Animal Enterprise Protection Act
Jul 29th, 2006 by Will Potter
The Animal Enterprise Protection Act:
Using an obscure law to charge nonviolent activists with terrorism
By WILL POTTER
In March, six activists were convicted on “animal enterprise terrorism” charges—that’s right, terrorism—for campaigning to shut down the notorious animal-testing lab Huntingdon Life Sciences. In September, they will be sentenced: two defendants face up to a year in federal prison, and others likely face five to 10 years.
They weren’t accused of murder, bombings or taking hostages. They’re big crime? Running a website.
They posted news about the international campaign to close HLS—legal actions like protests and illegal actions like stealing animals from labs—and unabashedly supported all of it. The government never accused the SHAC 7 of committing any of those acts, but said that posting communiqués and supporting direct action amounted to a campaign of harassment, intimidation and “terrorism.”
Even in this post 9/11 climate, running a website probably wouldn’t top most people’s list of terrorist plots. So how did corporations use the government to turn protected—albeit controversial—First Amendment activity into “terrorism”?
ANIMAL ENTERPRISE PROTECTION ACT
The Patriot Act, domestic spying, no-fly lists: the scope of the War on Terrorism’s impact on activism, and everyday life, grows wider and wider. But the legislation that led to these charges started long before 9/11, and had been sitting idly until now.
In 1992 Congress passed the Animal Enterprise Protection Act. It received little attention except from groups like the National Association for Biomedical Research that pushed it through.
It created the crime of “animal enterprise terrorism” for anyone who travels in “interstate or foreign commerce” (like crossing state lines or using the mail) and “intentionally damages or causes the loss of any property (including animals or records) used by the animal enterprise, or conspires to do so.”
It also spelled out sentencing guidelines:
- Causing less than $10,000 in damages means fines and/or six months in prison.
- Causing more than $10,000 in damages means fines and/or three years in prison.
- Causing “serious bodily injury” means fines and/or 20 years in prison.
- Causing human death means fines and/or a sentence of “life or for any term of years.”
When the law passed, some green and civil rights groups cautioned that its vague language could open the floodgates to prosecution of non-violent activists. They noted that causing “the loss of any property” is the objective of any boycott or sustained activist campaign against industry: if activist campaigns didn’t hurt profits, corporations would never pay attention. Bus boycotts and lunch counter sit-ins in the 1960s probably caused a loss of property for those businesses, and that’s why they were key tactics in the civil rights movement.
A SLOW START
Those floodgates didn’t open, though. The law sat on the shelf for years, and industry groups started complaining that the government did not use it to go after activists.
One reason is that law enforcement hadn’t caught many members of the Animal Liberation Front or Earth Liberation Front. And they still haven’t: underground activists have claimed credit for more than 1,200 criminal incidents since 1990, according to the F.B.I., and there are 150 pending “eco-terror” investigations.
Animal abuse industries were undeterred. They began pushing for stiffer penalties and even broader language in the law.
In an analysis of the act, referenced repeatedly by industry groups, a member of the board of directors of the National Animal Interest Alliance said sentencing in the law had to be increased. Edward J. Walsh said the absence of a death penalty:
“…is a veritable invitation to serious terrorists to take advantage of what appears to be a clear mismatch between sentencing guidelines and the severity of the criminal offenses referenced in the Act; the implication is, ‘Come on. Take the plunge. You will be back on the street in two, maybe three years, no matter what you do.’ In this regard, the Act is an embarrassment.”
Since the law wasn’t being used to go after arsonists, Walsh and others pushed to expand the law’s definition of terrorism to include “not-so-savage acts” like “pies in the face” that they said were taking a bigger toll on the industry. Harassment and character defamation constitute “something worse and far more dangerous to society than a simple punch in the nose.”
In an eerie forecast of President George W. Bush’s “you’re either with us or against us” rhetoric in the War on Terrorism, Walsh went on the offensive against any lawmakers who attempt to roll back the law:
“Congressmen and women who are sympathetic to the cause of animal rights must be reminded that they are aiding and abetting terrorism when they work to dilute the language of criminal statutes written to protect scientists, businessmen and women, entertainers and farmers, as well as law-abiding citizens in general, from hate-inspired violence.”
