As a new study warns that estimated global temperature increases in our lifetime would cause catastrophic food and water crises, and as nearly 200 nations are gathered at the climate summit in Cancun, how is the United States responding?

By labeling actor Mark Ruffalo a “terrorist” for attending a screening of the movie GasLand. (This is according to Ruffalo, and hasn’t been confirmed by the Pennsylvania DHS. But that branch of DHS, as you recall, also compared Rainforest Action Network and the Ruckus Society to Al-Qaeda and monitored local groups opposed to gas drilling.)

Well, that’s not all, of course. The U.S. is also pointing fingers at China. And even if U.S. delegates agree to a binding plan to reduce carbon emissions at Cancun, nutty members of Congress are determined to stop any substantive reform.

I was on the Alyona Show last night talking about these inverted priorities. Here’s the the video.

What do you think? Is it possible for the United States to take a leading role on climate change?

Pennsylvania’s Department of Homeland Security has distributed intelligence bulletins about non-violent environmental groups, such as Climate Ground Zero, and labeled activists as “environmental extremists.” In response to public outrage, the state’s contract with a private firm called the Institute of Terrorism Research & Response has been terminated; Governor Ed Rendell said he’s “appalled.” But this was no fluke, no error, no isolated instance. The same policies that have come to light in Pennsylvania have been exposed across the country, and up to top levels of the federal government.

After Abrahm Lustgarten at Pro Publica broke the story, the mainstream press and many bloggers have been treating this story as a “news of the weird,” a strange case of a bizarre intelligence bulletin that, if you buy the governor’s rhetoric, was simply a mistake. In reality, this intelligence bulletin is nearly identical to countless others that have been exposed around the country, and it is representative of federal terrorism priorities.

For instance:

• In Georgia, local homeland security officials were exposed spying on animal rights activists distributing leaflets at a HoneyBaked Ham store. The vegans prevailed in a lawsuit.
• In Maryland, police labeled environmental activists as “eco-terrorists” and “environmental extremists,” monitored group meetings, maintained databases, and shared those files with the FBI and NSA.
• In Minnesota, FBI agents approached a local activist with hopes of infiltrating vegan potlucks.

The list goes on. And on. And on.

These are not the goofy exploits of Keystone Kops. These misplaced priorities come from the top levels of government. The animal rights and environmental movements have repeatedly been labeled the “number one domestic terrorism threat.”

If you read the Pennsylvania intelligence bulletin closely, you can see that the reference to activists as “environmental extremists” actually cites an FBI memo as its source for that claim (on page 8).

This is not the work of a few rogue homeland security officials, it is the work of multiple local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies. Until we demand a fundamental restructuring of domestic terrorism operations in this country, and demand true checks and balances on local homeland security cops and, more importantly, the FBI, there will be many more Pennsylvanias.

UPDATE: There has been some great coverage of this issue elsewhere. Please check out John Robbins’ piece on Huffington Post, Jen Phillips’ column in Mother Jones, and the post on Empty Wheel, to name a few.

Americard, by Ian Geldard

On this website I have exclusively documented the crackdown on the first group: attempts to label people as “terrorists” because of their political beliefs. The new immigration law in Arizona makes clear, though, that this “Green Scare” does not exist in a vacuum.

Arizona’s law, SB 1070, makes it a state crime to be in the country illegally and requires immigrants to carry paperwork proving their immigration status. It allows Arizona police to stop and question people who they think are “reasonably suspect.”

So what’s the problem? As supporters of the law have repeatedly said, “If you are here legally, you have nothing to worry about.” Right?

The phrase “Show me your papers” has no place in a democracy.

It puts unchecked power in the hands of government officials and law enforcement to stop people at their whim. In terms of immigration, the most immediate concern is racial profiling and harassment of those who look like an “illegal” [read: brown people].

Supporters of this legislation have justified it in a few ways. They point to terrorism concerns due to lax border security, and say illegal immigrants unfairly benefit from living in the United States without contributing through taxes (actually, illegal immigrants are vital to economic growth).

However, this law (and a similar one proposed in Michigan) is not about national security, and it is not about the economy. It is about using a vulnerable class of people as a political scapegoat in order to push a larger political agenda.

For example, the demonization of immigrants in Arizona has moved from the border to the classrooms. Legislation has been proposed to outlaw ethnic studies programs:

The new bill would make it illegal for a school district to teach any courses that promote the overthrow of the U.S. government, promote resentment of a particular race or class of people, are designed primarily for students of a particular ethnic group or “advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals.”

[Update: This bill has become law.]

Much like animal industries have moved from targeting the Animal Liberation Front to targeting mainstream groups, anti-immigrant groups are moving from targeting so-called “illegals” to targeting anyone who ideologically supports them.

Both of these crackdowns, on dissidents and on immigrants, are about the vilification of the “other.” [For a great, accessible discussion of this, check out the Pinky Show, "How to Solve Illegal Immigration."] As Naomi Wolf has documented in The End of America, one of the defining characteristics of increasingly totalitarian societies is the creation of both internal and external threats as scapegoats, and then slowly widening the net.

Activists of all social movements should reject Arizona’s law, and all others guided more by fear than compassion. It promotes racial profiling, it is intended to terrify communities, and it will destroy families. Those reasons alone are enough to oppose this legislation. But this is not not solely about immigration; it is about whether we continue advancing towards a society where the “illegals” are not just individuals, but entire belief systems.

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.”

There has been a slew of incredible, and disturbing, reporting by the UK Guardian recently on how police have rebranded activism as “domestic extremism” and “domestic terrorism.” Environmental activists, antiwar activists, animal rights activists and many more groups have been targeted. Specifically, police have gathered personal information on thousands of activists who simply attend protests or political meetings, and created massive national databases.

For instance, this “spotter card” was distributed to police officers in preparation for protests at Britain’s largest arms fair. According to the Guardian:

These so-called “spotter cards” are issued by police to identify individuals they consider to be potential troublemakers because they have appeared at a number of demonstrations.

One of the individuals featured at ‘H’ is Mark Thomas, a comedian and political activist. He has no criminal record. In a column, he noted how this scaremongering reflects truly misplaced priorities:

While being wanted outside the arms fair, I was legitimately inside researching a book on the subject, and uncovered four companies illegally promoting “banned” torture equipment.

Perhaps the most important bit of information, I think, is buried a bit in the story. According to this investigative piece by the Guardian:

Acpo’s national infrastructure for dealing with domestic extremism was set up with the backing of the Home Office in an attempt to combat animal rights activists who were committing serious crimes. Senior officers concede the criminal activity associated with these groups has receded, but the units dealing with domestic extremism have expanded their remit to incorporate campaign groups across the political spectrum, including anti-war and environmental groups that have only ever engaged in peaceful direct action.

If you’re familiar with this site and the Green Scare, you know that one of the key points I try to hit home, repeatedly, is that environmental and animal rights activists may be among the first targets in these political crackdowns, but they will not be the last. By the admission of some government officials in the UK, this has clearly been the case.

Whether or not that has been the official policy in the United States, the same dynamic is at play. If we do not stop the terrorism rhetoric, legislation, court cases and scare-mongering in its tracks, no activist and no social movement will remain untouched.

Of course, you could always just continue listening to the soundbites of police and government officials, like this one from Anton Setchell, who is in charges of the “domestic extremism” unit in the UK. People who find themselves on the databases, he says, “should not worry at all.”

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.

“If activists have nothing to hide, why are they wearing masks?”

I’ve heard that question over and over again. It usually comes in the form of a soundbite from someone affiliated with a corporation, industry or government agency that is attempting to smear lawful activists as “terrorists.”

Their reasoning goes something like this: If you aren’t doing anything wrong, you have no reason to hide your face. If you are hiding your face, it’s an admission of criminal activity. Therefore, wearing a mask justifies rounding up lawful activists as “terrorists.”

That’s exactly what happened in the recent arrests of four activists on Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act charges in California. The FBI argues that activists “wearing bandanas to hide their faces” were intimidating, and that this therefore amounted to a campaign of terror.

To those not familiar with grassroots activism, that might seem like a pretty reasonable point. Masks are generally associated with bandits, ninjas and Hamburgler, all of which are quite intimidating. So, why would someone want to cover their face at a protest?

