There has been a slew of incredible, and disturbing, reporting by the UK Guardian recently on how police have rebranded activism as “domestic extremism” and “domestic terrorism.” Environmental activists, antiwar activists, animal rights activists and many more groups have been targeted. Specifically, police have gathered personal information on thousands of activists who simply attend protests or political meetings, and created massive national databases.

For instance, this “spotter card” was distributed to police officers in preparation for protests at Britain’s largest arms fair. According to the Guardian:

These so-called “spotter cards” are issued by police to identify individuals they consider to be potential troublemakers because they have appeared at a number of demonstrations.

One of the individuals featured at ‘H’ is Mark Thomas, a comedian and political activist. He has no criminal record. In a column, he noted how this scaremongering reflects truly misplaced priorities:

While being wanted outside the arms fair, I was legitimately inside researching a book on the subject, and uncovered four companies illegally promoting “banned” torture equipment.

Perhaps the most important bit of information, I think, is buried a bit in the story. According to this investigative piece by the Guardian:

Acpo’s national infrastructure for dealing with domestic extremism was set up with the backing of the Home Office in an attempt to combat animal rights activists who were committing serious crimes. Senior officers concede the criminal activity associated with these groups has receded, but the units dealing with domestic extremism have expanded their remit to incorporate campaign groups across the political spectrum, including anti-war and environmental groups that have only ever engaged in peaceful direct action.

If you’re familiar with this site and the Green Scare, you know that one of the key points I try to hit home, repeatedly, is that environmental and animal rights activists may be among the first targets in these political crackdowns, but they will not be the last. By the admission of some government officials in the UK, this has clearly been the case.

Whether or not that has been the official policy in the United States, the same dynamic is at play. If we do not stop the terrorism rhetoric, legislation, court cases and scare-mongering in its tracks, no activist and no social movement will remain untouched.

Of course, you could always just continue listening to the soundbites of police and government officials, like this one from Anton Setchell, who is in charges of the “domestic extremism” unit in the UK. People who find themselves on the databases, he says, “should not worry at all.”

Related posts:

1. Legal Handbook for Animal Rights and Environmental Activists
2. Animal Rights Activist Named Alongside Bin Laden on FBI’s Terrorist List
3. How Corporate Provacateurs Made Fran Trutt an “Animal Rights Terrorist”

Two activists have been arrested for using Twitter to communicate during the G20 protests, another step in the continued, escalating attack on First Amendment rights in the name of combating “extremism” and “terrorism.”

Elliot Madison is a social worker and anarchist who was arrested in Pittsburgh on Sept. 24 and “charged with hindering apprehension or prosecution, criminal use of a communication facility and possession of instruments of crime.” In plain English: police say he used Twitter to spread information about police movements during the G20 protests in order to help activists avoid arrest.

Madison worked with a group called the Tin Can Communications Collective to help activists communicate during the G20, creating a decentralized version of Twitter. Journalists from around the world, including CNN, subscribed to the service and viewed the messages posted. Madison told Democracy Now: “We put on the—about different trainings. There was a Know Your Rights training. We talked about the—there were messages I received about the raid on the Just Seeds food bus. There was information about where meet-ups were for different marches, like the students’ march. To be honest, I didn’t see most of the messages, because I was arrested very early on Thursday.”

The message in question that apparently led to the arrest was an announcement that said that the police had issued an order to disperse. The police allege that the message was intended to hinder arrests and prosecution (by that logic, the police making the announcement to arrest would also be an example of hindering arrests and prosecution).

Madison’s home was raided, and police took, among other things, Curious George stuffed animals and a needlepoint made by his wife’s grandmother of Lenin.

To put this in context, police have used sonic weapons during the G20 protests, they have beat and tear-gassed protesters and students and random people, they demanded that crowds of non-protesting passersby disperse or be attacked. These are many of the same tactics used during the DNC and RNC protests. [In this political context I, as a journalist, would sure as hell love to know where the police are, if nothing else so I don't get beaten.]

Of course, the government is spinning the Twitter usage as a demon tool of anarchist organizers to incite violence. [Just as books are a demon tool of anarchists to, well, educate themselves]. We see this time and again at these mass protests–police beat random people in the streets while simultaneously trying to pick off certain individuals as “leaders.” During the RNC protests, organizers were arrested, demonized as “anarchists,” and hit with terrorism charges for spearheading local organizing with a wide-ranging coalition.

