It’s always a challenge to explain the “Green Scare” and this website quickly and succinctly. I was playing around with YouTube’s new “SearchStories” channel, and gave it a shot by focusing on misplaced government priorities. And it’s 35 seconds! Let me know what you think.

Oh, and there are plenty of links on the YouTube page, explaining each line of the video.

An animal rights activist, Daniel Andreas San Diego, is the first “domestic terrorist” to be added to the FBI’s list of most wanted terrorists. The FBI says: “At the time of his flight Mr. San Diego was a committed vegan. If he has maintained this discipline, people around him may notice that he avoids consuming or wearing anything made with animal products.” (Of course, none of the others have their dietary preferences noted. As one reader said in an email, “Word on the street is bin Laden really likes falafel.”)

Mainstream news outlets and blogs on both the left and right have been going nuts about the FBI’s announcement. Yet they’ve overwhelmingly missed the point: this was an overtly, shamelessly political move by the government to deflect attention away from another “terrorism” controversy.

First, some background:

• The FBI has long labeled animal rights activists and environmentalists as the “number one domestic terrorism threat.”
• The FBI made it clear long ago that “eco-terrorists” are a bigger threat than Osama bin Laden, hate crimes, and even attempts to assassinate Obama.
• Daniel Andreas San Diego is the individual who has been added to the “Most Wanted” list because of his alleged involvement in two bombings of biotech facilities that did business with Huntingdon Life Sciences. The FBI put out a warning in Costa Rica media about San Diego traveling down that way in 2008.

Sounds like a lot of old news, right? It is. So why did the FBI hold a press conference announcing the new addition to the list?

It was an overtly political move to neutralize the growing chorus of opposition to the recent DHS memo warning of right-wing extremism. When the memo came out, right wing groups sprang into action (much more so than environmental or animal groups have) and have already filed a lawsuit. Meanwhile, some environmentalists mistakenly saw it as reason to believe the Green Scare is over.

Enter Daniel Andreas San Diego. He hasn’t harmed anyone, and his alleged crimes are nothing compared to Osama bin Laden and others on the list (and nothing compared to right wing groups who have admittedly created weapons of mass destruction). But he’s an easy way to create the false impression that this “War on Terrorism” is somehow bipartisan, that both the left and right are being targeted equally.

Chuck Norris recently showed us that’s a load of garbage. This political maneuvering my placate the right (and the DHS memo may placate some environmentalists). And then it’s back to business as usual.

The press, activists and right-wingers should all know better than to fall for it. Americans shouldn’t settle for anything less than a complete overhaul of “terrorism” priorities, beginning with the removal of political activists who have never harmed anyone from the top of all “terrorism” lists.

From the Times Online (UK).

The judge in the case called the grassroots campaign “urban terrorism” run with “almost military precision.”

The UK prosecution is quite similar to charges brought against seven animal rights activists in the United States, dubbed the SHAC 7. The US activists were sentenced to between one and six years for conspiracy to violate the Animal Enterprise Protection Act, conspiracy to stalk, stalking and conspiracy to harass using a telecommunications device. Their cases were recently argued before an appeals courts in Philadelphia (here’s a closer look at the hearing).

In both sets of cases, the government linked the defendants to a controversial campaign website that published all news related to the movement to shut down HLS, both legal and illegal. Neither the U.S. nor the U.K. government argued that the defendants committed the illegal acts in the news accounts published on their websites, but that, through their vocal support for those tactics and publication of communiqués, they “conspired” to do so.

The U.S. and U.K. governments argued that, by publishing the addresses, email addresses and phone numbers of corporations tied to HLS, and executives with those corporations, that the defendants were part of a conspiracy (in the U.S., the conspiracy was to commit “terrorism” and “stalk,” in the UK it was a conspiracy to “blackmail.”)

That distinction–between underground activists, and aboveground activists who vocally support them–has been entirely lost on the mainstream press. Breaking a window is not the same as writing about breaking a window, or posting someone else’s account of their window breaking. I’d hope that reporters, of all people, would be able to understand this distinction.

Yet the BBC report makes claims like, “They also sent hoax bomb parcels and made threatening telephone calls to firms telling them to cut links with HLS.” It’s never noted that the defendants were never accused of doing that: they were acts by other activists, outside of SHAC, who supported the mission of the campaign. Even worse, The Guardian recklessly claims that the activists were “considered key figures in the Animal Liberation Front.”

I’ve written at length on this site on the U.S. SHAC 7 case, and want to take a closer look at the U.K. case. Particularly, the fact that these activists, who have been demonized in the press from day one as “terrorists,” were convicted of “conspiracy to blackmail.”

First, setting aside the “conspiracy,” element, let’s look at that term, “blackmail.” To most people, it means making threats (usually threatening to reveal embarrassing or criminal information) in order to get something in return. For instance: blackmailing a CEO that you’ll send the press photos of his debaucherous weekend in Miami unless he pays you ten thousand dollars. Check out this legal definition from West’s Encyclopedia of American Law:

The crime involving a threat for purposes of compelling a person to do an act against his or her will, or for purposes of taking the person’s money or property.

These animal activists weren’t trying to take anyone’s money or property. They were, however, saying that unless HLS stopped these business practices, the activists would do everything they could to shut them down. And unless these corporations that did business with HLS cut their ties, the activists would target them as well.

