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.

Hugh Farrell and Gina “Tiga” Wertz have their first court date on July 14th: they’ve been charged with racketeering-–charges originally intended to target the mob–-for allegedly “conspiring” to engage in tree sits, participate in non-violent civil disobedience, and make an inflammatory blog post against the I-69 NAFTA superhighway.

When I reported on their arrest, though, I didn’t catch an interesting bit of information buried in the government’s motion for $20,000 cash bond. Mind you, these activists are not accused of any property destruction or violence, they’re accused of “conspiracy.” So how did the government attempt to justify the high cash bond?

According to Farrell’s motion for bond:

“The defendant has been observed advocating literature and materials which advocate anarchy, property destruction and violence, including ‘Ecodefense: A Field Guide to Monkeywrenching’ or ‘Recipes for Disaster: An Anarchist Cookbook.’”

In many ways, this is nothing new: the demonization of anarchists has existed as long as the term itself. But this is dangerous territory for a few reasons:

• It reflects more wasted resources on surveillance of First Amendment activity. Why was Farrell being “observed” by the law enforcement while allegedly “advocating literature” in the first place?
• It is intended to punish people for their political beliefs. Even if it is true that Farrell was observed advocating literature and that the literature advocated “anarchy,” how does this to relate to whether or not he’ll show up for his court date (which is what bail is all about)?
• Criminalizing books has no place in a democracy. Make no mistake, that’s what this is about: criminalizing dissent. The government isn’t burning the books, and it isn’t saying it is illegal to own them, but prosecutors are saying that if you *do* own them or “advocate” them it reflects negatively on your character.

  In that case, I’m guilty as well (and I’m sure I’m in good company with many of you). I own both of these books, and they are both available in countless bookstores and on Amazon.com. “Ecodefense” was a pivotal book in the history of the environmental movement, and includes an introduction by Ed Abbey. “Recipes for Disaster,” published by CrimethInc., isn’t the “anarchist cookbook,” you might expect: It has sections on coalition building and mental health.

As with so many of the cases I write about on this site, this isn’t about threats to public safety, it isn’t about property destruction, it’s about demonizing people because of their political beliefs. Well, in this case, it’s not even about that: It’s about demonizing people because of their books.

[The fact that prosecutors see these books as a threat is all the more reason to get yourself a copy or two. If you order them, please do so through the GreenIsTheNewRed.com Amazon account, below, and support this site at the same time! ]

Two environmental activists in Bloomington, Ind., have been charged with racketeering–charges originally intended to target the mob–for allegedly “conspiring” to engage in tree sits, participate in non-violent civil disobedience, and make an inflammatory blog post.

Hugh Farrell and Gina “Tiga” Wertz are organizers in the campaign to halt expansion of the I-69 NAFTA superhighway. They were arrested on Friday, April 24th, and they’re each facing five charges that carry a maximum of eight years in prison.

Four of the charges are misdemeanors for “intimidation” and “conversion” (treating someone else’s property as your own). All four misdemeanors are related to a civil disobedience stunt where some activists removed the furniture from an I-69 project office, occupied the space, and posted an eviction notice. The government says the civil disobedience stunt was intended to place Ronnie Wilson in fear, and subject him to “contempt or ridicule.”

The felony charge is for corrupt business influence, or racketeering. The government isn’t arguing that these activists were actually engaged in racketeering, but that they are part of Roadblock EarthFirst (described as a criminal enterprise) and “conspired” to do so. According to their arrest warrants, Farrell and Wertz:

• “Conspired” to remove office furniture from I-69 project offices as part of eviction notice stunts.
• “Conspired” to post an “internet blog on two publicly accessed website stating ‘you will suffer the consequences’ and ‘perhaps we’ll go to your homes, children’s daycare, churches or wherever else you happen to turn your back.” The blog posts were made after the violent removal of activists from a tree sit.
• “Conspired” to commit “theft” when six individuals blocked the entrance to Gohmann Asphalt and Construction Company using non-violent civil disobedience and caused a loss of profits.
• “Conspired” to commit “theft” by “taking unauthorized control of trees” and “depriving lawful owners of use and/or value of the said trees.” (Note: the last two bullets are only in Wertz’s arrest warrant.)

Racketeering laws are intended to combat organized crime, such as the mafia, and include crimes like extortion, bribery and money laundering. Although ambitious prosecutors have tried to use the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) to target anti-abortion activists, animal rights activists, and the Hells Angels, the purpose of the law has always been to go after illegal business activity.

