Feds Charge Animal Rights Activists With Terrorism Under Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act !!??

[Better Believe It]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 13, 2009
CONTACT: Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR)
Jen Nessel, 212.614.6449, [e-mail]
David Lerner, Riptide Communications, 212.260.5000

First Case Under Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act Heard in San Jose, CA

Rights Attorneys Challenge Unconstitutionally Vague Law

SAN JOSE, Calif. - July 13 - Today, the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) was put on trial by attorneys with the Center for Constitutional Rights, the Civil Liberties Defense Center, and co-counsel who demanded it be struck down as unconstitutional. The challenge comes in defense of four animal rights activists who are accused of chanting, making leaflets and writing with chalk on the sidewalk in front of a senior bio-researcher's house, as well as using the internet to research the company whose actions they planned to protest. This case is the first to be prosecuted under the November 2008 law. Under the AETA, the activists are charged with acts of animal enterprise terrorism.

"The AETA is so overbroad and vague that picketers protesting labor practices at WalMart who mount a successful boycott could be charged with animal enterprise terrorism because WalMart sells lunch meat," said CCR Cooperating Attorney Matthew Strugar, who argued the challenge today. "And it is impossible to know from the language of the law whether your activities might be covered. The AETA is unconstitutional, and if it remains on the books it will be a genuine threat to free speech."

U.S.A. v. Buddenberg is a federal prosecution of four animal rights activists in California. On February 19th and 20th, 2009 the Joint Terrorism Task Force of the FBI arrested four animal rights activists for conspiracy to commit animal enterprise terrorism. The indictment against Joseph Buddenberg, Maryam Khajavi, Nathan Pope and Adriana Stumpo (the AETA 4) charges them with conduct including protesting, writing with chalk on the sidewalk, chanting, leafleting, and the alleged use of "the Internet to find information on bio-medical researchers." According to the rights attorneys, these acts are all protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

"The First Amendment and the Bill of Rights both protect the rights of citizens to voice unpleasant, unpopular sentiments, or even statements that cause businesses to lose money," said Lauren Regan, attorney and director of the Civil Liberties Defense Center. "The AETA and the government's prosecution in this case are an attack on those rights and drastically curtail the constitutional rights of everyone in this country. We must be vigilant in protecting the sanctity of the rights to free expression because once lost, they will be difficult to regain."

Passed by Congress in November 2008, the AETA is aimed at suppressing speech and advocacy by criminalizing First Amendment-protected activities such as protests, boycotts, picketing and whistleblowing. CCR and the defense team have asked the Court to strike down the AETA as unconstitutional because it criminalizes a broad swath of protected First Amendment activities and is so unclear as to fail to give people notice of whether or not their conduct is lawful.

http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2009/07/13-10

[flvegan]

1. You're shocked? Go look up the SHAC7. The AETA is a shameful bit of legislation.

But then, you HAVE to protect corporate interests. God forbid anyone cause them inconvenience or cost them money.

Yet nothing out there to charge people that murder clinic doctors with terrorism. For shame.

[Better Believe It]

2. I am . This is the first thing I've read about that legislation

[lurky]

3. "chanting", "making leaflets", "using the internet"?

This is terrorism? They'd better lock up all the kindergarten kids in America, because they are terrorists too!

[Better Believe It]

4. Reaction to "Terrorism" Act by Civil Liberties and animal rights groups

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), though not opposing the final version of the bill, sent a letter to House Judiciary Chairman James Sensenbrenner, requesting "minor changes" to the bill to address concerns that "legitimate expressive activity" which economically damages or inhibits the business of an animal enterprise, could be classified as terrorist activity. The ACLU also expressed concern that the bill could be used against those interrupting illegal animal enterprises, such as animal fighting.<6>

The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals opposed the bill and "is sorry" it passed into law.<7>

Animal rights activists have criticized the bill on the grounds that it does not provide explicit protection for whistleblowing and undercover investigations,<8> and complained they have been unfairly singled out. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals claimed that "no other industrial sector in U.S. history has ever been given such legal protections against people's exercising of their First Amendment free-speech rights.

“ If they are stringing the consumer along and giving them a false security that animals weren't harmed in the making of whatever it is, then I think the public has a right to know exactly what is going on in those places. That is in the public interest. ”
—Ingrid Newkirk, President of PETA, <9>

According to PETA, this bill is an attempt by corporations to manipulate people's fear of terrorism in an effort to stop the peaceful animal protection movement".<8> The Humane Society of the United States believes the law's language is overly broad and vague, the current law is satisfactory, and that the AETA could be interpreted to protect unlawful animal enterprises.<10> Alliance for Animals director Lori Nitzel suggested "it heavily criminalizes civil disobedience, and just for animal rights activists."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Enterprise_Terrorism_Act

[realisticphish]

5. leaflets containing

the home addresses of researchers, with the message "we know where you live"

i sympathize with the cause, but let's not be naive. There are radicals in the movement (like all movements) e.g., the firebombings in the past 5 years or so.



