The Counter-Terrorism Unit, a division of the Bureau of Prisons, is listing prisoners who are environmentalists and animal rights activists alongside the Army of God and Aryan Nations.

The animal rights and environmental movements in the United States have never harmed a single human being, according to the FBI and DHS, but new internal documents show that prison officials classify these activists as “domestic terrorists” along with much more dangerous prisoners.

Earlier this week I reported on the internal intelligence documents that are distributed by the Counter-Terrorism Unit to prison officials and law enforcement. The unit monitors the letters, visits and phone calls of “terrorist prisoners” to identify any potential threats.

For example, some of the “domestic terrorists” monitored include:

• Clayton Lee Waagner, a member of the Army of God who plotted to murder abortion clinic employees. He was found guilty of more than fifty federal charges including threatening to use a weapon of mass destruction.
• Buford Furrow, a member of the Aryan Nations convicted for the shooting at the Los Angeles Jewish Community Center that injured three children and killed one person.

The Counter-Terrorism Unit also lists a section for “Domestic Terrorism – Environmental Extremism.” The activists listed are much different from the Waagners and Furrows of the world:

• Daniel McGowan, convicted for his role in two arsons targeting genetic engineering and the logging of old-growth forests.
• The SHAC 7, a group of animal right activists convicted of “conspiracy to commit animal enterprise terrorism” for running a website that listed personal information about corporate executives, and supported property destruction.

The documents also include a section titled “Upcoming Domestic Terrorist Releases,” which list prisoners, their release dates, and “association.” For animal rights and environmental activists, the “associations” are often incorrect. For example: members of the SHAC 7  are sometimes listed as “ALF/ELF” (for Animal Liberation Front and Earth Liberation Front) even though they have never been accused of a crime by those groups. The terrorist label is applied recklessly based loosely on perceived political beliefs.

These internal documents make clear that the labeling of activists as “eco-terrorists” is much more than public relations ploy by corporations and the politicians who represent them. The “number one domestic terrorism threat” rhetoric has worked its way into the top levels of government, and has saturated the entire criminal justice system.

Activists are being labeled “eco-terrorists” before they even set foot in a court room and, if convicted, that label follows them into the prison system where it legally redefines them. They can end up in secretive political prisons called Communications Management Units. And even if they don’t, law enforcement and prison officials are receiving bulletins like these, which serve to only further instill fear.

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.

After filing a Freedom of Information Act request with the Richmond Police Department for police training documents, Mo Karn received much more than expected in return: homeland security and crowd control guides that show how the police target protests.

The police filed for an emergency court order yesterday to prohibit Karn from publicizing any of the documents, which should never have been released. The cops’ reasoning? “Defendant Mo Karn is a known and admitted anarchist.”

The documents, however, have already been published online. And buried in the training guides are insights into three trends in law enforcement that have been occurring not just in Virginia, but nationally: the demonization of protest, the militarization of police, and turning local cops into “terrorism” officials.

The Demonization of Protest

The Richmond Police Department’s Emergency Operations Plan
includes a section on “civil disturbances.” While this sounds innocuous, “civil disturbances” are defined so broadly as to include what the police call “dissident gatherings.”

“The City of Richmond is a target rich environment” for antiwar protesters, the document says. And it warns that police and homeland security have reason to be increasingly concerned:

“Current training and intelligence reveals that protestors are becoming more proficient in the methods of assembly.”

Militarization of Local Police

Such a depiction of “assembly” (a First Amendment right) as a “disturbance” and a threat is all the more troubling when put in the context of the other police department guides. Richmond’s Crowd Management Operating Manual is for the police unit assigned to large protests (no experience required). Among the tools that the crowd management team are issued include riot shields, chemical agents, cut tools, helmets, body armor, cameras, video cameras, batons, gas masks, and a “mass arrest kit.”

Deputizing Local Cops as Counter-terrorism Officials

This militarization of local police is accompanied by another trend in law enforcement since September 11th: deputizing local cops to becoming “homeland security” and counter-terrorism officials. According to the Homeland Security Criminal Intelligence Unit Operating Manual, “The Richmond Police Department is under contract with the FBI to provide assistance through staffing, intelligence and equipment.” And one member of the homeland security unit is assigned to the Joint Terrorism Task Force.

