The conviction of the SHAC 7–animal rights activists hit with “terrorism” charges for publishing a website and vocally, unapologetically supporting direct action–has been upheld by a U.S. appellate court. It is a landmark free speech ruling that lowers the threshold of what types of conduct are protected by the First Amendment, and upholds a law that is so broad that it targets civil disobedience as “terrorism.”
As a brief introduction: The “SHAC 7” of Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty ran an effective campaign that had the sole purpose of putting Huntingdon Life Sciences, a notorious animal testing company, out of business. The campaign pressured corporations to sever ties with the lab. The SHAC 7 were never accused of breaking windows or releasing animals from labs, but they supported those who did. They published a website which posted news of both legal and illegal tactics, and supported all of it. The website had also posted names and addresses of individuals connected to the corporations targeted.
The ruling was issued today and, although there are many aspects that deserve attention, I want to walk through what I think are by far the most dangerous and troubling implications of this ruling–those related to the First Amendment:
[PDF of the SHAC appeal ruling]
Supporting and facilitating non-violent civil disobedience is not protected speech.
As part of their campaign, SHAC supporters were emailed about “electronic civil disobedience.” The email and message board posts included instructions on how electronically “sit in” on corporate web sites through emails, faxes and phone calls.
Now, one of the benchmarks in First Amendment law is what is called the Brandenburg standard. It holds that even the most controversial and inflammatory speech is protected as long as it not likely to incite “imminent and lawless action.” That is a very high threshold. In this court ruling—which, to the best of my knowledge and the attorneys I have spoken with is the first of its kind—the written word can be construed as promoting, or resulting in, imminent and lawless action.
To put it more plainly: Vocally supporting civil disobedience, explaining what it involves, and encouraging/facilitating people to take part is not protected speech.
This is so important let me say it again, another way: People who write about civil disobedience and encourage people to take part can be found convicted of a crime even if they do not take part in the civil disobedience.
This has dangerous implications far beyond this case. For instance, I wrote about the recent call by mainstream environmental groups for massive non-violent civil disobedience in defense of the environment. Under this reasoning, organizers of that event who published a website aren’t protected by the First Amendment.
[UPDATE: One person had this question, so others might as well: I am not at all saying that simply endorsing civil disobedience is now not protected speech. However, doing so and also facilitating civil disobedience is what the court ruled is not protected. So in the example above, the organizers promoted civil disobedience, encouraged it, set up a website telling people where to go and when, and there were people involved to specifically support those arrested. I think there is a very real danger of that type of conduct being affected by the reasoning presented in this ruling. That is what I had meant by the headline and preceding points.]
Fiery rhetoric is a “true threat” when illegal conduct has taken place in the same campaign.
Another measurement of whether speech is protected by the First Amendment is whether it is a true threat. Throughout the appellate court ruling, the court argued that SHAC’s speech did, in fact, constitute a true threat.... full article at link........The conviction of the SHAC 7–animal rights activists hit with “terrorism”... more
The following is a letter just released by one of the lawyers defending the AETA 4, Bob Bloom. The letter captures both the absurdity of the charges, and the significance of the case for the animals and all of us. For a blunt and succinct explanation of how far the FBI is willing to go to crush the more effective tactics employed by the animal liberation movement, read on.
-Peter Young
A new client of mine, a young man named Joseph Buddenberg, is one of four principled, dedicated, and non-violent animal rights activists who have been indicted in federal court in San Jose, California under a new federal statute that was intended by Congress to target unlawful and violent conduct.
The statute, effective as of 2008, is known as the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA), and each of the four defendants is facing five years or more in federal prison because they are alleged to have engaged in, literally, picketing at the homes of researchers they believe cause laboratory animals to be subjected to inhumane experimentation that causes suffering, pain, and death.
Congress was cautioned that the statute would be subject to overreaching by the FBI and by prosecutors. Predictably, this case that targets non-violent and non-criminal speech is the very first prosecution the government has chosen to initiate under this new statute. (The statute can be found by Googling 18 U.S.C. 43).
I do not understate or attempt to mis-state the allegations against the defendants. One of the documents I enclose is an affidavit sworn to by the FBI agent in charge of this case. The affidavit sets forth the worst of what the FBI claims the defendants did (in fact, the affidavit mis-states the facts as to one event). As you will see from reading the affidavit, the defendants are accused of identifying and locating animal researchers and then loudly picketing on the sidewalks in front of their homes. The intent was, and is, to stop the torture and other mistreatment of animals by speaking out in a non-violent manner to shame the researchers by exposing them and their conduct to their neighbors.
This kind of activity, speaking out to expose wrongdoers, is the very essence of the First Amendment. But the offending research laboratory, the University of California, is politically very powerful, and it has apparently lobbied federal law enforcement officials to bring this prosecution. The right of non-violent activists working to protect animals is under threat, and the First Amendment rights of all of us are threatened by this prosecution as well, as the animals suffer and die painful deaths every day.
