SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
cointelpro
DOJ Indicts East LA Community Defender Accused of Giving Face Shields to Anti-ICE Protesters
One group asserted that Alejandro Orellana "has done nothing wrong; speaking out against ICE terror, raids, and deportations is not a crime, protesting is not a crime!"
Jul 03, 2025
The U.S. Department of Justice on Wednesday indicted a longtime immigrant rights defender who allegedly distributed items including face shields and bottles of water to demonstrators during a downtown Los Angeles protest last month against Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids.
Alejandro Orellana, 29, of East Los Angeles was indicted by a federal grand jury for alleged conspiracy to aid and abet civil disorders. According to federal prosecutors, Orellana and others met on June 9 and loaded his Ford pickup truck with face shields, masks, bottles of water, and other items and then drove to a protest and handed out the items.
Orellana was arrested during a June 12 raid by FBI agents backed by National Guard troops and county law enforcement on his family home in East L.A. According to Los Angeles Public Press, federal agents executed a search warrant two weeks later against fellow activist Verita Topete, seizing her phone and leaving her bruised.
At a June 27 press conference at Ruben F. Salazar Park in East Los Angeles, Orellana thanked "friends, family, community, and allies" for their support.
U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli told Fox News at the time of Orellana's arrest that "we have made it a huge priority to try to identify, locate, and arrest those who are involved in organizing, supporting, funding, or facilitating these riots."
If fully convicted, Orellana—a U.S. Marine Corps veteran with no criminal record—could face up to five years behind bars.
Orellana and Topete are members of Centro CSO, a Chicano-led civil rights group that is no stranger to state surveillance and repression. Founded in 1947 by Fred Ross, Antonio Rios, and Edward Roybal—who was later elected to the Los Angeles City Council and then the U.S. House of Representatives—the group was originally known as Community Service Organization (CSO).
Notable CSO members have included César Chávez and Dolores Huerta of United Farm Workers, both of whom were targeted for FBI surveillance under longtime Director J. Edgar Hoover's COINTELPRO program.
Centro CSO was born out of CSO in the 2000s to "fight against the war in Iraq, and military recruiters, and also the fight for public education," longtime member Carlos Montes told Los Angeles Public Press. Another Centro CSO member, Sammy Carrera, told the outlet that the arrest of Orellana and seizure of Topete's phone are a continuation of state suppression of CSO.
"I don't think they anticipated such an organized community that was willing to defend our neighbors, our family members, and so they're scrambling to see, you know, see how they can smash us to stop, you, these rebellions that are being organized," Carrera said of the government's response to the anti-ICE protests.
Responding to Orellana's arrest, the Los Angeles-based Legalization 4 All (L4A) Network said last week: "Alejandro has done nothing wrong; speaking out against ICE terror, raids, and deportations is not a crime, protesting is not a crime! As Chicanos, Mexicanos, Centroamericanos around the country are being racially profiled and viciously kidnapped, activists like Alejandro have every right to speak out."
"Protesting is not a crime, fighting against ICE terror is not a crime! Legalization for all and stop the ICE raids now!" L4A added.
Noting the numerous documented injuries suffered by anti-ICE protesters at the hands of police and the Los Angeles Police Department's long history of spying on and repressing civil rights defenders, attorney Peter Bibring told Los Angeles Public Press that "taking protective measures isn't a sign of criminal activity, it's common sense."
Centro CSO has been organizing events in support of Orellana, including a planned press conference at 4:30 pm Thursday at the Edward Roybal Federal Building and a Saturday rally in La Placita Olvera.
"Our movement will continue, even if they obtain warrants to confiscate our electronic devices," Carrera said at the June 27 press conference. "Our movement will continue, even if they bring in the National Guard to raid our members. Our movement will continue. Drop the charges now!"
Keep ReadingShow Less
The FBI Is Still Targeting Black People for Entrapment
The COINTELPRO era never ended, as Black people bear the brunt of FBI surveillance. The war on terror gave a new rationale for using paid informants to entrap Black people. Romeo Langhorne is the latest victim of a government-created crime.
Jul 17, 2022
Romeo Langhorne is the latest victim of an FBI phony terror entrapment scheme. On July 7, 2022 he was sentenced to 20 years in prison for uploading a bomb-making video. Langhorne didn't make a bomb. He uploaded a video while under the direction of an FBI informant. The video had in fact been produced by the government.
