A PowerPoint presentation, leaked from a division of the State Department, reveals that the government is briefing corporations about animal rights activists and offering “countermeasures” to protect corporate profits.

For years, the government has relentlessly pushed to label animal rights and environmental activists as “eco-terrorists” and domestic terrorists. The FBI even labels these groups the “number one domestic terrorism threat.” But this State Department PowerPoint puts the “Green Scare,” as many activists are calling it, in much different perspective.

It spells out, with startling candor, that animal rights and environmental activists are less a threat to national security than to corporate financial security. And it shows that the targets of this “War on Terrorism” aren’t just people burning SUVs: the targets are people using their First Amendment rights.

It’s a harrowing glimpse at what this country has become: the dissolution of all lines between corporate interests and government interests, between “terrorism” and free—albeit controversial—speech.

The presentation, “Animal Rights Extremists: Targets, Tactics Business Response & Countermeasures,” is by the Overseas Security Advisory Council, a division of the U.S. State Department. It was leaked to me by someone who attended the briefing, and I have made it available for download at GreenIsTheNewRed.com.

The notes section of the PowerPoint shows the comments of State Department officials, including a listing of illegal activist tactics by groups like the Animal Liberation Front, from arson to the beheading of a snowman (seriously). [If that seems unbelievable, check out the memo from DHS about “eco-terrorism” like tying up company phone lines.]

But what’s most disturbing is how this presentation on “extremism” and “eco-terrorism” includes so much First Amendment activity. The first slide on “major tactics” lists four “extremism” examples: one has only happened in the UK (“physical assaults”) and the other three are legal (posting personal information, videotaping, and demonstrations at executives’ homes).

The State Department admits as much, noting that activists “push the envelope right up to the line where another step would mean they are breaking the law.” In other words, most of these “terrorists” aren’t committing any crimes.

But that hasn’t stopped the government from surveilling, harassing and demonizing legal activists. In fact, this State Department briefing includes a flier for the Animal Rights 2006 National Conference, a mainstream event with hundreds of attendees where I spoke about the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. This year, among the “terrorists” in attendance was Heather Mills.

“Although many legitimate activists attend these events,” the presentation notes, “the conference holds workshops on successful tactics used against your companies…”

So what gives? Why are these activists such a threat?

The first reason: money. These activists are directly targeting corporate profits. “Although incidents related to terrorism are most likely to make the front page news, Animal Rights Extremism is what’s most likely to affect your day-to-day business operations…”

These activists don’t just want reforms, they want to force corporations like Huntingdon Life Sciences out of business. And they’re “calculating, persistent and often effective.”

The second reason: activists aren’t afraid. Despite the “eco-terrorism” rhetoric, despite the FBI attempting to infiltrate vegan potlucks, despite Joint Terrorism Task Forces arresting activists for wearing masks, and on and on and on, activists aren’t backing down and they aren’t caving in to fear. That, after all, is the entire point of all the “eco-terrorism” scare-mongering: to instill fear in everyday people and make them afraid of using their rights. If this chilling effect doesn’t occur, well, the government and corporations have quite a problem on their hands.

“Never confront the protesters,” the State Department warns corporations. “These individuals are clever. Most of them know what their rights are…”

That, it seems, is the greatest threat of all.

What do you think? Are you surprised by this, or should it be expected? How should people respond? Leave a comment…

Tags: Animal Liberation Front, Animal Rights Activists, Briefings, Opposition, OSAC, SHAC 7, State Department

This weekend two incendiary devices exploded at the homes of two UC Santa Cruz scientists who experiment on animals. One device destroyed a car. The other, left on a front porch, set the house on fire while the UC employee, his wife and two small children were inside. The arsons come after a similar attack at UCLA, and ongoing animal testing protests throughout the university system. The FBI has attributed the crimes to animal rights activists because fliers left at a coffee house four days earlier contained the names and addresses of university scientists.

First, it should be noted that no animal rights group like the Animal Liberation Front has claimed responsibility. Yet the FBI has recklessly labeled this “eco-terrorism,” just like the recent Seattle arson, before the smoke had even cleared. We’ve seen plenty of instances when the government later says “oops, it wasn’t ‘eco-terrorism’ after all.” And we’ve seen other instances, like the attempted murder of Judi Bari, when the FBI framed activists. In short: reporters, activists, and the general public need to slow down, step back, and stop blindly trusting the “official” story provided by the FBI.