The defendants are all good people, and courageous people. I have come to know Joe, and I can tell you that he cares deeply about protecting innocent creatures and putting an end to the mistreatment and the suffering. He is not a violent person, and he is not a criminal. And he certainly is not a terrorist.
Many animal lovers and civil libertarians believe that this is an extremely important case for a number of reasons. I have been engaged in civil rights law for more than forty years, and I am truly offended by, and worried by, this prosecution. Needless to say, it impacts the four defendants, but it also imperils the rights of all of us, as well as the lab animals who are being subjected to horrific mistreatment.
The case is complex and labor-intensive. It involves a maze of legal questions regarding the constitutionality of the statute, the validity of search warrants, potential issues regarding wiretapping, and other challenging issues, including the intricacies of the law of conspiracy (one of the two counts in the indictment). The facts of the case are also complicated, encompassing some fourteen incidents in at least three counties, and there are literally dozens of witnesses for whom we must prepare............The following is a letter just released by one of the lawyers defending the AETA 4,... more
TERRORIST - SHAC 7 chronicles the journey of a group of grass-roots activists up to and through their trial for Domestic Terrorism. Dark truths about The Patriot Act, the First Amendment, questionable science and political activism all come to light as we live, laugh and fear with the defendants, attorneys, witnesses and law enforcement professionals involved in this precedent setting case. Produced in partnership with Finngate Pictures.
The National Lawyers Guild has created a great new resource, “Operation Backfire: a Survival Guide for Environmental and Animal Rights Activists.” It’s a booklet on how environmental and animal rights activists have been targeted by the government and branded as the top domestic terrorism threat. It also has a great “know your rights” section that offers information on:
* handling encounters with the police and FBI in various situations
* suggestions for how to respond when questioned or presented with a warrant
* information about your rights when asked for identification or a DNA sample
* a discussion of grand juries, subpoenas, and FBI attempts to turn activists into informants.
To request free copies, call the National Lawyers Guild office at (212) 679-5100. You can also download the booklet at nlg.org (I also uploaded “Operation Backfire” here on GreenIsTheNewRed, as a backup).
And don’t forget the guild has a Green Scare Hotline at 888-NLG-ECOL (888-654-3265).The National Lawyers Guild has created a great new resource, “Operation Backfire: a... more
We recently looked at why the government and the press (outside of some bloggers and opinion columnists) have not labeled the murder of an abortion provider as “terrorism.” It’s important to remember, though, that this isn’t an isolated incident. The word terrorism is used by the FBI and Department of Justice only when it fits a certain political agenda.
The government has systematically labeled animal rights and environmental activists who have never harmed anyone as “the number one domestic terrorism threat.” Yet the term is not applied to individuals who have committed much more serious (and often violent) crimes either for personal gain or for right-wing motives.
Here are 30 cases that the government has chosen to not label as “terrorism”:
Plotting to assassinate the president.
Beating African-American voters because they voted for Obama.
Threatening to assassinate the President and detonate C4 at the Mall of America.
Making death threats against biologists to “kill the enemies of Christian society.”
Attacking a black man with a chainsaw because of his race.
Using a noose to assault a black man at the Pentagon.
Tying up a black student and taunting him with racial epithets as part of a high school graduation party.
Smuggling “shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles, rocket-propelled grenades, and other military weapons.”
Leaving an incendiary device at a federal courthouse.
Placing a pipe bomb near a hotel and then calling in a bomb threat.
Making bomb threats on an airplane.
Impersonating an armed federal agent.
Shooting at FBI agents in a drive-by.
Threatening federal agents with an assault rifle.
Offering to sell your own child for sexual purposes.
Attempting to buy a 9-year-old girl for sex.
Selling a 5-year-old for sexual purposes.
Forcing a young woman to engage in prostitution through force, fraud and coercion.
Kidnapping 3 children.
Sending white powder to John McCain’s presidential campaign with a note reading, “Senator McCain, If you are reading this then you are already DEAD! Unless of course you can’t or don’t breathe.”
Mailing 65 threatening letters to financial institutions with white powder.
Mailing the Social Security Administration and saying ““I’m going to blow up your office and the IRS office as well.”
Sending more than 25 threatening letters to federal, state, and local governmental agencies containing fake Anthrax.
Sending a white powder through the U.S. mail to the Internal Revenue Service with a note that says “YOU HAVE BEEN EXPOSED TO ANTRAX DIE!”
A former sheriff’s deputy forcing a teenage girl to perform sexual acts in his patrol car.
Three police officers shooting a 92-year old woman at her home “during the execution of a search warrant obtained by the defendants based upon false information.”
