Fed Bills would restrict animal rights demonstrations and ban horse slaughter

[Dave Ridley]

got this from an animal rights person....altho i think both bills are probably bad not just the first one

>Subject: URGENT SAPL eAlert:  Congress to Act Monday, November 13th on
>Anti-Animal Welfare Bill
>
>
> 
>    November 12, 2006
> 
> 
> Congress to Act Monday, November  13th
> on Undemocratic Legislation:
>Anti-Animal Welfare Bill Must be Opposed TODAY  and
> Horse Bill Needs Your Help!
> 
> 
> Dear Humanitarian:
>
>We are  writing you today about two critical measures that may come before
>Congress as early as Monday, November 13th ? one that  your Representative
>should oppose and another that your Senators should  support. Please take a
>moment to contact your legislators about  these issues immediately and
>encourage others to do the same.
> 
> Animal Enterprise Terrorism  Act Prevents Peaceful Protest
> 
> The Animal Welfare Institute (AWI) and the  Society for Animal Protective
>Legislation (SAPL) have always been  committed to improving the welfare of
>animals through non-violent  means.  As Mahatma Gandhi said, "[n]on-violence
>is the greatest force  at the disposal of mankind.  It is mightier than the
>mightiest weapon  of destruction devised by the ingenuity of man." However,
>H.R. 4239/S. 3880, the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA), threatens to
>undermine our ability to promote animal welfare by criminalizing peaceful
>methods we have been employing for decades.
> 
> If passed by Congress and signed into law,  the AETA would amend the Animal
>Enterprise Protection Act (AEPA) of 1992,  which currently criminalizes the
>"physical" disruption of any animal  enterprise resulting in economic
>damages exceeding $10,000.  The AETA  would extend the activities covered by
>the AEPA to include those that  damage or disrupt an animal enterprise.
>These activities  could include peaceful leafleting, demonstrations and
>media  campaigns.   If one participates in such activities and  they result
>in economic disruption or damage to an animal enterprise ?  such as a "loss
>of profits" ? the individual is at risk of being charged  as a terrorist and
>penalized under the Act.  For example, handing out  leaflets in front of a
>furrier selling coats made with fur obtained  through use of the brutal
>steel-jaw leghold trap could be an offense under  this proposed bill if the
>shopkeeper establishes a loss of business.   If you protest a researcher
>causing unnecessary pain and distress to  animals during experimentation and
>the researcher loses his or her  funding, you could be prosecuted!
> 
> While the AETA contains an exemption for  "lawful economic disruption that
>results from lawful public, governmental  or business reaction to the
>disclosure of information about an animal  enterprise," this exemption
>covers only those activities resulting in  economic disruption, and not
>those resulting in economic damage. Moreover,  the exemption does not
>specify the types of activities resulting in  economic disruption that are
>exempted, and since it only covers lawful  "reaction to the disclosure of
>information," it may not include activities  such as whistle blowing and
>undercover investigations.
> 
> Proponents of the AETA claim that this  legislation is necessary to stop
>the increasing illegal activities of  "animal rights extremists." However,
>the AETA contains broad sweeping and  ambiguous language that essentially
>classifies as ?terrorism? many lawful  and constitutionally protected
>activities directed by animal welfare  advocates against animal enterprises
>that mistreat and abuse  animals.  AETA threatens to seriously impede the
>animal welfare  movement by permitting the prosecution of advocates who
>damage or disrupt  animal enterprises using peaceful and legal activities
>that are within the  confines of existing law.
> 
> WHAT YOU CAN  DO:
> 
> Please contact your  Representative AND Representative Nancy Pelosi TODAY,
>urging them to strongly oppose S.  3880, the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act
>(AETA).   This undemocratic and reckless piece of legislation is being
>pushed by organizations that seem more interested in hiding animal abuse
