Where Was the ACLU When Green Scare Legislation Passed Congress?
Nov 28th, 2006 by Will Potter
Where the hell was the ACLU? That seems to be the question on the minds of many, many activists– on email threads, radio programs and blog comments here on GreenIsTheNewRed.com. They’re angry that James Sensenbrenner, Tom Petri and other lawmakers rushed the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act through the House on a voice vote as part of a suspension of the rules… but not too surprised. They’re angry that the mainstream press hasn’t batted an eye about this Green Scare bill… but not too surprised. And they’re angry that Democrats actually promoted the “eco-terrorism” bill, to win cheap political points and look tough on “terrorism”… but they’re not too surprised about that, either.
What seems to have really riled the activists that I’ve spoken with is that the ACLU, often seen as a Constitutional watchdog, a guardian of civil liberties that will protect the rights of civil rights activists right alongside the rights of the KKK, remained dead silent.
I’ve received a flood of emails asking about this, and I think it’s worth explaining and clarifying what, exactly, took place (or didn’t take place).
It has made a lot of folks wonder, with good reason: Are groups like the ASPCA, the Humane Society of the United States, the National Lawyers Guild and the New York Bar Association doing their own bit of scare-mongering, and blowing this bill out of proportion? Or did the ACLU really drop the ball?
Before I answer that question, you all should know that I once worked for the ACLU’s Washington Legislative Office on issues like the Patriot Act, airline passenger screening programs and sneak-and-peak search orders. In some ways that’s where I really cut my teeth on the intricacies of legislation related to national security and civil liberties, working with the best of the best on what I think are some of the most pressing issues of our time. I have a deep respect for the organization, and everyone that works there. I have consistently defended the sometimes-controversial ACLU when speaking with other reporters, activists and family back home in Texas. My opinion of how the ACLU handled, or didn’t handle, this legislation has been shaped by my positive experiences with the organization, and you should keep that in mind.
That being said, the ACLU dropped the ball.
Strange Bedfellows
First let’s take a look at Sensenbrenner’s comments on the House floor, which have stirred a lot of this debate:
I would just like to sum up that on October 30 the American Civil Liberties Union sent a letter to the gentleman from Michigan, my ranking member, and myself, not opposing this legislation. They did ask for minor changes, but they did not express one concern about constitutionally protected first amendment rights being infringed upon or jeopardized in any way by this bill.
Now, if there ever was an organization that really goes all the way on one side in interpreting the first amendment as liberally as it can, it is the American Civil Liberties Union. My friend from Ohio, whom I have a great respect for, is even outside the definition of the first amendment that the ACLU has eloquently advanced in the halls of this Capitol for decades and will do so for decades to come.
This is a good bill. I think that all of the fears that the gentleman from Ohio has placed on the record are ill-founded by practically everybody who has looked through this bill, including the ACLU.
I mentioned Sensenbrenner’s comments in a wrap-up of the floor vote posted just hours after it happened, and it sent everything into a tailspin. The post has over 130 comments (a startling number for even the most popular websites). Some activists talked about organizing protests at ACLU offices. Others started email and phone trees to try to hold the organization accountable.
The ACLU Responds (Kinda)
The first wave of ACLU responses to activist emails stoked the fires even more. Here’s one (I received identical emails forwarded from over a dozen activists):
—– Original message —–
From:
To: will@willpotter.com
Cc:
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 12:22:39 -0500
Subject: FW: Done Deal? AETA PassesDear Ms. XXX,
Thank you for your e-mail.
The ACLU Letter to Congress Urging Opposition to the Animal Enterprise Act, S. 1926 and H.R. 4239 (3/6/2006) can be read at http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/gen/25620leg20060306.html.
If you are not already an ACLU member, we encourage you to help support our aggressive work on the issues you care about. To join please visit
http://www.aclu.org/contribute/contribute.cfm or call 1-888-567-ACLU.Once again, thank you for your interest in the ACLU.
Sincerely,
D. Barber
Correspondence Manager, American Civil Liberties Union
More confusion. The email clearly says, and the link confirms, that the ACLU urged opposition to the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. Sensenbrenner lied! Right?