Not everyone followed lockstep behind this legislative strategy. Brian Carnell, who runs the anti-animal rights site www.animalrights.net, said:
“In fact it is hard to understand the point of having such an act in the first place except as a symbolic gesture. It would be far better off to simply charge animal rights terrorists with arson, burglary or what have you and ask judges to consider the political nature of their crimes during the sentencing phase.”
FIRST CONVICTIONS
The government first used the law in 1998, charging Peter Young and Justin Samuel with animal enterprise terrorism for releasing thousands of mink from Wisconsin fur farms. Samuel pleaded guilty, was sentenced to two years in prison and ordered to pay over $360,000 in fines. Young was on the run for seven years, and then caught in 2005 and sentenced to two years in prison.
Ostensibly, that’s what the law was meant to do: land convictions of underground activists who “cause the loss of any property,” including rescuing animals from abusive industries.
Fast forward to the only other convictions under the law: a group of activists who were never charged with breaking into a fur farm, spray-painting slogans, or breaking windows. The SHAC 7 simply made a point of vocally supporting those who did.
So the law has been used to convict Animal Liberation Front activists, along with activists running a website. But industry groups still want more.
FROM BAD TO WORSE
Even before the SHAC7 conviction, industry groups pushed for expansions of “animal enterprise terrorism” legislation both federally and at the state level. The convictions of Justin Samuel, Peter Young, and now the SHAC defendants, have only whetted their appetites. As David Martosko of the Center for Consumer Freedom, an industry lobby group, said after the conviction: “This is just the starting gun.” (Toronto Star, 3/13/06, “U.S. terror hunt targets animal activists,” Walkom).
Here’s a sample:
- 1996: Congress amended the restitution provisions of the Animal Enterprise Protection Act.
- 1999: The U.S. Senate approved an amendment to the Juvenile Justice Act that would have increased penalties under the Animal Enterprise Protection Act and created a database of “eco-terrorism” crimes. It was introduced by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), but did not become law.
- 2001: Congressman George Nethercutt (R-WA) introduced the Agroterrorism Prevention Act. It would have increased penalties, allowed for the death penalty, and established a National Agroterrorism Incident Clearinghouse, and provided grants to colleges and universities to protect against attacks by animal rights activists. The bill didn’t make it out of subcommittee.
- 2002: Congress increased maximum penalties under the Animal Enterprise Protection Act.
- 2004: On May 18 the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing, “Animal Rights: Activism vs. Criminality,” where FBI Deputy Assistant Director John E. Lewis joined CEOs and researchers to call for stronger legislation. He said law enforcement needed more tools to go after activists, like SHAC member, who focus on “tertiary” targets in order to influence the primary company.
Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) objected to the hearing and said:
“When most Americans think of threats that currently face this country, we do not mean ‘animal and eco-terrorism.’ Indeed, most Americans would not consider the harassment of animal testing facilities to be ‘terrorism,’ any more than they would consider anti-globalization protestors or anti-war protestors or women’s health activists to be terrorists.”
- 2005: Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) introduced the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act to stiffen penalties and expand the original law. It would include “tertiary targets,” with the goal of “prohibiting intentional damage of property belonging to a person or organization with ties to an animal enterprise.” Representative Thomas Petri (R-WI) introduced a similar bill (my testimony before Congress on this legislation can be read here).
The Humane Society of the United States, along with the American Civil Liberties Union, have opposed the bill because, as HSUS notes in a letter to members of Congress, “this amendment would sweep up and discourage lawful and constitutionally protected activity intended to cause loss of profits, such as boycotts, whistle blowing, protests, media campaigning, enforcement actions by private humane societies, etc.”
The legislation is pending in House and Senate committees.
As an animal rights activist I am appalled at the legistlative’s audacity to try to pass a law that CLEARLY violates our first amendment right to protest against the abuse and torture of animals! We are NOT terrorists! We don’t bomb clinics and kill doctors. Maybe you should be looking at THAT! But no, that would be political suicide, wouldn’t it????
In case you don’t understand what a protest is, it is our constitutional right to oppose and vocalize our stand against any cruelty of any kind. And that DEFINITELY includes animals. They are living, breathing feeling creatures, just like us. If you research and educate yourself before jumping on a popular Republican money mongering bandwagon, animal research VERY RARELY works. That is documented fact, over and over by the scientists themselves that no longer perform vivisection. (Animal testing). That just may be because we are NOT ANIMALS!!! The human trials that follow are what prove to the scientists whether a drug works or not.
