«
»

Animal Rights Activist Named Alongside Bin Laden on FBI’s Terrorist List

Apr 23rd, 2009 by Will Potter

Who should the FBI spend resources pursuing as a "most wanted" terrorist?An animal rights activist, Daniel Andreas San Diego, is the first “domestic terrorist” to be added to the FBI’s list of most wanted terrorists. The FBI says: “At the time of his flight Mr. San Diego was a committed vegan. If he has maintained this discipline, people around him may notice that he avoids consuming or wearing anything made with animal products.” (Of course, none of the others have their dietary preferences noted. As one reader said in an email, “Word on the street is bin Laden really likes falafel.”)

Mainstream news outlets and blogs on both the left and right have been going nuts about the FBI’s announcement. Yet they’ve overwhelmingly missed the point: this was an overtly, shamelessly political move by the government to deflect attention away from another “terrorism” controversy.

First, some background:

Sounds like a lot of old news, right? It is. So why did the FBI hold a press conference announcing the new addition to the list?

It was an overtly political move to neutralize the growing chorus of opposition to the recent DHS memo warning of right-wing extremism. When the memo came out, right wing groups sprang into action (much more so than environmental or animal groups have) and have already filed a lawsuit. Meanwhile, some environmentalists mistakenly saw it as reason to believe the Green Scare is over.

Enter Daniel Andreas San Diego. He hasn’t harmed anyone, and his alleged crimes are nothing compared to Osama bin Laden and others on the list (and nothing compared to right wing groups who have admittedly created weapons of mass destruction). But he’s an easy way to create the false impression that this “War on Terrorism” is somehow bipartisan, that both the left and right are being targeted equally.

Chuck Norris recently showed us that’s a load of garbage. This political maneuvering my placate the right (and the DHS memo may placate some environmentalists). And then it’s back to business as usual.

The press, activists and right-wingers should all know better than to fall for it. Americans shouldn’t settle for anything less than a complete overhaul of “terrorism” priorities, beginning with the removal of political activists who have never harmed anyone from the top of all “terrorism” lists.

Related posts:

Tags: , , , , , ,

Posted in Terrorism Watch Lists

  • Bomb maker = Terrorist
    Associated to bomb making = Terrorist
    Alleged bomb making = Innocent until proven guilty. If guilty then terrorist.
    If terrorist then hang from neck until dead.

    That seemed pretty simple to me.

    Where do Donations to the HSUS Go?.

    I love these conversations!
  • Sarah
    Will, interesting post. Thanks for bringing this to our attention.

    I want to strongly advise everyone, including Will to please consider your words carefully when discussing cases like this. Daniel Andreas has not been convicted of anything, and in the instance that he ever does have to go to court on these charges, the activist community should be aware that everything we write and put out about him, could potentially be used against him. Further, it's important for us not to accept the FBI's premise of his guilt.

    Will wrote:

    "Enter Daniel Andreas San Diego. He hasn’t harmed anyone, and his crimes are nothing compared to Osama bin Laden and others on the list..."

    I take issue with the words "his crimes" - Will, please consider re-wording this sentence. Let's not give the Feds any more credit than they are do. Daniel Andreas has no crimes, period.

    At most he's a suspect. So, let's at least say things like "alleged" crimes.
  • Sarah:
    You're absolutely right. I made sure to say "alleged" up top and left it out near the bottom. I've corrected it. Thanks. Will
  • @snake:
    i smell it too.
    to rephrase my question:
    when faced with the proposition that members of their own COULD be terrorists, why does the right to choose to deny that and even go so far as to insist that DHS apologize? instead of what the left does (as in the case of HSUS), which is to completely accept the framework and terms of the whole debate and thusly dissociate (and even offer money as a reward for capture) with the 'terrorist fringe' of their own?
  • Harry
    I doubt there were actually nails used. It would be such an easy lie to fabricate, and a facilitator of such condemnation...there's no reason whatsoever to use nails, it totally goes against what one would be trying to achieve with such an action. I smell bullshit on that one.
  • kevin
    so what happened if we did actually commit acts of terrorism...? check our this FICTIONAL book by rick bogle of madison's primate freedom project:

    https://www.createspace.com/3375138
  • Snake
    Naming his eating habits as a trait to watch out for seems along the same line as naming someone's race as something to watch out for.

    Middle Easterners can't look too 'Middle Eastern' or they're terrorists, right?

    You're wearing a turban? You're a terrorist!
    You're not wearing a leather belt? You're a terrorist!

    I smell fascism.


    @ xvxdavexvx: Because mainstream left doesn't want to be associated with 'extreme' beliefs. No one wants to be associated with 'terrorists.' Not even the Humane Society...
    And mainstream right doesn't see the things listed there as 'terrorism' they see it as protecting their freedoms... Like bombing abortion centers, for example, somehow protects their freedom of religion, and protects their daughters from being 'godless.'
    ...And because many (not all) mainstream lefties are pansies.
    (Not to say that I don't like pansies...)
  • the guess who
    I think the biggest mistake a person can make is to always be for or against something.

    It is easy to make a strong case for direct action. Used properly, for instance by people like Rod Coronado or the myriad activists who are not caught performing liberartions or sabotages, direct action is an effective tactic.

    Remember the millions of arguments you've had with pacifists. "Oh MLK was effective, but pacifism is just a tactic, you have to use it correctly and at the correct time!"

    There are a number of valid points in this article:

    1] The state is maintaining a bias toward the right
    2] Daniel is not in the same league as Osama

    I'll add a couple of my own

    3] Direct action is often a moral & effective choice for helping animals and the environment

    4] Green activists are staring down an unfathomable wave of unethical treatment

    BUT!!!