The result? Documents like the Virginia Terrorism Threat Assessment. The 2009 document was created by the Virginia Fusion Center, of which the Richmond Police Department is part. Fusion centers are ostensibly designed to gather terrorism intelligence from multiple police agencies, and make us safer. In practice, they routinely label activists as “terrorists.” Among the “terrorist threats” identified in Virginia were animal rights activists, environmental activists, and anarchists.

According to the threat assessment, “The Virginia Federation of Anarchists has held two conferences in Richmond in November 2007 and January 2008″ and “Anarchist protesters at the International Monetary Fund in Washington, D.C. spilled over into Prince William County.”

Karn, meanwhile, wears her scarlet circle ‘A’ with pride, and has no problem being labeled an anarchist. The FOIA was submitted by the Wingnut Collective, a Richmond anarchist group, as part of their police accountability project.

In his court motion warning that Karn is an “anarchist,” Richmond’s Deputy Assistant Attorney Brian Telfair doesn’t allege the possibility of any violence or property destruction. Instead, he cites a blog post by Karn about acquiring government information through legal requests. The title? “FOIA Rocks!”

The FBI and a previously-unknown informant in the animal rights movement discussed, among other topics, how to disrupt political activism, according to FBI documents. The topics discussed echo COINTELPRO-era tactics of the 1960s, including the possibility of discrediting activists through planting rumors.

The FBI file is dated May 12, 2005, by the FBI’s Johnson City Resident Agency, which is part of the Knoxville  field office. It is based on conversations between an FBI agent and “Source,” who is only identified as someone who was involved in “direct actions” and is willing to share information with the government in exchange for immunity from prosecution.

The result is an FBI agent’s notes that offer a rare glimpse of how the government is targeting its “number one domestic terrorism threat.”

Spreading Rumors

Of particular interest to the FBI agent was how the animal rights movement has responded to the government’s use of informants. I have reported here previously about the FBI infiltrating vegan potlucks, and much more serious cases involving an informant named “Anna,” Brandon Darby, and Jacob Ferguson, among others.

These high-profile cases have made activists fearful of FBI spying. According to the FBI agents’ notes, the informant reported that fear alone of such infiltration can be enough to sabotage political activity:

“The Animal Rights Movement does little research on newcomers into the movement and basically goes with its gut instinct as to whether a person is an informant or not. Organizers of the Animal Rights Movement can be discredited and removed from the scene by planting rumors that they are plants and/or informants.” [emphasis added]

The potential for such tactics appears to be validated in the mind of the FBI agent, who notes that there is “no risk of violence to these persons about whom these false rumors may be started as most of the animal rights people are also strict advocates of nonviolence against human persons.”

Weak Links in Security Culture

A common term in activist circles is “security culture,” which means being aware of government surveillance and taking reasonable steps to protect your privacy, and the privacy of others. One aspect of security culture, for instance, includes email encryption via PGP.

Activists who have had homes raided by the FBI or been harassed through grand jury witch hunts have learned the importance of protecting their privacy, and making it less easy for the FBI to snoop into their political activity. “Security culture” has been cited in court cases and Congressional hearings as a source of frustration for FBI agents.

In this document, the FBI agent notes “the day of those strict rules may be passing. Source believes that many of the younger activists do not subscribe to these strict requirements as they are extremely inconvenient.”

A Century of Similar Efforts

This FBI document was provided to me by Ryan Shapiro, who is a PhD candidate at MIT. Shapiro, a historian of science, is researching conflicts over animal experimentation and national security. This document surfaced in one of his Freedom of Information Act requests.

Shapiro’s research is a ground-breaking investigation of early campaigns to exploit national security fears in order to  fight animal rights activists. As he told me:

“Politicians, industry, and law enforcement have long employed the rhetoric and apparatus of national security to counter animal advocacy. Today’s Green Scare actually stands on the shoulders of a century of similar efforts to marginalize animal protectionists as threats to American security.”

COINTELPRO Tactics Resurface

Throughout U.S. history, there have been government campaigns against progressive social movements. This document reveals a continuation of that trend, not only in terms of the ideological motivations, but in terms of the specific tactics used by law enforcement.

One of the most notorious eras of FBI spying in recent memory was dubbed COINTELPRO. According to FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, COINTELPRO aimed to “expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit, or otherwise neutralize” radical social movements in the 1960s, using any means at their disposal.

The tactics discussed in this document, including the details about spying, informants, and rumor-spreading, are direct parallels to those used in COINTELPRO. The Church Committee hearings in the 1970s ostensibly put an end to those operations, reining in rogue police operations. This is yet another example of how the COINTELPRO legacy has been institutionalized, and continues to endure.

