Green Scare
Secret Prisons for Muslims and Animal Rights, Environmental Activists
Published April 14, 2009 @ 10:38AM PT
Will Potter just posted "Secretive U.S. Prison Units Used to House Muslim, Animal Rights and Environmental Activists" at GreenIsTheNewRed.com. Intro:
The government is using secretive prison facilities on U.S. soil, called Communication Management Units, to house inmates accused of being tied to “terrorism” groups. They overwhelmingly include Muslim inmates, along with at least two animal rights and environmental activists.
Little information is available about the secretive facilities and the prisoners housed there. However, through interviews with attorneys, family members, and a current prisoner, it is clear that these units have been created not for violent and dangerous “terrorists,” but for political cases that the government would like to keep out of the public spotlight and out of the press.
Go read it. It's astonishing.
Updates on the AETA Arrests and Green Scare Tactics
Published March 11, 2009 @ 07:55AM PT
Since I last directed you to the goings-on at GreenIsTheNewRed.com a few weeks ago regarding recent activist arrests (Activists Arrested as "Terrorists" for Exercising Free Speech), Will Potter has supplied numerous additional updates. Following, after the jump, are several that you should check out (indented paragraphs are extracts from the posts). This is highly important stuff.
Activists Arrested as "Terrorists" for Exercising Free Speech
Published February 22, 2009 @ 03:00PM PT
It's finally happened. The ridiculously broad Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) has been invoked to arrest activists as "terrorists" for crimes that appear to amount to barely more than trespassing and property damage. It's astonishing--and frightening. And although the government is specifically targeting animal rights and environmental activists, activists for all social justice causes need to being paying attention to this. This is a blatant effort to silence dissent (dissent that could, you know, cause profit loss to major industries with ties to other major industries and government both).
Will Potter of Green Is the New Red writes,
On February 19th and 20th, the Joint Terrorism Task Force of the FBI arrested four animal rights activists as “terrorists.” Details of the arrests and the charges are still coming, but based on my conversations with attorneys and local news articles, this is the most sweeping expansion of the War on Terrorism and the “Green Scare” to date. . . .
These activists–Nathan Pope, Adriana Stumpo, Joseph Buddenberg, and Maryam Khajavi– were arrested for First Amendment activity.
My calls to the FBI for a copy of the indictment have not been returned, and attorneys I’ve contacted have not viewed it either. However, the FBI’s press release notes that the activists are facing four charges, and lists four incidents. They include:
- Protesting outside the home of a University of California Berkeley professor. Some activists, “wearing bandanas to hide their faces, trespassed on his front yard, chanted slogans, and accused him of being a murderer because of his use of animals in research.”
- At another protest, activists “marched, chanted, and chalked defamatory comments on the public sidewalks in front of the residences.”
- At one protest, a group of five or six activists allegedly “attempted to forcibly enter the private home of a University of California researcher in Santa Cruz.”
- Fliers titled “Murderers and torturers alive & well in Santa Cruz July 2008 edition” were found at a local coffee shop. They listed the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of several researchers. The fliers said “animal abusers everywhere beware we know where you live we know where you work we will never back down until you end your abuse.” The FBI says three of the defendants are tied to the “production and distribution of the fliers.”
Chalking, leafleting and protesting are not terrorism, they are not property crimes, and they are not violent crimes. They are speech. Unlike real terrorists, these defendants are not accused of arming themselves with bombs or machine guns. Their only weapons are words.
The only allegation of possible criminal activity is the FBI’s mention of a forced entry. The details of that incident are unclear, though. For instance, at many lawful home protests in the past, activists have been attacked by the people they are protesting who, understandably, are not happy about a demonstration right outside their front door. In short, the very worst element of the entire set of allegations is nowhere near any reasonable person’s threshold for what constitutes “terrorism.”
When I testified before Congress about the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, I was attacked by supporters of the bill, including Democrats, who said the law would only be used to go after groups like the Animal Liberation Front and Earth Liberation Front. I argued that the vague and overly broad wording in the law could be used by an ambitious prosecutor or federal agents to target First Amendment activity. Eerily, the hypothetical case I described is identical to the recent arrests.
Please go read the whole post at GreenIsTheNewRed.com for more details.
See also Tracy's post at Digging Through the Dirt. She notes in her remarks, "While trespassing, assault and threats may be illegal, they hardly constitute terrorism. If a gang member trespasses on property, punches someone and issues a threat, he'll likely get arrested, but he won't be labeled a terrorist."
Top image: Portland Independent Media Center
Second image: Civil Liberties Defense Center
Industry Docs Pushing to Paint Activists as Terrorists Revealed
Published December 17, 2008 @ 06:50AM PT
Get over to Green Is the New Red today. There is something going on that you can't miss.