Using “deadly weapons including firearms, baseball bats, machetes, bottles or knives in the commission of numerous murders, attempted murders and assaults…kidnapping; obstruction of justice; and witness tampering.”
Stealing cattle for personal profit.
Setting fire at a petting barn and killing more than 40 animals.
Setting dozens of fires that caused “incalculable suffering.”
Of course we could keep going, there’s no shortage of examples to draw from. To be clear, I am not arguing that all of these examples are in fact “terrorism” (I’ll be outlining what I think are the top criteria for defining acts of terrorism in a future article). But if the government defines “terrorism” so broadly as to include releasing mink from fur farms and protesting legally while wearing masks, then why don’t any of these qualify?We recently looked at why the government and the press (outside of some bloggers and... more
Wikileaks.org, the site responsible for leaking a multitude of useful documents to media and activists, has posted an article titled, "FBI: Tactics Used by Eco-Terrorists to Detect and Thwart Law Enforcement Operations, 15 Apr 2004, " an appraisal of counterintelligence resources in our community. Though government intelligence is widely known to be an oxymoron, this could lend some insight into their thinking and methodology.
Tactics Used by Eco-Terrorists to Detect and Thwart Law Enforcement Operations
...full article at link...
“Monkeywrenchers” (a term used to designate saboteurs) are urged to “study who has access to information now believed to be in the hands of the police” and “notice anyone who suddenly attempts to distance themselves [sic].”
Foreman’s book notes, “often a confidential informant is used to introduce the infiltrator to the group so that she will be more readily accepted.” Thus, law enforcement officials should recognize that merely using an existing source to gain access for an undercover agent/officer might not be sufficient for establishing the officer’s credibility.
Eco-Defense warns that potential undercover officers may “assume roles outside the target organization” that could increase access for the officer. The book further advises, “a favorite is to pass themselves off as writers or members of the news media, or even as someone hoping to produce a documentary for public access television.” Eco-Defense also suggests that undercover agents may pose as defense attorneys in an effort to gather information from recently arrested activists.
The book also asserts that undercover agents frequently pose as utility workers or phone company repairmen for the purpose of gaining access to a suspect’s living quarters. The book asserts that, once access is obtained, the agent is free to plant listening devices or observe illegal activities to justify a search warrant. The book advises readers to demand identification and verify the repairman’s legitimacy.
UNCLASSIFIED/LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE
UNCLASSIFIED/LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE
...full article at link...
Eco-Defense identifies additional methods by which informants or undercover officers may expose themselves, including:
Seeking information for which they have no need to know.
Attempting to get people to repeat previous incriminating statements, ostensibly to record the statements.
Casting suspicion on others to divert suspicion from themselves.
Volunteering for clerical or leadership roles within an organization in hopes of gaining access to information about the group.
Showing nervousness during an action.
Leaving meetings or actions briefly to make phone calls.
Probing for detailed information (e.g. names, times, dates, locations, etc.) indicating that an informant/agent may be taping the conversation.
Repeatedly discussing illegal activities even after conversation has shifted to unrelated matters.
Regularly inquiring about individuals believed to be leaders of a group.
Expressing particularly radical or inflammatory ideas.
To thwart the efforts of law enforcement officials – specifically undercover operations and confidential sources – the book provides several tips to current or prospective eco-extremists:
UNCLASSIFIED/LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE
...
full article at linkWikileaks.org, the site responsible for leaking a multitude of useful documents to... more
After reading the federal complaint for the arrest of animal rights activists on Animal Enterprise Terrorism charges, which I wrote about yesterday, this case still doesn’t add up. Some of you have posted comments that if these activists had actually assaulted someone, or if there was an imminent threat of violence, they would have been arrested long ago. Instead, the FBI spent time and money building a case based on supporting evidence that includes First Amendment activity like chalking, flier distribution, and protests.
Let’s look at this case from another perspective, though. Perhaps the activists arrested were never the intended targets.
I’ve written about the government’s seven-step process for convicting environmentalists as terrorists in property crimes cases. The recent Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act arrests are different from Earth Liberation Front or Animal Liberation Front arrests, though. These are above-ground and lawful—yet controversial–activists. However, I think the same model is being used.
The critical step in this process is for law enforcement to use what little evidence they have to scare the living hell out of those arrested. They use threats of outlandish prison sentences and terrorism rhetoric in order to create government informants, or snitches. They then continue that pattern of threats and fear-mongering with each subsequent arrestee, until they have enough to move forward with a case. This snitch-based model of police work (as opposed to gathering evidence, witnesses and leads) is notoriously unreliable and often illegal.