• Spying. The FBI and Joint Terrorism Task Forces routinely spy on lawful, above-ground activists. For instance, the ACLU exposed FBI agents spying on animal rights activists who were leafleting outside of HoneyBaked Hams. And corporations have been tracking who activists are dating.
• Blacklists. Government “watchlists” have millions of names. Recently in Maryland, it was exposed that law enforcement kept terrorist files on environmentalists, antiwar activists, and nuns.
• Grand jury witch hunts. Vocal, public activists are routinely hauled before grand juries in political witch hunts, and forced to testify about their political beliefs and political associations. If they refuse, they face jail time.
• Infiltration. The government has been using paid informants and provacateurs to keep tabs on lawful protest movements. The recent case of the RNC 8 is a good example, and even more disturbing is “Anna,” the FBI informant who befriended activists and entrapped them.
• Legal attacks. FBI agents have shown their incompetence in attempts to track down underground members of the Animal Liberation Front and Earth Liberation Front. There have been arrests, but those crimes overwhelmingly remain unsolved. Instead, law enforcement has been cracking down on the public faces of those movements and labeling them “eco-terrorists.” A good example of that is the SHAC 7 case.

In this political climate, many activists have told me they face a difficult decision. If they take to the streets and protest on a controversial campaign (especially a campaign that has involved both legal and illegal tactics), they risk this surveillance, harassment and intimidation.

If they don’t take to the streets, they are compromising their beliefs and remaining silent about the things that matter.

For many, a solution has been to continue protesting on these campaigns, but with masks covering their faces. It clearly isn’t always the best solution. It can alienate and isolate everyday people who might otherwise be open to the message of the protest.

It clearly infuriates the feds that activists want to protect their identities while continuing to advocate for what they believe. A Joint Terrorism Task Force has even gone so far as to arrest an animal rights activist on felony charges for wearing a mask at a protest.

It would be a mistake, though, to blindly buy the FBI rhetoric. Wearing a mask may or may not best campaign decision for activists. But wearing a mask doesn’t mean activists are guilty, or that they are “terrorists.” For many activists, it simply means they don’t trust FBI agents and corporations. The developments of the last few days have shown they have good reason to feel that way.

Last week I wrote about how some Homeland Security officials don’t think Timothy McVeigh is a terrorist, but peace activists, animal rights activists, pro-choice activists and environmentalists are.

You know who else are terrorists? Nuns!

The Saginaw News reports that among the 53 non-violent activists labeled as “terrorists” in that Maryland operation are two Dominican nuns.

They’re both outspoken opponents of war and empire, and have gone so far as to spill their own blood on military equipment in non-violent civil disobedience. From the news article:

Platte, Gilbert and Sister Jackie Hudson served time in federal prison after they cut a chain-link fence surrounding a Minuteman III missile silo in Weld County, Colo., and used baby bottles to dispense their own blood in the shape of a cross on the silo.

A federal jury in 2003 convicted Platte, Gilbert and Hudson of obstructing national defense and damaging government property. They received prison sentences of 41 months, 33 months and 30 months, respectively.

As someone who briefly attended Catholic school, I will attest that nuns can truly be terrifying. I wholeheartedly support rounding them up and protecting the knuckles of school children everywhere.

However, the rest of you might think this is, I dunno, how do I say this, ABSOLUTELY FRIGGIN’ INSANE. So, I think this video clip sums things up better than I ever could. If you don’t like bad words, please put on your earmuffs…

“To all the real terrorists out there, I say I’m sorry for gettin’ all up on your list.”

As the New York Times reported last week, the Department of Homeland Security routinely stops Americans who are re-entering the country so government officials can snoop through laptops and even copy files.

For many animal and environmental advocates, though, this is old news. And it’s only part of the story. The government labels the animal rights and environmental movements the “number one domestic terrorism threat” because some activists do things like break windows, release animals from fur farms, or, at worst, burn SUVs. That label has given the Department of Homeland Security, FBI, and TSA the pretext to go after legal, above-ground activists: Feds have not only snooped through laptops, but detained and questioned activists about their political beliefs and political associations. The government has been treating the border as a Constitutional no-man’s land, a legal dead zone for carrying out political witch hunts.

