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.

When most people think of “terrorism,” they think 9/11, anthrax, and suicide bombers. Corporations and the politicians who represent them are aggressively campaigning to apply the word to animal rights and environmental activists who have done nothing like that. Some activists have faced terrorism charges for chalking slogans on the sidewalk and protesting. Activism is not terrorism.

Just in time for the national animal rights conference, we have these great new t-shirts. Thanks to Andy at Sparrow Media for helping make this happen.

Black American Apparel t-shirts, with a matte bronze ink. Text reads “Activism Is Not Terrorism.” Available in either unisex or women’s sizes, shown here on the always-lovely Cassandra (caught giving “sultry eyes” to a cast member of Jersey Shore… true story).

(Here is close-up view of the design on both styles of shirts.)

$20. FREE SHIPPING for U.S. orders.

Select a Size

Unisex S Unisex M Unisex L Unisex XL Women’s S Women’s M Women’s L

If you haven’t already, check out the rest of the GreenIsTheNewRed.com store.

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.

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.

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

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.

The Supreme Court has struck down a federal law targeting “depictions of animal cruelty,” including dog-fighting and “crush” videos. And that’s a very good thing for the animal rights movement.

That might sound incongruous, at best, and heretical, at worst, to animal rights activists. Many people who care about animals have treated the ruling as a defeat, an attack on their attempts to protect animals from being tortured in the name of entertainment. However, the ruling in US v. Stevens is an important one for animal rights activists for three reasons:

1. Similar legislation could undoubtedly have been used against supporters of the Animal Liberation Front, Earth Liberation Front, and direct action. Proponents of the legislation, 18 U.S.C. 48, argued that the animal cruelty depicted in such videos is illegal, and it has “minimum redeeming value.” To be clear, I am not taking issue with either point. This conduct should be illegal, and it has no more redeeming value, in my opinion, than child pornography. However, the legislation itself is too broad and too vague. Denying First Amendment rights based on whether the media depicts illegal conduct with a “redeeming value” is incredibly dangerous. As the court said, it reflects an “alarming breadth.” These are standards that could easily be tweaked to apply to the publications of animal rights activists themselves.

   Within the animal rights and environmental movements there are publications that support property destruction and direct action. Magazines such as No Compromise, Bite Back, and the Earth First Journal support illegal tactics and sometimes include “how-to” style columns. There have also been full-length films and activist campaign videos that unabashedly support direct action, and clearly urge others to do the same. (The trailer above is a good example, as are the videos in the campaign to shut down Huntingdon Life Sciences).

   I have no doubt that the same industry groups who have sponsored “eco-terrorism” legislation would seek to use a similar rational to defend their attacks on publications like Bite Back or films like Behind the Mask. Does that sound far-fetched? Well, “eco-terrorism” legislation out of Washington State proposed exactly that.

2. Similar legislation could be used to target depictions of animal cruelty produced by activists themselves. This may seem like another overly-worrisome claim. But if you have been following the tactics of industry groups, it is clear that they are willing to use any and all tools at their disposal, including distorting existing laws and proposing new ones to attack even the most mainstream organizations.

   For examples, see these two articles:

   *Ringling Bros. Sues ASPCA Using Mafia Law
   *Mafia Law Used Against Environmentalists for Tree Sits, Civil Disobedience, Blog Post

   The mob law was never intended to target animal rights activists protesting the circus, and this law was never intended to target undercover investigations by animal rights activists, but in the hands of well-funded corporate industry groups and ambitious prosecutors, vague legislation can be exploited.

   What was even more worrisome about this case is that the government defended this fluidity. “Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection,” the government argued, “depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs.”

   Chief Justice Roberts rebuked the Obama administration for that, and rightly so: “As a free-floating test for First Amendment coverage, that sentence is startling and dangerous.”

3. The court made clear that Congress can’t simply say, “Trust us, we’re the government.”The court focused much of its arguments on the scope of the legislation, and how it has, and will be, applied. The government responded to concerns about over breadth by promising to only prosecute “extreme cruelty.”

   In this ruling, the Supreme Court unequivocally rejected those promises.

   “The First Amendment protects against the government; it does not leave us at the mercy of noblesse oblige,” Roberts wrote.
   
   “We would not uphold an unconstitutional statute merely because the government promised to use it reasonably.” [emphasis added]

   Similar questions are at the heart of opposition to the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, legislation so broad it is being used to target activists for chalking slogans on public streets.

   When I testified before Congress against the AETA, I argued that it was vague and overly broad, and therefore must be rejected on Constitutional grounds. In response, supporters included a provision that says nothing in the law shall be construed “to prohibit any expressive conduct (including peaceful picketing or other peaceful demonstration) protected from legal prohibition by the First Amendment.”

   This ruling is an important one because it makes incredibly clear that the government’s promises, whether only to prosecute depictions of “extreme cruelty” or only to prosecute those who support “extreme” activism, are meaningless.

Some activists have incorrectly portrayed the Supreme Court as ruling that animal cruelty is protected speech. Far from it. The court did not challenge the intent of this legislation, or its value. It simply said that this particular approach, this particular legislation, was too vague and too broad.