As this case moves forward, I have no doubt that federal prosecutors and law enforcement will, if they haven’t already, offer some kind of a plea agreement in exchange for cooperation. They’ll say something like: “We can offer you a way out of all this. Look, you’re facing prison time as a terrorist. And once you get out, you’ll always be a terrorist. We know you have good intentions, and you’re just worried about the animals. If you help us, maybe by wearing a wire, or offering up some names of others in this campaign, we can make it all go away.”
The FBI has shown it is completely inept at tracking down underground groups, including the people behind the destruction of vans at the University of California, and the incendiary devices left at a researcher’s home (which has been recklessly attributed to animal rights activists). So the feds go on snitch hunts.
That’s why it’s absolutely critical to not be intimidated into silence by these arrests. These activists need to know they have a strong community of people who support them, will look after them, and will not be afraid to speak up. The government relies on fear to create informants and snitches, and with a strong community of vocal supporters, it’s easier for activists to confront this fear head on. These activists, and all others, need to know that there is a way out of all of this, and it’s not by naming names or pledging loyalty oaths, it’s by organizing and fighting back.Will Potter
After reading the federal complaint for the arrest of animal rights... more
When I first reported on the arrest of four animal rights activists in California under the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, few details were available. The only information was the FBI press release (which mainstream media outlets have regurgitated nearly verbatim as news articles). I now have a copy of the criminal complaint written by FBI special agent Linda Shaffer (who specializes in “eco-terrorism”), and it has some more details of the case.
The activists were arrested, in the very first use of this sweeping law, for activity like “chalking defamatory slogans,” creating fliers, protesting while wearing masks, and attending a protest where an alleged attempt at forced entry took place. I was hoping that the criminal complaint would reveal something, anything, to justify such serious “terrorism” charges.
Instead, it reveals how scarce anti-terrorism resources are being squandered on surveilling and investigating First Amendment activity.
Here are a few highlights:
* Video surveillance used to track activist leafleting. Fliers were left at Café Pergolesi in Santa Cruz that listed the names, addresses, and phone numbers of animal researchers. It included rhetoric like “animal abusers everywhere beware we know where you live we know where you work we will never back down until you end your abuse.” That kind of heated rhetoric has been used in the leaflets, posters, and chants of not just the animal rights movement, but every other social justice movement. It’s not pleasant, but it is protected First Amendment activity. FBI agent Shaffer says video surveillance was used to identify two activists who left the leaflets in the coffee shop.
* Internet records used to track activists researching public information. FBI agent Shaffer says two of the defendants used “a public internet terminal to download and access the personal information for researchers at the University of California Santa Cruz.” The public information appeared on a flier titled “Murderers and torturers alive & well in Santa Cruz July 2008 edition.” The government obtained internet records from the university, tracked them to a Kinko’s, and then used video footage and business records from Kinko’s to identify activists using the internet for this information.
* DNA testing used to match activists with bandanas allegedly worn at a protest. Agent Shaffer says “based on DNA comparisons, laboratory analysis confirmed that KHAJAVI’s DNA was on at least one bandana, and that a combination of POPE’s and STUMPO’s DNA was on another recovered bandana.” What’s striking is that the government says it doesn’t have the money to help states use DNA testing in death penalty cases—and exonerate innocent people on death row—but there is money for DNA testing of activists’ bandanas.
The only mention of actual criminal activity in the entire criminal complaint is when Shaffer describes an incident at a protest at the home of “Professor Number Eight.” The professor’s husband says he “heard loud banging on the glass pane on the door” and saw “the door handle being twisted back and forth.” He opened the door, yelled at activists, and struggled with someone, and then he says he was hit with a “dark, firm object.” He recorded a license plate number from a car at the protest and gave it to the police, and police linked the car to one of the defendants.
At the very worst—assuming we believe everything this researcher and the FBI are saying—that is obviously not First Amendment activity. But it’s critical to note that the FBI is not alleging that any of the defendants attempted a forced entry, or that any of the defendants struck this researcher. Read the complaint for yourself. The FBI argues that these activists were present at this protest, and that their presence makes them terrorists.
... rest of article at link ...Will Potter
When I first reported on the arrest of four animal rights activists in... more
The recent FBI arrests of animal rights activists as “terrorists” for chalking sidewalks, protesting and making fliers marks a drastic turning point in the Green Scare, and in the history of this country. The government and corporations are clearly hoping to set a legal precedent for the sweeping power of the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. But these arrests are much more than a test case, or an isolated incident of ambitious prosecution.
These arrests are part of a 5-step process the FBI and other government agencies are using to overtly label First Amendment activity as “terrorism.”
The process has worked something like this:
1. Label. The first step was to label illegal direct action by groups like the Animal Liberation Front and Earth Liberation Front as “terrorism.” The FBI, corporations, industry groups and politicians began doing this in the 1980s, through media campaigns, think tank reports and legislation like the Animal Enterprise Protection Act.
