As a quick introduction, there are two Communications Management Units, or CMUs, in the country. They radically restrict prisoner communications with the outside world to levels that rival, or exceed, the most restrictive facilities in the country, including the “Supermax,” ADX-Florence. [For more information on CMUs and who is housed there: "Secretive U.S. Prison Units Used to House Muslim, Animal Rights and Environmental Activists."]

On April 6, the Bureau of Prisons submitted a proposed rule (Docket No. 1148-P), listed in the federal register. Under the Administrative Procedures Act, there is now a required public comment period for responses to this proposal.

The public notice comes after the Center for Constitutional Rights and the American Civil Liberties Union each filed lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the secretive facilities, where political prisoners have been transferred without notification, without explanation, and without opportunity for appeal. [See "5 Things You Should Know About America’s 'Little Guantanamo.'"]

FOLLOWING THE LAW IN HINDSIGHT

The submitted proposal is clearly a response to these lawsuits, and an acknowledgment that the Communications Management Units were opened secretly and illegally. Now government officials are trying to cover their tracks and follow the legal process in hindsight.

It is a positive development that the government is recognizing, and being forced to defend, prison facilities kept hidden from the public. There is the possibility of placing true checks and balances on the government’s power to create experimental units that are unparalleled in the federal prison system.

However, this step in the right direction is negated by the Bureau of Prisons’ proposal to actually make these secretive prisons even more inhumane.

INCREASING RESTRICTIONS

Daniel McGowan is housed at a Communications Management Unit

“I haven’t been able to hug my husband, or even hold his hand, for two years,” said Jenny Synan, the spouse of a CMU prisoner and a plaintiff in the lawsuit. “This proposed rule does not explain how prohibiting a husband from holding his wife’s hand or keeping a father from hugging his daughter, is necessary for prison security.”

The new proposal includes even more restrictions, including:

• “Written correspondence may be limited to three pieces of paper, double-sided, once per week to and from a single recipient;
• Telephone communication may be limited to a single completed call per calendar month for up to 15 minutes;
• and Visiting may be limited to one hour each calendar month.

MORE POWER, LESS OVERSIGHT

It should be noted that all federal prisoners have their communications monitored. And there are already policies in place for dangerous inmates who need additional monitoring.

The most prevalent of those policies are called Special Administrative Measures, or SAMs. SAMs are authorized by the attorney general based on information from the FBI and U.S. Attorney’s office.

This new proposal lowers the threshold for such special restrictions. According to the proposal, it allows for prison officials to act on “evidence which does not rise to the same degree of potential risk [emphasis added] to national security or risk of acts of violence or terrorism which would warrant the Attorney General’s intervention by issuance of a SAM.”

The government is arguing two competing claims simultaneously: (1) That Communications Management Units are needed because the inmates are heightened security risks, and (2) That traditional oversight is too cumbersome because these inmates are not dangerous enough.

The aim is, admittedly, to place more unchecked power in the hands of lower-ranking government officials.

POLITICAL PRISONS

If, according the Bureau of Prisons, these inmates “do not rise to the same degree of potential risk to national security,” who is housed here?

As I have discussed here before, inmates and guards at the CMUs call them “Little Guantanamo.” They have also been described as prisons for “second-tier” terrorists.

The proposal confirms this, saying: “One important category of inmates which might be designated to a CMU is inmates whose current offense(s) of conviction, or offense conduct, included association, communication, or involvement, related to international or domestic terrorism.”

It references past behavior as grounds for inmates being transferred there, but as I have reported, and as the recent lawsuits make clear, many of these inmates have no disciplinary history and no communications violations. Furthermore, these individuals were not the 9/11 hijackers or what most people think of as terrorists. They are prisoners like Daniel McGowan, who destroyed property as part of the Earth Liberation Front in the name of defending the environment.

The Bureau’s proposal makes clear that the CMUs are intended to keep these cases isolated, and to keep political prisoners with “inspirational significance” from communicating with the communities and social movements of which they are part.

These secretive prisons are for political cases the government would rather have out of the public spotlight.

[This was published by Herbivore Magazine in one of their mini-books a while back. I realized I hadn't posted it here, and it's not available anywhere else online. Hope you enjoy it.]

"The World Takes? How corporations and politicians turned animal rights activists into terrorists," Herbivore, Volume 13, 26-48.

By WILL POTTER

On some days in Trenton, N.J., the only thing separating the grey Delaware River from the grey horizon of office buildings and the flat grey sky is a big sign in glowing neon red.

"TRENTON MAKES, THE WORLD TAKES" runs 254 feet across the Lower Trenton Toll Supported Bridge, which spans the Delaware River. The capital san serif letters average nine and half feet tall by six and a half feet wide, and weigh about 300 pounds each. It took four sign technicians, a crane, and $383,427 for Trentonians to adamantly refurbish the dilapidated slogan in 2005. The phrase’s 1,500 linear feet of glass tubing can be finicky. Sometimes an E or an A will burn out. Sometimes an entire word. But when that neon is lit up, Trenton defiantly shines.

The city has maintained that proclamation since 1911, when the Chamber of Commerce held a contest for a slogan that would remind thousands of passengers on Pennsylvania Railroad’s Main Line that Trenton had made it. Steel. Pottery. Wall plaster. Anvils. Mattresses. Bricks. Rubber. Linoleum. Trenton was "the nation’s tire capital." Trenton made the steel rope that held up massive suspension bridges. And Trenton made the world’s largest bathtub, to be used by the massive President William Howard Taft.

S. Roy Heath won that contest, and $25, for "The World Takes, Trenton Makes." But that needed some editing. Who could put the world before Trenton?

* * *

Over the years, the world stopped taking. Through the ’60s, ’70s, and ’80s, Trenton’s manufacturing base eroded. The Roebling wire rope plant, once supplier for the Brooklyn Bridge and Slinky, shut down. The Wire Rope District now exists in name only.

In 1924, about one out of every two jobs in the county came from manufacturing. Now it’s about one out of every 25.

Some manufacturing plants still hum. But the economic backbone of Trenton is now the state government and the pharmaceutical industry. Trenton, and the rest of New Jersey, now depends on making laws and drugs.

Pfizer, Wyeth, Johnson and Johnson, Merck, Sandoz, Glaxo Smith Kline, Chiron, Covance, and 245 other pharmaceutical and cosmetic companies call New Jersey home, according to a directory maintained by Rutgers University. They’re the heavy hitters in "the medicine chest of the nation," as former Governor Christie Whitman called her state.

"What automobiles are to Michigan and oil to Texas," one industry group head has said, "The pharmaceutical and medical device industry is to New Jersey."

Some state leaders fear the nation’s medicine chest going the way of Motor City. The pharmaceutical job market is shrinking by three or four percent in New Jersey, while it increases by 40 percent or more elsewhere. Nevada and Pennsylvania, among others, are trying to siphon off some of New Jersey’s financial flow. CEO Magazine’s "Best and Worst State Report" for 2005 ranked New Jersey 46th. The state must act swiftly to secure its position as the pharmaceutical capital of the world. The neon writing is on the wall.

To the global pharmaceutical industry, though, there’s an even bigger problem brewing in New Jersey. This is ground zero in a new War on Terrorism. It’s here that Huntingdon Life Sciences, the notorious contract animal testing company, is based. It’s here that animal rights activists launched a historic campaign against the lab that rattled the industry to its core. And it’s here, in Trenton, that six of those activists were convicted on "terrorism" charges for attempting to shut down one of the last things New Jersey makes.

* * *

Five undercover investigations inside HLS labs have shown workers punching beagle puppies in the face, dissecting live monkeys and falsifying scientific data. One investigator, Michelle Rokke, wrote in her diary:

"I saw him pick a dog up off the floor by his front leg and toss him in a cage… when he tried to close the cage door one of the dogs tried to get out. He repeatedly slammed the cage door on the dog’s head."

Armed with this information, animal activists in England—the other location of an HLS lab—launched an international campaign called Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty. Their goal wasn’t to simply expose the abuse, or call for reform. Their goal was to put the lab out of business.

Following the lead of effective anti-apartheid divestment campaigns in the 1980s, activists knew the only way to change a business practice is to aim for the bottom line.

They brought the company to its knees, primarily through a Wall Street level knowledge of how corporations operate. The SHAC USA website schooled activists in business savvy: primers on investors, market makers, and pink sheets. It also listed home and work addresses for anyone doing business with HLS, from bankers on down to toilet paper suppliers.

Activists took to the streets, the phones, and executives’ homes with bullhorns, phone blockades and plenty of smart-ass, aggressive rhetoric. All actions related to the campaign—both legal and illegal—got posted on the SHAC website: news of legal protests, leafleting, speaking events and video screenings—and also anonymous communiqués.

"Arghh Matee’
In the wee hours of Tuesday, July 24th, we paid a visit to the home of Brian G Rogan President of Capital Markets to The Bank of New York, Plum Point Rd. in Sands Point, LI, NY. 20 holes were drilled in the right side of his 30 foot yacht, and one 6inch by 6inch hole was sawed through the right hull.
Various workings of the boat were also tampered with. As the boat began to take on water it was cut loose and pushed out to sea, we left before confirming whether or not the boat sunk. Both the boat and his personal dock were left covered with painted slogans denouncing BNY’s involvement with Huntingdon Life Sciences, the largest reading ‘money means nothing- life Means everything.’
Upon escape we cut through his estate to his personal Flag Pole, his Amerikkkan Flag was lowered and discarded like the trash it is, and replaced with the only flag that matters, a pirate flag!
For the 500 lives lost today at HLS, and for our brother Carlo Guliani who was shot and killed this week protesting the Group of Eight Summit in Genoa,
Our hearts bleed for you!
The P.A.L.
Pirates for Animal Liberation
HLS thar she blows!"

Other posted actions include subscribing a CEO to porno mags, setting off stink bombs in offices, and paint-stripping cars. They were sometimes crude (calling a church and accusing a CEO that attends of fondling children) and often ominous (phrases like "we know where you live" appear in many communiqués). SHAC unabashedly supported all of it.

It worked. The lab now teeters on the brink of economic collapse, after more than 160 companies, including Marsh Inc., UPS, and Fedex, have pulled out. The New York Stock Exchange dropped HLS in 2000, and the London Stock Exchange followed in 2001.

The tactics worked a little too well. Industry groups and pharmaceutical corporations knew that if activists brought a multinational corporation to its knees, they wouldn’t stop there. Greg Avery, a SHAC UK organizer, has bluntly said as much: "When it closes we will move on somewhere else until all animal testing is banned in this country." HLS is just the training ground, and the pharmaceutical industry knows it.

Industry groups launched a massive scare-mongering media campaign to label activists as "terrorists" for campaigning to put the lab out of business, and to link them—ideologically, at least—with the underground actions of groups like the Animal Liberation Front. Corporations targeted by SHAC hit back with lawsuits and restraining orders, but the campaign kept moving.

In May, 2004, the government and industry groups tried something new. They charged
Kevin Kjonaas, Lauren Gazzola, Jacob Conroy, Joshua Harper, Andrew Stepanian, Darius Fullmer, John McGee and the organization SHAC with conspiracy to violate the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act of 1992. The law got little attention when it was passed except from groups like the National Association for Biomedical Research that pushed it through.

It created the crime of "animal enterprise terrorism" for anyone who travels in "interstate or foreign commerce" (like crossing state lines or using the mail) and "intentionally damages or causes the loss of any property (including animals or records) used by the animal enterprise, or conspires to do so."

The government first used the law in 1998, charging Peter Young and Justin Samuel with animal enterprise terrorism for releasing thousands of mink from Wisconsin fur farms. Samuel pleaded guilty, was sentenced to two years in prison and ordered to pay over $360,000 in fines. Young was on the run for seven years, and then caught in 2005 and sentenced to two years in prison.

Ostensibly, that’s what the law was meant to do: go after the activists who "cause the loss of any property," who sneak into labs and steal/liberate animals. The law, industry groups said, was needed to go after the underground.

* * *

The Department of Justice press release proclaimed, "Militant Animal Rights Group, Seven Members Indicted for National Campaign to Terrorize Company and Its Employees."

"This is not activism. This is a group of lawless thugs attacking innocent men, women and children," U.S. Attorney Christopher J. Christie said. "We will not stand by and let any group or individuals violate federal law through violence and intimidation, no matter what cause they profess to advocate for in the process."

The defendants were never charged with mailing anthrax-laced letters, planting pipe bombs, hijacking airplanes or any action most reasonable people would consider terrorism. And in their 27-page indictment, not once were SHAC activists accused of any of the crimes posted on the website, let alone any "attacking innocent men, women and children." They weren’t charged with smashing windows, gluing locks or breaking into labs. They "conspired" to put the lab out of business by running a website:

"On or about July 10, 2002, a smoke bomb was set off at the offices of a subsidiary of M. Corp. in Seattle, Washington causing the evacuation of a high-rise office tower, and a second smoke bomb was set off at the offices of M. Corp. in Seattle, Washington, causing the evacuation of that high-rise office tower as well. After these events, the SHAC Website posted a report about the smoke bomb attacks."

No activist has been charged with the smoke bomb action. The feds have generally had a hell of a time catching the saboteurs responsible for actions like this. Underground activists have claimed credit for more than 1,200 criminal incidents since 1990, according to the F.B.I., and there are 150 pending "eco-terror" investigations. Law enforcement agents haven’t been able to find the members of the Animal Liberation Front and Earth Liberation Front responsible for the attacks, so they went after those in the spotlight. Think red baiting, with a green twist.

Here’s an example of one of the actions tied to the defendants in the indictment:

SHAC "caused the website www.stephenskills.com to be launched in order to apply pressure on
S. Inc. to cease doing business with HLS."

Apparently these news postings and website launchings were so "terrorizing" that the government couldn’t even name corporations that have been targeted in the indictment. They are only identified by single letters, like "S. Inc." or "M. Corp."

"Because of the nature of the campaign against these companies, we didn’t want to subject them further to the tactics of SHAC," said Michael Drewniak, spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in New Jersey, in an interview.

* * *

Activists, reporters and anyone else paying attention can read between the lines. These businesses are some of the wealthiest on the planet: They need no corporate witness protection program. This was one small maneuver in a broader War on Terrorism, to redefine the victim. The victim is not the Beagle puppy being punched in the face because the lab tech can’t find a vein. The victim is not the activist being charged with "terrorism" for defending the tactics of others. The victim is the corporation, whose profits were so ruthlessly assaulted.

Lunch breaks during trial gave jurors and defendants about 30 minutes to find some food and rush back to the courtroom. Even if they had longer, it probably wouldn’t have helped the defendants. Of all the things Trenton makes, vegan food, it seems, is not one of them.

During one break in the trial, I visited the Trenton Federal Courthouse "cafeteria" with some of the defendants. They knew the routine, and so did the woman behind the counter. The "animal rights terrorists" had a special menu, not listed alongside the other items on the rectangular white board with black block-letter stickers.

"Soy hot dog?," she asked, smiling. She snapped on a pair of latex gloves, pulled limp, flesh-colored Tofu Pups from their clear plastic wrapper, briefly microwaved them on paper plates, and plopped them on bleached white bread. We each paid about $4.

"I already feel like I’m in prison," someone said, only half joking. There probably wouldn’t be Tofu Pups in prison.

There wasn’t much talking during lunch. The tactic, I believe, was to finish the Tofu Pup as quickly as possible and leave the crinkling linoleum, folding chairs, and discolored wall paneling behind.

We headed out the door, and toward the elevators that lead back to the courtroom. As we passed the metal detectors, a group of attorneys stopped us. One of them asked: "Are you all law students?"

What else could they be? Not criminals. Not terrorists. Andy wore spotless, tailored three-button mod suits, often with a bright pink shimmering tie. Jake looks like who is: a clean-cut kid from Connecticut more comfortable in cargo pants and a hoodie than court clothes. Darius works as a paramedic in New Jersey. Josh, a filmmaker, would flip through skateboarding magazines or sometimes talk about hardcore bands between court proceedings. Lauren seemed to comfortably fit the law student image, maybe because she had planned on taking the LSAT until cops stormed her house with guns drawn. I glanced at the other attorneys flowing through the metal detectors, trailed by other activists in their own court clothes.

"No," Lauren said, smiling, and without hesitation. "We’re on trial for terrorism!"

The security guard scanning briefcases on a six-foot conveyor belt laughed.

* * *

I sat in the overflowing courtroom for the SHAC7 sentencing, sandwiched between a New Jersey activist and a mustached local reporter. As I watched the six 20-something defendants in their thrift-store court clothes comfort their mothers while standing tall, shoulders back, for their friends, I felt like I was watching history. I don’t mean that in a Red Scare kind of analogy, although that is clearly applicable. I mean that a surreal feeling struck me. In 10, 20, 50 years, young people will look at this trial, just as we look at past eras of repression, and wonder: "How did you let this happen?"

How did we let this happen?

Here’s how a sentencing hearing for a federal case usually works. The judge makes a statement about the federal sentencing guidelines, if they apply, and their parameters. The prosecutors then generally ask for sentences somewhere in the middle or on the high end of those guidelines. Defense attorneys respond with a series of nitpicky points about the sentencing recommendations, using legal jargon the defendants and family members don’t understand, and argue that their client should receive a reduced sentence. Sometimes they submit letters from friends or family members saying that Johnny is a "fine young man" or that Jane is an "upstanding person who made a poor decision." Sometimes defendants say they have seen the light, and realized the error of their ways. Sometimes they cry.

Here’s how a sentencing hearing for animal rights activists convicted of "terrorism" charges for running a website works. The judge made a statement outlining the outlandish sentencing guidelines—higher than most rapists and violent criminals face. The government asked the judge to throw the book at these "extremists." One by one, the defense attorneys fight for a month here and a month there, anything to keep these activists from spending their 30s in prison. The defendants stare ahead blankly. The defense attorneys don’t just submit letters of support, they submit tomes. The judge raises a bound book submitted by Jake Conroy’s attorney, with letters from professors, friends, and activists that say they have been inspired by Jake’s compassion. The judge says she has rarely seen anything like this in any case.

The prosecutors don’t give an inch. Charles McKenna, the chief assistant U.S. attorney for New Jersey, who was the prosecutor in the case, rises from his seat after each speech by a defense attorney, and lets his voice reach a nearly vitriolic fervor.

Some activists laughed, others simply shook their heads at the absurdity of it all.

"Kevin Kjonaas was drunk with power."

"[Lauren Gazzola] had the bullhorn and was clearly the person in charge."

"Jake is not a man of compassion."

Nobody laughed.

Pressed up against activists in the back row, I could feel their muscles tense. A man across the aisle with a freshly shorn head and a sharp three-button suit bit his clenched fist and flexed the muscles in his left hand. I kept the corner of my eye on him, waiting for him to jump from the pew and disrupt this spectacle.

He didn’t. The spectacle continued, with McKenna saying that Jake and the others had "good homes, good schools," and they "chose to throw it all away." He sounded like he was describing bank robbers or meth addicts, not individuals using their First Amendment rights.

The defendants were sentenced to between one and six years in prison.

Activists lurked around the courtroom after the sentencing. Those that were turned away from the overflowing courtroom rushed in to ask what happened. Nobody seemed to know what to say.
The defendants put their game faces back on. They pressed the flesh and thanked everyone for coming. They did their best to remain strong and lift everyone’s spirits. "It could have been worse."

The local press rushed the defendants and prosecutors with skinny notebooks in hand. I felt like such a horrible reporter. What do you say to someone who has just been sentenced for "terrorism"? It reminded me of working the cop shop at The Chicago Tribune, and having to write about murders and dead siblings found in storage lockers, and having to ask people how it made them feel. What a ridiculous question, but reporters always ask it.

Instead I told Josh and Jake that I strongly disapproved of their pastel colored shirts. Josh, who had his sentencing postponed until the next day, asked if I knew someone who had a tie: he ran out of clean court clothes. I started to take off mine, but he just laughed. "Dude, skinny ties are for skinny guys. I’ve got a little bit more to love."

Outside the Trenton courthouse was part press conference part family reunion. Reporters kept asking activists to talk to them about the case and how they felt. "Are you a reporter? I’m not going to answer any of your questions." In this Green Scare, they said, who would want to have their picture in the paper at an "eco-terrorism" trial?

* * *

"This is just the starting gun," proclaimed David Martosko of the Center for Consumer Freedom, an industry front group.

The SHAC7 faced a double-edge sword going into trial. If they lose, they go to prison, and are labeled "terrorists" for the rest of their lives. No more law school. No more working as paramedic. No more graphic design. Nobody wants to hire a convicted "terrorist." If they win, it could be the foundation of an even harsher political crackdown.

But in a testament to the power of the Green Scare, the SHAC7 have been cut by both edges of that blade simultaneously. They were convicted. Yet they are still a threat.

That’s the message of industry groups constructing their most ambitious scare-mongering campaign yet. The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act has been in the works, in various forms, since 1992. It has always stalled out, usually in committee. But now, bolstered the conviction of the SHAC7, industry groups want more.

Some of the pharmaceutical powerhouses from the nation’s medicine chest have made their presence known in Washington as the architects of this Green Scare. Pfizer, Wyeth, Glaxo Smith Kline, Chiron, and Covance have all backed the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. The SHAC campaign came a little too close to home. They don’t want to be next.

Industry groups pushed the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act through the Senate, where it passed by unanimous consent. Not one senator voiced opposition. When midterm elections shifted control of both the House and Senate to Democrats, industry groups knew they had to work fast. They knew that a Republican White House, plus a Republican Senate, plus a Republican House equaled the best chances they’ve had in years to steamroll this bill through Congress.

Their "eco-terrorism" bum rush worked: the law passed the House on the first day back from midterm elections as part of what’s called the "suspension calendar." That’s D.C. speak for a House procedure to usher through non-controversial bills. Only six members of Congress were in the room when the bill passed. Only one, Representative Dennis Kucinich, raised any objections.

Perhaps the best disturbing segment of the whole scare-mongering debacle was when Representative James Sensenbrenner ended his comments, and ended the floor debate, by talking about the American Civil Liberties Union. He said the ACLU is the guardian of the First Amendment. He said the ACLU has a proud history of being a constitutional watchdog. And he said he has a letter, from the ACLU, saying they would not oppose this legislation and had no substantial concerns, essentially giving the Green Scare a green light.

The law created stiffer penalties than the original Animal Enterprise Protection Act and expands its scope to include "any property of a person or entity having a connection to, relationship with, or transactions with an animal enterprise."

One section of the legislation targets anyone who "intentionally places a person in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury to that person, a member of the immediate family (as defined in section 115) of that person, or a spouse or intimate partner of that person by a course of conduct involving threats, acts of vandalism, property damage, criminal trespass, harassment, or intimidation."

The problem is that the word "eco-terrorism" is being batted around recklessly by industry groups in a scare-mongering campaign that has included full-page ads in major newspapers and even stooping so low as to call a children’s movie "soft-core eco-terrorism for kids." They are doing everything they can to create this fear through scare-mongering: that’s the point. In light of this political climate, it’s impossible to discuss "reasonable fear," because industry groups are throwing all their weight into making the unreasonable seem reasonable–into making the public afraid of non-violent activists, so they can push a political agenda.

Here’s a very likely scenario: A group of activists holds a loud protest outside an executive’s home or office on a daily basis, as part of a national campaign. Activists yell and chant as people enter the building. Some wear masks or bandanas (which are increasingly common at protests, because activists fear being "blacklisted"). There have also been illegal actions like "vandalism" and "property damage" in the name of the same cause (which has been the case in every social movement, ever).

Activists clearly intend to "interfere with" the operations of animal enterprise. Toss in the climate of fear that industry groups have created, plus the raucous nature of the protest and the fact that it’s part of a coordinated campaign, and suddenly this First Amendment activity becomes "terrorism" under the law (through a "course of conduct" involving harassment, intimidation, vandalism… whatever they can get to stick). Through scare-mongering, the unreasonable becomes reasonable.

* * *

Underground activists won’t lose much sleep over the SHAC trial or this legislation. Their actions are already illegal (and they know it). The government has already labeled them the "number one domestic terrorist threat." And yet they continue to demonstrate that heavy-handed police tactics will not deter them.

Shortly after the sentencing of the SHAC7, anonymous activists sent a communiqué claiming credit for rescuing 23 rabbits from a vivisection lab in rural Massachusetts. They dedicated the raid to the SHAC 7. Six of the rabbits are named Jake, Lauren, Kevin, Andy, Josh, and Darius, after the defendants. (Who knew the balaclava-and-bolt-cutter set was so PR savvy?)

"And while the SHAC-7 will soon go to jail for simply speaking out on behalf of animals, those of us who have done all the nasty stuff talked about in the courts and in the media will still be free," the communiqué said. "So to those who still work with HLS and to all who abuse animals: we’re coming for you, motherfuckers."

Meanwhile, the government and corporations will continue coming for legal, above-ground activists.

Through my interviews with grassroots animal rights activists, national organizations, and their attorneys, I have heard widespread fears that the word "terrorist" will one day be turned against them, even though they use legal tactics. That grey fog of fear has seeped into every part of the movement. It clings to activists’ clothes, to their hair, like the cigarette stench lingering from last night’s drink at the bar. Even the most industrious activists, plugging away at campaign after campaign, have admitted that they can’t shake that fear. And the fog, it seems, is spreading. Some anti-abortion organizations, like the Thomas More Society, have already raised concerns that "eco-terrorism" legislation and rhetoric could become a model for labeling other activists as terrorists.

Other social movements have not rushed into the neon spotlight in the defense of animal rights activists, though, and they probably won’t any time soon. Animal activists have magnificently alienated themselves from other progressive activists, producing stunts and sound bites, costs be damned. Meanwhile, the New McCarthyists have constructed a scare-mongering campaign built not to destroy the underground, but to destroy the animal rights movement itself. It will be up to animal rights activists to challenge the architects of this Green Scare head on, to build bridges to other social movements, and to speak openly and honestly about the fear that, if ignored, could raze everything they’ve created. Until then, others will remain at a safe distance. They will be waiting to see how much the animal rights movement takes.

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.

Where the hell was the ACLU? That seems to be the question on the minds of many, many activists– on email threads, radio programs and blog comments here on GreenIsTheNewRed.com. They’re angry that James Sensenbrenner, Tom Petri and other lawmakers rushed the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act through the House on a voice vote as part of a suspension of the rules… but not too surprised. They’re angry that the mainstream press hasn’t batted an eye about this Green Scare bill… but not too surprised. And they’re angry that Democrats actually promoted the “eco-terrorism” bill, to win cheap political points and look tough on “terrorism”… but they’re not too surprised about that, either.

What seems to have really riled the activists that I’ve spoken with is that the ACLU, often seen as a Constitutional watchdog, a guardian of civil liberties that will protect the rights of civil rights activists right alongside the rights of the KKK, remained dead silent.

I’ve received a flood of emails asking about this, and I think it’s worth explaining and clarifying what, exactly, took place (or didn’t take place).

It has made a lot of folks wonder, with good reason: Are groups like the ASPCA, the Humane Society of the United States, the National Lawyers Guild and the New York Bar Association doing their own bit of scare-mongering, and blowing this bill out of proportion? Or did the ACLU really drop the ball?

Before I answer that question, you all should know that I once worked for the ACLU’s Washington Legislative Office on issues like the Patriot Act, airline passenger screening programs and sneak-and-peak search orders. In some ways that’s where I really cut my teeth on the intricacies of legislation related to national security and civil liberties, working with the best of the best on what I think are some of the most pressing issues of our time. I have a deep respect for the organization, and everyone that works there. I have consistently defended the sometimes-controversial ACLU when speaking with other reporters, activists and family back home in Texas. My opinion of how the ACLU handled, or didn’t handle, this legislation has been shaped by my positive experiences with the organization, and you should keep that in mind.

