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.

Chances are, you have never heard of the Inkerman Group. I certainly hadn’t, until I began researching the web of faceless “risk mitigation” companies that help corporations identify threats to their profits.

These companies produce briefing documents that identify business “threats,” including special interest groups, key activists, and legislation. It is a niche industry built upon fear: the business of risk mitigation depends upon the identification of a constant stream of threats. Corporations commission briefing documents which identify (or create) threats to corporate interests, which leads corporations spending money addressing these threats, which leads to more reports… you get the idea.

This financial motivation to identify threats results in some interesting reports. For instance, I previously wrote about the Society of Toxicology commissioning a “threat analysis” that included such detailed information as who animal rights activists are dating.

It is impossible to know the true scope of these reports, and the impact they have had on the broader political climate of the Green Scare. It is fair to say, though, that for many corporate executives, these think tank documents may be the only exposure they have had to the history, motivation and tactics of the animal rights and environmental movements. They are a critical component of broader efforts to label activists (the “threats”) as “terrorists.”

One such report is by the Inkerman Group, called “The War on ‘Eco-Terror’: An analysis of the use of anti-terrorism legislation on activist movements in the UK & US.” It was sent to me with the request that I not identify the commissioner of the report. (The report, from 2007, is marked “confidential” and does not show up in a search of the Inkerman website, but a Google search of the volume number returns a back-end link to the source document on the Inkerman server. Good thing Inkerman is not a security firm, I guess.)

Like many other risk analyses, the Inkerman report is hilariously bad at times. The authors of the report appear to either be quite clueless about the true nature of the radical environmental movement, or quite malicious in their attempts to label mainstream, non-violent tactics as “terrorism.”

For instance, its timeline of “eco-terrorism” begins with the formation of the Sierra Club in 1892, and the formation of the Humane Society of the United States in 1954.

It goes on to identify key developments in the radical environmental movement, including… stickers.

Towards the end of 2000, a new form of eco-terrorism emerged in the US against Sports Utility Vehicles (SUVs). Activists, some reportedly part of the ELF, decided to demonstrate against the environmentally-unfriendly vehicles by placing homemade stickers on them. These ‘Mad Taggers’, as they became known, used to sticker the cars in question, chosen at random with messages such as “I’m Changing the Climate. Ask Me How”, “Bin Laden Used Your Gas Money”, “If You Love America, Get Rid of Your SUV” and “I Don’t Care About the Air”.

However, despite these claims and despite the financial interests involved in this report, the authors do not side in favor of more “eco-terror” legislation.

The introduction of new anti-terror laws seems only to be further complicating the definition of terrorism and what constitutes it, rather than clarifying it. This inherently implies that the Government is still struggling with legally defining the term ‘eco-terrorism’.

In today’s terror climate, the authorities’ fear that terrorist individuals and organisations may ‘slip through the net’ has justified the use of wide-ranging legislation against activists. Many times, actions of ‘eco- terrorists’ are perpetrated to induce fear, and this should rightly be clamped down upon and prosecuted. However, where peaceful protest such as the Camp for Climate Action 2007 intends not to disrupt or threaten human security, the threat alone of anti-terrorist legislation being used against protest is extreme. The issue lies in the blurring of lines between those extremists willing to carry out eco-tage, and those looking to undertake peaceful protest, which should be encouraged in a democracy. This is especially problematic where the two kinds of protests exist side by side at a demonstration, or within groups.

In contrast with the US, which declares eco-terrorism to be the most serious form of domestic terrorism today, the UK must respect the fine lines between democratic voice, illegal activity, terrorism and scare- mongering. [Emphasis added]

Unfortunately, corporations in the United States have not gotten the memo.

Americard, by Ian Geldard

On this website I have exclusively documented the crackdown on the first group: attempts to label people as “terrorists” because of their political beliefs. The new immigration law in Arizona makes clear, though, that this “Green Scare” does not exist in a vacuum.

Arizona’s law, SB 1070, makes it a state crime to be in the country illegally and requires immigrants to carry paperwork proving their immigration status. It allows Arizona police to stop and question people who they think are “reasonably suspect.”

So what’s the problem? As supporters of the law have repeatedly said, “If you are here legally, you have nothing to worry about.” Right?

The phrase “Show me your papers” has no place in a democracy.

It puts unchecked power in the hands of government officials and law enforcement to stop people at their whim. In terms of immigration, the most immediate concern is racial profiling and harassment of those who look like an “illegal” [read: brown people].

Supporters of this legislation have justified it in a few ways. They point to terrorism concerns due to lax border security, and say illegal immigrants unfairly benefit from living in the United States without contributing through taxes (actually, illegal immigrants are vital to economic growth).

However, this law (and a similar one proposed in Michigan) is not about national security, and it is not about the economy. It is about using a vulnerable class of people as a political scapegoat in order to push a larger political agenda.

For example, the demonization of immigrants in Arizona has moved from the border to the classrooms. Legislation has been proposed to outlaw ethnic studies programs:

The new bill would make it illegal for a school district to teach any courses that promote the overthrow of the U.S. government, promote resentment of a particular race or class of people, are designed primarily for students of a particular ethnic group or “advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals.”

[Update: This bill has become law.]

Much like animal industries have moved from targeting the Animal Liberation Front to targeting mainstream groups, anti-immigrant groups are moving from targeting so-called “illegals” to targeting anyone who ideologically supports them.

Both of these crackdowns, on dissidents and on immigrants, are about the vilification of the “other.” [For a great, accessible discussion of this, check out the Pinky Show, "How to Solve Illegal Immigration."] As Naomi Wolf has documented in The End of America, one of the defining characteristics of increasingly totalitarian societies is the creation of both internal and external threats as scapegoats, and then slowly widening the net.

Activists of all social movements should reject Arizona’s law, and all others guided more by fear than compassion. It promotes racial profiling, it is intended to terrify communities, and it will destroy families. Those reasons alone are enough to oppose this legislation. But this is not not solely about immigration; it is about whether we continue advancing towards a society where the “illegals” are not just individuals, but entire belief systems.

Americans accused of being involved with terrorist organizations, even if they have never been convicted of a crime, could have their citizenship revoked under a bipartisan bill that has been introduced in Congress.

The “Terrorist Expatriation Act” was introduced this week by Senators Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) and Scott Brown (R-MA), along with Congressmen Jason Altmire (D-PA) and Charlie Dent (R-PA). The bill was introduced in the wake of the Times Square bomber media frenzy. So far the Obama administration has remained silent, but the bill has some bipartisan support.

This bill would direct the State Department, at its own discretion, to determine if someone is involved with or working with a terrorist organization (as identified in the State Department’s list of designated terrorist groups).

Those accused would still have the right to contest the designation, but in an administrative hearing. If they lose, they would be stripped of their citizenship, even if they have not been convicted of any crime. Once stripped of citizenship, some legal experts have said suspects could be locked in military prisons indefinitely, or face military tribunals where they have fewer legal protections.

Stephen I. Vladeck, a professor of law at American University, told the Boston Globe that this bill harkens back to the darkest periods of U.S. history:

In 1952, at the height of the McCarthy era, Congress revamped the statute and added new provisions aimed at communists, allowing the removal of citizenship for anyone guilty of treason or advocating the nation’s violent overthrow…

“The bill is so broad that it would allow the government to strip citizenship from someone who never committed a hostile act against the United States,’’ said Vladeck. He said providing material support to terrorists could be interpreted as broadly as preparing Hamas or Hezbollah to advocate before the United Nations.

In an oped in the Washington Post, David Cole makes a solid case of why the bill is dead in the water, describing it as a proposal “so flawed it can be explained only as pure political grandstanding.”