In this “with us or against us” War on Terrorism, though, facts don’t really matter. All that matters, in the eyes of the government and corporations, is whether you are in the “with us” camp or the “against us” camp.

In hopes of avoiding the latter, the Humane Society of the United States has offered $2,500 to the “eco-terrorism” witch hunt in California.

It’s strategic for HSUS to try to stay far, far away from this mess, since the organization is pushing a historic ballot initiative for farmed animals in the state. But corporations and industry groups have already responded to the PR gesture, loud and clear: all the donations, press releases and sound bites in the world won’t protect you.

From the Center for Consumer Freedom:

“Nobody should be fooled by HSUS’s paltry gesture. While pretending to be part of the solution, the group continues to be a significant part of the problem—an over-zealous social movement bent on extending legal rights to animals, whether or not thinking people like the consequences. The entire community of Santa Cruz is learning this week what can happen when human beings resist the sort of evolution the animal rights community has planned for them. And it’s not pretty.”

We’ve already seen how the New McCarthyists are exploiting crimes like this to push a broader political agenda. They’re saying if you oppose bombings, you must support legislation like the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act and a new California “eco-terrorism” law. They’re saying if you oppose bombings, you must support home raids. They’re saying if you oppose bombings, you must support hauling activists before grand juries.

Their goal here is not to solve this crime, or stop underground groups. Why? Because the true threat here is not the tactic, the true threat is the belief system. This is a culture war. Don’t just take my word for it. Feedstuffs, an “agribusiness” publication, said the HSUS ballot initiative in California represented the threat of a “vegetarian nation.” Fight them with everything you have, it warned: The “dam must not be breached.”

In many ways, Feedstuffs and CCF are absolutely right. This is a turning point in history. Not just for the animal rights movement, but for a country showing frightening parallels to the worst eras of government repression. The question, then, is this: Should we all, like HSUS, try to buy ourselves a little time? Or should we step up and fight the New McCarthyists head on?

[And to continue the heated discussion on a previous post... Where do you draw the line in terms of activist groups proclaiming their disapproval of other activists? With awards for arresting activists? With counter-protests? With press releases? When (if ever) is it appropriate and effective?]

What do you think?

Tags: Activists' Response, Bombing, Culture War, HSUS, Santa Cruz

In the 1960s, COINTELPRO was a sweeping government program to monitor, manipulate and disrupt progressive social movements in the United States, including antiwar activists, the Black Panthers, the American Indian Movement and Martin Luther King. As part of COINTELPRO, the government created fake publications, placed anonymous calls, and forged letters from prominent activists. This was all intended to pit activists and organizations against each other, and through that to neutralize these movements.

In other words: let them tear themselves apart from within.

So when I saw that Friends of Animals, an animal rights group, is protesting PETA, another animal rights group, I couldn’t help but think: Damn, the FBI couldn’t have dreamed this up.

As a bit of background, PETA has plenty of corporate enemies. They’ve been called “corporate terrorists,” they’ve been called the “number one domestic terrorist threat,” and they’ve been called “undistinguishable from al Qaeda, Hamas, and Hezbollah.”

While corporations and corporate politicians call PETA “extremist,” some activists are now saying PETA isn’t extreme enough. Its recent, historic negotiation with KFC has come under fire as being “welfarist.” Add to that the fact that PETA often uses media stunts like ladies in lettuce bikinis handing out free vegetarian food, and you have the background for this protest.

To be honest, I didn’t pay much attention to this at first. But then I saw Mary Martin’s blog post, and how many people left comments supporting the counter-protest.

I was shocked. The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act labels attacking corporate profits as “terrorism,” the SHAC 7 are in prison for running a controversial website, the FBI is infiltrating vegan potlucks, and on and on and on… but the best use of time and money for an animal rights group is to protest another animals rights group?

To steal a line from Propagandhi: “With friends like this, who the f* needs COINTELPRO.”

To be clear, I think it’s important to have discussions of both tactics and end goals. And I think it’s important to not gloss over strategic and ideological differences. But in this political climate, one where activists are being labeled as “terrorists” and the planet is approaching environmental collapse, I think it’s essential to think strategically, and focus energy and resources where they are needed most. Am I the only one who thinks that protesting another activist group shouldn’t be the top of anyone’s list?

Tags: COINTELPRO, Counter-protest, Friends of Animals, Peta

Eight years ago, the Earth Liberation Front claimed responsibility for sabotaging the U.S. Forest Service Facility in Rhinelander, Wisconsin, because the facility was performing genetic engineering research on trees. Underground activists “girdled” about 500 trees, removing a strip of bark, a few inches wide, around the circumference of the trees that caused them to die. Activists also used spray paint and etching cream to sabotage U.S. Forest Service vehicles.

Now, eight years later, the government has announced the indictment of three activists for the crimes. Aaron Ellringer, Katherine Christianson, and Bryan Rivera have been charged with destruction of government property and conspiracy. The indictment also names Ian Wallace (a government informant) and Daniel McGowan (one of the “Operation Backfire” defendants you’ve read about on this site). It also ominously names others “known and unknown to the grand jury.”

What stood out to me in the indictment is the language being used by the government, language that echoes “terrorism enhancement” provisions applied to McGowan and others in the Operation Backfire cases, language like “direct actions are acts of vandalism or arson designed to intimidate business, government, and the general civilian population into ceasing activities that individuals in these movements believe are harmful to the natural environment.” I wouldn’t be surprised in the least if the government is gunning for another “War on Terrorism” victory.

Details are still emerging about all of this, and I’ll be following up here, but there is one inspiring note. Daniel McGowan was recently subpoenaed to testify at a grand jury about this crime. He refused to testify, refused to help the government make an absurd “terrorism” case against other activists, and was placed in civil contempt. As a result, he lost “good time” toward his 7-year sentence. And now he’s at the “terrorist prison” in Terre Haute, Indiana, and will soon head to a special unit in the federal prison in Marion, Illinois.

It’s outrageous that, with all the issues facing the country, the government thinks its a priority to revive an eight-year-old case, months before it will expire, for activists that stripped bark off of trees and caused about $500,000 in damage. I feel safer now, don’t you?

As always, if you have been approached by law enforcement, please let us know at GreenIsTheNewRed.com and call the NLG Green Scare Hotline, 1-888-NLG-ECOL.

Tags: Earth Liberation Front, Ian Wallace, McGowan, Rhinelander

A Seattle man who drove his Subaru through a group of Critical Mass bike riders has called the cyclists… wait for it… “eco-terrorists.”

It seems that the lunatic driver, Mark, says he felt intimidated and afraid because of the cyclists, so he tried to rev his engine and instead accidentally put a couple people in the hospital. Oops.

The Stranger’s blog interviewed Mark:

While a some cyclists I’ve spoken with have written Mark off as another indignant road-hog, Mark says he actually used to be a bike commuter when he lived in Seattle a few years ago. “I sympathize with [cyclists’] cause. I ride bikes too. I’m a liberal hippie democrat,” he says, adding “I’m gay, the person with me was a lesbian and we were attacked by eco-terrorists. It’s the most Seattle thing that could have happened.

This wasn’t the only recent attack on “eco-terrorist” bikers. Check out this YouTube clip of another Critical Mass ride where a cop randomly tackles a cyclist (and the cyclist was charged with assault and resisting arrest).

I think this may actually top the story of whalers calling Paul Watson an “eco-terrorist,” then shooting him.

What do you think?

Tags: Critical Mass

I’m excited to be speaking at the Vermont Law Review symposium on October
17th. I’ll be speaking about “The Threat of Unpopular Ideas,” and domestic “eco-terrorism” and “domestic terrorism” laws like the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. The event is on October 17th at Vermont Law School in South Royalton, VT.

Thanks very much to the folks at the Vermont Law Review for the invitation, it’s quite an honor to be speaking alongside experts on Constitutional law and the First Amendment. I’ll be posting more information here as it becomes available.

Tags: Speaking

Two activists who handed out vegan pamphlets outside of a HoneyBaked Ham store– and were harassed, spied on, and arrested for it– can proceed with a lawsuit against the cops, a federal appeals court recently ruled.

Caitlin Childs and Christopher Freeman were leafletting in an Atlanta suburb in 2003. Here’s much more from the ACLU, including photos by the Department of Homeland Security. The complaint has a good rundown of the events.

And recently, there was strikingly similar news out of Baltimore that Maryland State Police Division of Homeland Security and Intelligence had coordinated a massive spying operation against peaceful activists for 14 months. Check out the great gallery of articles by the Baltimore Sun. From the Washington Post:

The agent, called Analyst Sparwasser in police records, detailed the meeting’s activities in a single-space log, ending: “No other pertinent intelligence information was obtained.” The log was included in a database of reports on at least 27 meetings of peace activists and death penalty opponents that police infiltrated over 14 months in 2005 and 2006.