>than working to identify and stop animal cruelty.  The National Association
>for Biomedical Research (NABR) and  other animal industry groups are using
>national tragedy and public fear to  advance their agenda.  NABR, founded by
>the largest laboratory animal  breeding company in the world, has opposed
>virtually every animal welfare  measure before Congress and has worked to
>undermine existing  protections.  This is an effort to label and treat
>animal activists  as terrorists.  The measure will inhibit the ability of
>those  concerned with the protection of animals to focus attention on those
>who  are mistreating them.
> 
> Representative Pelosi can be contacted at  (202) 225-4965.  Representative
>Pelosi is on the verge of becoming  the next Speaker of the House so please
>congratulate her on this historic  opportunity and urge her to show
>leadership and stop this assault on the  democratic process.
> 
> To find your Representative, click  here
><http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=n64y6zbab.0.j6q6lybab.7lzn5wn6.1170&ts=S0213&p=http
>%3A%2F%2Fwww.compassionindex.org%2Fsearch.htm>  or call the Capitol Hill
>operator at (202) 224-3121  and request to be connected to your
>Representative?s office.
> 
> 
> 
> *************************************************************
> 
> Horse Slaughter Bill Needs a  Big Push, Now!
> 
> Following passage in the House of  Representatives, the American Horse
>Slaughter Prevention Act is pending in  the Senate.  If approved, the
>measure would ban the slaughter of  horses for human consumption and the
>domestic and international transport  of live horses or horseflesh for the
>same purpose.  Grassroots  efforts from concerned constituents like you have
>made all the difference  in this fight ? please continue to contact your
>Senators!
> 
> We hope the bill will be voted on by the  Senate when Congress reconvenes
>following the election, but there will be  limited time available and only
>issues seen as essential are expected to  be addressed.  We need to be sure
>Congress recognizes that this  legislation is critical, as approximately
>2,000 horses are being hauled to  slaughter and brutally killed with every
>week this bill awaits action in  the Senate.
> 
> WHAT YOU CAN  DO:
> 
> Please contact both of your  Senators NOW, urging their co-sponsorship of
>S. 1915, the Senate  companion bill to H.R. 503, and requesting a vote on
>the legislation when  they return in November after the elections.  Last
>year, the Senate  voted for a temporary ban on horse slaughter by a vote of
>69 to 28.   To see how your Senators voted on that measure, click here
><http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=n64y6zbab.0.h6q6lybab.7lzn5wn6.1170&ts=S0213&p=http
>%3A%2F%2Fprojects.washingtonpost.com%2Fcongress%2F109%2Fsenate%2F1%2Fvotes%2
>F237%2F> .  If  either of Senator voted for this ban, be sure to remind them
>of (and thank  them for) this sensible position.
> 
> To find your Senators, click here
><http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=n64y6zbab.0.j6q6lybab.7lzn5wn6.1170&ts=S0213&p=http
>%3A%2F%2Fwww.compassionindex.org%2Fsearch.htm>  or call the  Capitol Hill
>operator at (202) 224-3121 and request to be connected to  their offices.
>For more information on horse slaughter and how you  can help make a
>difference for America?s horses, please click here
><http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=n64y6zbab.0.v6qurvbab.7lzn5wn6.1170&ts=S0213&p=http
>%3A%2F%2Fwww.saplonline.org%2Fhorses.htm> .
> 
> Letters to Senators should be addressed  to:
>
>> 
>>>  The Honorable (Name)
>>>  United States Senate
>>>  Washington, DC  20510
> Be sure to tell your legislators you would  like to know their positions on
>these critical issues ? and forward us  their responses to assist our
>lobbying efforts.
> 
> Please share our ?Dear Humanitarian? eAlert  with family, friends and
>co-workers, and encourage them to contact their  legislators, too.  As
>always, thank you for your help!
> 
> Sincerely,
>Cathy Liss
> Legislative Director
> www.saplonline.org

[error]

Oh bullshit.

I read the proposed Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. It clearly covers only property damage, physical threats and the like.

As long as we have a government, property damage and threats of violence are things it SHOULD be making illegal.

[maineiac]

Can't read your post. Too many of these >>

[KurtDaBear]

So what are they going to do with old horses--start retirement homes for them and cremate the carcasses?
A horse is a domesticated farm animal.  When I was young, they sold horse meat in frozen one-pound pkg.'s for dog food, and I understand it's quite popular in Canada as people food.  When they get old, they go off to the slaughterhouse, same as with cows who are too old to milk and chickens that are too old to lay eggs.  It's not my cup of tea, but it's a way of life for farmers, and I like chicken and hamburgers.
This smacks of a vegan plot.  Today it's Seabiscuit, but tomorrow it will be Elsie who we're not allowed to eat.
It's as hypocritical as a cop interrupting his lunch at KFC to go bust a cockfight.

[error]

Indeed. You should tell your senator to vote no on that piece of horseshit bill.

This bill was put forth by so-called "animal rights" groups. You know the ones -- they think that animals should have more rights than people.

[money dollars]

I read the proposed Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. It clearly covers only property damage, physical threats and the like.

Tell that to the SHAC7...

To bad you don't know what you are talking about.

http://www.shac7.com/case.htm

The SHAC 7 are 6 animal rights activists ....convicted on March 12, 2006, under the controversial Federal Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. The Act punishes anyone who "physically disrupts" an animal enterprise. The charges stem from these activists' alleged participation in an international campaign to close the notorious product testing lab Huntingdon Life Sciences.

Specifically, these activists are alleged to have operated a website that reported on and expressed ideological support for protest activity against Huntingdon and its business affiliates. For this they are charged with "terrorism" ....

The SHAC 7 case is the latest in an onslaught of attacks against domestic dissedents under the guise of fighting terrorism. Animal rights is a "fringe" issue and the government is banking on the broader social justice movement to turn a blind eye to those focusing on the ?less important? issue of animals and expressing ?extremist? views. But make no mistake - these activists are the canaries in the mine. This case is intended to pave the way for further silencing of activists involved in all issues...

FROM THE SHAC7 SUPPORT COMMITTEE:

The SHAC7 Conviction:
...

Not only is this conviction an appalling miscarriage of justice for the defendants, but it also demonstrates the erosion of free speech protections and is part of a politically motivated attack on the animal rights movement in particular. This is the first time anyone has ever been tried under the Animal Enterprise Protection Act of 1992 (formerly known as the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act), and the convictions set a nightmarish precedent for animal protection campaigners throughout the country...

History of the Case

All of the defendants were involved in some capacity in the campaign to close Huntingdon Life Sciences, a contract research lab with one facility in New Jersey and two in England. Horrendous acts of cruelty to animals at the lab were exposed in five different undercover investigations. Video footage showed workers punching beagles in the face, dissecting live monkeys, falsifying scientific data, and violating countless sections of the animal welfare act. Since 1999, activists have campaigned globally against the lab, bringing it to the brink of closure.

With a laundry list of victories behind the campaign, it was only a matter of time before big business called on the government to stop the big bad activists. After several hearings before Congress brought governmental pressure to bear, a New Jersey federal grand jury indicted seven individuals and the organization Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty USA on charges of animal enterprise terrorism under the Animal Enterprise Protection Act on May 26, 2004. Also included in the indictment were charges of interstate stalking and conspiracy to use a telecommunications device to harass others.

The Indictment

Originally, seven individuals were charged, along with the organization Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty USA. The individuals were Kevin Kjonaas, Lauren Gazzola, Jacob Conroy, Joshua Harper, Andrew Stepanian, Darius Fullmer, and John McGee. McGee was eventually dropped from the case.

All of the defendants were charged with conspiracy to violate the Animal Enterprise Protection Act, a never-before-applied 1992 statute. Kjonaas, Gazzola, Conroy, and Harper were also charged with conspiracy to harass using a telecommunications device (sending black faxes). Kjonaas, Gazzola, Conroy, and SHAC USA were charged with conspiracy to commit interstate stalking and three counts of interstate stalking via the Internet.

