To me the part that makes it truly insidious is the coordination between banks, the FBI, local police departments, and universities, in order to stifle a political movement. This coordination occurred
before the start of the Occupy movement, and so before any laws had been broken and needed to be enforced. As such, your use of the word "response" is inappropriate. A "response" implies a previous action to be responded to. This coordination between banks and the FBI happened prior to any protest.
I would expect the law enforcement response to, say, an actual terrorist group to be nationally coordinated.
I would not expect the law enforcement response to semi-legal public camping to be nationally coordinated.
The fact that it was implies that there was a political motivation to the specific law enforcement actions that took place, which is something typically considered inappropriate for the American government. We like to think that in America, we have the freedom to assemble and organize with fellow citizens to coordinate social change.
These documents tell us that we do not. Should we attempt to do so, should we go outside the gameboard for any action, we will be ruthlessly, violently swatted down. The tanks[0] will roll in, the LRADs[1] will blare, and armored stormtroopers will march alongside firing tear gas and pepper spray[2].
And not only will that dismantle that movement, but it will make every subsequent movement have to overcome not just a typical barrier to adoption, but also the fear of being there when the gloves come off and the gas canisters fire. It's what's called a chilling effect[3].
[0] http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/09/us/war-gear-flows-to-polic... (among many articles documenting this trend; if you want to see it in person go to any large protest in a major city, I have seen them in DC, New York, Pittsburgh, and Oakland among other places)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LRAD
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AdDLhPwpp4
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect