This video is from the plenary session at the 2010 national animal rights conference in Washington, DC. I talk about the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, secretive political prisons called Communications Management Units, and how we must respond.

Thanks to Mark Hand of Press Action for posting the footage.

A U.S. District Court has thrown out the indictment of four animal rights activists who were charged with violating the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, because the government did not clearly explain what, exactly, the protesters did.

When Joseph Buddenberg, Maryam Khajavi, Nathan Pope and Adriana Stumpo were arrested in 2009, prosecutors said little other than that the group allegedly chalked slogans on the sidewalk, distributed fliers and attended protests. Later, when they were officially indicted, the government was still tight-lipped about how their non-violent, above-ground protests amounted to “terrorism.”

In response, the Center for Constitutional Rights and attorney Matthew Strugar led an effort to have the indictments dismissed. In short, they argued that the charges should be dropped because they seem to involve only protected First Amendment speech, but that in order to make that argument the defendants’ speech must be clearly identified.

Here’s an excerpt from Judge Ronald M. Whyte’s ruling:

In order for an indictment to fulfill its constitutional purposes, it must allege facts that sufficiently inform each defendant of what it is that he or she is alleged to have done that constitutes a crime. This is particularly important where the species of behavior in question spans a wide spectrum from criminal conduct to constitutionally protected political protest. While “true threats” enjoy no First Amendment protection, picketing and political protest are at the very core of what is protected by the First Amendment. Where the defendants’ conduct falls on this spectrum in this case will very likely ultimately be decided by a jury. Before this case proceeds to a jury, however, the defendants are entitled to a more specific indictment setting forth their conduct alleged to be criminal. [emphasis added]

As background, a fierce campaign has been being waged in California against animal research at the University of California system. There has been a wide range of both legal and illegal tactics. Illegal tactics have included the destruction of UC vans, and an incendiary device was left at the home of a UC researcher.

The FBI and local law enforcement haven’t been able to catch the people responsible, though. They’ve only cracked down on the above-ground activists, like the AETA 4, who protest and create fliers.

The previous version of the law was used to convict the SHAC 7 for running a controversial website that posted news of both legal and illegal actions. This case, the first use of the new Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, was clearly an attempt to use this sweeping legislation even more broadly against First Amendment activity. This ruling sternly rebukes the government’s attempt to take activists to trial for “terrorism” without even explaining what they have done.

To be clear, though, this case is not over. The government can still re-indict the defendants with an amended bill of particulars that clearly outlines their alleged actions.

This is a victory worth celebrating, and it should also be inspiration for renewed organizing. Corporations and the politicians who represent them have been pushing this “eco-terrorism” and “animal enterprise terrorism” legislation for years, and they will not sit quietly as the flagship case of their pet scare-mongering law is tossed aside.

If prosecutors choose to re-indict, it should be at their own peril; the animal rights and environmental movements must be ready to respond even more loudly, more forcefully, that activism is not terrorism.

I was interviewed by Scott Horton recently about the government’s proposal to make Communications Management Units permanent.

We talked about the history of the experimental units, and what separates them from ADX-Florence, the Supermax. Most importantly, the Supermax was created for the most violent prisoners, who pose a physical threat, and the CMUs were created for political prisoners who pose an ideological threat.

The Bureau’s proposal makes clear that the CMUs are intended to keep political prisoners with “inspirational significance” from the public spotlight.

You can listen to the interview below, and on Antiwar Radio.

Will Potter, founder of the GreenIsTheNewRed blog, discusses the prison-within-a-prison Communications Management Units (CMUs) designed to silence non-violent activist prisoners, limited oversight and questionable legal authority for CMUs, the tendency of governments to criminalize dissent from the left and right and why the erosion of individual rights (even of prisoners) negatively effects the whole society.

Here’s a great, short video with Matthew Strugar explaining the case of the AETA 4, who are activists charged under the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act for protesting, chanting, and distributing fliers.

The video was created by the folks behind Bold Native, a new film that will be screened at the upcoming Let Live animal rights conference.

Seven members of Greenpeace have been arrested for painting anti-drilling slogans, in crude oil, on a drilling support ship in the Gulf.

Greenpeace says the ship is scheduled to sail to the Arctic this summer, so they rappelled down the side and painted “Ban Arctic Drilling” in oil on the side of the Shell-owned ship.

According to the New York Times, the New Orleans Joint Terrorism Task Force of the FBI “is looking into the matter” of whether the non-violent activists will face terrorism-related charges.

If you’ve been to GreenIsTheNewRed before, you know “terrorism” laws have been recklessly used against non-violent activists for years. The scare-mongering around this disaster has been particularly bold, though. Just a few weeks ago, Rush Limbaugh was trying to blame the oil spill on “eco-terrorists.” Now, in the wake of the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history, we are to believe it is the activists, not the oil corporations, who are the criminals?

Phil Radford of Greenpeace put it well:

“It is outrageous that prosecutors would confront peaceful protesters with such a heavy hand while not a single BP executive has been charged for the devastation they have wrought on the Gulf of Mexico and the people and animals that depend on it…”

Thanks to B. Shuga for the link.