I hope he is right. Personally, though, I am beyond the point of relying on logic and no-they-could-never-get-away-with-that assurances. Politicians are getting away with it, and they are growing more and more bold.

This bill needs to be placed in the context of the simultaneous, sweeping crackdown in the name of fighting “domestic terrorism.”

Legislation like the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act singles out animal rights activists for harsher penalties if they harm corporate profits. Activists in California are being charged under the AETA for chalking slogans on sidewalks and wearing masks at protests. Meanwhile, the government has proposed making the secretive political prisons, called Communications Management Units, permanent.

This expatriation bill is dangerous enough on its own: it places far too much unchecked power in the hands of the government to make inherently subjective, political determinations of what is a terrorist organization and what constitutes support. When examined in the broader context of the attack on political activists as terrorists, the bill is even more chilling.

Supporters of these efforts all defend their proposals in the same way. It doesn’t matter if it’s this expatriation bill, the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, Guantanamo, military tribunals, extraordinary rendition, warrantless wiretapping… they all reassure the American people that “You have nothing to worry about. This will just affect the bad guys, the terrorists.”

It’s time we stop believing them.

Michele Basso labeled the activists who protested her cruel experiments as terrorists.

Basso testified about her firsthand experiences with “animal rights terrorism,” such as receiving unwanted magazine subscriptions, home demonstrations, and local activists campaigning to open a museum. She has never been the target of violence, and said of this campaigning: “…I can’t stress the critical impact that this has had on me and my ability to do my work.”

Well, it looks like animal activists were not nearly as great a threat to Basso’s career as Basso herself.

She was recently suspended from working with animals, a “rare move prompted by what officials called a ‘clear pattern’ of problems with animal welfare.” According to the Wisconsin State Journal:

University administrators say researcher Michele Basso has had a bumpy history, citing a lack of respect for veterinarians, incomplete record-keeping and instances where monkeys developed brain injuries…

It is unusual for the university to suspend a main researcher’s work with animals, and officials say they only do so when they perceive that the risks to animals outweigh the benefits to science and medicine…

In other words, university officials came to the same conclusion as the “terrorists,” that the results of Basso’s experiments were not worth the cruelty.

Examples like this illustrate the government’s backwards priorities. Rather than catering to special interest groups and labeling political activists as “terrorists,” perhaps lawmakers should be listening to, and acting on, their concerns.

Fifty years ago this month, four black students sat at a Woolworth’s whites-only lunch counter and refused to move. The following day 25 students did the same. A few days later, more than 300 showed up. The sit-ins quickly spread across the South and were a critical component of the civil rights movement. Decades later, the same conduct by animal rights and environmental activists are “terrorism” under a bill introduced in Washington State.

Senator Val Stevens has sponsored SB 6566, “an act prohibiting terrorist acts against animal and natural resource facilities.” The so-called “eco-terrorism” bill, like many others, ostensibly targets underground groups like the Animal Liberation Front and Earth Liberation Front. However, the bill is so broad that it explicitly targets non-violent civil disobedience and outlaws speaking out in support of “eco-terrorists.”

Here is the text of the bill. Among its provisions:

• Its sweeping definition of “eco-terrorist organization” could wrap up countless above-ground activists. It defines “animal rights or ecological terrorist organization” to mean “two or more persons with the primary or incidental purpose of intimidating, coercing, causing fear with the intent to obstruct, or impeding any person from participating in an activity involving animals” or natural resources. That last clause is the kicker. The bill’s definition of a terrorist organization includes any activist group that impedes business operations.
• Civil disobedience is “terrorism.” The bill explicitly mentions “Entering or remaining on the premises of an animal or horticultural facility if the person or organization” has “received notice to depart but failed to do so.”
• Speaking out in support of “eco-terrorists” is terrorism. The bill targets those who: “Participate in or support animal or ecological terrorism, including raising, soliciting, collecting, or providing any person with material, financial support, or other resources such as lodging, training, safe houses, false documentation, or identification, communications, equipment, or transportation that will be used in whole or in part to encourage, plan, prepare, carry out, publicize, promote, or aid an act of animal or ecological terrorism, the concealment of, or an escape from an act of animal or ecological terrorism.”

That final bullet point is the most dangerous section of the entire bill. It outlaws any activity, including communications, that “will be used in whole or in part to encourage,” “publicize,” or “promote” an act of animal or ecological terrorism.

“Encourage.” “Publicize.” “Promote.” There is absolutely no doubt that this language is intended to target the work of groups like the Earth Liberation Front Press Office, North American ALF Press Office, Bite Back Magazine, Earth First Journal, and others who distribute the communiqués of underground groups and vocally defend illegal tactics.

Make no mistake: that’s what this law is about. Speech. Sure, it includes stiffer penalties for property crimes and civil disobedience. The real danger, though, is the creation of a new class of law that explicitly exempts the First Amendment activity of those who support “terrorists.”

In my opinion, the law is so broad it could go even further, targeting those who provide “financial support” through legal defense funds. That’s debatable, of course, and that’s the problem; the law is so vague and broad that it is open to the exploitation of corporations, politicians and ambitious prosecutors.

Unfortunately, bills like this are nothing new. In fact, much of the language in this bill has been directly copied and pasted from a template bill created by the corporate-funded American Legislative Exchange Council. You can read ALEC’s “Animal and Ecological Terrorism Act” here. A similar ALEC bill in Tennessee was described by its sponsor as targeting “left-wing eco-greenies.”

This bill, and others like it, have literally been bought and paid for by corporations.

Meanwhile, if you replace “animal and ecological” with “civil rights” throughout this bill, it could easily have been used against those activists at the Woolworth’s lunch counter, the Greensboro Four. Fifty years of history have made it easy, and even expected, to support once-controversial social movements and radical tactics.

The site of the Greensboro Four’s historic “terrorism” has now been commemorated with the opening of the International Civil Rights Center and Museum.

UPDATE: The bill did not make it out of committee, and will not pass this session. We’ll stay on the lookout for future incarnations, as similar versions of this bill have been introduced in Washington State many times.

The National Lawyers Guild has a new report on state-level versions of the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act that have been popping up around the country. As I’ve reported here previously, on laws such as the California Animal Enterprise Protection Act, they use sweeping, overly broad definitions of terrorism that are, in some cases, even worse than the federal law. (Here’s one of my all-time favorite blog posts in which a Tennessee lawmaker describes how similar legislation is needed to combat “left-wing eco-greenies.”

Take a look at the full report, and the influence of a corporate front group called the American Legislative Exchange Council: “Beyond the AETA: How Corporate-Crafted Legislation Brands Activists as Terrorists.”

As NLG Executive Director Heidi Boghosian said:

“Although many states considered and outright rejected the ALEC bill soon after its release, there are still signs that parts of the legislation are being incorporated in some states’ laws that equate animal rights activists with domestic terrorism.”

The National Lawyers Guild continues to be out front on these issues, with its publication of a know your rights booklet for activists, and it’s Green Scare hotline, 1-888-NLG-ECOL. And NLG lawyers around the country have been working hard on behalf of animal rights and environmental activists labeled “terrorists.” If you’re a lawyer, please join the Guild. And if you’re not a lawyer, write a check, volunteer, or just drop them a note of support.

As a follow up to David Pellow’s guest post, “My Student is a Sociologist, Not a Terrorist,” here is an update from his grad student facing terrorism charges, Scott DeMuth.

DeMuth has been indicted for conspiracy to commit “animal enterprise terrorism” in relation to the unsolved Animal Liberation Front raid at the University of Iowa. The government has argued that DeMuth is an anarchist, and “therefore, he is a domestic terrorist.”