I ran across this article from last year, sent by a reader, about a U.S. Army intelligence report warning that terrorists may be using Twitter. An excerpt from the report:

“Twitter has also become a social activism tool for socialists, human rights groups, communists, vegetarians, anarchists, religious communities, atheists, political enthusiasts, hacktivists and others to communicate with each other and to send messages to broader audiences,” the report said.

It goes on to say, “Extremist and terrorist use of Twitter could evolve over time to reflect tactics that are already evolving in use by hacktivists and activists…”

It would be laughable if it weren’t so prescient.

As Madison told Democracy Now:

“We’re not—we’re not the first. We’re the first in this country. During the Twitter revolution going on in Iran, in Moldova, in Guatemala, in the earlier newscast about Honduras, in all those cases, repressive governments have arrested folks for using Twitter. The only difference is, in all those cases the State Department, the US State Department, has condemned the arrest of these Twitter activists and had gone so far in the Iranian situation, the State Department, according to an article, asked Twitter to postpone its regular maintenance so as not to interfere with Iranian protesters to be able to send out their tweets. So the only difference is we’re the first arrested here.”

I’ve been wary of Twitter, but I’m slowly growing to love it. Sign up to follow me on Twitter and try it out. Because if the government is concerned about activists using Twitter… well, I think that’s reason enough to give it a shot.

Related posts:

1. Military Pull Activist Into Unmarked Car at G20 Protests
2. Activist to Iowa Grand Jury: “We will not be intimidated. We will not cooperate.”
3. Activist Accused of “Advocating Literature and Materials Which Advocate Anarchy”

FBI federal complaint on Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act arrests.

The activists were arrested, in the very first use of this sweeping law, for activity like “chalking defamatory slogans,” creating fliers, protesting while wearing masks, and attending a protest where an alleged attempt at forced entry took place. I was hoping that the criminal complaint would reveal something, anything, to justify such serious “terrorism” charges.

Instead, it reveals how scarce anti-terrorism resources are being squandered on surveilling and investigating First Amendment activity.

Here are a few highlights:

• Video surveillance used to track activist leafleting. Fliers were left at Café Pergolesi in Santa Cruz that listed the names, addresses, and phone numbers of animal researchers. It included rhetoric like “animal abusers everywhere beware we know where you live we know where you work we will never back down until you end your abuse.” That kind of heated rhetoric has been used in the leaflets, posters, and chants of not just the animal rights movement, but every other social justice movement. It’s not pleasant, but it is protected First Amendment activity. FBI agent Shaffer says video surveillance was used to identify two activists who left the leaflets in the coffee shop.
• Internet records used to track activists researching public information. FBI agent Shaffer says two of the defendants used “a public internet terminal to download and access the personal information for researchers at the University of California Santa Cruz.” The public information appeared on a flier titled “Murderers and torturers alive & well in Santa Cruz July 2008 edition.” The government obtained internet records from the university, tracked them to a Kinko’s, and then used video footage and business records from Kinko’s to identify activists using the internet for this information.
• DNA testing used to match activists with bandanas allegedly worn at a protest. Agent Shaffer says “based on DNA comparisons, laboratory analysis confirmed that KHAJAVI’s DNA was on at least one bandana, and that a combination of POPE’s and STUMPO’s DNA was on another recovered bandana.” What’s striking is that the government says it doesn’t have the money to help states use DNA testing in death penalty cases—and exonerate innocent people on death row—but there is money for DNA testing of activists’ bandanas.

The only mention of actual criminal activity in the entire criminal complaint is when Shaffer describes an incident at a protest at the home of “Professor Number Eight.” The professor’s husband says he “heard loud banging on the glass pane on the door” and saw “the door handle being twisted back and forth.” He opened the door, yelled at activists, and struggled with someone, and then he says he was hit with a “dark, firm object.” He recorded a license plate number from a car at the protest and gave it to the police, and police linked the car to one of the defendants.

At the very worst—assuming we believe everything this researcher and the FBI are saying—that is obviously not First Amendment activity. But it’s critical to note that the FBI is not alleging that any of the defendants attempted a forced entry, or that any of the defendants struck this researcher. Read the complaint for yourself. The FBI argues that these activists were present at this protest, and that their presence makes them terrorists.