More than 20 years after September 11, 2001 Americans are still being told that they are at risk of terrorist attacks. The color-coded risk assessments, NSA surveillance of all electronic and internet activity continues. The threat of terror attacks is the justification for encroaching on civil liberties and phony terror schemes concocted by informants still get headlines and give legitimacy to the continued violations of our rights.
Langhorne is a 32-year-old Black man who was diagnosed with schizophrenia. He fits the description of nearly every person whom the FBI has speciously claimed to be a terrorist in the past 20 years. They are Black Americans, Muslims from this country or immigrants who are often vulnerable economically or emotionally. The list of people who were said to have planned acts of terror are victims of intimidation and entrapment from informers who are the ones who lead them to commit the act for which they are convicted.
In this case, Langhorne pleaded guilty to "probably at some point" pledging allegiance to ISIS. The plea is meaningless when no one is ever acquitted. Pleading guilty in this case gets a 20-year sentence, taking the chance of pleading innocent when the prosecutorial deck is stacked against the defendant means risking many more years in prison when the inevitable guilty verdict is reached.
John Leombruno, Langhorne's attorney described the scenario which occurs in most terrorism prosecutions, "Acting in an undercover capacity, they initiated conversations with Mr. Langhorne and incited the production of a video that would inform individuals on how to make an explosive...To make certain that a prosecution of the defendant would occur, the government produced the actual video in question (and), circled back to Mr. Langhorne when the interactions and conversations between them grew cold."
Langhorne shares the same fate with music Tarik Shah, the Liberty City Seven, and the Newburgh Four. All were targeted by FBI informants. In the case of the Liberty City Seven no crime was committed and the Newburgh Four supposed bombing plot was led by the informant, who created the crime himself.
Little has changed since this Black Agenda Report commentary in 2010, which stated that the true purpose of these entrapments is, "... to terrify the American public, so that they will surrender their civil liberties - possibly the greatest extortion scheme in U.S. history." Of course, Black targets are the most useful, as they always "fit the profile" when some wrongdoing is being concocted.
In the wake of the September 11 attacks, congress passed the Patriot Act, far-reaching legislation that has impacted civil liberties ever since. At the time it was said to be temporary, yet it has been renewed like clockwork, without opposition or even minimal questioning from members of Congress or the corporate media.
Langhorne was under surveillance from 2014 until his arrest in 2019. We see the usual hyperbolic claims of terroristic intent along with vague assertions of pledges to ISIS or another organization. In all these years there have been no Jihadist terror events in the U.S. Plots are produced by paid snitches and the wheels of injustice grind on and on.
Giving "material support" is a catch-all phrase that can mean anything that prosecutors want. Any statement can be called a pledge of support to ISIS. The end result is that of the 979 terror charges filed since September 11 only 7 individuals have not gone to jail. A guilty plea in cases such as these proves absolutely nothing.
So 32-year-old Romeo Langhorne gets 20 years in federal prison followed by 15 years of supervision. He will be a senior citizen by the time he is truly free from law enforcement. No one had anything to fear from him or the hundreds of others who have been prosecuted. Apparently, there aren't any real terrorists working in the U.S. If they do exist the feds can't find them. They can only find hapless dupes to persecute and prosecute so that the people don't question what their government does in their names.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Should We Fight a War on White Terrorism?
There’s a strong argument to shift law enforcement resources from Muslim organizations to domestic white terrorists — but expanding the war on terror is a riskier proposition.
Aug 22, 2019
Although its precise scale is hard to measure, violent white supremacy is clearly a problem in the United States.
From El Paso to Pittsburgh, the fears and fantasies of an immigrant invasion, a liberal Jewish betrayal, and a righteous race war have motivated surgically targeted slaughter. With law enforcement -- especially the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) -- seemingly more concerned with "black identity" and "animal rights/environment extremists," our so-called "War on Terrorism" looks more distorted than ever.
Should we be trying to even the score?
Although it is tempting to embrace Senator Elizabeth Warren's call for white supremacy to be treated as domestic terrorism, any widening of the current, more narrow "war" should be approached with caution. History suggests that repression of these movements may well succeed, but also bring a troubling mix of unintended consequences.
