sidewalk_chalkFour animal rights activists are facing charges under the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act for chanting, demonstrating with masks covering their faces, and chalking defamatory slogans on the sidewalk. If convicted, the “AETA 4,”—Joseph Buddenburg, Maryam Khajavi, Nathan Pope, and Adriana Stumpo—could be sentenced to 5-10 years in prison.

The AETA 4 case is a startling example of how federal terrorism laws are being used to create new crimes targeting political activists, and astronomically increase sentences for existing crimes. For instance, Marie Mason was sentenced to nearly 22 years in prison for setting fire to empty buildings and taking precautions to not harm anyone.

Meanwhile, during a Congressional hearing on the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, the Justice Department proclaimed “we are apolitical in this.” But this is anything but apolitical. Animal rights activists could receive 5-10 years in prison, as terrorists, for not harming anyone or attempting to harm anyone. Meanwhile, take a look at what some others are facing for much more serious crimes:

According to the government, high sentences for animal rights activists are intended as a deterrent, they are intended to send a message.

What kind of message do you think this sends?

Note: Funds are needed for the AETA 4 legal defense. Please make a contribution. Go to Paypal.com and send a donation to support@aeta4.org. Or you can make a tax-deductible donation through the National Lawyers Guild Foundation. The mailing address is 132 Nassau Street, Suite 922, NY, NY 10039, please indicate AETA Defense Fund on your check.

Related posts:

  • Dualhammers
    The level of punishment seems extreme, but repeatedly harassing someone does not sound like the actions of a saint either. If it is clear their actions were harassment, they should be punished.
  • jennifer
    Excellent blog, Will. A few years ago, I was at a Dave Rovics anti-war gig in Ireland and he got us to sing a protest song that he and others were arrested for singing in the States at a concert. It was clearly a tongue in cheek song about consumerism and soulless shopping malls, yet the arrested were accused of inciting terrorist act. So you can't sing a clearly satirical song about destroying shopping malls without being arrested, but you can legally bring an assualt rifle to a presidential speech. The mind boggles.
  • Thank you, Jennifer!
  • kim
    Ah, but there is the judgment of your analysis. You are determining what is "worse," which is why we should focus on the whole criminal/prison system rather than on specific individuals with specific sentences. And trust me, I know a lot about the "injustices" of sentencing disparities and proportionality. But at some point an individual must understand short of appealing, there is not much that can be done until the whole "system" is changed. While I may agree arson is not as bad as murder, there is an argument to be made that all crime is political and hence, making those kinds of judgments is not appropriate. Just some thoughts.
  • Yes, I am determining what is worse. Raping a child is worse than chalking slogans on a sidewalk. If we can't agree on that, we can't agree on anything. I have no interest in discussion of changing the "system" if it means pretending like there are no differences between these actions.
  • kim
    The one problem w/ this analysis is it crosses jurisdictional boundaries. Sentencing guidelines vary from state to state and from those states and the federal government. Plus, since the Booker decision, judges have been given some discretion to not sentence strictly to the guidelines, so dates on these sentences also matter. A better analysis would be federal cases only (such as doing a monetary crime like Madoff versus Marie Mason's sentence etc) or a specific state (as in Oregon state cases only).

    Last, there is a saying in prison: "do the crime you do the time." Complaining about differences in sentences does not go over well in the prison population. What progressives should be about is examining the whole issue of prisons, the large incarceration rates in America, and treatment of all prisoners, rather than focusing on what is a systematic problem of unjust sentences. Even Bernie Madoff can complain that he received too long of a sentence compared to others...
  • There are other differences as well, such as the types of crimes and the circumstances involved. However, I don't think those differences, or the ones you mention, can justify these gross disparities in the minds of most reasonable people.

    And to your latter point, I think it is very easy to say "don't focus on specific sentences" when you have not been sentenced to 10, 22, 30 years in prison when people who have done much, much worse receive a fraction of that.
  • God the one about the dog at the end really pounded it home... 45 days for that kind of shit while these people get decades for protesting it. Thanks again for another great entry!

    More info has come out about the snatch-and-grab person from the G20 stuff here in Pittsburgh but the person's parents asked that he remain anonymous for now. I will keep you posted if/when it's out in the open.
  • And here's another irony with the AETA - By default... it does not -nor will it ever "protect" vegans/animal rights activists. It excludes (some) members of the population. Anyone who is not an ARA may at sometime "benefit" from this AETA. Even in the case of "protecting" the nation's interest in the "food" supply --- or other "benefits" of "animal products"... But the AETA will never represent "our" group. We have no "interests" in this law. It's unacceptable that our political/legal system has denied an entire segment of its citizens from "equal" advantage of "law".

    The AETA is an arbitrary and dangerous bit of pro-corporate, anti-liberty legislation... It should be disturbing to anyone whether or not they are for "animal rights".
  • i meant, if she did NOT sign an agreement of course.
  • @SupportMarieMason:
    Crap, that was a dumb error on my part. I'll correct it now. Thank you for noting it!
  • just an fyi fact-check: Marie Mason received 21 years and 10 months, not 30 years (although they were threatening her with Life if she did sign a agreement).
  • beset
    Whether they're openly hoping to get activists to intensify their actions or not, it does seem this could be a natural progression, as Earth's assault by polluters keeps intensifying, perhaps calling for stronger resistance. If the lengthy prison sentences (and being incarcerated in a "Communications Management Unit") - befitting a crime such as murder or other tactics generally attributed to "terrorists" - forced on those defending the planet are the consequences, what does one have to lose? Well, you get my point, right?
    beset
  • i think it's more a matter of who your friends are than of the actual crime. if any of these crimes listed above were committed by animal activists, or (leftist/radical) activists of any kind for that matter, they'd surely be given longer sentences, defamed in the media and as terrorists, and possibly given a terrorism enhancement.

    whereas if they were committed by my grandmother or a right winger (like the ones who brought guns to protests--what would happen if anarchists brought guns to a protests?!!), they would be given light sentences, if not major leniency.
  • David
    The difference between Animal Rights 'crimes' (so-called) and the other offences you list here is that vast amounts of money are invested in the targets of Animal Rights actions, and whenever these actions are successful, it hits the pockets of many of the legislators
    and big business. Governments cannot risk that happening: after all, Animal Rights actions are so vastly different from many, or most other 'crimes' as they directly affect the status quo and threaten the wealth and security of those who legislate, and those amoral parasites for whom the legislators work so tirelessly.

    David
  • The examples of sentences listed for the serious crimes above show that government is more interested in crushing dissent and protecting corporate property rather than serving the public interest. I think about this with every new case of repression. The fact that the ACLU isn't opposing these unjust sentences (let alone unjust laws) speaks volumes about their priorities. Thankfully, we have the NLG and CLDC helping protect the rights of advocates for nonhuman animals.
  • Merry
    He who has the most money in court wins.
  • Dylan
    Awesome information. Situations like these are definitely meant to send a message- Push back harder.
  • Thanks Dylan
blog comments powered by Disqus