Let’s think about this guilt-by-association reasoning from another perspective. I was covering an antiwar protest a few years ago, and I was beaten by police while wearing my Congressional press credentials (a lawsuit was later settled out of court). I was attacked by a few cops, but there were many more at the protest. Let’s apply the same FBI logic to my personal experience: if DNA testing could link riot gear to cops who were at that protest, would the government hold all of them responsible for my attack?

Of course not. However, the Green Scare and the War on Terrorism thrive on double standards. A glaring example of the hypocrisy is on page four of this complaint. FBI agent Shaffer says activists chanted “murderer leave town, terrorist leave town” at a protest. Apparently, if the FBI calls activists “terrorists,” and if corporations call activists “terrorists,” and if politicians call activists “terrorists,” it’s just business as usual. But if animal rights activists turn the rhetoric on its head, and call a researcher a terrorist? It becomes evidence of “terrorism.”

Related posts:

1. Animal Rights Protesters Face Higher Sentences than Racist Cross Burners

“If activists have nothing to hide, why are they wearing masks?”

I’ve heard that question over and over again. It usually comes in the form of a soundbite from someone affiliated with a corporation, industry or government agency that is attempting to smear lawful activists as “terrorists.”

Their reasoning goes something like this: If you aren’t doing anything wrong, you have no reason to hide your face. If you are hiding your face, it’s an admission of criminal activity. Therefore, wearing a mask justifies rounding up lawful activists as “terrorists.”

That’s exactly what happened in the recent arrests of four activists on Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act charges in California. The FBI argues that activists “wearing bandanas to hide their faces” were intimidating, and that this therefore amounted to a campaign of terror.

To those not familiar with grassroots activism, that might seem like a pretty reasonable point. Masks are generally associated with bandits, ninjas and Hamburgler, all of which are quite intimidating. So, why would someone want to cover their face at a protest?

• Spying. The FBI and Joint Terrorism Task Forces routinely spy on lawful, above-ground activists. For instance, the ACLU exposed FBI agents spying on animal rights activists who were leafleting outside of HoneyBaked Hams. And corporations have been tracking who activists are dating.
• Blacklists. Government “watchlists” have millions of names. Recently in Maryland, it was exposed that law enforcement kept terrorist files on environmentalists, antiwar activists, and nuns.
• Grand jury witch hunts. Vocal, public activists are routinely hauled before grand juries in political witch hunts, and forced to testify about their political beliefs and political associations. If they refuse, they face jail time.
• Infiltration. The government has been using paid informants and provacateurs to keep tabs on lawful protest movements. The recent case of the RNC 8 is a good example, and even more disturbing is “Anna,” the FBI informant who befriended activists and entrapped them.
• Legal attacks. FBI agents have shown their incompetence in attempts to track down underground members of the Animal Liberation Front and Earth Liberation Front. There have been arrests, but those crimes overwhelmingly remain unsolved. Instead, law enforcement has been cracking down on the public faces of those movements and labeling them “eco-terrorists.” A good example of that is the SHAC 7 case.

In this political climate, many activists have told me they face a difficult decision. If they take to the streets and protest on a controversial campaign (especially a campaign that has involved both legal and illegal tactics), they risk this surveillance, harassment and intimidation.

If they don’t take to the streets, they are compromising their beliefs and remaining silent about the things that matter.

For many, a solution has been to continue protesting on these campaigns, but with masks covering their faces. It clearly isn’t always the best solution. It can alienate and isolate everyday people who might otherwise be open to the message of the protest.

It clearly infuriates the feds that activists want to protect their identities while continuing to advocate for what they believe. A Joint Terrorism Task Force has even gone so far as to arrest an animal rights activist on felony charges for wearing a mask at a protest.

It would be a mistake, though, to blindly buy the FBI rhetoric. Wearing a mask may or may not best campaign decision for activists. But wearing a mask doesn’t mean activists are guilty, or that they are “terrorists.” For many activists, it simply means they don’t trust FBI agents and corporations. The developments of the last few days have shown they have good reason to feel that way.

No related posts.