Internal Industry Documents Show Plans for Labeling Activists as “Eco-Terrorists” (Part 1 of 3)
Here's the intro:
It has been two years since the passage of the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, a sweeping new law that wraps up non-violent civil disobedience and hurting corporate profits as “terrorism.”
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.
Go read the rest, and join me on the edge of our proverbial seats while we wait for parts 2 and 3.
And vote.
CCF Labels HSUS "Terrorists" in New York Times
Published December 11, 2008 @ 08:53AM PT
Unbelievable. Go read the post "Full-page New York Times Ad Calls Humane Society 'Terrorists'" at Green Is the New Red.
A full-page ad in today’s The New York Times accuses the Humane Society of “helping an animal rights terrorism group.”
The ad was bought by the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF), a front group that represents the fast food, meat and dairy industries. You might remember CCF from when they attacked Mothers Against Drunk Driving (yep, they represent big alcohol, too).
Here’s the gist of the ad: a Humane Society vice president is speaking at a holiday event sponsored by the Humane League. CCF says the Humane League has members from a group “Hugs for Puppies,” and Hugs for Puppies had members from SHAC Philly, and SHAC Philly had members from SHAC USA, and six members of SHAC USA were convicted on “animal enterprise terrorism” charges for running a controversial website.
Whew. Got that?
If not, don’t worry… the ad has a flow chart!
There's much more to the post. Go read it.
Ideas for Change: Rescind the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act
Published December 04, 2008 @ 03:50PM PT
Perhaps you've read about the insidious AETA and the Green Scare on this blog before (here and here). And perhaps you've kept up with the great coverage of this issue at Green Is the New Red. If not, it's time to learn about the issue. Over at Change.org's Ideas for Change in America project, Alex Hershaft, founder of FARM, has posted an idea deserving of votes and action:
Rescind the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act
The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) was enacted in November of 2006 at the behest of the pharmaceutical and biomedical industries. AETA restricts the freedom of speech and assembly of animal and other social justice activists. It unfairly brands as terrorism any activities that cross a state line and interfere with the operation of an animal enterprise or of any entity that deals with one. Such activities may include website posts, peaceful vigils, nonviolent civil disobedience, undercover investigations, and whistle-blowing.
The rights of animals won't advance--the lives of animals won't improve--if those of us with voices to fight for their rights and lives are intentionally deterred from exercising our rights to free speech and assembly (or if we're imprisoned for exercising those rights). As I wrote previously on this blog, if the AETA had been enacted decades ago, luminaries such as Rosa Parks, Mahatma Gandhi, Susan B. Anthony, and Martin Luther King Jr. all could have been charged as terrorists.
For more information on the AETA, go here:
- AETA Fact Sheet (Center for Constitutional Rights)
- Analysis of the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (GreenIsTheNewRed.com)
- The Chilling Effect (by Will Potter, in Satya)
- Equal Justice Alliance: Defending Freedom of Speech and Assembly
- Animal Enterprise Terrorism 101 (by Will Potter, originally in Herbivore)
- Will Potter Talk about Activist Repression (video)
---
Image courtesy of Last Chance for Animals
Conversations in the Comments: Animals Above Humans and More
Published November 17, 2008 @ 07:24AM PT
I spend significant time responding to critical comments on this blog, as do a couple faithful readers, to whom I am immensely grateful for sharing the burden. But I imagine that many of the rest of you miss the conversations (in some cases, very long conversations) that follow some of the posts. So this morning, I'm going to share with you some of my responses to a conversation that's been taking place in recent days.
"In other words, you are deciding for us that the animal’s rights are more important man’s. I don’t care if you want to put an animal’s life above a family members of your, but I sure won’t."
In asking people not to exploit animals, no one is talking about taking away humans' rights or about elevating animals' rights above humans'. Asking people to respect animals' rights to simply live and live free from suffering does not require them to sacrifice anything extraordinary. Contrary to what many want to believe, humans don't need meat. We don't need dairy. We don't need eggs. And no, we also don't need leather or wool. But people like these things, so they want to keep eating and using them, despite the enormous suffering and death caused to other sentient beings as a result.
Animal rights advocates don't want to take away humans' basic rights--to live, to eat, to work, to enjoy life, to enjoy good health. We just want nonhuman animals to have the right to live and enjoy life too. No one is asking that people put a nonhuman animal's life above their own or that of a family member. It's not one or the other. Humans can live--and live quite well, better even--without consuming and exploiting animals.
"Anyhoo, im just wondering why vegetarians are so close minded to other peoples choice of food, (meat) in particular. Someone please answer this! . . . why does it matter what we eat as long as we are happy and kind to each other in the short period of time we are on this planet?"