2. Guilt by association. Next, these groups expanded their smear campaign to anyone who ideological supports direct action and economic sabotage. They began labeling the above-ground supporters of those movements as “terrorists.” A turning point was the conviction of the SHAC 7 for running a controversial website that vocally supported a wide range of tactics.
3. More guilty by association. This is now. The guilt by association is spreading from those who vocally support direct action (and, like the SHAC 7, perhaps even publish anonymous communiqués) to those who are merely lawfully protesting as part of the same campaign. In the SHAC 7 case, the government argued that the defendants were “conspiring” to promote illegal activity by running a website. In these recent arrests, the government is arguing that the First Amendment activity itself is “terrorism” because it’s part of a campaign that involves illegal tactics.
4. Expand the net. With the latest arrests, the government is still trying to play up the fact that illegal actions have happened recently in California, including bombings that have been recklessly attributed to animal rights activists. The next step is to completely drop that pretext. In other words, the next step is to go after people who are using their First Amendment rights and are not engaging in home protests, chalking sidewalks or wearing masks. This is the same expansion of the net that happened during the Red Scare: targeting writers, speakers, journalists, and public figures. I feel strange writing this but, in many ways, the next step is to go after people like me.
5. Repeat. This process will be repeated for different organizations and different types of people (activists, non-profit leaders, writers) and it will be repeated for other social movements. The government is not establishing these legal and legislative precedents simply to abandon them once the animal rights “radicals” are imprisoned. The legal latticework will be used against the next social movement, and the next, and the next. This has happened in every era of government repression throughout history: once those in power discover tools for silencing one opposition group, they never stop there.
In analyzing a process like this, it should be very clear that I don’t mean to imply, in any way, that this process is inevitable. The FBI is formulaic in how it cracks down on protest movements—we can see the patterns throughout U.S. history. The responses of activists and everyday people, though, need not follow any formula. The future is fluid. We have the power to intervene in this process—through education, community building, media outreach, lobbying, and the courts—and we must do so immediately, swiftly, and forcefully.Will Potter
The recent FBI arrests of animal rights activists as “terrorists”... more
Supporters of the four animal rights activists arrested by the FBI last week say the activists were exercising their free speech rights as nonviolent objectors trying to increase the public's awareness of animal cruelty in University of California research centers.
"It's strange. They act like these people are speaking completely out of context," said attorney Christine Garcia of the Animal Law Office in San Francisco. "These people are just vocalizing the reality of what these vivisectors are doing."
Garcia, who is representing Joseph Buddenberg, 25, of Berkeley, said what her client and his co-defendants - one-time Cabrillo College student Nathan Pope, 26, of Oceanside and former UCSC student Adriana Stumpo, 23, and former UCSC student Maryam Khajavi, 20, of Pinole - are accused of doing are actually constitutionally protected activities.
"This is sort of silly in a way," Jerry Vlask, spokesman for the Animal Liberation Press Office, said. "They're targeting people who are doing above-ground demonstrations and calling what they're doing terrorism... I don't really know why they think this is going to make any kind of a difference."
The foursome are accused of being involved in demonstrations in front of homes of UC Berkeley researchers in October 2007 and January 2008, as well as a protest and home invasion attempt at the California Street home of a UC Santa Cruz researcher in February 2008. In that attack, which occurred during a child's birthday
Advertisement
party, the scientist's husband suffered minor injuries.
Garcia, who briefly represented Pope last fall when he was accused of perjury, said the four were targeted by investigators because their demonstrations drew the public's attention to the biomedical researchers' work, which she called "a dirty little secret."
The researchers "are actually having to face it. They're actually having to realize that they're responsible for these deaths (of animals)," Garcia said. "They don't like to hear that. I think they just don't like being accountable to the public at large for those deaths."
Vlask, a physician, said he and his organization, which is not directly affiliated with any activist group, believe the research is not necessary.
"I can tell you we're not going to learn anything torturing these animals in labs," he said. "These people are wasting millions of dollars injecting methamphetamines and making tweakers out of monkeys."
Buddenberg and Khajavi are scheduled to appear in U.S. District Court in San Jose on Thursday. Pope and Stumpo, who were arrested in Charlotte, N.C., are being extradited back to California.
The suspects will be charged at least in part under the federal Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, which carries a penalty of up to five years for each violation. However, both Garcia said the law is overbroad and prime for constitutional challenges. It also may encourage protestors to go to greater extremes because the law carries the same penalty for a wide spectrum of demonstrations, Vlask said.
"It's making people who were formerly willing to protest and hand out leaflets ... Those people are saying, 'Heck, I can spend five years in prison for doing this things but I can pour some paint stripper on a guy's car or even light it on fire,'" and get the same punishment, Vlask said.