Marie Mason

At a press conference announcing her arrest, an FBI agent said “domestic terrorism is a top priority of the FBI.” A police chief called the 1999 Earth Liberation Front arson at the Michigan State University campus, targeting genetic-engineering research, a “significant act of domestic terrorism,” though no one had been injured. And taking things even further, MSU President Simon argued that these “terrorists” were attacking freedom itself.

As a mother of two and a longtime community organizer, Mason had a lot to lose. Still, she stood her ground.

Soon, news broke that her former husband, Frank Ambrose, had worn a wire to entrap his friends and spy on lawful environmental gatherings.

Ambrose had made the mistake of throwing away personal records in a dumpster. According to a search warrant, a dumpster-diver found boxes that contained Earth First! magazines, maps of Michigan with the location of an ELF attack highlighted, an M-80 explosive device, a block of candle wax, and even a gas mask labeled “Frank’s Gas Mask.”

The dumpster-diver called the cops. In the words of a retired FBI agent who was involved in the case, “There’s no question that the discovery in the dumpster was the catalyst that caused this thing to move forward.”

The FBI easily traced the materials to Ambrose, and promised to soften his punishment if he cooperated. According to the government, Ambrose went above and beyond what was expected by the FBI. His cooperation “has been nothing short of remarkable, both in terms of the time and effort he put into it and in terms of its value to federal law enforcement,” said Assistant U.S. Attorney Hagen Frank.

He recorded 178 conversations with a variety of “targets,” traveling out of state seven times. The government credits him with bringing “long-stymied eco-terror investigations back to life.” After turning on his former wife, and violating the trust and confidence of untold numbers of activists, Ambrose would have his sentence reduced to nine years in prison.

Still, Mason stood her ground. The government offered her 15-20 years in prison if she agreed to name names; otherwise, prosecutors said they would push for life in prison. Mason said she would accept a non-cooperating plea agreement similar to those in the Operation Backfire cases, but she refused to become a government informant.

It looked like the case would head to trial. And then, just two hours before the deadline for the agreement expired, the government relented and offered a new deal. Mason would have to name Frank Ambrose (who had already named himself and become an informant) but she would not have to provide any additional testimony or debriefings.

“Because of the cooperation of her former husband Ambrose, there is no expectation that Mason would win a jury trial,” Marie Mason’s support committee said. “Part of this decision is also the long sentences handed to the very few Green Scare arrestees who have gone to trail, such as Eric McDavid, as is the intense financial and emotional strain that this process is taking on Mason’s immediate family.”

The government labeled Mason’s arrest and plea a victory in the “War on Terrorism,” but they still wanted more.

Mason had a history of resisting government intimidation. In 2002, she and Ambrose fought a grand jury subpoena investigating sabotage at an Ice Mountain water bottling plant. In an ominous message at that time, Ambrose told No Compromise: “The FBI’s unwelcome visits are meant to serve as a distraction and a deterrent to citizens’ ability to express their discontent with government policies. They want people to be afraid to get involved, for fear of being harassed by the FBI.”

Ambrose would later turn his back on such convictions. But Mason refused, and that didn’t sit well with the government.

In court filings, prosecutors argued that Mason’s refusal to cooperate has elevated her “to the status of movement heroine” among environmentalists.

That’s a striking insight into one of the reasons environmentalists and animal rights activists are labeled the “number one domestic terrorism threat.” Why is it such a government concern that, as one prosecutor said, “She has become a figure of admiration to that community”?

Because when people refuse to buy into the scare-mongering, when they refuse to name names even at great personal cost, when they take principled stands even as the full weight of the government is bearing down upon them, it shakes the very foundations of the “Green Scare.” It challenges the power of fear, and sends a message that others can do the same.

What do you think? What is the government’s motivation behind proposing such disproportionate sentences?

No related posts.

This is what fighting “terrorism” in this country has become.

Timothy McVeigh is responsible for the Oklahoma City Bombing, the deadliest act of terrorism in this country prior to 9/11, killing 168 people, but a Homeland Security official says he’s not a terrorist. Neither is Eric Rudolph, who killed two people and injured hundreds others in a bombing campaign against abortion and a “homosexual agenda.”

Pennsylvania’s Homeland Security Director James Powers said:

“Tim McVey [sic] is not a terrorist, just very angry with the U.S. government,” Powers said. “Whether a person is a terrorist or a criminal is irrelevant to me.”