Manufacturing the Threat

The FBI agent’s notes, no matter how disturbing, are actually quite astute throughout the document. That is, except for a final section on the potential threat posed by animal rights activists:

“The Animal Rights Movement activists will not resort to violence as a source of funding. By that, source means that activists will not become bank robbers or armed robbers and commit crimes of that nature in order to fund their movement.”

To anyone familiar with the animal rights movement (such as the informant), the thought of this is quite odd. Animal activists have not robbed banks. They have not taken up arms. Judging by the structure of the document, though, and the accompanying material, it is clear that these transcribed comments were the informant’s response to direct questions by the FBI agent.

In other words, the FBI agent was seriously questioning the informant about the feasibility of animal rights activists and “eco-terrorists” building a true guerilla-style revolutionary movement.

In many ways, this is the most revealing segment of the entire file. The animal rights movement has never injured a single human being in the name of protecting animals, let alone in the name of money. For the FBI to entertain the possibility, and press an informant for further information, is another reflection of how much the bureau has lost touch with reality.

As I have discussed on this website at length, the creation of animal rights and environmental activists as the “number one domestic terrorism threat” has been a coordinated campaign by corporations and the politicians who represent them. As we see here, the rhetoric has taken on a life of its own; even the most far-fetched ploys are discussed straight-faced, business as usual, and the scare-mongering has been institutionalized into national security operations.

Screenshot of the Animal Enterprise Protection Coalition's Congressional Scorecard

Internal lobbying documents produced by an industry front group, revealed here for the first time, show how and why corporations snuck the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act through Congress, with little discussion or debate.

On the surface, it might appear as if this “eco-terrorism” law–which labels non-violent civil disobedience and harming corporate profits as “terrorism”–passed Congress with substantial support: It passed the Senate by unanimous consent, and it passed the House on a voice vote.

But an anonymous source has provided me with some of the lobbying documents of the Animal Enterprise Protection Coalition, an industry front group that urged passage of the law. [The previous post in this series has more on the coalition, and how they kept corporate members "on message" with their terrorist scare-mongering. UPDATE: The AEPC website was taken down after the first post, and the link isn't working].

These documents paint a very different picture of the law’s passage, and show that supporters were very well aware of a lack of Congressional support for their bill.

Not Enough Votes

These are spreadsheets routinely used by non-profits, corporations and other advocacy groups to track how they fare on legislation. The coalition’s scorecards have rows for every member of Congress, and columns for their support of the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act: “Yes,” “Leaning Yes,” Leaning No,” and “No.”

So how many members of Congress did the Animal Enterprise Protection Coalition believe it had on its side?

• According to the AEPC’s House scorecard, of the 435 members of the House: 27. That’s 6.2 % of the vote.
• According to AEPC’s Senate scorecard, of 100 members of the Senate: 4. That’s 4 % of the vote.

These should be treated very conservatively, of course. For one thing, most of the rows and columns are blank, and only solid “yes” votes are marked. Lobbyists might have been erring on the side of caution, which is normal, and only marking the most solid votes. Also, these are dated 9/30/06: the law had already passed the Senate, but it had not yet passed the House, so there’s a slim chance more votes might have been added in the next few days.

That being said: 4 Senators and 27 Representatives. Even with scare-mongering ads in Capitol Hill publications like the one featured above, they still didn’t have the votes they needed. With those numbers, this legislation would crash and burn on the House or Senate floor. Corporations and industry groups needed another plan.

Backdoor Schemes

Prospects for this legislation looked even more grim when the November, 2006 elections marked a shift to Democratic control of Congress. Even with so few supporters, it was the best chance these groups had in years to make sweeping expansions to “terrorism” laws. Without the votes, they needed a backdoor plan.

So in the Senate, the bill was rushed through in the middle of the night, with no discussion or debate. It passed by “unanimous consent.”

In the House, the bill was snuck through on the very first day back from Congressional recess. As members of Congress were on the National Mall breaking ground on the new MLK memorial, some lawmakers were labeling King’s tactics as “terrorism.” The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act was passed as part of the suspension calendar, which is a procedure used to expeditiously deal with non-controversial legislation.

Six members of Congress were in the room. Only one spoke up against the legislation, Rep. Dennis Kucinich. However, Kucinich did not call for a roll call vote, a move that would have shown that there were only a handful of lawmakers in the room and stopped the passage of the bill.

