The new issue of VegNews has an article I wrote about the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, and the AETA4, called “The Price of Free Speech.” I hope you’ll take a look and let me know what you think! VegNews is widely available at bookstores and places like Whole Foods, and I think it’s wonderful that the editors are sharing an important political issue like this with VegNews readers.

However, as I’m sure you’ve heard, there’s a bit of a scandal about VegNews printing photoshopped, stock photos of non-vegan food. But “VegNews Gate” doesn’t stop there. Instead of using a photo of me with the article, they used this stock photograph instead. Shockingly, this has gone on for months and nobody noticed.

PS: Every issue, VegNews asks its contributing authors a question. This time it was, “What is your ideal honeymoon vacation?” Amidst all the very serious and romantic replies, on p17, is my equally heartfelt answer: “Austin, Texas: True romance is taco carts and tequila.”

The Counter-Terrorism Unit briefs prison officials and law enforcement about the communications of “terrorist” prisoners. It’s an important function, since prisoners have actually communicated with terrorist cells from within U.S. prisons; in 2005, it was revealed that three men convicted of bombing the World Trade Center in 1993 wrote 90 letters to extremists abroad. And they did it from within the Supermax.

This unit was created to prevent such potentially fatal errors from happening again. However, new documents raise some troubling questions about the Counter-Terrorism Unit’s priorities:

The unit is monitoring the PR campaigns of environmental activists, and its briefings have included my lectures and this website.

Communications of “Terrorist” Prisoners

I received the documents from the staff of Public Intelligence, a Wikileaks-style organization. They are titled “Intelligence Summary: Intelligence analysis and language translation for international and domestic terrorist inmates” (and can now be viewed online here and here). They “may be distributed to state or local government law enforcement officials with a need-to-know,” the documents note, but “precautions should be taken to ensure this information is stored and/or destroyed in a manner which precludes unauthorized access.”

So what information is deemed relevant to counter-terrorism officials and local law enforcement?

It varies wildly. Stephen Jordi, who planned to bomb abortion clinics, received a letter from a man campaigning to become governor of Georgia, who vowed “fighting to the death if the Federal government tries to enforce their murderous, ungodly law allowing abortion and homosexual activities in this State.”

In stark contrast, the unit notes that Essam El Shami wrote his son to “keep on praying and take care of the school and work,” and “take care of mama.”

It’s not surprising that seemingly innocuous communications are reported alongside potential threats. Even the most mundane bits of prisoner letters, phone calls, emails and visits may be worthy of law enforcement attention. They may, for instance, actually be coded threats.

However, that’s not what’s going on with the reports on environmentalists labeled “eco-terrorists.” In these documents, government officials make clear they are much more concerned about bad PR.

Monitoring Bad PR

The Counter-Terrorism Unit notes an August 7, 2009 email received by Daniel McGowan, an Earth Liberation Front prisoner, regarding a possible vigil to raise awareness about secretive political prisons called Communications Management Units (CMUs). McGowan is part of a lawsuit against the experimental prison units. The author, who is identified as part of a public relations group, proposes a caravan between the two prison units to gain media attention.

Another email to McGowan was from Matthew Strugar, an attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights (the group which brought one of the CMU lawsuits). On July 28, 2009, Strugar wrote McGowan and discussed efforts to raise awareness about the CMUs and challenge them.

According to the report:

Strugar described attending the animal rights conference in Los Angeles two weeks prior, in which an individual identified as Will spoke about inmate McGowan and his co-defendants’ cases, as well as the Communications Management Units (CMU). Will is believed to be Will Potter, an independent journalist based in Washington, DC… [emphasis added]

In his email, Strugar wrote to McGowan: “Will was on four panels, I think, and talked a bit about you and your co-defendants’ cases and the situation with the CMUs. He’s a good advocate on that issue. There is still a lot of organizing and discussion about the Green Scare generally, which is good, and I talked a bit about green scare speech repression and the like. It was interesting.”

Wasting Government Counter-Terrorism Resources

It’s unsettling to see my name in documents produced by the Counter-Terrorism Unit. What’s even more disturbing, though, is the thought of scarce government resources being wasted on such reports.

The Counter-Terrorism Unit was created because of flaws in how the government monitors “terrorist” prisoners. It’s crucial to note, though, that an audit by the inspector general’s office revealed that the problem arose not from the inadequacy of the tools available to monitor terrorist communications, but from inconsistent implementation by untrained staff.