While the charges themselves sound alarming, the defendants are not actually accused of having personally engaged in terrorist or threatening acts. Instead, the government's case centers around the idea that aboveground organizers of a campaign are responsible for any and all acts that anyone engages in while furthering the goals of the organizers. In this case, the claim is that the SHAC7 should be imprisoned because underground activists took illegal actions against companies with ties to H.L.S.

...

The Green Scare
During the "Red Scare" of the 1940's and '50s, government propaganda campaigns convinced the public that members of the Communist Party represented an imminent threat to the United States. Through the use of this sort of fear-mongering in association with FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy was able to brand anyone who disagreed with him as a Communist or Communist sympathizer. Two of the main tools used to pursue these goals were federal grand juries and Senate hearings.

Today we see a return of these tactics in the collaboration between U.S. Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) and F.B.I. Deputy Assistant Director John Lewis. In hearings last year, Lewis labeled the animal liberation and environmental movements the biggest domestic terrorism threats facing the country. A news article also referenced Inhofe indicating that since the government could not find the people who engaged in the underground activities, it must go after the above-ground activists in these movements.

The Return of the Political Conspiracy Charge
Three of the six charges listed in the indictment were conspiracy counts. In fact, half the defendants only faced conspiracy charges. A conspiracy charge is typically very vague, very difficult to prove, and yet very easy to imply guilt of. These sorts of charges have a long history of use for political purposes during periods when an administration is in power that wants to curtail protest activity.

During the 1960s, conspiracy charges were used to target anti-war protestors and resulted in the conviction of Dr. Spock merely for speaking out against the draft and supporting resistance to the Vietnam war. In a similar case in 1969, a grand jury indicted eight activists on conspiracy and incitement charges for their part in protesting the 1968 Democratic National Convention.

In the SHAC7 case, the defendants were accused of having conspired to incite others to break the law in pursuit of the goal of shutting down HLS. The courts have consistently held that First Amendment free speech concerns must take precedence, even to the extent of permitting the advocacy of force and violation of the law, except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to do so.

For example, in Hess v. Indiana the conviction of a demonstrator who was overheard saying "we'll take the fucking street later" was overturned because the Court concluded that the unlawful action advocated was not imminent but rather at some indefinite future time. The Court also found constitutional protection for the statement by NAACP members that "If we catch any of you going in any of them racist stores, we're going to break your damn neck."

Protests Across State Lines
The only charges in the indictment that were not conspiracy charges were federal stalking counts. The government's case on these charges was built around the premise that organizing or participating in home demonstrations across state lines becomes stalking.  Never mind the fact that there were clearly police present in the video shown of the protests, and if anyone had done anything illegal, they clearly would have been arrested.

In order to convict the defendants on these charges, the jury had to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the people whose homes were being protested were not only in fear for their lives or of being physically harmed as a result of the protests, but also that this was a reasonable fear, and that the protestors intended for them to feel this way. With such a high burden of proof required, and the knowledge that this was never the intent of the defendants, these charges appeared impossible to get a conviction on.

The Trial

The case first went to trial in June 2005, but ended in a mistrial when one of the key defense attorneys fell ill during opening statement.

The trial resumed on February 6, 2006. It was originally scheduled to last three months.

The judge limited the defense capabilities from the beginning, ruling that the defendants could not introduce their own computer expert (but the government could introduce their computer expert) and that there could be no anti-vivisection expert (but the government witnesses could carry on about the benefits of animal research). She also limited the defendants' preemptory challenges during jury selection to seven and failed to dismiss jurors who worked for companies that had been the subject of the campaign to close HLS.