You know whom he and the state police do consider terrorists? The Earth Liberation Front, Animal Liberation Front, and Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty, even though actions by those groups have been “relatively minor,” by their admission. Those groups have never injured anyone, let alone killed hundreds, but the Pennsylvania state police is offering free, yes free, “risk and vulnerability assessments” for corporations to help protect their profits from pesky activists. [Sounds kind of like that leaked State Department presentation, doesn't it?]

Unfortunately, this is not an isolated, “news of the weird” kind of incident. It’s systemic.

The Maryland State Police have admitted classifying 53 nonviolent activists as terrorists, including opponents of the war and the death penalty, and tracking them in state and federal “terrorism” databases. Cops infiltrated organizing meetings and rallies, and spied on political email lists, similar to the government infiltration of the RNC.

The groups targeted, including the Maryland Campaign to End the Death Penalty and the Baltimore Pledge of Resistance, aren’t suspected of harming anyone, aren’t suspected of bombing anyone, aren’t even suspected of vandalizing property.

Their crime? They’re “fringe people,” says Thomas E. Hutchins, the former state police superintendent who authorized the operation.

“I don’t believe the First Amendment is any guarantee to those who wish to disrupt the government,” he said.

Get this, one activist was described in police databases as having a “primary crime” of “terrorism-anti-government” and a “secondary crime” of “terrorism-anti-war protesters.” This wasn’t an isolated abuse of power, this is a coordinated campaign of harassment and intimidation.

The gloves are really starting to come off, folks. Years ago, government officials were using these same tactics, but under the pretext of going after illegal, underground groups like the Earth Liberation Front. Now, they are openly, brazenly, harassing and infiltrating nonviolent activist groups with no connection–not even an ideological connection–to saboteurs. Why? This “War on Terrorism,” above all else, is an ideological war.

In some ways, though, I think folks should take some pride in that. Considering what is mainstream government policy now, I’d much rather be in the camp of “fringe people.” As Billy Bragg said, “If you’ve got a blacklist, I want to be on it.”

Related posts:

1. UK Police Spying Began With Animal Rights Activists Then Expanded to Other Groups
2. Ron Arnold Defends Environmentalist Smeared as “Eco-terrorist”

After the recent bombings in California–which the press, industry groups and FBI recklessly rushed to attribute to animal rights activists—I reported that the Humane Society of the United States donated money to the “eco-terrorist” witch hunt. That didn’t sit well with many people, even those who oppose direct action. Now, HSUS’ Wayne Pacelle has come out to not only defend the donation, but endorse California’s version of the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act.

Much of Pacelle’s blog post is standard rhetoric condemning illegal activity. But what truly surprised me is that Pacelle acknowledges that nobody even knows if animal rights activists were involved in the attack.

So, if the perpetrators of the Santa Cruz attacks turn out to be agents hostile to animal protection, it would not surprise me, because this is a tactic that malicious forces have used in the past to discredit many good causes. I’d feel especially good if our reward money helped to catch an infiltrator and exposed this person to the harsh glare of public opinion.

Huh? So let’s get this straight: HSUS gave money to this Green Scare witch hunt and condemned “extremists,” without even knowing if animal activists were involved. But if they were involved, this donation would help oust infiltrators?

Fat chance. HSUS’ actions will never help reveal an infiltrator, in part because the FBI are the ones doing the infiltrating (remember Eric McDavid’s case?). And besides, the damage has been done. The FBI, corporations and even animal groups have blamed this on animal activists, and those parties won’t be coming out and saying, “Oops, we were wrong.” Why? Because, at best, they don’t care that they’re wrong, and, at worst, they know it and are recklessly smearing animal activists anyway.

Pacelle writes as if the actions of HSUS exist in a political vacuum, and completely ignores the larger political climate. It’s bad enough that some groups are remaining silent about all of this “eco-terrorism” rhetoric, but for the largest animal protection organization in the country to come out and support it… that’s another story entirely. It lets law enforcement know that their actions can proceed unchecked and unquestioned by the few groups in the country who are actually paying attention.