That being said, the ACLU dropped the ball.

Strange Bedfellows

First let’s take a look at Sensenbrenner’s comments on the House floor, which have stirred a lot of this debate:

I would just like to sum up that on October 30 the American Civil Liberties Union sent a letter to the gentleman from Michigan, my ranking member, and myself, not opposing this legislation. They did ask for minor changes, but they did not express one concern about constitutionally protected first amendment rights being infringed upon or jeopardized in any way by this bill.

Now, if there ever was an organization that really goes all the way on one side in interpreting the first amendment as liberally as it can, it is the American Civil Liberties Union. My friend from Ohio, whom I have a great respect for, is even outside the definition of the first amendment that the ACLU has eloquently advanced in the halls of this Capitol for decades and will do so for decades to come.

This is a good bill. I think that all of the fears that the gentleman from Ohio has placed on the record are ill-founded by practically everybody who has looked through this bill, including the ACLU.

I mentioned Sensenbrenner’s comments in a wrap-up of the floor vote posted just hours after it happened, and it sent everything into a tailspin. The post has over 130 comments (a startling number for even the most popular websites). Some activists talked about organizing protests at ACLU offices. Others started email and phone trees to try to hold the organization accountable.

The ACLU Responds (Kinda)

The first wave of ACLU responses to activist emails stoked the fires even more. Here’s one (I received identical emails forwarded from over a dozen activists):

—– Original message —–
From:
To: will@willpotter.com
Cc:
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 12:22:39 -0500
Subject: FW: Done Deal? AETA Passes

Dear Ms. XXX,

Thank you for your e-mail.

The ACLU Letter to Congress Urging Opposition to the Animal Enterprise Act, S. 1926 and H.R. 4239 (3/6/2006) can be read at http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/gen/25620leg20060306.html.

If you are not already an ACLU member, we encourage you to help support our aggressive work on the issues you care about. To join please visit
http://www.aclu.org/contribute/contribute.cfm or call 1-888-567-ACLU.

Once again, thank you for your interest in the ACLU.

Sincerely,
D. Barber
Correspondence Manager, American Civil Liberties Union

More confusion. The email clearly says, and the link confirms, that the ACLU urged opposition to the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. Sensenbrenner lied! Right?

Reading Between the Lines

That ACLU document, from March, raised serious concerns about this vague and overly broad legislation and urged opposition. Another letter, sent to Sensenbrenner and Conyers on October 30, 2006 and cited on the House floor, said “The ACLU does not oppose this bill, but believes that these minor changes are necessary to make the bill less likely to chill or threaten freedom of speech.”

It’s completely accurate for the ACLU to say they did not support this legislation. Activists should take care to not put words in the ACLU’s mouth and say the organization supported the bill. At the same time, activists should know a little about Hill Speak. For an organization like the ACLU, the powerhouse on civil liberties and civil rights issues on Capitol Hill, saying “we don’t oppose” is tantamount to a third-base coach waving a runner home.

Why Did They Not Oppose?

Perhaps because there are so many other civil liberties issues demanding critical attention. Perhaps because corporate scare-mongering and green baiting has turned animal rights activists into political lepers.

Or perhaps history repeats itself. The ACLU has a long, venerable history of defending the civil liberties of even the most unsavory characters, including the KKK. To some, though, the organization has always been dogged by its darker days, when in 1940, during the Red Scare, the ACLU formally barred communists from leadership or staff positions. Meanwhile, the National Lawyers Guild took a beating for refusing to name names and purge its members who also belonged to communist organizations, but stood its ground.

This time around, the National Lawyers Guild was out front opposing the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act and the Green Scare. And this time around, the silence of the ACLU spoke volumes.

Industry groups heard it loud and clear. The ACLU and the Humane Society were both involved in this bill in its early stages. They both raised nearly identical sets of concerns. HSUS came out and opposed (albeit not publicly until the bill had already passed the Senate). The ACLU did not.

Corporations seized on that opportunity to steal home, and never looked back. Industry groups now spout off like they’ve been card-carrying members of the ACLU all along.In The Scientist, a vice president of the National Association for Biomedical Research, an industry group behind the bill, posted this comment:

Facts Matter!
by Mary Hanley, Exec. VP, NABR

[Comment posted 2006-11-16 21:57:54]
Finally, a story that gets it right. Apparently many reporters have not actually read the bill language but have accepted without question the misleading propaganda that HSUS and other animal activist groups have perpetuated about its First Amendment protections. Knowing full well that the preeminent civil rights organization, the ACLU did not oppose the AETA, they continued to lobby against the bill and rally their followers to do the same, actions that discredit their own cause.

UPDATE: This article was named by Project Censored as one of the top 25 under-reported news stories for the year. It appears in Censored 2008.

They did it. Corporations, industry groups and the politicians that represent them rushed through legislation labeling activists as “terrorists” on the first day back from Congressional recess. Just moments ago the House passed the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act as part of the suspension calendar: in other words it was put on a list of non-controversial bills to pass with one swoop by voice vote.

Here’s a recap of some of my notes on the “debate” on the House floor. I apologize that this is not in a more polished form, but I wanted to get this out to you all right away:

Representative Bobby Scott, often called the go-to guy in the House on civil liberties and civil rights issues, came out swinging in support of the “eco-terrorism” bill. Not only did he not oppose the legislation, he lined up with the corporations, industry groups and conservative extremists in full support of it. Scott, a Democrat, said existing laws have been “reasonably effective” but “gaps and loopholes” prevent law enforcement from going after animal rights “extremists.” Scott failed to note, even in passing, that the existing law– the Animal Enterprise Protection Act– was used to successfully prosecute the SHAC 7 on “animal enterprise terrorism” charges for running a website. Scott dishonestly ignores this crucial bit of information, and said that activists are “taking advantage of the fact that” AEPA doesn’t cover “affiliates and associates” of animal enterprises: but that was, precisely, what the SHAC campaign was all about.