The government's case lasted two weeks and consisted of parading a long list of witnesses up on the stand to testify about protest activity they had been subjected to. While none could identify any of the defendants as engaging in any criminal acts against them, many did testify about the criminal acts of others. The judge allowed people like HLS Director Brian Cass (who based in the United Kingdom) to testify about the campaign in England, an attack on him in England, and the benefits of animal research, despite the fact that he had nothing to say about the defendants in the case. Government witness after government witness took to the stand only to testify about activity t that had nothing to do with the defendants. Over time, it became clear that the government's strategy was to throw in every action that has ever happened in the campaign and then insinuate that the defendants were somehow involved.

The highlight of the government's case came when prosecutors called to the stand a young activist from Ohio who had sent black faxes to an HLS supporter and participated in an Electronic Civil Disobedience (ECD) against an HLS affiliate. The activist testified that, in fact, SHAC USA had not encouraged him or influenced him to take these actions but, instead, he had been moved to action after seeing the undercover videos. He further testified that the tactics of black faxing and ECDs were common knowledge and that he had read about them on a number of websites.

After over two weeks of the government presenting witnesses, it was the defense's turn. In criminal cases, the defense is under no obligation to present any witnesses or evidence, with the idea that it is up to the government to prove the defendants' guilt. It is not up to the defendants to prove their innocence. With the view that the government had failed to make a strong case against the defendants, the defense presented one day of witnesses and rested its case.

Despite pleas from the individual defendants, SHAC USA's president, Pamelyn Ferdin, decided to take the stand. While it is unclear what her impact on the case was, it is clear that she violated the strong requests of the defendants who were (and are now) facing significant prison time.

After three days of deliberation, the jury returned guilty verdicts on all counts.

What Went Wrong?

How could these individuals be found guilty for speech? Most would say, welcome to Bush?s America. Welcome to post-9/11 America. Welcome to corporate America. But it is more complex than that.

The defendants started the case with the chips stacked against them. The court?s rulings from the beginning were not in their favor, and the federal government had the advantage of endless people power to work on the case, as well as months of wiretaps, emails, and Internet postings, which could easily be misconstrued with a little help from the government.

Essentially the verdict in the trial came down to the question of whether the jury would look past the hand-waving and vague suspicions of the government, as well as past their own sense of camaraderie with the witnesses who took the stand to testify about how perfectly legal home demos terrified them and their families. Sadly, the defense presented by the SHAC7's team of attorneys was just not up to the task under these conditions.

What Now?

The defendants each face significant time in prison. The two defendants convicted of only one charge may be sentenced to up to a year in federal prison, and the others will likely face sentences of five to ten years.   

Although legal precedents are clearly on the side of the SHAC7, appealing the verdict will be a lengthy and costly process. For the defendants, this means potentially being imprisoned for years before it is possible the verdict could be overturned. 

The defendants desperately need our support ? both financially to cover the costs of the appeal process and morally to help them through these difficult and trying times. For more information on how you can help support the SHAC7 and reclaim our free speech rights, please visit www.SHAC7.com.

First they came for the jews....

[KBCraig]

MD is back?

Yaaaay! I really hate that guy!

[error]

Wouldn't be the first time the government abused its powers.

Still, you present a very one-sided case here.

"SHAC USA's president, Pamelyn Ferdin, decided to take the stand." And said what? Ever consider that maybe what she said resulted in the guilty verdicts?

I haven't looked into this particular case, but it does seem to bear looking into further.

[anthonybpugh]

The ban on slaughtering horses is stupid.  The law against interferring with Animal Enterprise is stupid too.  It is already covered under other laws such as Trespass, vandalism, burglary or whatever other criminal charges you can apply for destroying someone else's property. 

This also is not something that should be handled by the Federal government.  This is a state matter. 

[aries]

guess what they still sell horse and some people still eat it

but not that many

so why ban it? theres no need... the horse meat market is dying a natural death

[Dave Ridley]

MD wrote:

<<Tell that to the SHAC7...