That week, the procedure was also used to honor the St. Louis Cardinals for winning the World Series.

Stay tuned for part three in the series: “Mission Accomplished”? A closer look at how underground groups have responded to the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act.

Animal Enterprise Protection Coalition Internal Website

The law marked a radical expansion of the “War on Terrorism,” and the most ambitious campaign yet by industry groups, corporations, and the politicians that represent them to demonize animal rights and environmental activists as “eco-terrorists.” Most people have never even heard of the law… including most members of Congress.

So how did they do it?

Here, for the first time, are some of the internal documents outlining how corporations and industry groups planned to label activists as “eco-terrorists.” I have obtained them from a source who wishes to remain anonymous.

They’re the creation of the Animal Enterprise Protection Coalition, a network formed for the sole purpose of passing this “eco-terrorism” legislation. Members include corporate powerhouses like Pfizer, Wyeth, GlaxoSmithKline, and industry groups like the Fur Commission and National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. The coalition was put together by the National Association for Biomedical Research, an industry group that has one of the most outspoken proponents of the “Green Scare.” In short, this coalition is a front group comprised of other front groups.

Here is a screenshot from inside the “members only” website. [Note how "Will Potter's Blog" is listed under the opposition. I guess I should be honored, right?]

The coalition supplied its members with talking points, fact sheets, letters to Congress, news releases and more to help keep them on message when labeling activists as terrorists.

Misleading Members of Congress

A good example of the misinformation tactics used by the coalition is in their sample letter to members of Congress.

It states that the Justice Department says animal rights activists have “recognized limits and ambiguities in the [current] statute and have tailored their campaign to exploit them.”

In the very next sentence, though, it states that “Recently, six SHAC members were convicted by a federal jury in Trenton, New Jersey on telephone harassment, interstate stalking, and conspiracy.”

What these documents don’t mention is that the SHAC members were convicted using the ORIGINAL version of the law, the Animal Enterprise Protection Act. So, in other words, if you think this law should be used to go after anti-apartheid style campaigns against animal industries, and if you think this law should be used to target those activists as “terrorists”… the government was already doing that successfully.

These groups, though, misled lawmakers because they wanted more.

Scare-Mongering PR Campaigns

A key component of this “eco-terrorist” smear campaign has been working that T-word into the media, and the Animal Enterprise Protection Coalition clearly understood this.

For instance, the template news release of the coalition says animal rights activists are the “largest domestic terror threat,” and provides this sample language:

“For decades, employees of medical research institutions, and their families, have been ruthlessly targeted by extremist organizations.”

Makes it sound like they’re murdering people, doesn’t it? Or at least causing bodily harm? But that has never happened: a point intentionally ignored by supporters of this new terrorism law.

Terrorism Talking Points

The talking points for corporate members include a number of inaccuracies and deceptions used instill fear of this “terrorism” threat.

One point, in particular, is especially indicative of their tactics:

“In the past 10 years, the annual number of illegal incidents involving animal rights extremists in the U.S. has dramatically increased over 10-fold, or to over 1000%.”

What the talking points don’t mention, of course, is that this is based on numbers from the Foundation for Biomedical Research, the creator of the front group pushing this legislation. Their “Illegal Incidents Report” is full of colorful charts and graphs illustrating this trend. But if you dig deeper, and take a look at the spreadsheet with the data they used for this report, it simply doesn’t hold water.

For instance, the data includes “illegal incidents” in the UK, New Zealand, and even Russia (“Activists opened the cages of a bird research lab at Moscow State University”).

And some of the “illegal incidents” listed aren’t even crimes. My favorite is “Activists prank called directors of a client of HLS.”

What do prank calls and stolen birds in Russia have to do with “terrorism” legislation in the United States?

By Their Own Admission

It is interesting to see how these groups describe animal and environmental activists in their own words. Some of their talking points will probably be seen as badges of honor for activists.

“These tactics have been very successful,” the document says, in “damaging the financial footing of corporations involved in animal enterprise.”

Stay tuned for part two in the series: New documents show industry groups understood they didn’t have enough votes for the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, so they tried to sneak it through Congress.

State Department PowerPoint on Animal Rights Activism

For years, the government has relentlessly pushed to label animal rights and environmental activists as “eco-terrorists” and domestic terrorists. The FBI even labels these groups the “number one domestic terrorism threat.” But this State Department PowerPoint puts the “Green Scare,” as many activists are calling it, in much different perspective.