The Old Wars on White Terrorism
The obvious analogue to today is the 1960s. FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover long held that national security was under attack not from the architects of near-daily atrocities in "Bombingham," Alabama, or from a resurgent Ku Klux Klan, but instead the Black Panther Party and the unruly, allegedly Communist-sponsored "agitators" of the Civil Rights movement.
Hoover had to be cajoled, belatedly, by President Johnson before the FBI promised, in September 1964, to "expose, disrupt, and otherwise neutralize the activities of the various Klans and hate organizations" across the country.
By 1970, 17 field offices were participating in this "counter-intelligence program" (COINTELPRO), which included tried-and-tested methods like the "manipulation of informants, anonymous letters, and friendly press services" to foment conflicts among the leaders of white supremacist organizations. The Bureau even exposed the Jewish descent of the Nazi Party's Midwest Coordinator.
By most accounts, these typically dirty tricks -- honed by their deployment against civil rights leaders -- were effective in undermining groups like the Klan.
The story was different when the federal government was confronted with its first bout of "White Terror" after the Civil War. Initially disorganized violence against newly emancipated African Americans solidified quickly into a politically inspired assault on Reconstruction: The Civil War-era Republican Party's attempt to build something like a biracial democracy in the South.
Although our received image of Southern racism is the grinning, poor, illiterate white man ogling at a burning black body, the original Ku Klux Klan was more country club than trailer park -- formed and sustained by prominent politicians, decorated Confederate veterans, and former slaveholders.
This embedding of the Klan in respectable society ensured its expansion throughout the late 1860s. Only in 1870, with Ulysses Grant in the White House, and after the harrowing Ku Klux Klan Congressional hearings, did a counter-terrorism plan develop.
By our standards, the Enforcement Acts -- passed by Congress in 1870 and 1871 -- were relatively tame, focusing, for the most part, on beefing up the newly created federal Department of Justice.
But the third of these acts provided for a true emergency power: The president could suspend the writ of habeas corpus in pursuit of white terror organizations.
Grant, it seems, was genuinely appalled by Klan violence, and did not hesitate to act on his new authority in response to rampant terrorism in South Carolina. Yet resistance to "Bayonet Rule" -- including from within his own party -- combined with a devastating economic crisis and deepening Republican divisions to leave most of the former Confederacy to the mercy of well-armed "Redeemers" intent on restoring the Old South.
In this, the first American war on white terrorism, the terrorists unquestionably won.
What Can We Learn?
These historical episodes could be interpreted simply: If Ulysses Grant had a J. Edgar Hoover and a COINTELPRO instead of an overstretched army and a reticent Congress, Reconstruction might have had a fighting chance of success. The civil libertarians may not like it, but the only remedy for white supremacy is our strongest possible repressive medicine.
Today, however, this argument raises two difficult questions.
First, would repression actually work? It is not hard to identify people who march around with bedsheets on their heads or swastikas on their sleeves. Navigating the largely online network of the "alt-right" movement is less straightforward: leaderless, dispersed, and rarely traceable to a specific organization.
Second -- and much more difficult -- could repression backfire?
A combination of old-school and modern methods -- infiltration, surveillance, hacking, propaganda -- is surely at least capable of disrupting the activities of white terrorist groups. But here the civil libertarians do have a point: Extreme powers used for one purpose can easily be recycled for something else.
Britain passed a Public Order Act to restrict fascist demonstrations, and the government deployed it against communists; the US Congress established a House Un-American Activities Committee with the goal of exposing Nazis, only to turn it overwhelmingly against the left; and France's Lellouche Law -- aimed at hate speech -- has more recently targeted pro-Palestinian activists.
Even in supposedly strong democracies, checks and balances have struggled to reverse these repressive cycles. We could boot President Trump out of office and craft a new counter-terrorism law carefully directed at white supremacists, but it will still be interpreted and enforced by Trump-packed courts, an unaccountable national security bureaucracy, and more than a few rogue local law enforcement agencies. The end result is unlikely to be pretty.
The Real Risk of Overreaction
After the El Paso shooting on August 3, the FBI called for a law much like this.
Apparently rooted in common sense, these proposals should be viewed skeptically. The alternative is not necessarily to do nothing, or, as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez suggested, to offer an olive branch to young men "in the grips of hatred."
There is a strong argument for reallocating the resources of law enforcement away from mosques, Muslim Student Associations, and games of cricket, and toward the real threats posed by white supremacists. But the last thing we should encourage is an expanded "War on Terror."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular