Michele Basso labeled the activists who protested her cruel experiments as terrorists.

Basso testified about her firsthand experiences with “animal rights terrorism,” such as receiving unwanted magazine subscriptions, home demonstrations, and local activists campaigning to open a museum. She has never been the target of violence, and said of this campaigning: “…I can’t stress the critical impact that this has had on me and my ability to do my work.”

Well, it looks like animal activists were not nearly as great a threat to Basso’s career as Basso herself.

She was recently suspended from working with animals, a “rare move prompted by what officials called a ‘clear pattern’ of problems with animal welfare.” According to the Wisconsin State Journal:

University administrators say researcher Michele Basso has had a bumpy history, citing a lack of respect for veterinarians, incomplete record-keeping and instances where monkeys developed brain injuries…

It is unusual for the university to suspend a main researcher’s work with animals, and officials say they only do so when they perceive that the risks to animals outweigh the benefits to science and medicine…

In other words, university officials came to the same conclusion as the “terrorists,” that the results of Basso’s experiments were not worth the cruelty.

Examples like this illustrate the government’s backwards priorities. Rather than catering to special interest groups and labeling political activists as “terrorists,” perhaps lawmakers should be listening to, and acting on, their concerns.

As a follow up to David Pellow’s guest post, “My Student is a Sociologist, Not a Terrorist,” here is an update from his grad student facing terrorism charges, Scott DeMuth.

DeMuth has been indicted for conspiracy to commit “animal enterprise terrorism” in relation to the unsolved Animal Liberation Front raid at the University of Iowa. The government has argued that DeMuth is an anarchist, and “therefore, he is a domestic terrorist.”

This is an excerpt from a public statement by DeMuth:

…I believe I was targeted by this grand jury because of my involvement in doing prisoner support as a part of EWOK! (Earth Warriors are OK!). Further, as a part of my academic career, I have been involved in researching the animal rights and environmental movements and interviewing participants of those movements. The identity and contents of interviews are protected by confidentiality agreements, and I have an obligation to this confidentiality as outlined by the Institutional Review Board and American Sociological Association guidelines.

Because of the grand jury’s use in investigating social movements, I refused to cooperate and testify in the proceedings. Additionally, because grand jury proceedings are held in secret, there is no real way to verify if I had only given my name or if I had given away the identity and contents of each interview I have done. Therefore, if for no other reason, I believed that my participation would violate the trust and confidentiality of those who I have interviewed. I went to Davenport on November 17th, knowing that I could be jailed for contempt of court, and I was willing to deal with whatever legal consequences came with that decision.

As expected, I was jailed for contempt of court. However, two days later, I was unexpectedly charged with “conspiracy with unknown persons” under the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA). As evidenced by the vagueness of the charge and its filing a day before the statute of limitations expired, I believe that this charge is being used punitively against me because of my non-cooperation with the grand jury. Additionally, it seems that this charge is a last-ditch effort by the prosecution eager to get a conviction in a failed investigation…

Under the AETA (and its predecessor the AEPA), the ever-expanding definition of terrorism has included everything from the ALF to PETA, even going as far as charging people who chalk on sidewalks as “terrorists.” Regardless of the many laws that exist to charge illegal activities, laws such as the AETA are written specifically to charge political ideologies and those who support them.

But this expanding definition of terrorism does not just affect animal rights activists, to which my case should attest. The government makes broad and dangerous generalizations across the board, conflating ideologies from all sides of the political spectrum with terrorism (e.g. anti-abortion activists, gun-rights advocates, environmentalists, and anarchists). Not only does the government target political activity, but it also uses the guise of the “war on terror” to target entire communities based on religion, ethnicity, national origin, and immigrant status. We must ask ourselves, “Who will be next?”

It is not just animal rights activists and anarchists who have a stake in this case, in the abolition of the AETA, and in the overall “terrorizing” of political dissent, but everyone who lives within America, everyone who values our inalienable rights and liberties, and everyone who seeks a better way of living than the one we have been given.

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.”

We’ve recently learned that Burger King has been spying on human rights activists, and the FBI would like to be spying on vegan potlucks. Not to be outdone, it looks like the Society of Toxicology commissioned a “threat analysis” to try to get smart about, among other things, who activists are dating.

The organization held its annual meeting and “ToxExpo” in Seattle, WA, in March. Undoubtedly, a wild and exciting time was had by all. Leading up to the event, though, organizers were concerned about security: not security in terms of toxic-groupies swarming the stage, or security in terms of people trying to steal toxic chemicals, but security against activists holding protests.

Exhibitors included Primate Products Inc., Harlan and Ridglan Farms (two corporations that breed and sell Beagles for experimentation) and, perhaps the most notorious corporation of the bunch, Huntingdon Life Sciences. Huntingdon Life Sciences paid the society $10,000 to be a “diamond” sponsor of the event (a nice chunk of change for a corporation that has been brought near bankruptcy multiple times by activists). That put conference organizers in a bit of a pickle, though, because Huntingdon Life Sciences has been the target of international protests for years, and attracts rowdy protests anywhere executives appear. So, the Society of Toxicology paid a private firm, Information Network Associates, to create a threat analysis and intelligence briefing on pesky activists.

Part of that “preparation and risk mitigation” included a section in the threat analysis called “Activists of Interest in the Seattle-Area [sic]“:

Jennifer Kaplan:
Kaplan is believed to be attending the University of Washington School of Law, where she currently serves as the President of the Student Animal Legal Defense Fund…She currently maintains a large network of associates dedicated to animal rights and environmental conservation…

I don’t quite understand how someone “is believed” to be a law student. From my recent speaking event at University of Washington, though, I can verify that she is indeed a law student, and she in fact “maintains a large network of associates.” (My sleuthing also uncovered that these associates have an affinity for Mighty O donuts–don’t worry, INA, that tip is free, on me).