The foursome is not accused of involvement in the July fire bombings at the homes of two UCSC scientists. Those attacks remain under investigation, the FBI reported.By Jennifer Squires - jsquires@santacruzsentinel.com
Posted: 02/23/2009 07:10:01 PM... more
“If activists have nothing to hide, why are they wearing masks?”
I’ve heard that question over and over again. It usually comes in the form of a soundbite from someone affiliated with a corporation, industry or government agency that is attempting to smear lawful activists as “terrorists.”
Their reasoning goes something like this: If you aren’t doing anything wrong, you have no reason to hide your face. If you are hiding your face, it’s an admission of criminal activity. Therefore, wearing a mask justifies rounding up lawful activists as “terrorists.”
That’s exactly what happened in the recent arrests of four activists on Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act charges in California. The FBI argues that activists “wearing bandanas to hide their faces” were intimidating, and that this therefore amounted to a campaign of terror.
To those not familiar with grassroots activism, that might seem like a pretty reasonable point. Masks are generally associated with bandits, ninjas and Hamburgler, all of which are quite intimidating. So, why would someone want to cover their face at a protest?
* Spying. The FBI and Joint Terrorism Task Forces routinely spy on lawful, above-ground activists. For instance, the ACLU exposed FBI agents spying on animal rights activists who were leafleting outside of HoneyBaked Hams. And corporations have been tracking who activists are dating.
* Blacklists. Government “watchlists” have millions of names. Recently in Maryland, it was exposed that law enforcement kept terrorist files on environmentalists, antiwar activists, and nuns.
* Grand jury witch hunts. Vocal, public activists are routinely hauled before grand juries in political witch hunts, and forced to testify about their political beliefs and political associations. If they refuse, they face jail time.
* Infiltration. The government has been using paid informants and provacateurs to keep tabs on lawful protest movements. The recent case of the RNC 8 is a good example, and even more disturbing is “Anna,” the FBI informant who befriended activists and entrapped them.
* Legal attacks. FBI agents have shown their incompetence in attempts to track down underground members of the Animal Liberation Front and Earth Liberation Front. There have been arrests, but those crimes overwhelmingly remain unsolved. Instead, law enforcement has been cracking down on the public faces of those movements and labeling them “eco-terrorists.” A good example of that is the SHAC 7 case.
In this political climate, many activists have told me they face a difficult decision. If they take to the streets and protest on a controversial campaign (especially a campaign that has involved both legal and illegal tactics), they risk this surveillance, harassment and intimidation.
If they don’t take to the streets, they are compromising their beliefs and remaining silent about the things that matter.
For many, a solution has been to continue protesting on these campaigns, but with masks covering their faces. It clearly isn’t always the best solution. It can alienate and isolate everyday people who might otherwise be open to the message of the protest.
It clearly infuriates the feds that activists want to protect their identities while continuing to advocate for what they believe. A Joint Terrorism Task Force has even gone so far as to arrest an animal rights activist on felony charges for wearing a mask at a protest.
It would be a mistake, though, to blindly buy the FBI rhetoric. Wearing a mask may or may not best campaign decision for activists. But wearing a mask doesn’t mean activists are guilty, or that they are “terrorists.” For many activists, it simply means they don’t trust FBI agents and corporations. The developments of the last few days have shown they have good reason to feel that way.Feb 23rd, 2009 by Will Potter
“If activists have nothing to hide, why are they... more
It was only a matter of time. Since the passage of the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, a sweeping new law labeling animal rights activists as “terrorists,” corporations and industry groups have been pushing the federal government to use their new powers. For more than two years, the law has sat on the shelf. The government has finally put it to use.
On February 19th and 20th, the Joint Terrorism Task Force of the FBI arrested four animal rights activists as “terrorists.” Details of the arrests and the charges are still coming, but based on my conversations with attorneys and local news articles, this is the most sweeping expansion of the War on Terrorism and the “Green Scare” to date.
...more at link...
My calls to the FBI for a copy of the indictment have not been returned, and attorneys I’ve contacted have not viewed it either. However, the FBI’s press release notes that the activists are facing four charges, and lists four incidents. They include:
* Protesting outside the home of a University of California Berkeley professor. Some activists, “wearing bandanas to hide their faces, trespassed on his front yard, chanted slogans, and accused him of being a murderer because of his use of animals in research.”
* At another protest, activists “marched, chanted, and chalked defamatory comments on the public sidewalks in front of the residences.”
* At one protest, a group of five or six activists allegedly “attempted to forcibly enter the private home of a University of California researcher in Santa Cruz.”
* Fliers titled “Murderers and torturers alive & well in Santa Cruz July 2008 edition” were found at a local coffee shop. They listed the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of several researchers. The fliers said “animal abusers everywhere beware we know where you live we know where you work we will never back down until you end your abuse.” The FBI says three of the defendants are tied to the “production and distribution of the fliers.”
