A journalist with ArteTv’s Global Mag, a television program that airs in France and Germany, visited the U.S. to report on the labeling of environmentalists as “eco-terrorists.” She came to the book release event in Washington, DC, and I was also able to put her in touch with Andy Stepanian of the SHAC 7, Daniel McGowan‘s wife, Jenny, and Alexis Agathocleous of the Center for Constitutional Rights. Much of the program is about secretive prisons for domestic terrorists called Communications Management Units. You can view the video below (sorry, I don’t have subtitles!). It’s a shame that U.S. journalists haven’t been covering this issue as well as international outlets.

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.

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.

The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act has been introduced and reintroduced in Congress for years, always floundering, and this year it looks like industry groups are making a full-court press to get the draconian law passed. The Senate and House Judiciary committees may markup the bills as soon as next week.

The National Association for Biomedical Research took out a full-page ad in Roll Call, a newspaper covering Capitol Hill that is read daily by Congressional staff and many members of Congress. It includes a photo a black-and-white photo of a vandalized office, with “Your home is next” spray painted on a wall (or seemingly spray painted–I don’t know if this is a photograph or another PR stunt).

The threat is growing and is so serious the FBI has classified these extremists as one of the most serious domestic terrorist threats in the U.S. today. That’s why we urge you to support legislation designed to counteract the increasingly violent activity aimed at shutting down research in this country.

Under a section of small print called “What the AETA Does,” the final bullet is: “Expressly protects everyone’s First Amendment right to protest.”

The abrupt, dismissive wording of this, and the fact that it looks like it was tacked on as an afterthought, made me laugh out loud.

The legislation has language stating: “Nothing in this section shall be construe to prohibit any expressive conduct (including peaceful picketing or other peaceful demonstration) protected from legal prohibition by the First Amendment to the Constitution.”

Well, how very kind of lawmakers and industry groups to remind everyone that there is still a First Amendment. But that language doesn’t “expressly protect everyone’s First Amendment right to protest,” as NABR says, because that shouldn’t have to be expressed. Making a notation like that in federal legislation is the equivalent of lawmakers admitting that the language is vague and overly broad, and can be construed as violating basic constitutional rights. They’re trying to cover their butts.

The truth is that this bill is broad, so vague, that it can wrap up activity like undercover investigations and whistle blowing. On top of that, the bill spells out penalties for

an offense involving exclusively a nonviolent physical obstruction of an animal enterprise or a business having a connection to, or relationship with, an animal enterprise, that may result in loss of profits but does not result in bodily injury or death or property damage or loss

In other words, a terrorism law includes nonviolent civil disobedience. And much, much more.