[another individual] and Kaplan are currently romantically involved…[he] has a doctorate’s [sic] in computer sciences [sic].

BUSTED! Corporations may not be able to stop these activists, but they can totally block their game and expose their nerdiness (sorry, sir).

Peter Young
Alleged to have attended University of Washington…

Alleged? Was he not found guilty?

And on and on it goes. (You can download the entire INA threat analysis here). Disturbingly, the overwhelming focus of the threat analysis is on mainstream, aboveground organizations and activists.

For instance, INA reports that the Northwest Animal Rights Network does not conduct “direct action attacks or other illegal activities,” but “it is possible that there is cross-over between the membership of NARN with more radical organizations.” The threat analysis also reports that the 2007 animal rights conference included workshops on the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. (You can listen to those here and here and here. Again, no charge INA, I’m feeling a bit generous. Feel free to use it, but just provide a link to GreenIsTheNewRed.com).

To be fair, INA acknowledges that investigators had some difficulty spying on activists and activist groups. Activist “security culture” (read: knowing your rights) made their job difficult.

The bottom line for the Society of Toxicologists:

“…there is a distinct possibility that animal rights activists will use this conference as an opportunity to stage demonstrations or protests, distribute literature, and otherwise promote their animal rights agenda. Proper preparation and risk mitigation should be observed to mediate the disruption that may be caused by activists.”

“The threat level associated with this event,” INA reports, “is considered MODERATE.”

[Thanks to Rick at Primate Freedom for the heads up on this.]

In light of the recent legislation pending in California that would prohibit the publication of public information on websites–but only websites run by animal rights activists–I have a modest proposal that I think will go a long way to making the country even safer:

An amendment to the Animal Enterprise Protection Act, AB2296

Whereas the AB 2296 states that “no person, business, or association shall knowingly publicly post or publicly display on the Internet a home address, home telephone number, or image of any employee of an animal enterprise or other individuals residing at the same home address of the employee of an animal enterprise.”

Whereas the bill specifically notes, “‘Publicly post’ or ‘publicly display’ means to intentionally communicate or otherwise make available to the general public.”

Whereas the bill spells out harsh penalties for animal rights activists who republish publicly-available information.

Whereas “eco-terrorism” is the number one domestic terrorism threat, and there should be no limit to the roll back of civil liberties in the name of fighting the War on Terrorism.

Whereas the great state of Oregon has gone so far as to argue that state laws, although public information, can’t be republished.

Be it resolved that animal rights activists are no longer allowed to own the Yellow Pages, or any variation thereof.

And further, be it resolved that animal rights activists are not allowed to use the World Wide Interweb, also known as a series of tubes, including but not limited to the Intertron search utility known as “Google,” without the supervision of law enforcement or a court-appointed corporate surrogate.

Check out this Q/A at Wired with Frankie Trull of the National Association for Biomedical Research:

I’ve read that the A.E.T.A. poses a threat to civil liberties. On one website I read that “Anyone engaging in non-violent civil disobedience causing at least $10,000 profit loss, will be considered a terrorist.”

They refuse to actually read the law. All First Amendment activities are specifically excluded from the law.

The beauty of the law, from legal standpoint, is that it was drafted and redrafted to take into consideration the sort of broad landscape of political concern about this. It was supported by major champions of First Amendment protected activities, like the chairman of Subcommittee on Crime in the House, Bobby Scott, and a number of more conservative members on the other side of the aisle. It was signed off by the ACLU. Only those who didn’t want to see the bill passed said it would infringe on First Amendment freedoms.”

A few quick points, here:

1. If the law had such broad support, why was it rushed through the House with only six members of Congress in the room, as part of an obscure procedure called suspension of the rules?
2. Non-violent civil disobedience isn’t protected by the First Amendment (despite her claims in this Q/A). But does that mean it should be wrapped up in “terrorism” legislation?
3. Furthermore, spraypainting and breaking windows is certainly not First Amendment activity, and it is certainly illegal, but can we use the same word to describe petty vandalism that we use to describe flying planes into buildings?

Beyond all of that, though, this Q/A really misses the entire point of AETA, and the entire Green Scare, much like the other AETA misinformation campaigns. This isn’t about outlawing leafletting or protesting, and to get into a debate about that truly misses the big picture: this legislation is not about banning First Amendment activity, it is about chilling First Amendment activity, and making everyday folks afraid of using their rights.

Look at the image, above, on the flier that NABR distributed at a recent conference. Groups like NABR repeatedly go out of their way to market this fear of animal rights and environmental activists as “terrorists,” to make everyone look over their shoulders for the next “terrorist” threat. They’re thriving on this fear.

Americans for Medical Progress is an industry group behind a lot of the scare-mongering and labeling activists as “terrorists.” How flattering to be listed in their newsletter. I’m looking forward to the Yale Law School event this weekend:

ACTIVISTS’ CALENDAR

AMP is continuously monitoring activists’ planning. We are in touch with
targeted institutions as warranted. If you have any concerns, feel free
to contact us at AMP@amprogress.org…

REBELLIOUS LAWYERING CONFERENCE – February 23-25 – New Haven, CT
Lauren Regan of the Civil Liberties Defense Center and activist blogger
Will Potter lead a panel on the “Green Scare.”