For instance, I recently talked with Jeremy Beckham, who is working with the Primate Freedom Project to create the National Primate Research Exhibition Hall. He’s a part-time student at the University of Utah, and he also teaches in an after-school program.

On June 20th, he went to Vancouver with his brother and a friend. They crossed into Canada without a problem. It wasn’t until the return trip, when they gave the U.S. border agent their licenses and birth certificates, that they realized something was up.

Beckham says:

As he [the border agent] entered my name into his computer, he grew very alarmed and immediately made a hand gesture to other agents. Approximately half a dozen CBP agents surrounded our car. When I looked into my rear view mirror, one of the agents shouted very authoritatively “don’t look in your mirrors at us! keep your eyes forward”. We were instructed to pull our car off to the side and walk inside the CBP station. We were told to leave all of our cell phones and keys in the vehicle.

Agents refused to let Beckham observe as they searched his car. They took him into another room where he was questioned by Agent Galager about his job, salary, and which student groups he supports at the university. When Beckham asked to speak with a lawyer, Galager became very upset, handcuffing Beckham and saying he was being detained. Another agent entered the room.

The new agent told me “we aren’t your local law enforcement going after gang bangers in the street. We’re federal officials fighting terrorism. So you will sit there and answer our questions whether you like it or not.”

I responded “So I do not have the right to remain silent?” He responded “No you do not. This isn’t an episode of Law and Order. You are not taking this as seriously as should.”

About this time, Beckham says, two agents were talking about the search of his car. The car was “clear,” they said, except for a notebook with addresses, which they copied.

[Agent] Page explained what was happening — the first time so far. He said that the government considered me a “person of interest” but that he could say no more. He said that he has Googled my name while I was being detained and knows that I am an animal rights “extremist” and that the government has a good reason for monitoring people who believe in animal rights because so many of them, although not all, have resorted to terrorism.

He stated “we have no problem with your right to be an animal rights person, but they just want to make sure that you aren’t more extreme.”…

Then he said “do you support or know anyone in ALF [Animal Liberation Front]? Do you support law breaking for your cause?” I said again, firmly, that I didn’t want to answer any questions of that nature. For the first time in my whole ordeal, he expressly told me “OK well you certainly have that right – no one here has stopped you from that.” I told him – with Galager in the room – that Galager told me that I had to answer questions. Galager then quickly stated that he never told me that.

When Beckham was allowed to return to his brother and friend, he found out that they, too, had been questioned. Beckham says, “When Amy asked why she was being asked that, they shouted that she was being uncooperative. Frightened, she provided them with the requested information: that she was an after school teacher for Salt Lake City School District.”

The entire ordeal lasted about three hours, Beckham says. When they returned to the car, the glovebox had been searched and left open, their bags had been searched and left open. As if the agents clearly felt they had nothing to hide.

Like many environmental and animal rights advocates, even Nelson Mandela is on a “terrorist watchlist.” Unlike grassroots activists, though, it looks politicians are trying to get him removed.

I’ve seen quite a few blog posts on this, where the author is outraged that a “freedom fighter” like Nelson Mandela is on a terrorist watchlist. His placement on the list is seen as a bureaucratic error, or leftover hypocrisy from the Reagan administration, but that misses the point. I think what we need to take away from examples like this is that there is no concrete definition of “terrorist.” It’s a fluid term, meant to demonize the enemy of the hour.

At the time, Mandela was demonized as both a communist and a terrorist. In the early 60s, he was the leader of Umkhonto we Sizwe, the armed wing of the ANC, in the fight against apartheid. He coordinated property destruction and sabotage against government targets, and has admitted that civilians were often victims in these attacks (for more, see his autobiography, Long Walk to Freedom).

The Earth Liberation Front, Animal Liberation Front, and similar groups are labeled the “number one domestic terrorist threat” by the United States today, yet they haven’t harmed anyone. If Mandela can go from guerrilla fighter to Nobel peace prize winner in a few decades, I wonder what folks will be calling “eco-terrorists” in 2050.

In history books, the only difference between a “terrorist” and a “freedom fighter” is that the “terrorist” lost.