    When an activist commits an act that is not going to hit a business where it hurts, namely their pocketbook but rather chooses to hit activist movements where it hurts, namely the moral high ground, we take care not to rally around them.

    What is the monetary effect of a nail bomb? While this does reek of corruption, it reminds me of Consumer Freedom's attack on PETA for euthanizing strays. It's rotten and I don't like it but the question is: who is to blame? Is it our opponents for making an intelligent move or ourselves for the negligence we demonstrate in setting up that move?
  • Excellent post, Will. Keep up the great work!
  • Thanks, Brandon!
  • Yes it does seem like quite a "coincidence" that there's a pro-vivisection demonstration at UCLA. A nicely orchestrated plot to make any opposition appear as "terrorists". It's frightening how government & higher "learning" institutions equally fail the test to objective thinking and reasonable actions. And they call us "extreme" - what a pity...
  • tofuatomic
    While "joe" gets his links together lets all stop and think about how cool it would be to have the name "Mr. San Diego".
  • HELLO!
    Unfortunately xvxdavexvx, the animal rights movement is the bastard child of the left.
  • HELLO!
    Just by "coincidence," a day after the scumbags at the FBI added San Diego to the list, a pro-vivisection demonstration was held at UCLA. Looks like the whores at the FBI have been coordinating with their masters in the vivisection industry:

    http://www.ucla-pro-test.org
  • to be on the feds list is an honor.

    its right to rebel against reactionaries.

    btw, i'm not a fan of bin laden, but this posting makes it seem like its ok for some to be on a "terrorist list" and not others. the ones who should be on the list are the ones who--at the moment--run this planet.
  • Anonymous
    terrorist isn't a new label used by governments, or anyone else for that matter, used against opponents of an establishments policies. let's not disrespect the dead who fought before us.

    also, can we get confirmation that nail bombs were actually used? i'd like to see some proof of intention to physically harm humans before we start bandying about and spreading false rumors.

    thanks for all your work!
  • David Mitchell
    'Terrorist' is the new label for anything that the Government (and its financiers) sees as opposition, no matter what it has done. And this is certainly true in the case of how the authorities are now treating Animal Rights campaigners.
    To designate Animal Rights as terrorism is laughable; are the vivisectors so delicate that legitimate campaigning against their vile behaviour is considered a campaign of terror? This interpretation suggests to the unbiased observer that they do not, and have never lived in the real world as the rest of us.
    Of course the real worry is the economic danger posed by Animal Rights to the profit-seeking Big Pharma thar 'forgets' to tell us:
    (a)animals are not reliable test models, e.g., the recent TGN1412 disaster, and the number of drugs that pass the animal testing stage but fail in the following clinical trials. (b)it has been admitted that the slightest variation in the lab animal's housing can affect an animal's physiology and response to medication, e.g., the bedding in a cage, the amount of light, noise and even a lab technician's aftershave. O yes, how very 'scientific'...
    (c)many of the conditions for which drugs are produced are not actual illnesses at all, and when they are, in most cases, they could be prevented by simple lifestyle changes (diet, reducing pollution, improving living conditions, education, etc).
    (d)Many drugs produced are simply 'me-too' versions of drugs already available. (e)Many animal experiments are duplicated over and over again by different researchers in different establishments - the 'publish or perish' motivation is the driving force of many experiments. (f)If drug companies care so much about human well-being and health, why are there so many battles by drug companies to prevent cheaper, generic copies of drugs from becoming available? (g)Lab animals are adequately protected by Government regulations. Really? How is it that every time an undercover investigation is undertaken into an animal laboratory, repeated breaches of those regulation are always found?
    And so it goes on....
  • Anonymous
    'Terrorist' is the new label for anything that the Government sees as an opponent, no matter what it has done. And this is certainly true in the case of how the authorities are now treating Animal Rights campaigners.
    To designate Animal Rights as terrorism is laughable; are the vivisectors so delicate that legitimate campaigning against their vile behaviour is considered a campaign of terror? This interpretation suggests to the unbiased observer that they do not, and have never lived in the real world as the rest of us.
    Of course the real worry is the economic danger posed by Animal Rights to the profit-seeking Big Pharma thar 'forgets' to tell us:
    (a)animals are not reliable test models, e.g., the recent TGN1412 disaster, and the number of drugs that pass the animal testing stage but fail in the following clinical trials. (b)it has been admitted that the slightest variation in the lab animal's housing can affect an animal's physiology and response to medication, e.g., the bedding in a cage, the amount of light, noise and even a lab technician's aftershave. O yes, how very 'scientific'...
    (c)many of the conditions for which drugs are produced are not actual illnesses at all, and when they are, in most cases, they could be prevented by simple lifestyle changes (diet, reducing pollution, improving living conditions, education, etc).
    (d)Many drugs produced are simply 'me-too' versions of drugs already available. (e)Many animal experiments are duplicated over and over again by different researchers in different establishments - the 'publish or perish' motivation is the driving force of many experiments. (f)If drug companies care so much about human well-being and health, why are there so many battles by drug companies to prevent cheaper, generic copies of drugs from becoming available? (g)Lab animals are adequately protected by Government regulations. Really? How is it that every time an undercover investigation is undertaken into an animal laboratory, repeated breaches of those regulation are always found?
    And so it goes on....
  • Thanks for putting this announcement into context: "an overtly political move to neutralize the growing chorus of opposition to the recent DHS memo warning of right-wing extremism."
  • Joe
    He planted two bombs wrapped with nails to do as much damage to humans as possible was his intent. Why is he not a terrorist?
  • how come the so called mainstream left, doesn't rush to the support of the so called underground left when eco-activists and animals rights activists are actually repressed, but the right wing people with money demand that DHS apologize for even insinuating that right-wing terrorism is a problem?
blog comments powered by Disqus