But that doesn't change the fact that yes, this law seems very unconstitutional to me

[lurky]

7. My objection to the charges does not

imply support of the arrestees' beliefs or tactics. (How's that for fine print?) Although it should be noted that groups like Operation Rescue have been using these tactics and far worse for decades without being prosecuted for terrorism.

[realisticphish]

8. oh, yeah no quibble here

I do think that there is a political motivation in the prosecution. Not a CONSCIOUS one, mind, but one where "look at those lefty nutjobs" vs. "aw, they're just doing Jesus' work!" is the dichotomy.

[flvegan]

10. It's money.

Not political, financial.

[MajorChode]

11. The original law was written in 1992 and included a lot of (D) cosponsors

Including John Kerry.

[MajorChode]

6. Here is the criminal complaint

http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/wp-content/Images/aeta_fbi_complaint.pdf

From the criminal complaint it's pretty clear that their actions involved a lot more than just exercising their 1st amendment rights and included assault, threats of violence, and criminal trespass. Sorry folks, the 1st amendment doesn't give you the right to intimidate people to the extent that they are in genuine fear for their lives. That's terrorism, pure and simple, and it isn't any different than the anti-abortion freaks who use the same tactics.

Last year some of the same professors got firebombed and in one instance they firebombed the home of a professor when he and his family were there. They had to escape out 2nd floor window. Now maybe these morons are the same ones who did that and maybe they aren't, but regardless those UCSC professors had reason to believe these people's threats are serious.

[Better Believe It]

9. They were not terrorists and didn't carry out anything remotely terrorist

Unless you want to stretch the meaning of terrorism to the point where it covers any and all kinds of civil disobedience and militant activity.

The word terrorism is now used loosely by repressive governments to define and attack many individuals and groups who engage in militant protest activity against government policies and big business.

Even if you assume the FBI reports are absolutely true and not exaggerated, something I'm not about to do considering their past anti-civil liberties record, the accused are not terrorists.

They annoyed and upset some people and were probably guilty of disturbing the peace. How many years in the big house do you think they should get for that?

[Statistical]

12. Would you feel the same way if the defendents were anti-abortion "activists"

who engages in criminal trespass and used threats of violence to attempt to terrorize an abortion doctor with the goal of making abortion unavailable.

If the intent was to terrorize and there were acts of violence or threats of violence in my book that is terrorism.

[katandmoon]

15. Get back to me when anti-abortion activists have their VERY own law

[MajorChode]

18. So until every other fringe nut group is rounded up, we can't go after these terrorists?

That doesn't make a lot of sense. Even though there needs to be a similar law against the anti-abortion loons who are terrorists, it doesn't mean these people can't be brought to justice.

[MajorChode]

21. Actual terrorism has to include other elements

If I think my neighbor is an asshole and I terrorize him by acts of violence or threats of violence, that's not terrorism.

Terrorism must involve threats of violence or violence against civilians for political purposes, and that's exactly what has gone on here. These people are frustrated because they can't achieve their political goals at the ballot box, so they engage in direct action.

[realisticphish]

14. but

civil disobedience includes harassing people at their private homes? Spreading threatening leaflets? Banging on their doors, and throwing things at them?

This isn't a protest at a business, or outside an institution.

Terrorism? Ehhh, no, I don't think so. (although there certainly have been other incidents involving this institution that qualified)

But it is certainly threatening behavior launched at an individual, not a corporation or a policy.

[MajorChode]

16. Terrorism:

Using violence or threats of violence against non-combatants to achieve political goals.

The main definitional criteria of terrorism
The definition of terrorism used in this Research Report is the intentional
use or threat to use violence against civilians and non-combatants
by a non-state (trans- or sub-national) actor in an asymmetrical
confrontation, in order to achieve political goals.

http://books.sipri.org/files/RR/SIPRIRR23.pdf

Sorry, I can't agree here. These aren't kids staging a sit-in at the student union. They are terrorists, pure and simple, and it fits any reasonable definition precisely.

It's also important to note that their activities were already illegal under current laws. The federal law simply provides another more serious level of prosecution to target a particular activity. Had the same things been done to target the anti-abortion loons, Dr. Tillman (and others) would still be alive today.

[flvegan]

17. Where did the charged folks

use violence or specific threats of violence, themselves personally? And don't give me perception.

[MajorChode]

19. Read the criminal complaint

[flvegan]

20. I have.

I'm intimately aware of the case.

So, do please entertain me.