It spells out, with startling candor, that animal rights and environmental activists are less a threat to national security than to corporate financial security. And it shows that the targets of this “War on Terrorism” aren’t just people burning SUVs: the targets are people using their First Amendment rights.

It’s a harrowing glimpse at what this country has become: the dissolution of all lines between corporate interests and government interests, between “terrorism” and free—albeit controversial—speech.

The presentation, “Animal Rights Extremists: Targets, Tactics Business Response & Countermeasures,” is by the Overseas Security Advisory Council, a division of the U.S. State Department. It was leaked to me by someone who attended the briefing, and I have made it available for download at GreenIsTheNewRed.com.

The notes section of the PowerPoint shows the comments of State Department officials, including a listing of illegal activist tactics by groups like the Animal Liberation Front, from arson to the beheading of a snowman (seriously). [If that seems unbelievable, check out the memo from DHS about “eco-terrorism” like tying up company phone lines.]

But what’s most disturbing is how this presentation on “extremism” and “eco-terrorism” includes so much First Amendment activity. The first slide on “major tactics” lists four “extremism” examples: one has only happened in the UK (“physical assaults”) and the other three are legal (posting personal information, videotaping, and demonstrations at executives’ homes).

The State Department admits as much, noting that activists “push the envelope right up to the line where another step would mean they are breaking the law.” In other words, most of these “terrorists” aren’t committing any crimes.

But that hasn’t stopped the government from surveilling, harassing and demonizing legal activists. In fact, this State Department briefing includes a flier for the Animal Rights 2006 National Conference, a mainstream event with hundreds of attendees where I spoke about the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. This year, among the “terrorists” in attendance was Heather Mills.

“Although many legitimate activists attend these events,” the presentation notes, “the conference holds workshops on successful tactics used against your companies…”

So what gives? Why are these activists such a threat?

The first reason: money. These activists are directly targeting corporate profits. “Although incidents related to terrorism are most likely to make the front page news, Animal Rights Extremism is what’s most likely to affect your day-to-day business operations…”

These activists don’t just want reforms, they want to force corporations like Huntingdon Life Sciences out of business. And they’re “calculating, persistent and often effective.”

The second reason: activists aren’t afraid. Despite the “eco-terrorism” rhetoric, despite the FBI attempting to infiltrate vegan potlucks, despite Joint Terrorism Task Forces arresting activists for wearing masks, and on and on and on, activists aren’t backing down and they aren’t caving in to fear. That, after all, is the entire point of all the “eco-terrorism” scare-mongering: to instill fear in everyday people and make them afraid of using their rights. If this chilling effect doesn’t occur, well, the government and corporations have quite a problem on their hands.

“Never confront the protesters,” the State Department warns corporations. “These individuals are clever. Most of them know what their rights are…”

That, it seems, is the greatest threat of all.

What do you think? Are you surprised by this, or should it be expected? How should people respond? Leave a comment…

The Department of Homeland Security distributed a bulletin on Thursday to help corporations fight “eco-terrorism” like “flyer distribution,” “graffiti,” and “tying up company phone lines.”

Go ahead and laugh, but it gets worse. There are two things in this bulletin that are dead serious:

1. DHS admits it has “no specific, credible information at this time suggesting animal rights extremists and eco-terrorists are planning to target known corporations.”

2. In addition to “organizing protests” and “inundating computers with e-mails,” DHS later notes other tactics like verbal harassment and vandalism. But NOWHERE in the bulletin is the word “violence” used.

So why waste taxpayer money, and valuable homeland security resources, preparing and distributing this bulletin when there is no “credible information,” and no fear of violence? Money.

Animal rights activists and environmentalists are succeeding where so many consumer boycotts, petitions and other status quo acts of protest have miserably failed: they’re hurting corporate profits.

Corporations are scared, and they’re pressuring the administration and law enforcement to step in. This bulletin is one part of the government’s corporate aid.

DHS admits as much. The very first line of the bulletin reads:

“Attacks against corporations by animal rights extremists and eco-terrorists are costly to the targeted company and, over time, can undermine confidence in the economy.”

That’s what all this “eco-terrorism” rhetoric is about — using fears of terrorism to justify cracking down on pesky activists that hurt corporate profits. It’s time we call a spade a spade, and force lawmakers to stop wasting money fighting “flyer distribution.”

P.S. Congrats to Justin Rood for getting his hands on this bulletin first.