The government and corporations have responded to this endorsement accordingly:

• “Eco-terrorism” legislation. Surprise surprise, corporations used the bombings to rush through “eco-terrorism” legislation called the California Animal Enterprise Protection Act (here’s a critical look at the CA AEPA). And, disturbingly, here’s Pacelle applauding the legislation (in its original, even-more-absurd form, no less).
• Police raids. FBI Joint Terrorism Task Forces have raided a college activist house and an anarchist bookstore. The bookstore, the Longhaul Infoshop, is also a community space, with public computers (14 were seized by the police).
• Frivolous arrest. One activist, Nathan Pope, who lives in the raided house, was arrested for felony perjury. He is being held in lieu of $100,000 bail. What was Nathan Pope’s crime? Investigators said Knoerl [Pope] checked the ‘no’ box in response to the questions ‘have you applied for a driver’s license or identification card in California or another state/country using a different name within the past 10 years?’” The police acknowledge the arrest was “”unconnected with what we were searching for,” and had nothing to do with the crimes. They still have no suspects in the bombing cases.

It’s clear that HSUS needs to distance itself as much as possible from the firebombing because of the pending factory farming ballot initiative in November. It’s already going to be a dirty fight: the egg industry admits Proposition 2 would be a “major blow”. But guess what: the loyalty oaths and condemnations haven’t protected HSUS from “extremist” and “terrorist” smear campaigns.

The Center for Consumer Freedom is waging a media campaign to wrap up mainstream, national organizations with underground saboteurs. The CCF’s David Martosko writes: “If law-enforcement agencies are serious about attacking the growing problem of animal rights violence, they should start looking for clues inside some of the better known animal-protection charities.” It looks like they should also start investigating the Wu-Tang Clan.

[On a bittersweet note, as this Green Scare continues in California, the California Senate is finally trying to gut Red Scare legislation: under this bill, membership in the communist party would no longer be a fireable offense. Geez. It's 2008. Kudos to lawmakers for their speedy, principled stand against the Red Scare.]

Wayne Pacelle’s blog doesn’t allow public comments. But he posted a few messagesthat he received, and whaddayouknow, every single one is supportive of HSUS’ donation to the witch hunt.

So I’ll open it up to you all for a more honest discussion: Is HSUS justified in donating money to the “eco-terrorist” witch hunt and supporting legislation against so-called “animal rights extremists,” in hopes of passing this ballot initiative? If not, what should HSUS have done?

No related posts.

Check out this handy dandy guide to policing the protests of “eco-terrorists” and “domestic extremists” that activists in the UK obtained.

From the UK Indymedia:

Sometime during a busy day of policing the Camp For Climate Action, near Kingsnorth Power Station in Kent, an officer dropped a so-called ‘Pocket Legislation Guide on Policing Protest’. The document, issued by the National Extremism Tactical Coordination Unit (NETCU), gives an overview of legislation the police can use to stifle all forms of legitimate protest. The document, which is supposedly not for public consumption, was subsequently posted on Indymedia UK by a camper attending the Climate Camp.

In some ways, NETCU is similar to the Joint Terrorism Task Forces in the United States, in that it works with local law enforcement on “domestic terrorism” issues. But NETCU also describes itself as providing “guidance to industry.” (Sounds kind of like that State Department presentation advising corporations about animal rights activists.)

My favorite parts of this handbook, I think, are the confusing sections on “Being threatening, abusive or insulting in a way likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress” and the hilarious flow chart about “Imposing conditions on spontaneous public processions.”

But on a serious note: What does this say about the state of free speech when cops need a 32 page handbook to decide if protest is “lawful”? And what kind of message does that send to activists, when their rights are so tenous?

I don’t know about cops in the UK, but does anyone really think cops here would read this, let alone understand it and follow it?

Related posts:

1. Legal Handbook for Animal Rights and Environmental Activists
2. UK Police Spying Began With Animal Rights Activists Then Expanded to Other Groups

State Department PowerPoint on Animal Rights Activism

For years, the government has relentlessly pushed to label animal rights and environmental activists as “eco-terrorists” and domestic terrorists. The FBI even labels these groups the “number one domestic terrorism threat.” But this State Department PowerPoint puts the “Green Scare,” as many activists are calling it, in much different perspective.

It spells out, with startling candor, that animal rights and environmental activists are less a threat to national security than to corporate financial security. And it shows that the targets of this “War on Terrorism” aren’t just people burning SUVs: the targets are people using their First Amendment rights.