To bad you don't know what you are talking about.

http://www.shac7.com/case.htm>>

Thanks for posting that MD.  I didn't know about that.   Too bad they aren't in NH where we could give them some support

23 years for opperating a website.  sigh.  They shure look dangerous tho.  Gotta keep those preppie lefties behind bars before they start chanting or eating tofu.

altho in fairness to the feds i haven't heard their side of it yet.  Usually when I do it makes me angrier but this could be the lone exception I guess....

[error]

Hell, Wikipedia gives a much better balanced picture of SHAC. These people are closely associated with the ALF and encourage violence against people associated with Huntingdon Life Sciences.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Huntingdon_Animal_Cruelty

Coverage of their conviction:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/03/nyregion/03animals.html?ex=1299042000&en=ac00372d8165dd61&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

[Dreepa]

Hey MD... have you met Objectivist?  I am sure you would like him.   

[Lloyd Danforth]

I don't understand any of this, but, I'm stocking up on Glue!

[Russell Kanning]

Are you the terrorist next door?
by Charlotte Laws
Sunday Jan 28th, 2007 11:10 PM
Congress recently passed legislation called the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA), which can be used to prosecute civil disobedience and speech as "domestic terrorism" when an animal-related business loses profits and property. The Act also protects corporations that pollute and destroy the environment.
I was an ordinary American until November 27, 2006 when I became a terrorist or more accurately what I call a "stand-by terrorist." Perhaps I cannot truly own this newfound nickname until the government decides to prosecute me for word crimes, if that day ever arrives. Until then, I just think of myself as being on stand-by, just as are most--if not all--Americans, whether they realize it or not.

You may wonder how words can amount to a terrorist act in the land of the free and home of the outspoken. It is not widely known, but Congress recently passed legislation called the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA), which can be used to prosecute civil disobedience and speech as "domestic terrorism" when an animal-related business loses profits and property. The Act also protects corporations that pollute and destroy the environment.

You may ask, what does this have to do with me because I'm no nature fan or animal lover? Well, it could eventually have very much to do with you because the AETA--a natural child of the Patriot Act--is likely to be the first of many assaults on the social justice movement in favor of corporations and other moneyed interests. If you think you may want to use your free speech someday to criticize something, anything, then you had better be very concerned.

You should also be concerned about whether law enforcement protects you from the Bin Ladens of the world or fritters away your hard-earned tax dollars investigating pacifists. The American Civil Liberties Union says the FBI uses "counterterrorism resources to monitor and infiltrate (nonviolent) domestic political organizations that criticize business interests and government policies." An FBI special agent recently told me that planting undercover agents at legal, peaceful events--with hopes that they will somehow learn about illegal activities--is a favored tactic of the bureau.

What are the parameters of the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act and who could be tangled in its web, slapped with prison time and branded a terrorist? Could Oprah Winfrey--the beloved and successful talk show host--and her former vegetarian guest, Howard Lyman, be prosecuted as terrorists if they were to repeat anti-beef comments made to Winfrey's 15 million viewers in 1996?

It is indeed possible because the AETA is overbroad, vague and subject to the whims of law enforcement, as evidenced last year when six young, New Jersey website operators became the first individuals convicted on "animal enterprise terrorism" charges. The young people were part of the Stop Huntington Cruelty (SHAC) campaign, which targeted the Huntington Life Sciences (HLS) animal research labs. The website operators did nothing more than assert their First Amendment rights: they posted videotape of tortured dogs inside HLS and reported the legal and illegal handiwork of activists, which eventually caused the corporation to lose profits and to be dropped from the New York Stock Exchange. The FBI were unable to catch the underground activists, so they targeted the website operators, who are serving up to six years in prison for their speech.

If the government fails to catch a thief or saboteur, should it be allowed to pursue the CNN reporter who delivers the news? Or an outspoken op-ed columnist? Or six kids from New Jersey with a website? The AETA ignores Shakespeare's recommendation, "Don't shoot the messenger," potentially stigmatizing a "speaker" with the most heinous, post-9/11 label in America: terrorist.

In 1996, Oprah Winfrey invited ex-cattle rancher Howard Lyman to talk about Mad Cow disease on her television show. Lyman knew first-hand how cows--even diseased ones--were fed being to other cows and how their diets were supplemented with ground-up dogs, cats and road kill. He explained the meat production process, and Winfrey offered that she would never eat another burger. The audience cheered. On the following day, cattle futures plummeted, and the financial disaster was labeled the "Oprah Crash."

Estimated losses to the beef industry were $10 - $12 million, and a group of cattlemen filed a lawsuit against Winfrey and Lyman under a Texas food disparagement law. They wanted compensation for loss of profits. Winfrey and Lyman won, but only after spending over a million dollars on legal fees. In his book, Mad Cowboy, Lyman says that those who sued "apparently believe that the First Amendment... was not meant to be interpreted so broadly as to allow people to say unpleasant things about beef."

If Winfrey and Lyman were to make these comments today, and viewers hit the streets, embarking upon civil disobedience, vandalism, even breaking into factory farms and rescuing frightened death row cows from slaughter, could the pair be held liable as AETA conspirators? It is entirely possible.

But nothing this extreme needs to occur because the penalty section of the AETA explicitly states that a person can violate the law and go to prison even if there is no property damage, no loss of profits, no fear to any persons, and no injuries. In other words, if Lyman were to say to Winfrey, "Gee, I hope someone rescues those poor tortured, cows before slaughter," his comment could be interpreted as a violation of the AETA, more specifically as a "conspiracy to interfere with the operations of an animal enterprise." Without a transcript from the show, one cannot know what casual exchanges floated between Winfrey and Lyman that day. It may seem far-fetched to envision the pair in prison, branded terrorists--especially since Winfrey is affluent and popular--but it is not far-fetched within the parameters of this poorly drafted legislation, which leaves much open to interpretation by law enforcement and the court system.

Just as the AETA chills speech, it has disturbing ramifications for those who commit slightly illegal misdeeds. The Act can transform misdemeanors into federal crimes, and it can turn ordinary Americans--who, for example, post illegal signs or engage in graffiti--into domestic terrorists.

Let's assume a high school senior enters a national science fair, and his project involves decapitating live mice. His mother objects to the experiment as cruel and immoral, but the son ignores her. She takes matters into her own hands by stealing the mice and placing them in a loving home, then smashing the remainder of the project and shoving it in the trash. Science fair projects are specifically protected under the AETA, as are vivisection labs, factory farms, slaughterhouses, zoos, furriers and rodeos. The mother has intentionally damaged her son's animal-related property, which means the U.S. government may arrest her as a terrorist and throw her in jail.

Let's take another case. A small boy is murdered, and his older sister is devastated. Because law enforcement officers fail to read the killer his rights and bungle other aspects of the case, he goes free. A year later, the sister discovers the killer owns a horse boarding facility in a neighboring state. She drives to the location and paints his fence with the words, "He murdered my little brother. Don't board your horses here" in attempt to ruin his business and warn customers about the danger. The girl has intentionally caused damage to an animal enterprise. Under the AETA, her graffiti can be prosecuted as a terrorist act.

As a final example, a journalist writes an article about combating the AETA. He suggests peppering the country with signs that read "ALF." "ALF" is an acronym for the Animal Liberation Front, a group that has vandalized companies that use and kill animals. When "ALF" is scribbled on a fence, building or sign, the FBI is automatically called to investigate. This is routine because the bureau considers the group the number one domestic terrorist threat, even though the ALF has never injured a human or animal.

Investigating the acronym "ALF" would be a laborious task if thousands of signs throughout the country had to be checked. The sign placement strategy would run law enforcement ragged, educate the public about the absurdity of the AETA, and further water down the word "terrorist" so that all Americans could come to realize how they themselves qualify as "terrorists on stand-by."

