"Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act Signed Into Law,"

By WILL POTTER

Earth First Journal, January, 2007, pages 8-9.

http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/efjournal-aeta/

After a cold and wet morning, politicians and celebrities slogged through
the muck of the National Mall on November 13, to pay tribute to Martin
Luther King, Jr. and break ground on the new national memorial in his honor.
Democrats and Republicans, Clinton and Bush, Oprah and Jesse were all on
hand in muddied wingtips and pumps, clamoring to show their support for the
civil rights leader and his once-controversial tactics.

Representative John Lewis of Georgia told PBS NewsHour, "King inspired me
and thousands of other Americans to get in the way. He inspired us to get in
trouble. But it was good trouble; it was necessary trouble. And that's why
we honor Martin Luther King, Jr. today."

But hours later, those who had spent the morning waxing eloquent about
dissent and making trouble were nowhere to be found as about half a dozen
lawmakers allowed the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) to pass the
House of Representatives on a voice vote. Already passed by the Senate in
September, the AETA was signed into law by President Bush on November 27.

The AETA is essentially an expansion of the existing Animal Enterprise
Protection Act (AEPA) of 1992. The punishable offenses included in the AEPA
are limited to: causing "physical disruption to the functioning of an animal
enterprise" and "economic damage exceeding $10,000"; causing serious bodily
injury or death in the course of these acts; or conspiring to do so. The
AETA expands these punishable offenses to include: any damage or loss of
property associated with animal enterprise, with no minimum dollar amount;
placing a "person in reasonable fear of death... or serious bodily injury";
or conspiring to do so. It also prescribes harsher, escalating penalties.

The AETA is ostensibly meant to target underground, illegal actions
committed in the name of animal rights by groups like the Animal Liberation
Front. But underground activists won't lose much sleep over this bill. Their
actions are already illegal (and they know it); the government has already
labeled them the "number one domestic terrorist threat." And yet these
activists continue to demonstrate that heavy-handed police tactics will not
deter them. Legal, aboveground activists are the ones who should be most
concerned about this vague and overly broad legislation, under which they
could be considered "terrorists." The AETA sends a chilling message to
activists of all social movements that political opportunists can use the
rhetoric and resources of the War on Terrorism against them.

Corporations like Pfizer, Wyeth and GlaxoSmithKline joined the United Egg
Producers, National Cattlemen's Beef Association and other New McCarthyists
to rush through the AETA legislation on the very first day back from
congressional recess. It seems that the shift to Democratic control of
Congress put a little spring in their step and gave this
legislation--similar versions of which have languished in Congress since the
mid-'90s--a new urgency. The law was rushed through the House as part of the
suspension calendar, a political move used to usher through so-called
non-controversial legislation with little debate.

Virginia Representative Bobby Scott--often called the "go-to-guy" in the
House on civil liberties and civil rights issues--came out swinging in
support of the "ecoterrorism" bill. Scott, a Democrat, said that existing
laws have been "reasonably effective," but "gaps and loopholes" prevent law
enforcement from going after animal rights "extremists."

Scott failed to note, even in passing, that the existing AEPA was used to
successfully prosecute seven Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC) activists
on "animal enterprise terrorism" charges for running a website. Ignoring
this crucial bit of information, Scott said that activists are taking
advantage of the fact that the AEPA doesn't cover "affiliates and
associates" of animal enterprises.

Disturbingly, Scott said in passing that civil disobedience could be covered
in the bill--which some other supporters of the bill have denied--but he
tried to ease public fears by saying that the civil disobedience would have
to cause disruption and loss of profits to qualify, and that "it must be
proven that such losses were specifically intended." The same congressman
who frequently praises the achievements of the civil rights movement is
suddenly standing on the House floor and advocating the inclusion of that
movement's tactics in a "terrorism" bill.

Apparently, the actions of animal rights activists aren't "good trouble."
They aren't "necessary trouble." In a different time, though, civil rights
activists weren't "good trouble," either. It's not a stretch to imagine
similar legislation being used to target civil rights activists, if only
Strom Thurmond had thought of it first. Supporters would probably have said
it was all in the name of cracking down on "extremists" like Malcolm X.
Meanwhile, anyone paying attention would see clear as day that the
legislation was meant to have a chilling effect on all dissent.

Representative Thomas Petri, a Republican from Wisconsin usually in
disagreement with Scott, said much of the same. He had the nerve to stand on
the House floor and say, with a straight face, that current federal law,
including the AEPA, has been "inadequate" in going after animal rights
activists. Petri knows full well that all the crimes listed in this bill are
already crimes, that the original bill has been used successfully, and that
the animal and environmental movements have never claimed a single human
life.

Petri and the corporations that support him call the existing legislation
"inadequate" because, in their mind, the true threat is not the underground
wing of the movement but the movement itself. The Malcolm Xes are threats
but so are the MLKs, and they know it. That's where this vague and overly
broad legislation comes into place, wrapping up civil disobedience,
undercover investigations and other non-violent activity as "terrorism."

Only Representative Dennis Kucinich of Ohio spoke up against this dangerous
legislation. "This bill was written to have a chilling effect," he said, "on
a specific type of protest." Kucinich got in a little back-and-forth with
Wisconsin Representative James Sensenbrenner about the bill. Sensenbrenner
repeatedly cited a provision of the bill that "exempts" First Amendment
activity. Thank you to Sensenbrenner and our patriotic representatives for
reminding us that there is still a First Amendment. However, saying, "This
law is constitutional," doesn't make it so. If anything, it's an admission
that the bill has serious flaws.

At one point, Sensenbrenner read off a list of quotes from animal rights
activists that he said exemplified the targets of the legislation. Kucinich
promptly noted that "those statements, in and of themselves, are
constitutionally protected speech. Yet under this bill, they suddenly find
themselves shifting into an area of doubt, which goes back to my initial
claim that this bill was written to have a chilling effect upon a specific
type of protest."

But perhaps the most disturbing segment of this whole scare-mongering
debacle was how Sensenbrenner ended the floor debate: "This is a good bill.
I think that all of the fears that the gentleman from Ohio has placed on the
record are [considered] ill-founded by practically everybody who has looked
through this bill, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)."

The ACLU, in fact, had sent a letter to members of Congress on March 6,
urging opposition to the legislation, and the Humane Society of the US
(HSUS) sent a nearly identical letter. The biggest concerns raised in these
letters were never addressed by Congress. Yet while the HSUS and other
mainstream animal welfare groups like the American Society for the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals were outspoken against the AETA, the ACLU
informed lawmakers in September that "the ACLU does not oppose this bill."

Why? Perhaps because there are so many other civil liberties issues
competing for critical attention. Perhaps because corporate scare-mongering
and green baiting has turned animal rights activists into political lepers.
Or perhaps history repeats itself. The ACLU has a long, venerable history of
defending the civil liberties of even the most unsavory characters,
including the KKK. Yet during the Red Scare of the '40s and '50s, the ACLU
formally barred communists from leadership or staff positions. Meanwhile,
the National Lawyers Guild took a beating for refusing to name names and
purge members who also belonged to communist organizations, but it stood its
ground.

This time around, the National Lawyers Guild was out front opposing the AETA
and the Green Scare. And this time around, the silence of the ACLU spoke
volumes, essentially giving the Green Scare the green light.

Will Potter is an award-winning reporter based in Washington, DC, who
testified before Congress on the civil liberties implications of the AETA.

Gathered by Sylvie K
Posted by Miriam V.

Miriam's Comment: So if I decide to picket a company or laboratory that is
torturing pussy cats in the name of science, I will be in big trouble!