Chalking, leafleting and protesting are not terrorism, they are not property crimes, and they are not violent crimes. They are speech. Unlike real terrorists, these defendants are not accused of arming themselves with bombs or machine guns. Their only weapons are words.
The only allegation of possible criminal activity is the FBI’s mention of a forced entry. The details of that incident are unclear, though. For instance, at many lawful home protests in the past, activists have been attacked by the people they are protesting who, understandably, are not happy about a demonstration right outside their front door. In short, the very worst element of the entire set of allegations is nowhere near any reasonable person’s threshold for what constitutes “terrorism.”
...more at link...
At issue here is not the validity or morality of animal research, nor is it the efficacy of controversial tactics. Differences of opinion on those issues no longer matter. What’s at issue is whether the War on Terrorism should be used to target protesters as terrorists.
The true test of the health of the First Amendment, and basic freedoms in a democracy, is not whether safe, non-controversial, popular beliefs are protected. The test is whether the extreme, the radical, the outlandish, the offensive and the crude are protected.
When it comes to freedom of speech, the battleground–the front line–must be protecting the fringe.
[full article at link]It was only a matter of time. Since the passage of the Animal Enterprise Terrorism... more
By Will Potter
I interviewed with Lydia Howell at KFAI 90.3 FM in the Twin Cities about the RNC 8, the Green Scare, and who is–and isn’t–being labeled “terrorists.”By Will Potter
I interviewed with Lydia Howell at KFAI 90.3 FM in the Twin Cities... more
Studies show that long lasting change is that which occurs progressively and somewhat slowly over time. So, patience and vigilance will always be virtues for those who support animal liberation and/or rights. It is important to help people form internal attributions (i.e. I do this because I know inside that it is right and it makes sense) rather than external attributions (i.e. I do this because people tell me to).
Most people that support animal cruelty do so because of external attributions. People tell them they need to eat meat to be healthy. Scientists ask them to choose between a mouse and their mother's life in experimentation. People say that animal flesh for fashion is nothing more than a great way to express yourself. Companies claim household cleaners must be tested on nonhuman animals before they are safe for humans. And one of the biggest lies of all: Animals do not suffer in all of these industries and if they do, there is no other way. All of these things are completely wrong in most cases. The only people who need to eat meat to be healthy are perhaps the Inuit living the cold wilderness who have adapted to a life of almost completely meat due to their evolutionary history and genetic makeup. The idea that one must choose between a mouse or one's mother has been addressed as false many times in this blog and around the world in other writings and studies- nonhuman animal research harms more people than it helps. Animals that suffer and die for fashion are needlessly neglected, abused, and killed for fashion that has so many substitutes that are just as good or better than the animal ones. There are no laws requiring household products, cosmetics, etc to be tested on nonhuman animals. And lastly, animals DO suffer needlessly and greatly in every one of these industries.
Those of us who realize this would all be more than happy if all animal cruelty ended at this very moment. But it is not realistic. All movements take time. Women's suffrage took around 80 years and that was when half of the population was made of women. Slavery abolition took hundreds of years when I large quantity of the population was black/African American. It would be silly to expect the nonhuman animal rights movement, when none of the human population is nonhuman, would go any faster. It is a long process.
This is not to say that fast-acting direct action is useless because it asks for fast change. It is quite the opposite. Each animal activist has his/her place in the movement. The cat/dog lovers spread a love for some species of nonhumans akin to that of friends and family. The welfarists, while doing harm with "humane" campaigns, force those who can not understand the more extreme views, to at least look at nonhumans in a more realistic light. The lawful animal rights activists deal with the government and legislation that leads to protection of nonhuman animals. The wildlife lovers and conservationists protect the habitats, environment, and populations of wild animals. The animal liberationists and/or extremists focus on the elimination of the use of nonhuman animals for all human gains.
While all of these groups often have disagreements with each other, they all play a part in the system. Where would Martin Luther King Jr. have been without the Black Panther Party? No one noticed the peaceful and not-so-extreme ideas of MLK as being so incredibly logical and possible until those who were more extreme showed them it was.
So, remember, be patient, be vigilant, and never forget history. Our nonhuman counterparts depend on us.Photo: Policeman arresting a Suffragist.
Studies show that long lasting change is... more
Yesterday’s article on the sentencing of Marie Mason to prison, as a terrorist, for 22 years has made quite a buzz. Nearly everywhere the piece has been posted (news sites, environmental sites, Digg, punk forums) there has been a slew of angry comments (by “green” folks, no less) supporting her sentence and condemning illegal activity. Here are some samples:
* “Arson is not getting the environmental movement anywhere - that’s the kind of tactics that just turn people off from the message.”
* “You can’t burn down a building because you disagree.”
