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.

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.

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.

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.”

Three animal rights activists were shot with brass pellets during a recent protest against puppy mills in Santa Monica, California. According to local news outlets, the police are investigating the shootings as an assault with a deadly weapon.

About 20 activists were protesting Aquarium & Pet Center in Santa Monica, which they say sells dogs bred in puppy mills in inhumane conditions.

Carole Raphaelle Davis, the West Coast director of the Companion Animal Protection Society, said store employees have threatened the protesters and were seen laughing after three activists were hit.

The shooting resulted in minor injuries, including welts.

“It’s shocking to think that people would try to intimidate people or cause them harm simply because they expressed their views,” said WeHo council member Jeffrey Prang, who has been working with the group to write a municipal ban on the re-selling of any pets except bred or rescued animals in West Hollywood.

The incident is disturbing enough on its own, but it needs to be put in a broader context. The animal rights and environmental movements are labeled the “number one domestic terrorism threat,” according to the FBI. Some elements of those movements have engaged in property destruction, economic sabotage and arson. In the history of the U.S. animal rights movement, though, not one person has ever been targeted with physical violence and no one has been shot.

If an animal rights activist had committed a crime like this, against an animal researcher for instance, they would undoubtedly be prosecuted as a “terrorists” under the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act.

In fact, the government’s threshold for what constitutes “terrorism” is much, much lower when it comes to the conduct of animal rights and environmental activists. Right now, four animal rights activists in California are facing charges under the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act for chanting and chalking slogans on the sidewalk. They’re being labeled “terrorists.”

Incidents like this should be it abundantly clear that there are two systems of law in this country. One is for the wealthy, the corporations, the animal research industry. If they are under attack, they can lobby for new terrorism legislation and pressure the politicians and government officials who represent them to crack down on the “terrorists.” They can carve out special crimes to protect them, and only them.

The other system of law is for everybody else. If they are under attack–through violence, not just home protests or economic sabotage–well, it’s just business as usual.

So what do you think? Will the government labeling this violent, politically-motivated crime “terrorism”?

An environmental activist has been arrested in connection with the 2006 attempted arson of homes under construction in Pasadena, California. The government says the action is connected to the Earth Liberation Front.

The FBI alleges that DNA found on cigarettes left at the scene (as part of the incendiary device) matched the DNA of Stephen James Murphy, 43. The FBI says Murphy’s DNA was in a state database for a previous arrest.

The Sept. 19, 2006, incident was unsuccessful, the incendiary device failed to ignite, but the next day “workers at the site could not start a tractor, where a note had been written in permanent marker that read ‘ANOTHER TRACTOR DECOMMISSIONED BY THE E.L.F.’”

I just talked to Murphy’s girlfriend, who said, “Steve is one of the kindest and gentlest souls I have ever met. He would never harm a fly let alone jepordize harming people, animals, or the environment. Not only was he an animal rights activists but he also did humanitarian aid and human rights work. Steve was a friend to everyone in need. Always.”

I’ll keep you posted as more comes out about this case and Stephen Murphy. But here’s something to think about: this is a three-year-old crime that wasn’t successful, didn’t harm anyone, and only involved some vandalism to a tractor. One tractor. And this guy has been extradicted from Texas, and the FBI and prosecutors are moving forward with charges against him (of course it’s too early to say, but given the history of similar ELF cases, a terrorism enhancement penalty could come into play).

Meanwhile, prosecutors don’t have money for DNA testing in death penalty cases. But they can do it for a tractor.

B.J. Viehl has changed his plea to guilty and admitted releasing hundreds of mink from a Utah fur farm as part of an Animal Liberation Front raid. Viehl and his codefendant, Alex Hall, were charged under the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act.

He now faces up to 5 years in prison.

Alex Hall is still taking his case to trial. Viehl’s supporters put up a message from him on his MySpace page saying that Viehl has not agreed to cooperate, in any way, with prosecutors. Here is his part of his explanation of his decision:

Utah is a very conservative and religiously controlled state, and cases like mine are almost always guilty until proven innocent. Having a politically and religiously biased jury deciding my fate will not be of my best interest. The change of plea hearing will be on September 2nd, 2009. and will basically consist of me admitting guilt and accepting responsibility. This, however, WILL NOT affect Alex negatively in any way. What ever Alex chooses to do with his case, he will have my love and respect.

Meanwhile, the case of another group of activists charged with “animal enterprise terrorism” is moving forward in California. The “AETA 4″–and Alex Hall, in Utah–need your support as they move forward with their legal defense.

I wrote this for the latest issue of Bite Back Magazine, which just came out. I know it’s a bit long for online reading, so click on the image to download the pdf if you like, then come back and leave a comment.

“Making an Animal Rights ‘Terrorist,’” Bite Back Magazine, Issue 14.

Shortly after midnight on November 11th, 1988, Fran Trutt exited the passenger side of a rented Chevy pickup and approached the headquarters of U.S. Surgical with a package. She still had doubts about the evening. The day before, as she prepared for the trip to Norwalk, Connecticut, from her home in Queens, New York, she called a friend three times. She had cold feet. Could she go through with this? Was it taking things too far? What if someone got hurt? No, no, the voice on the phone reassured her. Remember the dogs.

U.S. Surgical had become the nation’s largest supplier of surgical staplers, a speedier alternative to stitches. The company used about 1,000 dogs each year in training doctors to use the product, stapling dogs and then killing them. Behind the invention of the surgical stapler, the rise of U.S. Surgical to a $1 billion company, and the deaths of tens of thousands of dogs was the CEO, Leon Hirsch.

To Trutt, Hirsch murdered the only creatures who seemed to understand her. She was a loner and uncomfortable around
people, neighbors said. But dogs were different, especially the four she called her “babies.” She felt a special kinship with them. To Trutt, the dogs were unconditionally loving and affectionate. To Trutt, Hirsch was unconditionally evil.

She placed the package in some bushes about ten feet from where Hirsch would park his car the next morning. Inside the package, a foot-long radio controlled pipe bomb had been wrapped in roofing nails. Maybe Trutt still had doubts as she hid the package and then turned back to her waiting driver. By the time she reached the truck, though, it was too late for second thoughts.

Fran Trutt had been set up. U.S. Surgical, the press and most animal rights groups, would soon condemn her as a violent extremist. But over the coming months it would be revealed that the plot—the only act of attempted murder in the history of the U.S. animal rights movement—had not been an organic occurrence.

The money for the bomb, the truck, the logistics, the encouragement—U.S. Surgical and a “counter-terrorism” firm had been orchestrating it all.

Hired Guns

When Trutt returned to the truck, police moved in. They arrested her and found a radio-controlled detonator. They also arrested her driver, 30-year-old Marc Mead.

That afternoon, New York City police and bomb squad searched Trutt’s basement apartment in Queens and found a sawed-off shotgun, another weapon they described as a hybrid of a bazooka and a shotgun, and two more homemade bombs. The bombs were made of M-80s—large firecrackers—wrapped with nails and BB pellets, and stuffed into 3-by-6 inch pieces of standard plumbing pipes. One had a fuse, and one had a radio. Trutt had few other possessions, not even a telephone, but police also found pictures of tortured animals.

Trutt faced two sets of charges. In New York: federal charges of possessing two bombs. In Connecticut: attempted murder, possession of explosives and manufacturing a bomb. The press called the case a thwarted “terrorist” plot. The FBI announced a “terrorism” investigation. News stories said Trutt “may have been supplied with the explosive device by a terrorist group.”

All this talk of terrorism and murder didn’t sit well with Mead, Trutt’s driver. He had been released without charge, but worried that news reports implicated him. Mead, the owner of a window washing company, felt he had to do something to distance himself from this animal rights terrorist. He walked into the newsroom of the The Westport News with a press release he wrote—headlined “WINDOW WIZARD THWARTS ASSASINATION [sic] ATTEMPT”— hoping to clear his name.

The local newspaper’s expose, and the national headlines that followed, revealed a long-term plan by U.S. Surgical to infiltrate and disrupt the animal rights movement. To do his dirty work, Hirsch had
hired a counter-terrorism firm called Perceptions International. The firm was the brainchild of Jan Reber, a self-styled “terrorism” expert who had experience demonizing animal rights groups: he also published
a newsletter called the Animal Rights Reporter, a dossier on the activities of animal activists crafted for the vivisection industry.

Perceptions International had hired a woman named Mary Lou Sapone to infiltrate the movement. Sapone met Trutt at a U.S. Surgical demonstration in 1988, and reported back to Perceptions International and U.S. Surgical that Trutt had made threatening comments against Hirsch. Keep tabs on Trutt, they said. Talk to her. Befriend her. She did, and Trutt opened up about her anger at Hirsch, her sex life, and, of course, her dogs.

Sapone urged Trutt to take action. The spy had already approached other animal activists, saying someone should bomb U.S. Surgical, but they had written her off as a drunk or a lunatic. With Trutt, she found a more receptive audience.

Two months before the night of the bombing, Perceptions International brought Mead into the operation. The firm paid Mead $500 a week to befriend Trutt. Following Sapone’s lead, he used dogs to do so. He approached her in a pizza parlor, and asked for advice on finding homes for puppies.

They became friends, talking about animal rights and U.S. Surgical. Mead soon gave Trutt about $300, which she said was explicitly to be used for hiring two non-activists in New York to make the bomb. Although Mead denies this, and says the money was to help her pay her rent, he admitted that the president of Perceptions International went so far as to tell him when to bring Trutt and the bomb to the U.S. Surgical office.

When Trutt began to lose her nerve en route, she called her friend Mary Lou Sapone.

No Way Out

With evidence of his covert plans mounting, Hirsch finally acknowledged using paid informants. He told the Associated
Press that animal rights “terrorists” had left him no choice. “Many of them are very dangerous organizations,” he said. “They don’t believe in right and wrong as most people in society do. They believe that human beings are on the same par as rats and dogs and they are prepared to take violent actions to enforce their beliefs.”

Trutt maintained the she never intended to kill Hirsch; she intended to explode the bomb as he walked into the building. “It would have been purposeless to kill him,” she told The Advocate of Stamford. “But to scare him at this time might have affected some change.”

Yet the media circus and aggressive prosecution wore her down. On the New York bomb possession charges, she pled guilty and received time served in prison. On the Connecticut murder charges, she agreed to a plea agreement, and then rescinded upon learning she would not be allowed to visit her dogs. Abruptly, in April 1990, she agreed to plead no contest in exchange for one year in prison followed by three years of probation.

“The sex tapes—I think that’s what did it. It was just disgusting,” said John Williams, her attorney. “I have been fearing this from the first day: How long will Fran be able to stand up to this?”

Prosecutors had threatened to introduce tape recordings between Trutt and Sapone, he said. On the tapes, Trutt rails against Hirsch, and also discusses a sexual relationship with a woman.

Even the federal prosecutor in the New York case opposed using the tapes in court. Assistant U.S. Attorney Leslie Caldwell had written a letter to a U.S. District Judge questioning the handling of the case by Connecticut police.

“Like a sports ‘highlight film’ made for the benefit of home team fans, the tape contains many of Trutt’s most menacing and outrageous remarks,” she wrote. “However, it omits the operatives’ goading, encouragement and offers of money.”

Lessons Unlearned

By giving national exposure to so-called “animal rights terrorism,” the foiled plot marked a turning point in the history of the animal rights movement and in the sustained corporate campaign to surveil, disrupt and demonize activists. Trutt’s case should be a reminder of the dangers of jumping to conclusions. It should also be a reminder of the importance of focusing on true enemies, not placing blame. But for some of the activists involved in this
scandal, these lessons of terrorist scare mongering have gone unlearned.

Wayne Pacelle, for example, was executive director of the Fund for Animals, which filed a government complaint against U.S. Surgical’s experiments. He is now the head of the Humane Society of the United States, the largest animal protection organization in the country.

“[Sapone] was at every meeting of at least three people, always milking people for information,’’ he told the New York Times in 1989. “She served not only as an informant, but as a provocateur, often suggesting illegal activities.’’

Despite Pacelle’s firsthand experience with provocateurs, and firsthand knowledge of the dangers of jumping to conclusions, he has done exactly that in recent months. When a bomb exploded in California at the home of UC researchers, animal activists issued no communiqué or claim of responsibility. Nevertheless, Pacelle and HSUS not only issued media statements condemning underground activists, but also donated $2,500 to law enforcement for their “ecoterrorism” witch hunt.

Similarly, Friends of Animals led the demonstrations against U.S. Surgical beginning in 1981. Members recalled that Trutt attended at least one of their protests.

“It’s a classic frame case,’’ Priscilla Feral, president of the group, told the New York Times. “This is a concerted effort to discredit a movement that is having an effect.’’

Despite Feral’s firsthand experience with corporate smear campaigns, Friends of Animals has repeatedly focused its efforts on discrediting other animal activists. Instead of placing blame for this “Green Scare” on corporations and government agents, Friends of Animals says underground activists have brought these tactics upon themselves.

As Lee Hall of Friends of Animals has written, “government seizes opportunities provided to them by apparently dangerous activists to begin treating all kinds of dissenters as terrorists.”

History Repeats Itself

Time and again, these “dangerous activists” are in fact government and corporate creations, the product of cloak and dagger maneuvers to frame individual activists and discredit entire movements. In a contemporary case eerily reminiscent of Trutt’s entrapment, an environmental activist named Eric McDavid was recently sentenced to 20 years in prison for “conspiring” to blow up the Nimbus Dam in California.

His Mary Lou Sapone was a young FBI operative named “Anna.” McDavid fell in love with Anna. Anna provided McDavid and friends with bomb-making recipes; at times financed their transportation, food and housing; strung along McDavid, who had hopes of a romantic relationship; and poked and prodded the group into action.

While Trutt was sentenced to about one year in prison for attempted murder and possessing bombs, McDavid, who wasn’t accused of either—only “conspiracy”—was sentenced to 20. Post-9/11, the tactics of government and corporations haven’t changed, but the stakes for activists have clearly risen.

From Bombs to Boards of Directors

The media coverage of Trutt’s case, and the role of Perceptions International, seemingly should have ruined Sapone’s career as a mole. Instead, she just switched social movements. A 2008 investigation by Mother Jones magazine revealed that Sapone—going by Mary Lou McFate, her maiden name—had been spying for years on gun control groups. She wasn’t orchestrating bomb schemes or murder plots. This time, on the payroll of the National Rifle Association, she was hired to spy on the upper echelons of the mainstream movement.

She posed as a gun-control activist for more than a decade, even landing positions on two boards of directors. As both a local and national activist, she gained access to the internal deliberations, lobbying strategies, media plans, and internal gossip of the entire movement.

Bryan Miller, the executive director of Ceasefire New Jersey, told Mother Jones that Sapone’s story “would confirm for me the way that the gun lobby works, which is no rules no question of fairness or honesty. Anything that they can do they would do to protect the profits of the gun industry.”

If one substitutes “animal research” for “gun,” the story remains the same.

What is the True Threat

The FBI has labeled the animal rights and environmental movements the “number one domestic terrorism threat.” But
the true threat posed by these movements is not violence. As we saw in the Trutt case, and recently in the McDavid case, the most serious acts of “violence” in the movement have been the work of provocateurs.

These corporations and politicians are not after the Fran Trutts of the movement. They’re not after the Animal Liberation Front, Earth Liberation Front, Revolutionary Cells, or any other underground group. The true target of these terrorist witch hunts is not “violent extremists,” but the movements themselves.

It’s telling that Mary Lou Sapone’s career took a drastic turn, from coercing activists into bombings to infiltrating boards of directors. Sapone and the “terrorism” firms she worked for evolved in their understanding of how to squash and repress social movements. Activists must evolve, too. These corporations and government agents might single out an individual like Fran Trutt in order to make headlines and demonize the movement. But that’s merely a single step, a stop along the way to their bigger goal. Infiltrating and sabotaging the activities of grassroots activists and direct action supporters is simply the low hanging fruit. When grasped, these corporations and government agents become bolder and start trying to hack down the entire tree.

Sapone realized this. U.S. Surgical, Perceptions International and the NRA realized this. And until mainstream animal protection and environmental groups realize this, there will be many more Fran Trutts.

Is Chuck Norris a Terrorist?

In his column at the far-right WorldNetDaily, he cites the national debt, Obama administration, and a lack of religious values, as reasons for putting out his call to action:

How much more will Americans take? When will enough be enough? And, when that time comes, will our leaders finally listen or will history need to record a second American Revolution?

He says Texas will be leading the revolution, he quotes Sam Houston, he remembers the Alamo, he promises to “run for president of Texas,” and… wait, it keeps getting better! He says he and Fox’s Glenn Beck (who says the Obama administration will put conservatives in FEMA internment camps) have organized a telecast called “We Surround Them,” in which “thousands of cell groups will be united.”

And, to top it all off, he puts in a promo for his next martial arts event, so folks can see “a good example of the raw Texas fighting spirit” that’s he is advocating.

Let me catch my breath. Ok. Wait. Ok. I can barely process how hilarious and absurd and infuriating this is. Chuck Norris is advocating violent revolution, and having a conference call about it.

If an animal rights activist, environmentalist, anarchist, or any other “domestic terrorist” had put out an oped like this, and organized a conference call with cells, A CONFERENCE CALL WITH CELLS, the Joint Terrorism Task Forces would be kicking in doors RNC-style.

Geez, an American Idol star was labeled a “terrorist” for giving money to the Humane Society.

Animal rights activists in California have been indicted as “terrorists” for home protests. Activists in Utah have been arrested as “terrorists” for allegedly releasing mink from fur farms. Environmentalists have been sentenced to 20 years in prison for “conspiring” to destroy property. And none of those people have harmed anyone, advocating harming anyone, or armed themselves to harm anyone.

This isn’t an isolated example of the blatant hypocrisy of the War on Terrorism. Right-wing groups, for example, aren’t on the Department of Homeland Security’s list of terrorist threats.

So why isn’t Chuck Norris a threat? Because the government crackdown on activists as “terrorists” has nothing to do with crimes or the potential for violence, it’s about prosecuting ideology and chilling dissent. Even though Chuck Norris is using extreme rhetoric, the ideology behind the rhetoric–religious fervor, capitalism, empire–isn’t a threat. It’s not dissent. It’s the norm.

And that’s why, no matter how powerful his roundhouse kicks, and how many “cells” he organizes, Chuck Norris is less of a threat than animal rights activists with chalk.

Home protest by animal rights activists in Santa Cruz. Photo by AP/WSJ.

The “AETA 4,”—Joseph Buddenburg, Maryam Khajavi, Nathan Pope, and Adriana Stumpo—have been indicted for “conspiracy” to violate the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. As justification of the charge, the indictment lists three specific acts:

1. A protest on October 21, 2007, at an animal researcher’s home. The government says this amounts to “threats, criminal trespass, harassment and intimidation.” In the criminal complaint, the FBI said that on this date “protesters trespassed onto Professor Number One’s front yard and rang his doorbell several times. The group was making a lot of noise and chanting animal rights slogans (“1, 2, 3, 4 open up the cage door; 5, 6, 7, 8, smash the locks and liberate; 9, 10, 11, 12, vivisectors go to hell”)…”
2. A protest on January 27, 2008, at an animal researcher’s home. The government says this amounts to “threats, harassment, and intimidation.” In the criminal complaint, the FBI said that on this date approximately 11 individuals demonstrated at the homes of multiple researchers. “At each residence, the individuals, dressed generally in all black clothing and wearing bandanas over their nose and mouth, marched, chanted, and chalked defamatory comments on the public sidewalks…”
3. Use of the Internet. They allegedly “used the Internet to find information on bio-medical researchers at the University of California at Santa Cruz.”

Even more telling, though, is what is not listed in the indictment. In the criminal complaint and the FBI press release, the government mentioned the above allegations along with two other incidents—the only two incidents even approaching a “gray area” between protected speech and illegal conduct.

• At one protest attended by the defendants, a researcher “struggled with one individual and was hit with a dark, firm object,” according to the FBI. (February 24, 2008)
• A stack of fliers titled “Murderers and torturers alive & well in Santa Cruz July 2008 edition” was found at a local coffee shop, Café Pergolesi. The fliers said “we know where you live we know where you work we will never back down until you end your abuse” and listed home addresses and telephone numbers. The FBI used video surveillance to allegedly link the flier distribution to the defendants. (July 29, 2008)

Now, to be very clear, the details in an indictment aren’t the final word in any criminal case. They never reveal too much of the prosecution’s hand. They do, however, lay the backbone of the government’s case and put the prosecution’s best foot forward.

Omitting the most controversial, potentially-illegal activity, and instead focusing on protests that involved chalking slogans and chanting, sends a very clear message of where this is all heading. This case and others like it are not about underground groups like the Animal Liberation Front, they are not about “violence,” they are not about the real potential for violence.

They are about using the “War on Terrorism” to chip away at basic First Amendment rights and criminalize dissent.