Reading Between the Lines
That ACLU document, from March, raised serious concerns about this vague and overly broad legislation and urged opposition. Another letter, sent to Sensenbrenner and Conyers on October 30, 2006 and cited on the House floor, said “The ACLU does not oppose this bill, but believes that these minor changes are necessary to make the bill less likely to chill or threaten freedom of speech.”
It’s completely accurate for the ACLU to say they did not support this legislation. Activists should take care to not put words in the ACLU’s mouth and say the organization supported the bill. At the same time, activists should know a little about Hill Speak. For an organization like the ACLU, the powerhouse on civil liberties and civil rights issues on Capitol Hill, saying “we don’t oppose” is tantamount to a third-base coach waving a runner home.
Why Did They Not Oppose?
Perhaps because there are so many other civil liberties issues demanding critical attention. Perhaps because corporate scare-mongering and green baiting has turned animal rights activists into political lepers.
Or perhaps history repeats itself. The ACLU has a long, venerable history of defending the civil liberties of even the most unsavory characters, including the KKK. To some, though, the organization has always been dogged by its darker days, when in 1940, during the Red Scare, the ACLU formally barred communists from leadership or staff positions. Meanwhile, the National Lawyers Guild took a beating for refusing to name names and purge its members who also belonged to communist organizations, but stood its ground.
This time around, the National Lawyers Guild was out front opposing the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act and the Green Scare. And this time around, the silence of the ACLU spoke volumes.
Industry groups heard it loud and clear. The ACLU and the Humane Society were both involved in this bill in its early stages. They both raised nearly identical sets of concerns. HSUS came out and opposed (albeit not publicly until the bill had already passed the Senate). The ACLU did not.
Corporations seized on that opportunity to steal home, and never looked back. Industry groups now spout off like they’ve been card-carrying members of the ACLU all along.In The Scientist, a vice president of the National Association for Biomedical Research, an industry group behind the bill, posted this comment:
Facts Matter!
by Mary Hanley, Exec. VP, NABR[Comment posted 2006-11-16 21:57:54]
Finally, a story that gets it right. Apparently many reporters have not actually read the bill language but have accepted without question the misleading propaganda that HSUS and other animal activist groups have perpetuated about its First Amendment protections. Knowing full well that the preeminent civil rights organization, the ACLU did not oppose the AETA, they continued to lobby against the bill and rally their followers to do the same, actions that discredit their own cause.
(\A\C\L\U\) I say people start going after the ACLU, home demos and the like…you won’t support real activists doing real work and you proudly support groups like the KKK by fighting for their right too spout hate speech (and maybe lynch a few folks) and get police protection for it while not even bothering to help out anti racist groups who also want free speech or working to stop the AETA. I say we might as well treat ACLU like HLS and see how much they care about the first amendment!
We’re mincing words when we say that the ACLU did not “support” AETA. They gave their tacit consent, and the consequence is that peddler’s of terrorist rhetoric have used the ACLU’s silence to support their coercive tactics. The ACLU had to have seen this coming.
we can go back and forth what the ACLU did or did not do and accomplish nothing…what’s done is done.
question now is where do we go from here and what CAN WE DO as individuals..forget HSUS,ACLU,ABC,DEF and any other acronym out there..they sold us short so stop SUPPORTING THEM with $$$$$.
according to noAeta a repeal process is being developed most likely to be exercised when the 110th Congress convenes in January.
http://noaeta.org/
We need to mobilize and start a new campaign of contacting newly elected Reps and Senators, including House Speaker Elect Nancy Pelosi,with emails,letters,calls..whatever..and keep doing it non-stop until we make it clear equating law-abiding Americans..fighting an uphill struggle for the welfare and humane treatment of animals in this country…with Arab Terrorists blowing up buildings killing fellow Americans is unacceptable, uconstitutional and undemocratic.
Let them know that we will not sit idle while McCarthyism tactics single out a particular social movement because it is gaining momentum and success
to be reclassified as “terrorists” subject to a different set of laws that are not applicable to other criminal acts of the same nature like the acts
of Timothy McVeigh and Eric Rudolph.
With all due respect, this blog posting is about the actions of the ACLU and so comments about that are appropriate. Furthermore, a discussion as to whether a politically powerful organization such as the ACLU is worthy of our support is not to “accomplish nothing.” I very much appreciate your call to action and I agree that it’s critical to do so. But there is no reason that we can’t at the same time think critically about which entities we’ll assist going forward. Thought and action are mutually informative.