[MajorChode]

22. The complaint clearly spelled out threats of violence

I don't know what more I can say here. People who are clouded by emotional issues are going to ignore whatever they want, I suppose. If you can't separate the emotional issues from what constitutes violence and threats of violence, you don't stand much of a chance of discussing the issue objectively.

[flvegan]

26. Indeed.

So then, nothing?

Nowhere in that Complaint is anything that puts violence specifically on any of those individuals, kangaroo court aside.

Please, don't make it personal. It shows a certain...weakness.

[MajorChode]

28. What other explanation do you have...

if not emotional? I was actually giving you the benefit of the doubt here. The only other explanation I can come up with is a serious lack of comprehension.

The individuals in question were identified by videotape, DNA, and by the vehicle used which is clearly spelled out in the complaint. Criminal complaints only contain summary information and it would be quite surprising if there isn't lots more evidence also. So keep pretending that there's "nothing" if you like, but that only reflects negatively on your own objectivity.

[flvegan]

29. Identified as being involved in protests.

Like I said, making it personal shows weakness in an argument.

You have a good night.

[MajorChode]

30. Read the complaint

It has a lot more than that.

Have a nice day.

[Statistical]

31. Really physical violence and threats on private property (residence) is a protest?

Per the complaint (I only copied a portion because the pdf is an image and can't be cut and paste requiring manual copying).

http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/wp-content/Images/aeta_fbi_complaint.pdf

"At approximately 12:37 pm on February 24, 2008, five to six individuals approached the Santa Cruz home of UCSC Professor #8. Professor #8 conducts bio-medical research involving the use of animals. Professor #8's husband resport to the police that he heard loud banging on the glass pane of the door. He also heard and saw the door handle being twisted back and forth, and the door being pushed back and forth. He opened the door and yelled and then struggled with one individual and was hit with a dark, form object. Durring the incident one of the individuals yelled "we're" gonna get you". All of the individuals were wearing bandannas over thei faces, except for the individual using the bull horn. Professor #8 and her husband both reported to the FBI that they were terrified by this incident.

...

The flyer also 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 flyer identifies professor #8 & #9 as bio-medical researchers and identifies their home address & phone number.

...

Based on the facts and information detailed in this affidavit I believe probable cause exists that <defendants> conspired to use force, violence, or threats to interfere with the operation of the University of CA, an animal enterprise, in violation of 18 USC 43

Doesn't sound like a peaceful protest to me.

Attempt to force you way into someones home.
Physical attack with a weapon (even improvised).
Verbal and written threats.

Yeah bunch of Martin Luther King Jrs here.

The intention was to effect a change in social policy related to animal testing by violence and threats of violence. Based on the complaint (which is always one sided) they are in violation of 18 USC 43.

[flvegan]

32. Which of the 4 charged committed any alleged attack?

And why wasn't/weren't that/those people specifically charged with it specifically in the Complaint?

And, if so afraid, why did he open the door? Especially while some alleged terrorist was attempting to gain entry?

[mamaleah]

33. Oh, they are just passionate!

You know, breaking in and all...they are just frustrated, angsty protesters.

Sorry...sorry....I could barely type that out with gagging.

If they did indeed break into the Professor's home, they were not exercising their 1st Amendment rights, unless 1A has been changed. They are criminals.

[Karmadillo]

23. Wait! Wait! Wait!

OK. It's done popping. Go ahead.

:popcorn:

[flvegan]

27. Just you wait.

When our dipshit congress passes the CSMCETA (Cheap Shit Made in China Enterprise Terrorism Act) and folks on DU advocate direct action and boycotts against WalMart, it's BOD, suppliers, etc, and they're all locked up as terrorists, I'll get to say..."told ya so"

[BalancedGoat]

13. Thanks for that.

After reading the OP I immediately looked up the bill and could not see for the life of me how they were prosecuting the acts described in that article. I had a feeling that the original article was intentionally leaving out relevant information.

The law itself states that it is can not be construed "to prohibit any expressive conduct (including peaceful picketing or other peaceful demonstration) protected from legal prohibition by the First Amendment to the Constitution; (or) to create new remedies for interference with activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of the First Amendment to the Constitution, regardless of the point of view expressed"

If the acts in question were simply lawful expressions of free speech than their legal defense would be contained right in the law itself and the Feds would have no case.

Unreccomending on account of willful distortion on the part of the article's author.

[MajorChode]

24. They will no doubt get a fair trial

and if their activities didn't include violence or threats of violence, then they will be acquitted if it gets that far.

The law is what it is and those who want to give one sided accounts are trying to say they are being prosecuted for what is clearly 1st amendment activities, and there's lots more to the story.

[BlooInBloo]

25. Thanks for the detail.