There is a bail reduction hearing this morning for two environmental activists who protested mountain-top removal coal mining and had their bail set at $100,000.

EmmaKate Martin and Benjamin Bryant took part in non-violent civil disobedience to blockade Massey Energy’s regional headquarters in Boone County, W.Va. They were charged with four non-violent misdemeanor charges of trespassing, obstructing an officer, conspiracy to commit a misdemeanor, and littering.

As Climate Ground Zero notes, violent criminals have had their bail set much lower:

• Magistrates in Boone County have set bails at $30,000 and $20,000, both with 10% cash bond options for individuals charged with malicious wounding; the first for intentionally hitting a man with a van and the second for stabbing a man.
• Magistrate Snodgrass set a $2,000 bail, with $200 bond option, for a woman charged with felony malicious wounding for stabbing her husband in the head.
• Snodgrass also set a $40,000 bail, with $4,000 bond option, for a woman arrested while driving under the influence of illegal drugs and alcohol two days after she was arrested for stabbing her husband.

This type of disproportionate response to non-violent activism isn’t an isolated instance. For example, when activists were arrested in their non-violent campaign against the I-69 highway project, the government argued for a high bond by saying that one of the defendants, Hugh Farrell, “advocated literature and materials which advocate anarchy.”

And as we have seen time and again on this site, environmental activists are hit with significantly higher sentences than apolitical, violent offenders. (See: “Environmentalist Sentenced to 21 Years as a “Terrorist”; Violent Racists Receive Half That.“)

I’ll keep you posted later today on the outcome of the hearing.

UPDATE:

Today after Magistrate Snodgrass reduced the bail to a still exorbitant $50,000 with a $25,000 property option, an emergency hearing in Circuit Court was scheduled for 4pm. Judge Willie Thompson reduced the bail to $2500 each. In addition, Martin and Bryant received a deal of 5 days time-served and 55 days community service, along with the condition that they remain on house arrest for the 55 days, leaving only for community service hours. Bryant took the deal and will be getting out of jail Monday. EmmaKate did not immediately take the deal but has until Wednesday to decide.

It cannot help. Ever. A great talk by James Duane, a professor at Regent Law School and a former defense attorney, on why you should never talk to the police or FBI. A great refresher in light of the recent FBI harassment of a sociology professor.

While you’re at it, why not check out this great “Know Your Rights” booklet?

David Pellow, a Professor of Sociology at the University of Minnesota, has been outspoken against the government’s attempts to label his student, Scott DeMuth, a terrorist. A few months back he authored a guest post for GreenIsTheNewRed.com, and he has worked with students, professors and the media to raise awareness about how the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act is threatening academic freedom.

FBI harassment campaigns are about instilling fear in the activist community, and agents have demonstrated they are not below bringing respected faculty advisors into the witch hunt. Because there have been other FBI visits in the Twin Cities regarding this case, I wanted to share this story.

The following is written by David Naguib Pellow, a Professor of Sociology at the University of Minnesota and faculty advisor of Scott DeMuth:

Scott DeMuth is one of my advisees here at the University of Minnesota. He is a bright, hard working graduate student who has become ensnared in a federal investigation that has left him with the possibility of facing several years in jail related to conspiracy and terrorism charges (his trial begins this summer). The federal government is building a case against him because they believe he has knowledge of at least two Animal Liberation Front actions that occurred in Iowa and Minnesota in 2004 and 2006, respectively.

The U.S. Attorney prosecuting the case has also made it clear that he believes Scott is guilty because he is an anarchist and is believed to be associated with activists who are earth and animal liberation advocates. Scott has indeed worked to educate the public about issues concerning eco-prisoners and other political prisoners in the United States. He has also worked for years advocating for the rights of Dakota peoples, who have been dispossessed of their homelands by military force. And he has done impressive sociological research on these social movements and presented his work at professional conferences. He and I have recently begun collaborating on a research project that focuses on many of these issues. So when the government came knocking on my door I took notice.

Monday April 6, 2010: This morning when I arrived at my place of employment—the University of Minnesota—I went straight to my mailbox. There was the usual pile of academic junk mail—catalogues from publishers, invitations to receptions, etc. But there was something else this time: a business card with a post-it attached to it that read: “re: student, Pellow, 04/06/10, 9:15am.” The business card was for a Steve Molesky, Special Agent, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Minneapolis Division. He also left a voice message for me in my office that stated that he wanted to “interview” me in the next day or so. He didn’t say about what, but the post-it from the receptionist offered an indication (“re: student”).

I immediately called several trusted lawyer colleagues, read the NLG’s “Operation Backfire” guide, and spoke with activists here in the Twin Cities community, all of whom suggested I not talk to the feds. My view on the matter is that I am Scott’s advisor and as such, I should be looking out for him and advocating for him, so talking to people who are trying to build a case against him is probably not in his best interest.