And, the cruelty and torture other animals raised for food, fur and entertainment endure incredible torture by by sick staff members, the acts of cruelty are worse than your darkest nightmare. Is it terrorism to want to treat them humanely before they are murdered and used to “entertain”?? Politicians want to call everything that isn’t in agreement with them “terrorism” to try and scare people into continuing to vote for them, so they feel “protected”. You aren’t fooling anybody who knows about freedom of speech. Protesting is INTENDED to cause loss of profit! (By non-violent means, of course). Why do you think we protest and educate the public???????????
If companies that torture and allow useless animal experimen - I mean torture -to continue, they are asking for boycotts. They are afraid of loss of profits from activists, but if they simply used the MANY newer modern (and much more accurate) methods instead of useless and inaccurate repeated tests and torture of animals, they would stop the boycotts, AND SAVE MONEY, having only to test once, not over and over, and being left in peace.
It’s all about money with you Republicans, to the point you try to change the FIRST amendment of the CONSTITUTION! Who do you think you are? I would certainly understand prison and/or the death penalty for murdering people (as anti-choice groups have done and do for their cause), but they have’t been considered terrorists! Apparently, murdering people isn’t as bad as causing the bottom line of some big business to be reduced. Only the animal rights people are terrorists! We don’t murder people for our cause! You tout your “pro life” stand, but apparently life only applies to humans, and is less important than money. Life is life. Either you support life or you don’t. You can’t pick and choose, and you can’t change one of the basic RIGHTS of the constitution!
I know you won’t even consider this letter, but it’s my first amendment right to free speech and I’m using it.
Thanks for your time,
Shannon Morgan
Way to go!
Wow! Great Letter.
Now if only the Republicans will read it. And if they do, will they think!
Vote against Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act.
It is absolutely ridiculous to call compassionate people who care about animals “terrorists”. This particular labeling is convenient for those individuals to suite their own perverse hidden agendas
“UPDATE 9/30/06: The Senate companion bill S3880 passed as amended on the night of 9/29/06 by Unanimous Consent. That means not one Senator opposed the bill. There was an amendment made at the last minute, but it was not substantial enough to protect your Free Speech. The House adjourned for recess without taking any action, so it will still have to go over to the House during the next session which begins Nov. 9 and may last until Christmas. It is more imperative than ever that you contact your Representative in the House and ask them to vote against this bill.” from Congress.org
^That is frightening. The animals NEED for our voices to be heard regarding this serious matter. Please either call or write (envelope will make greater impact than email) to your Representatives (”House Resolution 4239″, The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act) and Senators (”Senate 3880″, The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act), and to Senator James M. Inhofe. Please, do not think someone else will take care of it for you! Just a few letters from concerned citizens can make a huge impact, enough to sway a vote, because we took the time to write, expressing our concerns. Please remember to be POLITE and RESPECTFUL, anything less will work against us! Personalize your letters.
They know we mean business in that we will not stop until we reach full animal liberation. We are reaching that goal everyday, and they are trying everything in their power to slow us down. For the animals, now is when we need to fight harder than ever.
[...] Terrorism Act expands the Animal Enterprise Protection Act of 1992 http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/aepa. Supporters say it is meant to stem illegal actions ta [...]
[...] e dissent. The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act expands the Animal Enterprise Protection Act of 1992 http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/aepa. Supporters say it is meant to stem illegal actions taken against controversial animal enterprises, or any c [...]
I was very disappointed that not one senator voted against it. I am convinced now that they are ALL paid off!
[...] lo vecchio, il nuovo si insedierà tra qualche mese - pochi giorni fa ha approvato l’Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, che ora passerà alla firma di George Bush. Si tratta di un gigantesc [...]
[...] l Enterprise Terrorism Act With Little Discussion or Dissent- in 1992, Congress passed the Animal Enterprise Protection Act, and last week, Congress decided to pass the Animal Ente [...]
[...] xisting law. Additionally, a law directed at animal advocates was already passed in 1992 (see: Animal Enterprise Protection Act) - and, contrary to the animal abusers’ complaints, activis [...]
Question what does S.3880 have to do with rather or not my animals are spaded or neutered or if I own a reptile?
