RTFA: http://safeaccessnow.org/blog/?p=134

After the raid, and after the story had been published by the LAT, Abdollah was contacted by Sarah Pullen, a spokesperson for the Los Angeles office of the DEA. Pullen requested that the face of the agent wearing the Blackwater t-shirt be blurred because he was an undercover agent and the photo might jeopardize his apparent anonymity. At the same time, Pullen assured Abdollah that the “undercover” agent was in fact an employee of the Drug Enforcement Administration and has never been an employee of Blackwater. Pullen also felt it necessary to explain to Abdollah that the request to blur the agent’s face and the fact that he was wearing a Blackwater t-shirt was completely coincidental. In a subsequent conversation with the DEA, Abdollah was told that the agent was not undercover for the raid, but does routinely engage in undercover operations.

Rebecca writes in with a pointer to Kris Hermes’ follow-through on the DEA/Blackwater connection. Thanks for fact-checking!

So, it seems the DEA story is:
1. he wasn’t undercover, but he wasn’t wearing a DEA uniform either (i.e. not “over-cover”)
2. he’s sometimes undercover, so his face needs to be blurred from the public
3. He isn’t connected to Blackwater, but he’s wearing their shirt
4. It’s illegal by Federal law to have marijuana, but no arrests were made

I have to admit: I don’t work for Google, but I wear a Google shirt once a month. Why? I got it from a job fair, since I’m in the industry. Early on, speculation at BoingBoing was going down this path, and it is definitely plausible. I detect striking parallels between the DEA and Blackwater-Iraq, so I could imagine this fellow getting recruited by Blackwater (and by the DEA).

I do have a suggestion for the DEA: next time you want to keep your agents undercover, don’t dress them up in a private merc shirt, don’t give them a conspicuous gun, and don’t drop them off at a raid to perform custodial work. That way, you won’t have to force the LA Times to disappear the evidence in a shady and suspicious sequence of events. …and you won’t have to explain that he’s only undercover some of the time, but not this one time that he got caught on camera.

Here’s another suggestion: only engage in actions that are legal, only tell the truth, and if the law REALLY has your back, then accomplish this agenda as if you were legitimate (i.e. drop the terrorist tactics). I call bullshit on Pullen’s story. Four contradictions don’t make a right.