This is an excerpt from a public statement by DeMuth:

…I believe I was targeted by this grand jury because of my involvement in doing prisoner support as a part of EWOK! (Earth Warriors are OK!). Further, as a part of my academic career, I have been involved in researching the animal rights and environmental movements and interviewing participants of those movements. The identity and contents of interviews are protected by confidentiality agreements, and I have an obligation to this confidentiality as outlined by the Institutional Review Board and American Sociological Association guidelines.

Because of the grand jury’s use in investigating social movements, I refused to cooperate and testify in the proceedings. Additionally, because grand jury proceedings are held in secret, there is no real way to verify if I had only given my name or if I had given away the identity and contents of each interview I have done. Therefore, if for no other reason, I believed that my participation would violate the trust and confidentiality of those who I have interviewed. I went to Davenport on November 17th, knowing that I could be jailed for contempt of court, and I was willing to deal with whatever legal consequences came with that decision.

As expected, I was jailed for contempt of court. However, two days later, I was unexpectedly charged with “conspiracy with unknown persons” under the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA). As evidenced by the vagueness of the charge and its filing a day before the statute of limitations expired, I believe that this charge is being used punitively against me because of my non-cooperation with the grand jury. Additionally, it seems that this charge is a last-ditch effort by the prosecution eager to get a conviction in a failed investigation…

Under the AETA (and its predecessor the AEPA), the ever-expanding definition of terrorism has included everything from the ALF to PETA, even going as far as charging people who chalk on sidewalks as “terrorists.” Regardless of the many laws that exist to charge illegal activities, laws such as the AETA are written specifically to charge political ideologies and those who support them.

But this expanding definition of terrorism does not just affect animal rights activists, to which my case should attest. The government makes broad and dangerous generalizations across the board, conflating ideologies from all sides of the political spectrum with terrorism (e.g. anti-abortion activists, gun-rights advocates, environmentalists, and anarchists). Not only does the government target political activity, but it also uses the guise of the “war on terror” to target entire communities based on religion, ethnicity, national origin, and immigrant status. We must ask ourselves, “Who will be next?”

It is not just animal rights activists and anarchists who have a stake in this case, in the abolition of the AETA, and in the overall “terrorizing” of political dissent, but everyone who lives within America, everyone who values our inalienable rights and liberties, and everyone who seeks a better way of living than the one we have been given.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals has been classified as as a “terrorist threat” in a document created by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

The USDA created a new “APHIS Facility Security Profile” form to send to animal experimentation facilities. Recipients were asked to answer about their experiences, and return the form to the government so the USDA can better meet their needs. [Update: After this article was posted, the USDA took down the form. Here is a link to a pdf of the APHIS form.]

In one section of the form, on p4, item #2 B and C, PETA is listed as a “domestic special interest terrorist”:

B. Terrorist Threat. What terrorist activities have occurred in or around your building/facility in the past 5 years (documented cases)? Please check all that apply.

[ ] Attack from international terrorists
[ ] Attack from domestic special interest terrorists
-[ ] Earth Liberation Front (ELF)
-[ ] Animal Liberation Front (ALF)
-[ ] People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA)
-[ ] Animal Defense League (ADL)
-[ ] Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC)
-[ ] Formal hate group(s) (please specify):
-[ ] Other (please specify): ____________________
[ ] Cyber Attack from a known or unknown source.

I have written extensively on this site about how the ELF and ALF have become the number one domestic terrorism threat, even though they have targeted property and not people. And Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty activists were convicted on “terrorism” charges for running a website that vocally supported the actions of those groups. The listing of PETA and the Animal Defense League is something else entirely.

PETA is perhaps the most recognized organization in the animal rights movement. They are known for their undercover investigations, and their use of celebrities and outlandish media stunts to draw attention to factory farming, fur, circuses and animal experimentation.

Regardless of how you feel about PETA and their tactics, they are a lawful, above-ground, national non-profit.

So why in another section of the USDA form, are they listed as a possible answer under “Greatest Threat or Danger. What do you consider the greatest source of danger to your organization and/or fellow workers?”