Disturbingly, Scott said in passing that civil disobedience would be covered in the bill– something other supporters of the bill have denied– but he tried to ease public fears by saying that the civil disobedience must cause disruption and loss of profits, and “it must be proven that such losses were specifically intended.” Bobby Scott, who frequently praises the achievements of the civil rights movement, stood on the House floor and advocated the inclusion of the tactics used by that movement in a “terrorism” bill. The only things that’s different between then and now, between the civil rights and animal rights movement, is the cause.

Representative Thomas Petri, a Republican from Wisconsin usually in stark contrast to Scott, said much of the same. He had the nerve to stand on the House floor and say, with a straight face, that “current federal law,” including the AEPA, has been “inadequate” in going after animal rights activists. Petri knows full well that ALL the crimes listed in this bill are already crimes, that the original bill has been used successfully, and that the animal and environmental movements have never claimed a single human life. Petri and the corporations that support him call the existing legislation “inadequate” because, in their mind, the true threat is not the underground wing of the movement, but the movement itself. That’s where this vague and overly broad legislation comes into place, wrapping up civil disobedience, undercover investigations and other non-violent activity as “terrorism.”

Only Representative Dennis Kucinich spoke up against this dangerous legislation. “This bill was written to have a chilling effect,” he said, “on a specific type of protest.” He also said that, “We have to be very careful of painting everyone with broad brush of terrorism.” And, in an interesting spin on the debate, Kucinich said lawmakers would be better off addressing animal issues and demonstrating their compassion.

He also raised what’s essentially a very conservative argument about the bill preempting existing law. A section of the bill says it shall not be construed

(3) to provide exclusive criminal penalties or civil remedies with respect to the conduct prohibited by this action, or to preempt State or local laws that may provide such penalties or remedies.

Kucinich noted that that’s precisely what the bill does. It provides exclusive penalties based on the beliefs of those who are accused.

Kucinich got in a little back and forth with James Sensenbrenner about the bill, with Sensenbrenner repeatedly citing a provision of the bill that “exempts” First Amendment activity. (Thank you to Senenbrenner and our patriotic members of Congress for reminding us that their is still a First Amendment. However, saying “this is Constitutional!” doesn’t make it so. If anything, it’s an admission that the bill has serious flaws.) At one point, Sensenbrenner read off a list of quotes from animal activists that he said exemplified the targets of the legislation. It was the same tired old list of quotes from the mid-90s and from a fairly recent Congressional hearing. Kucinich promptly noted that the quotes were exactly that: “Constitutionally-protected speech.” It’s misleading, he said, to say the bill exempts First Amendment activity, then use First Amendment activity as an example of why the bill is needed.

But perhaps the most disturbing segment of this whole scare-mongering debacle was when Sensenbrenner ended his comments, and ended the floor debate, by talking about the American Civil Liberties Union. He said the ACLU is the guardian of the First Amendment. He said the ACLU has a proud history of being a constitutional watchdog. And he said he has a letter, from the ACLU, saying they would not oppose this legislation and had no substantial concerns, essentially giving the Green Scare a green light.

I’ve been receiving a flood of emails from people who have called their members of Congress, raised concerns about the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, and been met with a barrage of misinformation. Here’s an email being distributed by the office of U.S. Representative Rick Larsen, with my responses and clarifications.

—— Forwarded Message
From: “Dabbs, Michael”
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 09:34:24 -0500
To:
Cc:
Subject: RE: HSUS statement on AETA

Hi XXX,

Thanks for the information. We have taken another strong look at the concerns raised by the other groups. We are confident that the bill provides ample protection of First Amendment rights and does nothing to prevent peaceful protesting or boycotting of animal stores, research facilities, or anything else. A lot of the concerns were addressed in bipartisan negotiations, which have been incorporated into the Senate version of the bill (which is what we are voting on today).

Here is the text of a letter that was sent around that addresses the concerns. Please take a look at it. Feel free to give me a call today to discuss the specific concerns.

As we discussed last week, Rick would not support a bill that he does not feel protects crucial First Amendment rights. Rick feels that stronger protections are needed to deter blatant destruction to small family farms or research facilities. This bill would do that.

Again, give me a call in our DC office (202.225.2605) if you’d like to talk about this more.

Best,

Mike

Michael Dabbs
Legislative Director
U.S. Representative Rick Larsen (WA-02)
107 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
(202)225-2605

On September 30, 2006, the Senate approved S. 3880, the “Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act of 2006,” by unanimous consent. S.3880 is the product of meticulous negotiations between the majority and minority members of both the Senate and House Judiciary Committees. However, some groups continue to circulate misleading information about AETA in hopes of preventing House passage. In order for Members to be able to respond to their constituents and remain confident in their continued support of this important bipartisan legislation, we have prepared the following statements in response to the primary criticisms still being circulated regarding the revised bill.

Criticism #1 : AETA poses a threat to First Amendment rights.

FACT

First Amendment activity is expressly excluded from the bill’s coverage. The legislation includes a Rules of Construction which states: “nothing in this section shall be construed – to prohibit any expressive conduct (including peaceful picketing or other peaceful demonstrations) protected from legal prohibition by the First Amendment to the Constitution; to create new remedies for interference with activities protected by the free speech or free exercises clauses of the First Amendment to the Constitution, regardless of point of view expressed, or to limit any existing legal remedies for such interference.”

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) expressed concerns with the original legislation, which were addressed in S. 3880, and the ACLU has now stated in a letter to Chairman Sensenbrenner and Ranking Member Conyers that it does not oppose S. 3880, despite minor criticisms.