One person also pointed out that given Assistant U.S. Attorney Clifford Cronk’s characterization of me during Scott DeMuth’s arraignment in November 2009 as someone who left him a voice mail message protesting Scott’s detention and criticizing grand juries, it’s likely that they already have formed a certain opinion of me. One of my lawyer colleagues told me that by law I have the right not to talk to the FBI, but if I do then be courteous. My own attorney added that if they persist then I might ask them to send me their questions in written form and that I would run them by counsel.

Wednesday, April 8, 2010: Agent Molesky called my home phone today and left a message that clearly was directed toward asking questions about Scott’s research and my own research. He stated: “I’d like to ask you a couple of questions about one of your students you are the advisor for at the University, Scott DeMuth. I’d like to ask you a couple of questions about the research that you do and the research that he does for you.” I then followed up with a request for a detailed list of questions.

Thursday, April 9, 2010: Agent Molesky replied, “I recognize and understand your request, however, I will probably be unable to satisfy it; not because I don’t want to but because I cannot. I have been asked to interview you by our office in Cedar Rapids, IA. With their request they did not include a specific list of questions. When we conduct interviews, it is more an art than a science, meaning that except for a few questions, I never have scripted questions for an interview–the answers, demeanor, and posture of the interviewee normally dictate the questions I ask and the direction in which the interview moves.” He continued, “I will be asking you about any human research studies that you are conducting in which Scott Demuth may be participating as study personnel. I will also be querying you on your contacts and relationship with Peter Young that may be relevant to the Demuth investigation.”

After receiving Agent Steven Molesky’s email message today, I spoke with my attorney and we decided that Molesky was firmly within the realm of infringing upon academic freedom. Thus I have decided not to grant the interview request. To speak to Agent Molesky about my research at the level of detail indicated above would very likely violate the American Sociological Association’s Code of Ethics, which states: “Sociologists have an obligation to protect confidential information and not allow information gained in confidence from being used in ways that would unfairly compromise research participants, students, employees, clients, or others.” “Confidential information provided by research participants, students, employees, clients, or others is treated as such by sociologists even if there is no legal protection or privilege to do so.” (Section 11.01). The Code of Ethics also states, “Sociologists do not disclose confidential, personally identifiable information concerning their research participants, other recipients of their service which is obtained during the course of their work.” (Section 11.06).

I appreciate Agent Molesky’s polite and cordial approach to this process, but I cannot and will not violate the trust relationship that I have with my advisee and colleague Scott DeMuth and with the participants in my research study.

-David N. Pellow
Professor of Sociology
University of Minnesota

Want to win a signed copy of Operation Bite Back by Dean Kuipers?

Here’s how:

1. Go read this post about a proposal to make secretive political prisons called Communications Management Units permanent.
2. Submit your comment against the unconstitutional and inhumane proposal (instructions are on that post, it’s easy).
3. Leave a comment letting me know you submitted a letter (even better, paste a copy of what you wrote, to inspire others to do the same).

   That’s it! I’ll randomly pick one comment (don’t worry, folks who already submitted one will be included) and send the author a signed copy of Operation Bite Back, which is the story of Rod Coronado.

   TAKE ACTION BY JUNE 2nd!

   And if there are enough comments submitted, I have some other stuff to give away as well!

By Matt Bors. Just change Bush to Obama.

The proposal to chip away at Miranda rights is yet another attempt in recent weeks to carve out exceptions to fundamental legal protections for people the government has labeled terrorists, or “suspected terrorists.”

Attorney General Eric Holder said the recent Times Square bombing attempt reflects the need for “modifying the rules” in the case of suspected terrorists. The administration argues that reading someone their rights interrupts the flow of interruption and could prevent investigators from learning critical information.

This is a solution in search of a problem. There is already a law on the books allowing a delayed reading of Miranda rights if there is an immediate threat to public safety. According to The New York Times:

After the attempted bombing of a Detroit-bound jet on Dec. 25, for example, the F.B.I. questioned the suspect, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, for about 50 minutes without reading him his rights. And last week, Mr. Brennan said, the F.B.I. interrogated Mr. Shahzad for three or four hours before delivering a Miranda warning.

Plus, even after Shahzad was read his rights, he waived them and kept talking.

In supporting this legislation, Obama is lock-step with far-right politicians who say that when it comes to “terrorism” cases, the rule of law is too inconvenient.

Former NYC mayor Rudy Giuliani said of the Times Square bomber: “I would not have given him Miranda warnings after just a couple of hours of questioning…I would have instead declared him an enemy combatant…”

This proposal comes at the same time there is a bipartisan bill to strip “suspected terrorists” of their citizenship, and Arizona has outlawed ethnic studies programs and classes that are “subversive.” In addition to all of this, in Obama’s home state there is a secretive political prison that could be made permanent.

Supporters of all of these unconstitutional policies claim that if you aren’t a terrorist, you have nothing to worry about. These laws, we’re told, are merely tools to keep us safe.

My question at this point is: Is there anything off the table? Is there any part of the Constitution that Obama and others are not willing to hack? Any point at which they say, “No, now that would just be going too far”?

What was it again the terrorists hate?