Because they expose what goes on behind closed doors.

Justin Goodman, research associate supervisor for PETA, had a fantastic oped in the Sacramento Bee about the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act and the misuses of the “terrorism” label against non-violent activists. In California, four activists are facing terrorism charges for protesting at individuals homes and allegedly creating fliers with names and addresses on them.

From Goodman’s oped:

This should give all Americans pause. People who engage in nonviolent protests and civil disobedience are sitting in jail cells, stigmatized by one of the most politically charged and discrediting labels of our time, while people who wake up every morning and go to jobs in which they torment and kill animals in laboratories continue to enjoy their freedom, paychecks, social lives and families.

Animal industries are quite open about their desire to use terrorism laws to keep their practices out of the public spotlight. I recently posted about the Animal Agriculture Alliance calling for federal prosecution of undercover investigators. It’s not because the investigators are violent. It is because they pose an even greater threat: educating the public.

As Goodman wrote: “To shield them from public opinion and discussion and to protect them from peaceful and heretofore lawful pickets by locking up those who dare to challenge the suffering that occurs inside laboratories is an attack on every American’s right of protest.”

Scott DeMuth, a Minneapolis activist, has been indicted for conspiracy to violate the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, apparently in relation to a 2004 Animal Liberation Front raid at the University of Iowa. He faces up to 5 years in prison. His indictment marks a continued expansion of the scope of the new terrorism law, which has already been used to target activists who release mink from fur farms, and the AETA4, who are accused of protesting and chalking on public sidewalks.

The indictment comes after DeMuth and another local activist, Carrie Feldman, were found to be in contempt of court refusing to cooperate with a federal grand jury investigated that ALF burglary and vandalism. They were handcuffed and taken to jail for refusing to testify about their political beliefs and political associations.

I have written previously about Feldman’s refusal, and her statement to the grand jury (Activist to Iowa Grand Jury: “We will not be intimidated. We will not cooperate.”).

In a statement prepared prior to the grand jury hearing, DeMuth said:

“Grand juries can be very disempowering for us all, and especially for those targeted by them. We face questioning without legal counsel present or a right to remain silent. We can be threatened, coerced, and jailed. However, no punishment could be worse than surrendering our values. “

There has been some speculation about what, exactly, DeMuth’s conspiracy charges entail. Is the indictment for conspiracy to damage property? Or is it for conspiracy to instill a “reasonable fear”?

The truth: neither.

Bear with me for a moment. The indictment lists sections 43(a) and 43(b)(2) of the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, and says the conspiracy was to commit economic damage in the amount exceeding $10,000. Section 43(a) is simply the offense section. Section 43(b)(2) spells out penalties for damages exceeding $10,000. The indictment does not specify whether the charges are for violating
43(a)(2)(A) (damaging property) or 43(a)(2)(B) (instilling fear). Does that make sense? I know it’s a little tedious, but I think it’s important to clear up. (I just spoke with Matthew Strugar, who was quoted on Peter Young’s blog, and he agreed.)

Local press has been speculating. But regardless of what, specifically, DeMuth is charged with conspiring to do, one thing is clear: conspiracy charges have been used throughout U.S. history as a catch-all when prosecutors can’t get anything else to stick. That’s exactly what happened in the case of the SHAC 7, under the previous version of the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act.

I have personally met both Scott DeMuth and Carrie Feldman, on multiple occasions. They were involved in organizing a Green Scare speaking event in Minneapolis. They are both incredibly kind, passionate, activists who are involved in a variety of local issues, including organizing public lectures and supporting the RNC 8. They are lawful, above-ground activists who have organized against the Green Scare. Now they, themselves, have become targets, and they need your support.

You can write letters to Carrie Feldman and Scott DeMuth, and email them to: davenportgrandjury@riseup.net. You can also donate to their legal support at http://davenportgrandjury.wordpress.com/