The First Amendment “protections” in the bill are just window dressing. They’re absolutely meaningless. The fact that lawmakers note the legislation doesn’t prohibit conduct “protected from legal prohibition by the First Amendment” shows that they realize it is vague and overly broad. It’s a red herring to distract from the content of the bill, and the politics behind it, and ease public fears. But simply proclaiming “this legislation is Constitutional!” doesn’t make it so.

Criticism #2: AETA could make it illegal for citizens to boycott or encourage a boycott of a company that uses animals for research.

FACT

Boycotts are specifically excluded in the bill. While the bill does base penalties on the level of economic damage caused by an activity, the activity must be illegal in order to be covered under the bill. The term “economic damages” does not include a “lawful economic disruption (including a lawful boycott) that results from lawful public, governmental, or business reaction to the disclosure of information about an animal enterprise.” The term includes damages or losses that result from “threats, acts or (sic) vandalism, property damage, trespass, harassment, or intimidation taken against a person or entity on account of that person’s or entity’s connection to, relationship with, or transactions with the animal enterprise”.

Not so fast. It’s absolutely correct that the bill exempts “any lawful economic disruption (including a lawful boycott) that results from lawful public, governmental, or business reaction to the disclosure of information about an animal enterprise.” This is no safeguard. For instance, undercover investigators and whistleblowers may cause financial loss for a company beyond the losses related to third party reactions. Companies may argue that salaries for undercover investigators, increased internal security, and extensive employee background checks are added costs of doing business because of activists.

Furthermore, notice how many times that “exemption” uses the word lawful. All activists I’ve interviewed have plenty of stories about frivolous charges and trumped up charges (“disorderly conduct” and “trespassing” seem to be two favorites of law enforcement agents who can’t get anything else to stick). At the point any of those baseless, non-violent charges are added into the equation (like if an investigator sneaks onto corporate property to film animal abuse) the already-weak protections of that exemption don’t even apply.

Criticism #3: AETA was drafted carelessly and has not been properly debated in Congress.

FACT

In the 109th Congress there have been three legislative hearings dedicated to this legislation. House and Senate Judiciary Committee staff spent months working with animal rights advocates to make changes to the legislation to accommodate their concerns. These changes included adding further First Amendment protections as well as adding language that ensures that all conduct that may be prosecuted is intentional. This modified legislation has received wide bipartisan support in both the House and Senate.

Hmm. Months working with animal advocates? Really? If that’s the case, how do you explain opposition by the Humane Society, ASPCA, Peta and dozens of leading animal groups?

National organizations are lining up in opposition to this bill, and activists are terrified about “terrorism” rhetoric being batted around by corporations, and used in legislation singling out one political cause. In light of that, it is completely irresponsible to push this legislation on the suspension calendar (for non-controversial bills) and try to sneak it through the House.

One part of that statement is absolutely correct, though: this legislation was not drafted carelessly. It was done carefully. Intentionally. And, I’d say, maliciously. Lawmakers know how to carefully craft legislation that is not vague and overly broad and, at the prodding of corporations and industry groups, they simply chose not to.

Criticism #4: There is no need for AETA.

FACT

Between January of 1990 and June of 2004, extremist elements in animal rights organizations such as Animal Liberation Front (ALF), Stop Huntington Animal Cruelty (SHAC), and Earth Liberation Front (ELF) committed more than 1,100 acts of terrorism causing more than $120 million in damages. The FBI considers such extremists activities among its most serious domestic threats. Officials from both the FBI and the DOJ have testified multiple times before Congress that current state and federal law is inadequate to address the threats and violent acts committed by animal rights extremists.

That’s bull. Here’s what corporations and the politicians that represent them conveniently don’t tell you. The SHAC 7 were convicted under AEPA, the original law, for running a website. And environmental activists have been rounded up as part of “Operation Backfire” and charged with serious property crimes, including arson. It’s simply dishonest for business groups and Department of Justice officials to say more legislation is needed. It’s scare-mongering and double-speak at its worst for government officials to say their “hands are tied” in light of this massive government repression.

It should be noted, also, that underground activists have the least to fear from this bill. It’s unlikely that even illegal, underground activists like the Animal Liberation Front would be impacted. Their actions, such as releasing mink from fur farms, spray-painting buildings, and even arson, have not claimed a single human life, and have not been deterred by the convictions of the SHAC 7 under the original AEPA.

Criticism #5: AETA creates a new crime of terrorism designating animal rights protestors as terrorists.

FACT

AETA amends the existing “Animal Enterprise Terrorism” statute (18 U.S.C. 43), which has been law since 1992. It extends existing protections for animal enterprises to individuals, businesses and agencies, such as farmers, scientists, biomedical and biotechnology industries, research universities, teaching hospitals, financial institutions and others, who have associations with an animal enterprise. AETA is in response to rising incidences of violence and threats against these entities as a way to adversely impact animal enterprises without directly violating the existing Animal Enterprise Terrorism statute.

It’s true that “animal enterprise terrorism” is not a new crime under this bill. However, renaming the legislation the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, expanding it to include any business even loosely associated with an “animal enterprise,” and including vague and overly broad language, drastically expands the scope of the law.

Finally, I hate to point out the obvious here, but if activists are destroying property, harassing individuals, stalking… THOSE ARE ALL CRIMES ALREADY. If individuals are not prosecuted for those actions, it is because law enforcement agents are simply too incompetent to catch the individuals responsible. Putting those crimes in “terrorism” legislation won’t magically turn a Keystone cop in Sherlock Holmes, but it will risk wrapping up non-violent activists in “terrorism” rhetoric, and chilling First Amendment activity.