At some point, it is likely an animal enterprise owner or employee would play "the fear card." A butcher, for example, could claim to be frightened by an "ALF" placard adjacent to his shop, alleging an impending attack by angry animal rights activists.

It is a violation of the AETA to intentionally induce fear (of bodily harm) in those associated with an animal enterprise, even when no property is damaged. The "victim"--or the butcher, in this case--would determine what constitutes fear, and it would be easy for him to prove nefarious intentions since everyone knows animal advocates would like to see butchers out of business. Posting illegal signs is common in most neighborhoods, such as when advertising garage sales and political candidates, yet fines are rarely imposed. In the case of "ALF" placards, the "graphic artists" could be arrested as terrorists; the journalist who originated the idea could also be at risk.

It is important to know that AETA terrorism charges cannot be brought against someone when the "target" is unaffiliated with an animal enterprise. If the son's science project had involved no animals, if the murderer had owned a bicycle shop instead of a horse ranch, and if the illegally posted signs had advertised an estate sale, the FBI would not be called. This demonstrates how the AETA violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution, which states that all people must have equal protection under the law.

Why should biomedical corporations and their executives--as well as other animal industries that bestow hefty campaign donations upon Washington politicos--be provided with a special law? Aren't there more (or equally) deserving "targets" in need of activist protection, such as abortion clinics, anti-union employers, gay-run businesses and houses of worship? Should there be an Abortion Clinic Terrorism Act, a Union Employer Terrorism Act, and a Gay Community Terrorism Act, among others? Or would these niche laws further impede efforts to identify real terrorism, as the AETA does?

There have been over 13,000 incidents against abortion clinics and doctors since 1977, including seven murders. There have been over 2,100 acts of union violence between 1991 and 2001, including bombings, shootings and near fatal injuries.

In 2004 alone, there were over 4,500 racially motivated incidents in America, while there were another 1,480 based on religious bias and another 1,460 based on sexual orientation. Animal and environmental groups have committed far fewer acts, yet they are pinned with the "terrorist" tag, while those who shoot abortion doctors or burn down synagogues are perceived only as felons.

By the same token, it is unfair to drag a mother off to prison as a terrorist due to bad luck, in that her son decides to embark upon an animal project. If she had destroyed his chemistry vials, she would not be facing terrorism charges. Her compassionate response to animal abuse should make her a hero, not an Al-Qaeda operative. It is dangerous to dilute the word "terrorism" so it loses all meaning, so it describes the most caring and justice-loving members of our society, and so it theoretically applies to the entire citizenry, many who sweat nervously in "standby" waiting rooms.

The AETA may lead to consequences its originators did not foresee. It may embolden aboveground activists who no longer need to limit their activities to that which is legal. After all, they are viewed as terrorists either way. Why should they cheer from the sidelines when they can run with the ball?

Inequitable and oppressive laws can propel pacifists into action, as depicted in the movie, Catch A Fire. The film relates a true story about an apolitical black man who is wrongly accused of being a terrorist by South African authorities in 1980. After enduring arrest and interrogation, he comes to the realization that it is only right to be a "terrorist," so as to combat the entrenched apartheid of the day. He becomes a rebel fighter, planting an incendiary device at an oil refinery. Ironically, the government--convinced it is keeping him under control by choking him with the heavy hand of the law--wakes him up to injustice and ignites him into action. Animal liberation is no less a noble cause, and a similar result could be expected. Who could be next to catch a fire?

America is about nothing if it is not about fairness and free speech. The AETA does not comport with this image. It is unjust and unconstitutional, and it interferes with the prosecution of real terrorism against the American people.

Once we faced a "red scare"; now we are bombarded with a "green scare." The time has come to ask yourself: Do you really want to be on stand-by or do you want to take a stand?

And are you now, or could you someday be, the terrorist next door?

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/01/28/18353594.php