Reason being a group of people are trying to get this added to the bill and enforced in NC.
I’m a former United States Marine and I fought for the freedom of my Country. I believe in our fight right now and am very Thankful that we haven’t left and let this become another Vietnam. I’ve told my Congressman I’d be very hapy as other former servicemembers to go back and serve state side duty to free up our men and women to fight or train those to go.
So my next question is when did I and everyone else who loves caring for or own animals loss or rights to this very valiable freedom! Did we turn our Country over to a Comminist Country? If yes which one? This way I’ll know whom I’m fighting.
I hope to hear back from you real soon, and as you can see I’ve inclosed my e-mail address.
Sincerly Yours,
Joseph Traumer
joebear52me@yahoo.com
Check out the Ramen Warriors plea to help stop animal cruelty
http://www.youtube.com/v/yvVxxxLUcnk
To all of you who feel honor bound to stand up for all the living,breathing,feeling animals of this planet, I would expect that the number one animal you choose to fight for is the human animal. How many of your discussions, protests, essays concern our loss of moral conscience, our lack of dignity and respect for each other… ESPECIALLY regarding aborting innocent babies? Many of the protesters I have seen marching for PETA are the same ones holding up the signs for Support Roe v Wade…Explain how that makes any sense?
How many of you spout vitriol towards anyone who does not share your political affiliations? Regardless of whether or not you like Mr. Bush, he
is our elected President and his office does deserve respect. Your rhetoric serves more to belittle you then it does to demean our governmental officials.
I know many of us that do not support the tactics used by people who protest injustice when their methods resort to the fanatical and fear-inspiring…Martin Luther King believed in peaceful dissent and I believe this would be the best way to win support for many of issues that Eco-aware people are fighting for…I do believe the first steps towards a more respectful world for all life would require humans to find a way to value each other first,…that would impact how they would value all life…plant, animal…etc.
Anarchy achieves nothing positive nor productive for society,
C.Price
C Price: What makes you think that anarchy could achieve nothing positive nor productive for society? Look at the mess society is in now. The credit for that goes to the government. All the sneaking around, doing corrupt practices, concealing the truth from the public, and when someone tries to bring about an awareness, they are arrested and locked up with the truth. Freedom of speech in America is a lie — an illusion given to the people so we can feel comfortable with the government and trust that our opinions are considered, when in reality, they are not. When someone like an animal rights activist is arrested for no real reason, the government labels them as a terrorist to scare the public and make them understanding and supportive of the unjust arrest. This works significantly, especially because of the post 9/11 terrorist paranoia. People hear the word “terrorist” and subconsciously think of a masked suicide bomber, so when they hear animal rights activists referred to as terrorists, they become fearful of, and condemn, the entire movement. Plus, an illusion is also created that the government is actually working to protect the country from terrorism, and it diverts the public’s attention from real pressing issues like contaminated imports, job shortages, the poor education system — stuff that greatly affects the majority of the population in this country. What people need is to get off their high horses and stop treating others as inferiors. We need to all respect each other and work together to improve and maintain a civilized society. Having compassion for non-human animals as well as humans keeps a consistency of nonviolence in a society, which is what our society is screaming for today.
Absolutely great letter! I agree 100% with your assertion that the financial bottom line is all that matters to these companies. Apparently, Calvinism - which was outlawed decades ago - is alive and well and thriving in American corporations. (Calvinism is the belief that if you make money from it, anything is OK.) I don’t think you’re terrorists at all! (My, my aren’t people throwing around that term a lot these days.) But maybe you should consider it!
Love,
Dr. Kathryn Kondrotas
[...] - He is one of the SHAC7, the group of animal rights activists convicted for terrorism under the Animal Enterprise Protection Act (AEPA) even though they never hurt anyone. Here’s a piece from Josh’s last letter (in January): “I’ve already spent 96 [...]
Bush is OUT! Obama is in! Almost by National Proclamation! Bush is a sick individual, paranoid and probably a sociopath murderer - ask anyone in Iraq! Once he is gone, the truth about his mental health will out and the world will know why we suffered so much. Americans will never, ever elect a spoiled sick son of a rich elitist again! They have had this lesson driven home in their minds by sub prime mortgages, high oil prices, rampant inflation and loss of freedoms held dear to their hearts. It is all over except for the formalities. Thank God!