Those problems persist. Lectures, public websites and First Amendment activity by journalists and attorneys should not be the purview of the Counter-Terrorism Unit. And even if you think that it should be, and even if you think I am some kind of potential terrorist, this “intelligence briefing” is absolutely useless. Any intern could have created the same report using Google.

Think of it this way: Counter-terrorism officials had read the email, researched who named ‘Will’ spoke at the animal rights conference, figured out it was me, Googled my website, wrote about it in this report, did the same for Rachel Meeropol and other advocates, and then distributed this document to other prison officials who similarly wasted their time reading about the lawful actions of a journalist, an attorney, and others. Allocating government resources in this way places everyone at risk.

I have attempted to contact Joyce Lane-Lewis, who is listed as the author of the reports on Daniel McGowan, so I can talk to her about this. In the interest of saving taxpayer money, I hope the Counter-Terrorism Unit contacts me the next time they need this type of information: I would be happy to get that for them.

A U.S. District Court has thrown out the indictment of four animal rights activists who were charged with violating the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, because the government did not clearly explain what, exactly, the protesters did.

When Joseph Buddenberg, Maryam Khajavi, Nathan Pope and Adriana Stumpo were arrested in 2009, prosecutors said little other than that the group allegedly chalked slogans on the sidewalk, distributed fliers and attended protests. Later, when they were officially indicted, the government was still tight-lipped about how their non-violent, above-ground protests amounted to “terrorism.”

In response, the Center for Constitutional Rights and attorney Matthew Strugar led an effort to have the indictments dismissed. In short, they argued that the charges should be dropped because they seem to involve only protected First Amendment speech, but that in order to make that argument the defendants’ speech must be clearly identified.

Here’s an excerpt from Judge Ronald M. Whyte’s ruling:

In order for an indictment to fulfill its constitutional purposes, it must allege facts that sufficiently inform each defendant of what it is that he or she is alleged to have done that constitutes a crime. This is particularly important where the species of behavior in question spans a wide spectrum from criminal conduct to constitutionally protected political protest. While “true threats” enjoy no First Amendment protection, picketing and political protest are at the very core of what is protected by the First Amendment. Where the defendants’ conduct falls on this spectrum in this case will very likely ultimately be decided by a jury. Before this case proceeds to a jury, however, the defendants are entitled to a more specific indictment setting forth their conduct alleged to be criminal. [emphasis added]

As background, a fierce campaign has been being waged in California against animal research at the University of California system. There has been a wide range of both legal and illegal tactics. Illegal tactics have included the destruction of UC vans, and an incendiary device was left at the home of a UC researcher.

The FBI and local law enforcement haven’t been able to catch the people responsible, though. They’ve only cracked down on the above-ground activists, like the AETA 4, who protest and create fliers.

The previous version of the law was used to convict the SHAC 7 for running a controversial website that posted news of both legal and illegal actions. This case, the first use of the new Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, was clearly an attempt to use this sweeping legislation even more broadly against First Amendment activity. This ruling sternly rebukes the government’s attempt to take activists to trial for “terrorism” without even explaining what they have done.

To be clear, though, this case is not over. The government can still re-indict the defendants with an amended bill of particulars that clearly outlines their alleged actions.

This is a victory worth celebrating, and it should also be inspiration for renewed organizing. Corporations and the politicians who represent them have been pushing this “eco-terrorism” and “animal enterprise terrorism” legislation for years, and they will not sit quietly as the flagship case of their pet scare-mongering law is tossed aside.

If prosecutors choose to re-indict, it should be at their own peril; the animal rights and environmental movements must be ready to respond even more loudly, more forcefully, that activism is not terrorism.

Here’s a great, short video with Matthew Strugar explaining the case of the AETA 4, who are activists charged under the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act for protesting, chanting, and distributing fliers.

The video was created by the folks behind Bold Native, a new film that will be screened at the upcoming Let Live animal rights conference.

Tea Party poster.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I recently interviewed with Dylan Powell about the AETA 4, Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty, Obama, mainstream media, and DC hardcore. I think it turned out to be one of the most interesting radio discussions I’ve been part of, because Dylan is so well-versed on these issues and we had a great conversation trying to pull it all together. Please check it out on the Vegan Police Podcast. And please skip through the section that reveals how much of a nerd I am.