It’s a harrowing glimpse at what this country has become: the dissolution of all lines between corporate interests and government interests, between “terrorism” and free—albeit controversial—speech.

The presentation, “Animal Rights Extremists: Targets, Tactics Business Response & Countermeasures,” is by the Overseas Security Advisory Council, a division of the U.S. State Department. It was leaked to me by someone who attended the briefing, and I have made it available for download at GreenIsTheNewRed.com.

The notes section of the PowerPoint shows the comments of State Department officials, including a listing of illegal activist tactics by groups like the Animal Liberation Front, from arson to the beheading of a snowman (seriously). [If that seems unbelievable, check out the memo from DHS about “eco-terrorism” like tying up company phone lines.]

But what’s most disturbing is how this presentation on “extremism” and “eco-terrorism” includes so much First Amendment activity. The first slide on “major tactics” lists four “extremism” examples: one has only happened in the UK (“physical assaults”) and the other three are legal (posting personal information, videotaping, and demonstrations at executives’ homes).

The State Department admits as much, noting that activists “push the envelope right up to the line where another step would mean they are breaking the law.” In other words, most of these “terrorists” aren’t committing any crimes.

But that hasn’t stopped the government from surveilling, harassing and demonizing legal activists. In fact, this State Department briefing includes a flier for the Animal Rights 2006 National Conference, a mainstream event with hundreds of attendees where I spoke about the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. This year, among the “terrorists” in attendance was Heather Mills.

“Although many legitimate activists attend these events,” the presentation notes, “the conference holds workshops on successful tactics used against your companies…”

So what gives? Why are these activists such a threat?

The first reason: money. These activists are directly targeting corporate profits. “Although incidents related to terrorism are most likely to make the front page news, Animal Rights Extremism is what’s most likely to affect your day-to-day business operations…”

These activists don’t just want reforms, they want to force corporations like Huntingdon Life Sciences out of business. And they’re “calculating, persistent and often effective.”

The second reason: activists aren’t afraid. Despite the “eco-terrorism” rhetoric, despite the FBI attempting to infiltrate vegan potlucks, despite Joint Terrorism Task Forces arresting activists for wearing masks, and on and on and on, activists aren’t backing down and they aren’t caving in to fear. That, after all, is the entire point of all the “eco-terrorism” scare-mongering: to instill fear in everyday people and make them afraid of using their rights. If this chilling effect doesn’t occur, well, the government and corporations have quite a problem on their hands.

“Never confront the protesters,” the State Department warns corporations. “These individuals are clever. Most of them know what their rights are…”

That, it seems, is the greatest threat of all.

What do you think? Are you surprised by this, or should it be expected? How should people respond? Leave a comment…

Related posts:

1. Pet Shop Protesters Shot–Will It Be Labeled Terrorism?
2. Animal Rights Protesters Face Higher Sentences than Racist Cross Burners

Two activists who handed out vegan pamphlets outside of a HoneyBaked Ham store– and were harassed, spied on, and arrested for it– can proceed with a lawsuit against the cops, a federal appeals court recently ruled.

Caitlin Childs and Christopher Freeman were leafletting in an Atlanta suburb in 2003. Here’s much more from the ACLU, including photos by the Department of Homeland Security. The complaint has a good rundown of the events.

And recently, there was strikingly similar news out of Baltimore that Maryland State Police Division of Homeland Security and Intelligence had coordinated a massive spying operation against peaceful activists for 14 months. Check out the great gallery of articles by the Baltimore Sun. From the Washington Post:

The agent, called Analyst Sparwasser in police records, detailed the meeting’s activities in a single-space log, ending: “No other pertinent intelligence information was obtained.” The log was included in a database of reports on at least 27 meetings of peace activists and death penalty opponents that police infiltrated over 14 months in 2005 and 2006.

The surveillance, documented in 46 pages of records released last week to the American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland, contained no reports of illegal activity.

Clearly, there’s no greater priority for “terrorism” investigations than vegans and death penalty opponents. Here’s a thought: perhaps the Feds should be investigating people who are encouraging violence, not opposing it.

Related posts:

1. UK Police Spying Began With Animal Rights Activists Then Expanded to Other Groups
2. Military Pull Activist Into Unmarked Car at G20 Protests