Unlike other cases that most people would consider “blackmail,” with these activists, the money didn’t matter. All that mattered was the animals.

Calling a political case like this “blackmail” is like, to use a U.S. example, calling the lunch counter civil disobedience of the civil rights movement “blackmail.” The threat of that movement was explicit: continue discriminating against black people, and we’ll continue disrupting your business. Stop discriminating, and we’ll stop protesting. Hasn’t every social movement operated at that basic level of “blackmail”?

Second, even if you disagree with that quick-and-dirty explanation, these activists aren’t even convicted of “blackmail.” They’re convicted of conspiracy to blackmail. Conspiracy charges have been used throughout history against social movements when nothing else sticks. Those kinds of cases have been brought against antiwar activists, civil rights activists, environmental activists and many, many others with the sole purpose of silencing dissent. Conspiracy charges aren’t about bringing criminals to justice, they’re about singling out people perceived as “leaders” in order to set an example and instill fear.

This case, and its U.S. counterpart, are precedent-setting power grabs. They should be a wakeup call for activists in all social movements. If running a controversial website and vocally supporting illegal conduct, through words not actions, can lead to 11 years in prison, what’s next? The National Extremist Coordination Unit, the agency in the UK set up to crack down on activist “terrorists,” is already setting its sights on environmentalists. These government and corporate tactics are fluid. They can flow between countries and between movements. And they’re becoming more and more brazen.

From The Santa Cruz Sentinel:

Dozens of police cars surrounded a home on the 700 block of Riverside Avenue in Santa Cruz on Sunday night as a crowd of onlookers gathered to watch the events unfold.

According to Frank Male, the owner of the house, three UC Santa Cruz seniors live at the residence. Male said police contacted him earlier Sunday because they wanted to talk to the students about an ongoing investigation. Male said he later learned the students were animal rights activists.

Male said police told him they went to the house in the late afternoon to talk to the students, but the students slammed the door in their face and told them to get a search warrant…

Police on scene declined to say why they were there.

Santa Cruz has also been in the news for the recent tree sits.

I don’t have any more details on this right now. If you do, please post a comment…

When’s the last time you heard anything about Osama bin Laden? Yeah, same here. Bin Laden, the face of international terrorism, hasn’t been in the news much lately, and I can’t remember the last time I heard anything about the U.S. government making any headway on his capture. Meanwhile, U.S. law enforcement agencies are going on an international manhunt for… an animal rights activist?

The FBI put out a warning to Costa Rican media that Daniel Andreas San Diego could be living in their country.

“He has links with animal rights groups in the U.S., and he could be linked with similar organizations in Costa Rica,” the FBI said. A $250,000 reward is offered for information leading to his arrest.

San Diego is a suspect in the bombing of the Chiron building in northern California, from 2003. The company had ties to Huntingdon Life Sciences, the notorious animal testing lab. It was a very serious, very dangerous crime, to be sure–the device including metal debris that could have harmed people, not just the building– but it was still a crime that only caused minor property damage and did not harm anyone. It seems a little outrageous for federal law enforcement to go on an international hunt for a domestic crime that caused little damage. And is almost five years old.

San Diego has also made it on America’s Most Wanted. Dear John Walsh: I know the “eco-terror” buzz is sexy and all, and helps break up the monotony of murderers, rapists and child abusers that typically make up your show… but seriously?

This is an excerpt from the SHAC 7 panel discussion at the recent animal rights conference, with me and Andrea Lindsay discussing the trial and what it means for activists of all social movements. I cut out some of the back-and-forth near the end, because the sound quality wasn’t so hot.

It looks like the scare-mongering ad campaigns and “terrorist” rhetoric have worked: Life Sciences Research Inc. has negotiated a deal with the New York Stock Exchange where the controversial animal testing company will be listed on the exchange’s new, anonymous, all-electronic trading platform called Arca– a move intended to hide public business operations from pesky activists.

LSRI was delisted from the stock exchange because of the company’s abysmal financial standing and continued campaigning by activists (some activists that campaigned on the same issue are now in prison after being convicted of “animal enterprise terrorism” for running a website). Industry groups didn’t take too kindly to that, and placed anonymous, full-page ads in the New York Times and Washington Post proclaiming “extremists hold Wall Street hostage.”

Not surprisingly, corporations are happy that the “eco-terrorism” rhetoric paid off (for now at least). From Shaun Waterman at UPI:

“We’re thrilled,” company Chief Financial Officer Richard Michaelson said. “It is a totally anonymous trading environment,” he said. “In our situation, that is a big advantage.”

I was quoted in response:

Will Potter, an animal rights sympathizer and freelance journalist, said targeting the market-makers — financial middlemen who promise to buy a company’s shares at the prevailing price and make real-time trading possible on the pre-electronic Big Board — had been a big step forward for activists and had enabled them to stop the planned listing.

“That was what got the [animal research] industry really freaked out,” Mr. Potter said. “Once the activists started to understand how important the market-makers were … how the stock market actually worked … it was a real turning point.”

Campaigners also targeted businesses that provided financial, technical and other services to Life Sciences Research and threatened protests of the NYSE.

“That business savvy is the greatest threat they pose,” Mr. Potter said of the animal rights movement, adding that the anonymity Arca provided would close off some of those options.