The surveillance, documented in 46 pages of records released last week to the American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland, contained no reports of illegal activity.

Clearly, there’s no greater priority for “terrorism” investigations than vegans and death penalty opponents. Here’s a thought: perhaps the Feds should be investigating people who are encouraging violence, not opposing it.

Tags: HoneyBaked Ham, Peace Activists, Spying, Surveillance

On May 21st in Austria, the government carried out an unprecedented round-up of the country’s most prominent, above-ground, lawful animal advocates. Some of them have been on hunger strike in protest. The Guardian reports that “shelter workers, animal welfare teachers and public campaign organizers” are held “under suspicion of membership in ‘a criminal organisation.’”

Well, a judge in Austria recently ruled to keep them behind bars because they pose a “security risk.” An example of this security risk cited by the court is that Martin Balluch (who writes about his hunger strike here), was asked if he would remain chairman of the Association Against Animal Factories if he were released, and he said yes.

In Austria, as in the United States, this has all been done in the name of fighting “terrorism” and disrupting “terrorist organizations” like the Animal Liberation Front and Earth Liberation Front. But just like in Sara Whitehead’s case, the Austrian roundup has only added fuel to the fire of underground activists.

Bite Back Magazine reports this translation of an anonymous communiqué from Germany: “But we released at least 2000 mink! We gave them a chance to escape. A chance is better because in a few months they will be killed by the farmer. These animals deserve freedom! This action is dedicated to the imprisoned Austrian animal activists!”

So this “War on Terror” ain’t workin’. But I argue that it isn’t MEANT to work. It’s not meant to stop illegal activity, because in many ways, illegal activity isn’t the true threat. The true threat is that the beliefs of these individuals–that animals and the environment deserve the same consideration as human interests–are gaining massive ground. Austria is one of the most progressive countries in the world in terms of protecting animals. And many of the activists that were rounded up were working on a constitutional amendment on animal welfare.

Martin Balluch, who has a double PhD in physics and philosophy and is a former colleague of Stephen Hawking, said it quite well in this ominous interview prior to his arrest:

“The moment the politicians can portray you as terrorists and are believed, they have won this battle, no matter what.”

Tags: Activists' Response, Culture War, Deterrance

“Eco-terrorism” is a buzzword that corporations and the politicians who represent them have been throwing around more and more since 9/11. But like the bigger T-word, it’s a term without much of a definition. “Eco-terrorism” has been used to describe burning SUVs, and other property crimes by the Animal Liberation Front and Earth Liberation Front. It has been used to describe terrorism against the environment. It has been used to describe real estate deals. It has been used to describe attending vegan potlucks, dating the wrong people, and children’s movies.

One might think that definitions of “terrorism” have been expanded to the point of being completely meaningless (and therefore incredibly dangerous).

But if you’re confused about this “Green Scare,” and all the “eco-terrorist” scare-mongering, have no fear. Ladies and gentleman, I present to you the eloquent, the passionate, Rep. Frank Niceley defining “eco-terrorism” for the Tennessee General Assembly:

“First let me try to explain eco-terrorism. I’m surprised that you haven’t heard of it. Take one group, the PETA group. According to the FBI they’re the number one domestic terrorist group in America. They are considered eco-terrorists.

Eco-terrorists are, uh, I guess left-wing eco-greenies.

Continue Reading »

Tags: Defining Terrorism, Funny, Legislation, Opposition, Video

As both the US and UK governments (and many others) are cracking down on animal rights and environmental activists, labeling them as terrorists and hitting them with outrageous prison sentences, supporters say it is for a few reasons. First, they say that these activists are national security threats. Second, they say that this boot-on-the-throat approach will deter future illegal activity by underground, “eco-terrorist” groups like the Animal Liberation Front.

But here’s a recent example of how this “Green Scare” plays out in real life.

A UK activist named Sara Whitehead was just sentenced to 2 years in prison for rescuing a beagle from an abusive home. That’s right, two years. Neighbors had filed complaints with the police and the RSPCA, to no avail. When Whitehead rescued the dog, cops pounced surprisingly quickly: it turns out Whitehead, like many activists, was already under police surveillance.

So has this use of police resources, to crack down on a woman rescuing an abused dog, deterred illegal activity by “eco-terrorist” groups like the Animal Liberation Front?

Far from it. Continue Reading »

Tags: Animal Liberation Front, Deterrance, Sara Whitehead, UK