But these activists, and others like them, are not protesting this superhighway to make money. They’re not doing it for personal gain. Halting this environmental destruction will not financially benefit them in any way.

Then why use mob laws against them? Because of their beliefs.

Tree sits, office takeovers and road blockades are against the law, and the government has the tools and resources to prosecute those crimes.

But because of the politics of the alleged crimes, prosecutors are reaching for more. Civil disobedience has become “theft.” Tree sits have become “unauthorized control of trees.” These trumped-up charges are a way to take what are, at the very worst, misdemeanor crimes and turn them into federal crimes. It’s an attack on individuals perceived as being leaders in the movement for the sole purpose of stamping out dissent.

A support website for Hugh Farrell and Gina “Tiga” Wertz has been set up at http://mostlyeverything.net.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eric McDavid was sentenced to nearly 20 years in prison on Thursday, as a “terrorist,” for conspiring to sabotage federal facilities in the name of the environment.

Nearly 20 years.

That number is shocking enough, considering that the average sentence for violent offenders, in 2004, was about 7.6 years.

That number is shocking enough, considering that Jeff “Free” Luers was sentenced to 22 years and 8 months for sabotaging SUVs (not “conspiring” to do so, like McDavid, but actually doing it)—a sentence that made international headlines and was finally reduced.

And that number is shocking enough, considering that his codefendants will likely receive only five years in prison in exchange for becoming government informants.

But it is even more surprising in light of the disturbing chain of events that led to McDavid’s conviction, including an FBI operative who provided the group with bomb-making recipes; at times financed their transportation, food and housing; strung along McDavid, who had the hopes of a romantic relationship; and poked and prodded the group into action.

Mark Reichel, McDavid’s attorney, said:

“There has never been a case in America that has involved this much entrapment, this much pushing by an informant, by the U.S. government and by the FBI behind it.”

But, as Judge England said in justification of applying the “terrorism enhancement”:

“It’s a new world since Sept. 11, 2001.”

It is indeed a new world. One where fears of “terrorism” are used to justify sweeping police powers, government spying and entrapment. Perhaps most damaging of all is that the press has largely swallowed the “War on Terrorism” rhetoric, labeling activists as “eco-terrorists” at every turn, often long before they even have a foot in the courtroom.

The U.S. Attorney’s office wasted no time in patting themselves on the back for landing such a hefty sentence for a “terrorist,” issuing a press release headlined, “ECO-TERRORIST GIVEN NEARLY TWENTY YEARS IN PRISON.” The release, of course, doesn’t mention anything about “Anna,” the FBI operative. Instead, it only references a “confidential source,” in passing.

United States Attorney Scott said:

“Today’s severe punishment of nearly 20 years in federal prison should serve as a cautionary tale to those who would conspire to commit life-threatening acts in the name of their extremist views.”

A former juror in the case tells of a much different “cautionary tale.” One of the dangers of unchecked police powers and kangaroo courts.

In a rare declaration to the court, made even more rare by its candor and unrestrained outrage, Diane Bennett described how she and other jurors were mislead.

During deliberations, we asked the court to please clarify for the jury the issue of whether Anna was a government agent, and if so, when did she become one… The written answer was from the court and stated “no” that she was not a government agent, yet we were told orally that she was. With the written response of “no,” and after reading the other written responses from the court, we ended our consideration of the issue of entrapment, the vote was 7-5 to consider the entrapment issue as a defense. Once the written response advised Anna was not a government agent, we then changed to a guilty verdict soon thereafter.

In other words, in case this is all getting confusing, prosecutors needed to show that McDavid conspired with at least one other person to destroy these government facilities. His codefendants, Jenson and Weiner, testified that there was no conspiracy among the three of them to carry out the illegal actions. That left just McDavid and “Anna,” a paid FBI operative. Yet jurors were led to believe that “Anna” wasn’t a government agent, and so they convicted him.

Bennett goes on to call the FBI an “embarrassment”:

…specifically by allowing this case to develop the way it did using Anna and providing all of the essential tools for the group; the cabin, the money, the idea, the books, everything, and by letting Anna “string Eric along” when she should have terminated the relationship clearly with him.

Then again, as Judge England said, “It’s a new world since Sept. 11, 2001.”