* “In the United States, one does not resort to fear and intimidation to make a point or to effect change, but that is what the ELF is all about: violence, arrogance and self-righteousness. It takes time and effort to effect change legally, because other people and other institutions may have different priorities and different viewpoints. Rather than engaging those people and institutions with reason in broad daylight, ELF chooses to engage them with fire and violence in the middle of the night.”
[Oops, that last one is actually a news release quote from the government. It seems that that federal prosecutors and mainstream environmental groups are using the same talking points.]
The recurring message goes something like this: Marie Mason broke the law. She used arson and economic sabotage as political tactics. She’s an extremist. If you protest the right way, though, you don’t have anything to worry about. The government is only going after the radicals.
Here’s the deal folks: naming names, condemning “radicals,” and pledging loyalty oaths didn’t protect anyone during the Red Scare, and it’s not going to protect environmental activists now.
A perfect example of this: A Utah lawmakers is promising to introduce new “eco-terrorism” legislation. His target? It’s not the Earth Liberation Front, Animal Liberation Front, or some shadowy underground group. He’s openly, proudly targeting mainstream environmentalists.
He points to people like Tim DeChristopher, the University of Utah student who disrupted an oil and gas auction by bidding on parcels of land.
Noel [the legislator] said stopping a legal oil lease is no different than “burning down a man’s cattle operation — eco-terrorism.” DeChristopher “took millions of dollars away from us, and he’s laughing at us. It’s not right. It’s not fair.”
This isn’t an isolated example. When incendiary devices were left at the home of a California researcher, the government recklessly blamed it on animal rights activists. The Humane Society of the United States donated money to an “eco-terrorist” witch hunt in order to distance itself from any illegal activity. And you know what happened? It didn’t protect them from industry groups.
I never discuss tactics on this site or in my speaking events. I never talk about the efficacy or morality of direct action, sabotage, arson, or violence. And that’s for one reason: When it comes to the government and corporate campaign to label activists as terrorists, tactics don’t matter.
These people are hitting ELF activists, Greenpeace and Animal Planet with the same, sweeping label. It’s a coordinate campaign to instill fear and chill dissent, and it’s growing every day.
The only way the environmental and animal rights movements are going to make it through this is if mainstream groups stop blaming activists for their repression, stop repeating the government sound bites, and start fighting back.
__________
To read about the green scare and what it is, go here: http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/green-scare/By Will Potter
Yesterday’s article on the sentencing of Marie Mason to prison, as... more
...[full article at link]...
The government is growing increasingly aggressive in its prosecutions, and increasingly transparent in its tactics.
Marie Mason, a longtime environmental activist and mother of two, was sentenced this afternoon to 21 years in prison, as a “terrorist,” for non-violent property crimes in the name of defending the environment. It’s a historic sentence, the longest yet for any of these Green Scare cases.
In the lead up to her sentencing, the FBI took their “eco-terrorist” scare-mongering to a new level. Mason’s friends and family were prepared to attend the sentencing hearing and support her at such a terrible moment in her life. So what did the FBI do? Agents had the audacity to warn the press that “terrorists” might be attending Mason’s sentencing. They said they “expect members of the eco-terrorist groups, the Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front to gather and protest.” This, of course, is a bold-faced lie. Any FBI agents worth their salt knows that clandestine organizations like the ALF and ELF do not protest: they are illegal, underground groups. This was a calculated scare-mongering move meant to make normal, everyday people afraid of showing up to a public court proceeding, lest they be labeled as members of the “number one domestic terrorism threat.”
Let me reiterate this: The government made a concerted effort to demonize not just the defendant, but anyone who supports the defendant by attending a public court proceeding. Regardless of how you feel about Marie Mason, or the Green Scare more broadly, moves like this are antithetical to any semblance of a democracy. Intimidating citizens to keep them from attending a politicized court date is a defining characteristic of an out-and-out police state.
If that isn’t enough, let’s look at Mason’s sentence. Twenty-one years for arson that caused about $1 million in damage to genetic-engineering research at Michigan State University and didn’t harm anyone.
By comparison, on Monday the FBI put out a press release patting themselves on the back for the guilty pleas of four men who assaulted three African-Americans on the night of President Barack Obama’s election victory. [I've written previously about how the FBI is more concerned about environmental activists than presidential assassination attempts].
From the FBI’s news release:
Nicoletti drove the group to the Park Hill section of Staten Island, a predominantly African-American neighborhood, where they came upon an African-American teenager and assaulted him. Nicoletti struck the teenager with a metal pipe and Garaventa hit him with a collapsible police baton.
The expected sentences for racist, violent attacks meant to punish people for voting for a black man? Between 10 and 12 years. That’s about half of Marie Mason’s.
The government’s press release said that “this successful prosecution sends a clear message.”
