held After Attempt to Enter the U.S.” Some accounts even printed an agent’s speculation that Berster had come to Vermont in order to assassinate the president of BMW. After all, he was planning a visit to Rutland.
One of the first Vermont jounalists contacted was Burlington Free Press reporter Mike Donoghue, who had excellent police sources. He received a wake up call about the arrest early on July 20 and ripped some AP copy that directly called her a Baader-Meinhof member. When I asked him about the source of his story, Mike 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. “We didn’t put her with any group,” he claimed. Nevertheless, most US newspapers that day called her a terrorist, using that loaded word without hesitation. But the ruse couldn’t be maintained. A week later, another FBI press official issued a low-key retraction. Barely noticed, the statement admitted the Bureau actually had no evidence that Berster was a terrorist.
WCAX reporter Wady Sawabini also tackled the story. He was tipped by an unnamed source in the Burlington Federal Building. Sawabini was known for his contacts and film coverage of anti-war demonstrations. He leapt into the case, providing information to lawyers and tracking the principals — on film whenever possible.
By then I had also become involved. Several friends had formed a defense committee. And in early August, I visited the Albany lockup to speak with the “terrorist” in person, at length and in disguise. As it turned out, I was the only reporter who managed to do so. What I heard was a tale of persecution and flight. The resulting cover feature appeared in the “Back to School” issue of the Vermont Vanguard Press, which had been publishing for just seven months. It was our biggest scoop so far. The cover photo showed an intense young woman in shackles, under heavy guard.
“Was Kristina Berster Tried and Convicted by a Prejudiced Press?” asked a cautiously provocative inside headline, above an investigative report that shared her side of the story and examined both the FBI’s “disinformation” operation and the media’s distribution of the distorted story.
The Vanguard’s editor was worried that we might be going too far, however, and decided to hedge his bet with a disclaimer. Describing me as a member of the Defense Committee, which was not actually true, he wrote that my report raised questions about “objectivity and conflict of interest.” Fortunately, he concluded that objectivity is a myth, and that my “pro-Berster sentiments” didn’t prevent me from doing my job.
Nevertheless, my credibility was on the line. 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.
Preserving peace and preventing terrorism are among the basic goals of law enforcement. If the methods are legal and ethical, most actions clearly intended to prevent potentially violent situations don’t raise questions. But when governments go beyond that, when groups or individuals are targeted for their views, associations, or criticisms of a government, they have crossed a constitutional line.
In a 1969 US Supreme Court case, Brandenburg v. Ohio, the majority said that the government cannot 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 a “clear and present danger,” suppressing speech and punishing people for their associations are out of bounds. By the time that ruling was issued, however, the US federal government had been engaged in a covert program directed against domestic targets for years.
In a 1976 report by the US Senate Select Committee to Study Government Operations, the program known as 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.” Its dubious premise, the report explained, was that law enforcement must “do whatever is necessary to combat perceived threats to the existing social and political order.” In other words, anything goes.
The ultimate motives were murky, but by the late 1970s several major energy corporations also provided a push, and the intelligence community was ready and willing to actively infiltrate and spy on anti-nuclear activist groups. Related to that, I was also concerned about the loose and misleading use of the words like “terrorist.” Until I met Kristina, however, I had no idea how far anti-terrorist “preparedness” could go.
While investigations proceeded on two continents, a defense team was being formed. In Burlington, the defendant would have the counsel of William Kittel, as well as Albany attorney Dennis Schlenker. But the local team would be led, whether they liked it or not, by William “Wild Bill” Kunstler. This was just the case he had been waiting for: a defendant seeking political asylum from a country that had begun to indict and convict so-called radical lawyers. It was a marriage made in Heidelberg and Chicago.
“This case goes far beyond Kristina Berster,” said Kunstler, after approaching the defendant to offer 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.” Kristina also had been contacted by two German intelligence agents, who promised that her German charges could be reduced, or even dropped, if she gave them valuable information — especially names.
When she declined, the promise became a threat: “Then you’ll be coming with us.”
At a press conference, Kunstler mentioned the “panic” reaction growing from the “terrorist” label, resulting in an initial $500,000 bail, the largest amount ever set for a border charge. On August 1, when Berster pleaded not guilty to the charges, that figure was reduced to $100,000. In the headlines, however, she remained a “suspected terrorist.”
By this time the graffiti was on the wall. Berster wanted political asylum, but in City Hall a leaflet supporting the West German woman was found defaced with the phrase, “Send the bitch home!”
A month after her capture, Berster was back in Burlington’s U.S. District Court, pleading innocent to an eight-count indictment charging passport violations and conspiracy. She wasn’t alone. Ray Kajmir, a New York boutique owner, was also pleading innocent. He and two others had been indicted for “aiding” Berster’s alleged illegal entry.
“I am not a terrorist,” said Kajmir. “My conduct has been based upon human principals of the highest order: to help and protect another human being.”
Berster refused to talk to reporters, but through the legal team potential supporters heard that she was a feminist. This struck a chord in Burlington’s women’s movement, which had been active for years and had a new women’s monthly newspaper, Commonwoman. At the court session, several spectators were identified as members of the newspaper’s volunteer staff.
The event had a backdrop of intrigue. Part of the atmosphere was supplied by Nils Briska, the librarian from Albany. On August 3, after an unsuccessful attempt to see the defendant, Briska was discovered unconscious on a raft in Plattsburg Bay. He was tied at the ankles, waist, neck and wrists, crumpled in a large covered toolbox. Briska blamed the assault on “terrorists,” but the police said he might have tied himself up.
Although Briska wasn’t at the August 15 indictments, Burlington TV reporter Wady Sawabini said that the librarian “definitely has some problems.” Sawabini grew suspicious after receiving a threatening phone call about his coverage of the case. Seeing a man on the phone outside the courtroom speaking German, he decided to investigate. Sawabini asked the caller who he was, but couldn’t get past the man’s protests that he was being harassed.
The case was taking bizarre turns. The West German government still hadn’t forwarded a clear indication of some formal indictment. Odd characters were beginning to clutter the Burlington scene. And beyond the alleged border offenses, Kristina still had no idea what charges she might face back home.
Next: On with the Trial
No comments:
Post a Comment