In any case, I am grateful that you posted a link to noaeta.org, and I will definitely check that out. Your suggestions with respect to what we can do are good ones.
i was pretty pissed at ACLU when i read the comments from the post about AETA. i wanted to email one of the higher-ups of the organization and was able to get through to Anthony Romero. i was surprised that he responded to me, but he did. i blogged about the exchange:
http://trailwind.livejournal.com/9965.html
thanks, Will, for all of your work.
jp
Folks, an important point that seems to have been missed. The ACLU objected to the ORIGINAL versions of the AETA, HR 4239 and S 1926 (which are almost identical.) The second letter pertained to the final version, S 3880. Several major changes were made in between:
- HR 4239 and S 1926 would have made it illegal to “intentionally damage, disrupt, or cause the loss of any property.” S 3880 makes it illegal to “intentionally damage or cause the loss of any real or personal property.” See the difference? The former language could easily be interpreted to include “economic damage” or “economic disruption” as they are later defined in the bill — including lost profits and increased costs.
- The penalties were rewritten. “Substantial bodily injury” — formerly “significant bodily injury” — results in up to 10 years imprisonment, as opposed to 5. Economic damage in excess of $1,000,000 results in up to 20 years imprisonment, as opposed to 10.
- The term “economic disruption” was merged with “economic damage.” Thus the exclusion of “lawful economic disruption” applies to both. Furthermore, “lawful boycotts” are explicitly excluded.
- Finally, the “Rules of Construction” section was added, which basically says that the law is subject to the First Amendment.
Though the final version is still quite obnoxious, I think it is considerably less so than the original. “Real or personal property” still sounds a bit ambiguous, but it’s better than the older language. The intention is clear — you actually have to do some quantifiable damage (or at least “conspire or attempt to do so”) to violate the law.
So under the AETA as enacted, peaceful assembly isn’t a crime — merely a source of economic damage, which will result in increased penalties if you are found to be conspiring or attempting to damage real property or threaten people.
So that, I think, is where the ACLU is coming from. You can all make up your own minds.
I think y’all are going off on the ACLU when they have no power to push the GOP (or anyone) to do things they do not want to.
The GOP is trying to throw a cat among pigeons with this in another parting shot before they become the minority.
Don’t get so bent out of shape about this.
This is a tactic from the bad guys, not the good guys switching sides!
First, seriously, the ACLU are wimps and have been for a while . (Where were they on Guantanamo for the first three years? Where were they on rendition for the first three years?) The Center for Constitutional Rights is filing an amicus in the SHAC7 case and will be presenting a facial challenge to the AEPA. If there is any success there, a facial challenge the the AETA should be right behind it.
Second, you fail to mention how this all goes back to abortion. You talk to anyone in any of these left-legal organization and you quickly realize you’re not talking about animal enterprises, you’re talking about abortion. I’ve tried pitching Shac7 amicus briefs to organizations and that’s what I hear. The legal-left, including the ACLU, took the position that the Nuremburg Files website (that listed abortion providers’ names and addresses and crossed them out when they were kileld) was not protected speech because their views on abortion trumpted their views on the First Amendment. Plain and simple. If the AETA is knocked out, cases like Planned Parenthood fo Columbia/Willamette v. American Coalition of Life Activists are out the door, and the ACLU and most of the legal left won’t let that happen.
the way to get rid of AETA is Al Gore 2008.
http://www.algore-08.com/
Al Gore: ‘We are facing a massive assault on our liberties’
Saturday, 04 November 2006
(The Observer) - Since losing to George Bush in 2000, Al Gore, the former Vice-President, has reinvented himself as America’s voice of reasoned opposition, particularly on global warming, the subject of his internationally acclaimed film An Inconvenient Truth. In this interview, he tells Henry Porter of a crisis of democracy in America.
Henry Poter: I wonder if you feel that a constitution like the American one makes people more aware of their rights.
Al Gore: I think it does. Those who wrote the constitution were very steeped in the culture of the printed word and the essays that were written to define the theory of representative democracy. The debates and the Constitutional Convention were all re-capitulated in elaborate written accounts. The debates over each precise word actually did focus public attention then, and continue to influence public attention now, to individual rights.