To put it another way, this ruling is not about supporting these despicable videos, it is about not prohibiting others. And that’s a sentiment which will ultimately benefit supporters of both mainstream and “radical” animal rights activism.

Tea Party poster.

By contrast, the “number one domestic terrorism threat,” according to the FBI, is the animal rights and environmental movements.

Here is a side-by-side comparison of three recent right-wing cases which have not been labeled terrorism, and how they compare to activist cases that have.

• Militia member incites brick attacks on lawmakers’ offices. Mike Vanderboegh, former militia member from Alabama, urged readers of his blog to throw bricks through Democratic offices in response to health care legislation. “So, if you wish to send a message that Pelosi and her party [that they] cannot fail to hear, break their windows,” Vanderboegh wrote. “Break them NOW…” The call to action worked: in the week that followed at least 10 lawmakers had offices vandalized or received death threats.

  Six animal rights activists were convicted of “animal enterprise terrorism” for doing much less. They were part of Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty, and ran a website that posted personal information about executives tied to the controversial lab Huntingdon Life Sciences. They posted both news reports of both legal and illegal actions, and supported all of it. They also published essays about why they support non-violent direct action and sabotage. They were sentenced to between 1 and 6 years in prison. And the former militia member? He hasn’t even been arrested.

• Plotting to attack Muslims and police, and use a weapon of mass destruction. The Christian militia group called Hutaree is shown in one of their promo videos here. According to The New York Times, the defendants were “part of a group of apocalyptic Christian militants who were plotting to kill law enforcement officers in hopes of inciting an antigovernment uprising, the latest in a recent surge in right-wing militia activity.”

  The New York Times doesn’t call this racist, political violence “terrorism.” Yet a group of environmentalists who sabotaged property as part of the Earth Liberation Front, without harming or intending to harm a single person, were smeared as terrorists immediately upon arrest. The Times used the word in the headline, throughout the story, and in all subsequent coverage.

• Urging Tea Partiers to “reload.” Sarah Palin told a rally of 8,000 tea-partiers: “It’s not a time to retreat. It’s a time to reload.”

  Animal rights activists have been charged with terrorism for much less fiery speech. The AETA 4, for example, are not accused of property destruction or threats of violent. They are being charged under the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act for protesting and chalking slogans on the streets using children’s sidewalk chalk.

  To be clear, I am not arguing that Palin’s comments should be labeled terrorism. But what do you think would happen if an animal rights activists or environmentalist made the same comment, but about animal researchers?

The word terrorism is inherently malleable. There is not one true meaning of the word, no universal criteria for its application. However, these dramatic disparities extend far, far beyond any natural difficulties in using the term fairly.

People are being singled out for selective prosecution because of their politics and their threat to corporate profits. Once convicted, they are then being singled out again; Daniel McGowan, one of the Earth Liberation Front defendants, is in a secretive experimental prison called a Communications Management Unit.

Meanwhile, groups that pose a much more serious threat to human life, and have a demonstrated history of violence, go untouched. If the word terrorism is rhetorically and legally applied to non-violent animal and environmental activists, it must also be applied to much more dangerous groups.

That being said, it is not enough for us to respond by saying “They’re terrorists too!” or “We’re not terrorists, they are!”

Clamoring to label others as terrorists misses the point, which is that the word, the most dangerous and powerful term in the media and in our legal system, is nothing more than a fluid brand to attack the enemy of the hour.

If you are in the New York area, I hope you can attend!

The Green Scare: Targeting Environmental and Animal Rights Activism

April 16th, 4:15pm

The Graduate Center, City University of New York

365 Fifth Avenue
Room 9204/9205

Free and open to the public (with state issued ID for building access).

This event will explore the emerging use of the category of “eco-terrorism” to criminalize the work of environmental justice and animal rights activists, as well as its significance for academic research. Panelists will discuss the impacts of the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) on civil rights and liberties; how the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act and other laws have been used to quell animal rights litigation; and the case of Scott DeMuth, a University of Minnesota graduate student currently facing conspiracy charges under AETA for his research on the animal rights movement.

The event is part of the Third Annual Conference on “Rightist” Movements, this year focused on the production of “new enemies” in the name of security and the national interest in the post-September 11 context. A reception will follow.

Panelists include:

Will Potter
Independent Journalist,
GreenIsTheNewRed.com

Raphi Rechitsky and Meghan Krausch
University of Minnesota, Scholars for Academic Justice
http://scholarsforacademicjustice.org

Odette Wilkens
Executive Director, Equal Justice Alliance
http://www.noaeta.org/

Delcianna Winders
Animal Rights Attorney and Law Instructor

Moderated by Professor Michael Blim,
Ph.D. Program in Anthropology, The Graduate Center, CUNY

Co-sponsored by:
The Center for the Humanities, The Graduate Center, CUNY;
The Center for Place, Culture & Politics, The Graduate Center, CUNY;
Ph.D. Program in Anthropology, The Graduate Center, CUNY