Four animal rights activists are facing charges under the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act for chanting, demonstrating with masks covering their faces, and chalking defamatory slogans on the sidewalk. If convicted, the “AETA 4,”—Joseph Buddenburg, Maryam Khajavi, Nathan Pope, and Adriana Stumpo—could be sentenced to 5-10 years in prison.

The AETA 4 case is a startling example of how federal terrorism laws are being used to create new crimes targeting political activists, and astronomically increase sentences for existing crimes. For instance, Marie Mason was sentenced to nearly 22 years in prison for setting fire to empty buildings and taking precautions to not harm anyone.

Meanwhile, during a Congressional hearing on the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, the Justice Department proclaimed “we are apolitical in this.” But this is anything but apolitical. Animal rights activists could receive 5-10 years in prison, as terrorists, for not harming anyone or attempting to harm anyone. Meanwhile, take a look at what some others are facing for much more serious crimes:

• Burning at a cross at the home of an African-American man, close to his home, while his family is inside: 3.5 years.
• Threatening president-elect Obama with statements including, “I’m going to assassinate the new president of the United States of America. PS you have 48 hours to stop it from happening”: four years probation.
• Setting fire to a hotel with people inside: 1 year.
• Police officer rapes a girl in juvenile custody: 8 months.
• Assaulting black men on election night because Obama was elected president: about 5 years.
• Enron exec guilty of $7 million in wire fraud and securities fraud: 16 months.
• Possessing child pornography: 4 years.
• Tying up a black student and taunting him with racial epithets as part of a high school graduation party: six months.
• Mailing anthrax threats to the IRS: one year.
• “Using the Internet to threaten to destroy buildings of the Federal Bureau of Investigation by fire or explosives”: one year.
• Cleveland Browns wide receiver Donte Stallworth kills a construction worker while driving drunk: 30 days.
• Threatening to bomb an Air Force base: one year.
• Drunken man drives over his brother during an argument: 1.5 years.
• Scheming to defraud an insurance company through arson: 2 years.
• Mailing anthrax threats to an assistant U.S. attorney: up to 5 years.
• Manufacturing and selling home-made explosive devices: 5 years probation
• Sending 65 anthrax hoax letters: four years.
• Dumping nearly 13 million gallons of untreated liquid waste: 15 months.
• Threatening to bomb the Oklahoma city federal building: up to 5 years.
• Setting a dog on fire and burning 50 percent of his body: 45 days.

According to the government, high sentences for animal rights activists are intended as a deterrent, they are intended to send a message.

What kind of message do you think this sends?

Note: Funds are needed for the AETA 4 legal defense. Please make a contribution. Go to Paypal.com and send a donation to support@aeta4.org. Or you can make a tax-deductible donation through the National Lawyers Guild Foundation. The mailing address is 132 Nassau Street, Suite 922, NY, NY 10039, please indicate AETA Defense Fund on your check.

“Animal Voices,” on CIUT 89.5 FM in Toronto, has uploaded their recent show on the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. We had a great conversation about the history of the law, recent arrests (the AETA 4), and the implications for animal rights activists, environmental activists, and everyone else.

Unravelling the Acronym: Will Potter Exposes the AETA (Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act)

In this interview, Will Potter, award-winning independent journalist and creator of GreenIsTheNewRed.com, demystifies the AETA (Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act) and discusses the implications of the act for advocates. Potter argues that the AETA is a significant threat not only to those who engage in illegal activities on behalf of animals, but also to aboveground activists and even to those outside of the movement. Tune in to hear about the meaning and troubling history of the law, its larger social and political context, and its particular effects on incarcerated activists.

Part I:

Part II:

Also be sure to check out the Animal Voices searchable archives, with nearly 300 shows.

I was on 91.7 KVRX FM in Austin discussing Communication Management Units and the far-reaching implications of the government labeling activists as “eco-terrorists.” You can listen to it on the program website, “On the Fringe.”

AETA 4 Benefit with Peter Young and Will Potter

Hey Portland: Another benefit for the AETA 4 when I’m in town. This one with former animal liberation prisoner Peter Young. Young was prosecuted using the original version of the Animal Enterprise Protection Act for releasing mink from fur farms. The recent arrests, under the new Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, are for largely First Amendment activity. We’ll be talking about the recent arrests and where this is all heading.

Liberty Hall
March 29th
speakers @ 630
Peter Young and Will Potter
Bands @ 8
Death A.D.
Unrestrained
Parasitic Skies

Sliding scale 5-15 dollars