NJ Using Anti-Terrorism Law To Try 6 Animal Rights Activists

[Jon8503]

PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) - New Jersey is using an anti-terrorism law for the first time to try six animal rights activists charged with harassing and vandalizing a company that made use of animals to test its drugs. Prosecutors say the activists, who will stand trial next week, used threats, intimidation and cyber attacks against employees of Huntingdon Life Sciences, a British company with operations in East Millstone, New Jersey, with the intention of driving it out of business.

The six, members of a group called Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC), are charged under the Animal Enterprise Protection Act, amended in 2002 to include ``animal enterprise terrorism,'' which outlaws disrupting firms like Huntingdon. If convicted, the group and its accused members face a maximum $250,000 fine and three years in prison.

SHAC argued that the charges are a violation of free-speech rights and it is the victim of a government crackdown on dissent. ``This is a frightening step in the Bush administration's path to war on domestic dissidence,'' the group said on its Web site.

The defendants are also charged with interstate stalking, which carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison and $250,000 fine, and with conspiracy to engage in interstate stalking, carrying the same penalty.

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/news/news-crime-animals.html?

[dejaboutique]

1. wow that is harsh

jeez, I have heard more and more that they are using that anti-terrorism bill on non terror related things. This article is scary.

[Eric J in MN]

2. When the Parent's Television Council swamps Carl's Jr.'s

with emails and phone calls over its Paris Hilton ad, it isn't called terrorism.

Nor should it be.

It's activism in both cases, not terrorism.

[Mythsaje]

3. Disturbing trend

though I, personally, think that sometimes these groups and specific individuals go too far. It's easy to get carried away when one argues from a particularly emotional point of view.

Not that I'm against many animal protection causes. I applaud our new Governor's recent signing of a bill to make animal cruelty a felony (about time), and I'd dearly love to see a concerted movement against backyard dog breeding. This last despite the fact that I'm usually very skeptical about laws that prevent people from exercising personal free enterprise. I just don't think they're doing a service to either the dogs or prospective buyers. Dogs shouldn't be bred for financial reasons alone--they should be bred to improve the breed or not at all. When inbreeding and hereditary problems run rampant, someone needs to apply the brakes. If people themselves can't or won't do it, the government MUST step in to curtail this sort of thing.


Sorry about the mini-rant. I've really got mixed feelings about animal rights organizations. I'm heavy into canine rescue and see terrible things done to dogs all the time, yet I think some of these groups court bad press and do a disservice to all of us who campaign on the behalf of our four-legged companions.

[Eric J in MN]

4. What do you think of calling it "terrorism?" nt

nt

[Mythsaje]

5. I think it's nonsense

It's "harassment," perhaps, but I wouldn't consider harassment to be terrorism. It's not a good indication that they're trying to widen the definition of "terrorism" to include things that do not, nor have intention of, causing terror for anyone.

Shouldn't the definition of terrorism require the intent to cause terror in the first place?

[Jon8503]

6. I think the anti-abortion groups that put up the bloody website

with the phone numbers and addresses of the doctors with the names of their children and wives and advocating violence was very much terrorism.

They were advocating murder of doctors, they have set bombs at clinics and threatening their familes with violence and murder.

What is that?

[Mythsaje]

7. I agree

They had the intention of using fear to curtail someone else's freedom of choice and natural liberties. To me, that's terrorism.

[Eric J in MN]

10. The ACLU argued that is ISN'T free speech protected by

the Constitution to list abortion doctors and cross off their names when they die, but the US Supreme Court ruled it is.

[femme.democratique]

15. fascism at work...

[me b zola]

8. yep. Brought to you by the new FBI domestic terrorist list

The new FBI terrorist list came out a couple of weeks ago, and guess who is NOT on it?

neo-nazis, the kkk, skin-heads, or any other racsist group

pro-lifers and other radical christian fundamentalists who blow people & things up


The list came out around the time that they excepted a plea deal with Rudolf, and the government had their talking heads explaining why people like McVey & Rudolf were not terrorists.



This article should outrage everyone of us, and we should not make the article about our feelings about animal rights groups.

from the article:

SHAC argued that the charges are a violation of free-speech rights and it is the victim of a government crackdown on dissent. ``This is a frightening step in the Bush administration's path to war on domestic dissidence,'' the group said on its Web site.
~~~~~~~~~~

This is what the article is about. Will anti-war activists be next??

[AlienGirl]

19. DU has an animal rights group...

Would the labelling of animal rights activists as "domestic terrorists" put DU at risk simply for having this forum?

Tucker

[evolvenow]

34. Exactly, do not be distracted by the group, look at the Fascist response

....which is so OBVIOUS. They can say anyone is doing anything, no matter how peaceful or appropriate, and try them in court or lock them up at Gitmo and who would ever know.

It is a magic shell game with deadly and highy unethical consequences.

Killing people..OK. Protecting the innocent...go to jail. INSANE. but we know that.

Nut world times 1000.

[me b zola]

9. Here are two links

The official 'list' has not come out, it looks like they leaked drafts of the list to the media, maybe just to see if anyone would even oject. Appearently no one objected enough.

http://www.cq.com/public/20050325_homeland.html

http://flag.blackened.net/pipermail/infoshop-news/2005-April/004476.html

[The Stranger]

11. "Imagine, if you can, a small room, hexagonal in shape . . . "

[livinginphotographs]

12. The word "terrorist" is meaningless.

It's only a tool of propaganda used to discredit those who might cut into your profits.

These activists stole credit card info and threatened to send the money to charities. Huntingdon performs some of the cruelest, most barbaric experiments I've ever heard of, killing and torturing its animals. While I disagree somewhat with direct action, the real terrorists are the butchers at Huntingdon.

And if we think this will stop with animal rights, we're wrong. Next will be anti-war activists, labor, environmentalists, and anyone to the left of Ann Coulter.

[JackieO]

16. Is it just me

or is this cavalier use of the word "terrorism" completely insulting to people who have actually lost their lives or loved ones to terrorism? Speaking as someone who has lost a friend in an actual terrorist attack, I'm completely disgusted.

[shockra]

13. Another good article on SHAC..

http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/06/1745487.php

Excerpt from the section on defining domestic terrorists:

Jeffords' concerns have good cause. In February of 2005, the husband and mother of US District Judge Joan Lefkow were murdered, execution style, in the basement of her home in Chicago's suburbs. Judge Lefkow had issued a copyright infringement ruling against a white supremacist group called the World Church of the Creator and ordered its leader, Matt Hale, to change its name and cease using documents bearing the group's name. Matt Hale then attempted to contract a hit on Judge Lefkow's life. As he awaited sentencing for that conviction, Lefkow's family was murdered.

Other incidents by white supremacists and right-wing extremists in the past involved a racist, three-day shooting spree in Illinois and Indiana in 1999, attempts to manufacture or acquire weapons of mass destruction, including biological and chemical agents, abortion clinic bombings and assassinations of doctors who practice abortion procedures, the delivery of home-made anthrax through the mail by neo-nazis against “lawyers with Jewish-sounding names,” and best known, the Oklahoma City bombings of 1995 that killed nearly two-hundred men, women and children.

The reality is that right-wing extremists have proven exceedingly violent and brutal in recent years, while animal rights and environmental campaigners have simply been extremely effective activists. Right-wing extremists might kill people, but animal rights and environmental activists hit corporate profits.

The government wears its political self-interest on its sleeve, a self-interest that mirrors the interests of the animal research industry: a total disregard for the suffering of living beings and the blind pursuit of profit through intimidation and lies.

[JackieO]

14. Meet America's Terrorists

http://alexander.gnn.tv/blogs/6583/Meet_America_s_Terrorists

[Eric J in MN]

17. kick

kick

[shockra]

18. Oh, cool.

From the NY Times article:

"The list of potential defense witnesses includes actress Kim Basinger, who joined a protest outside a Huntingdon laboratory in Franklin, New Jersey to try to stop such companies using animals to test their pharmaceutical products."

You go, Kim!

[Llewlladdwr]

20. About time I say.

It's only a matter of time before these nutbags do kill someone. They've destroyed millions of dollars worth of property already. Sorry, but how can you say these folks aren't terrorists?

[MadHound]

25. Gee, I guess the same way that the government comes to the conclusion

That anti-abortion advocates aren't terrorists. In fact, given the body count, and damage amount, anti-abortion advocates are much more eligible for the terrorist label than animal rights advocates.

Eric Rudolf wasn't tried as a terrorist, yet he DID kill somebody. Yet you are advocating these draconian anti-terrorism laws for people who participated in trespassing and massive vandalism? Whatever:eyes:

[neweurope]

29. Don't have my Websters handy - but there IS a definition

for terrorism. The colloquial "the kid is terrorizing his mom" doesn't apply here.

And this ridiculous and dangerous so-called "war on terrorism" is being "fought" under the pretext that certain forces are trying to attack, wound and eventually conquer the USA. Therefore the new laws. Those who - foolishly - agreed to them certainly didn't want to have them used against their own citizens...

-----------------

Remember Fallujah

Bush to The Hague!

[Dover]

21. Gee, I'll bet those terrorists at Enron will probably get a really harsh

wrist slap! They stole millions, harrassed and threatened potential witnesses, committed fraud... but at least they weren't doing something REALLY bad like protecting animals.:eyes:

Considering what the administration sanctioned regarding prisoners at Gitmo and Abu Ghraib, the animals have it relatively good.

[evolvenow]

22. Huntingdon is Horrifying. It should be shut down and owners JAILED.

I do not condone harrassment or violence of any kind, but if you knew the cruelty performed on innocent, sentient animals, it is easy to understand the activists actions.




http://www.shac.net/SHAC/history.html

[neweurope]

23. They are doing what was to be expected - labeling just anybody

a "terrorist". These are not the first cases where the new "laws" were used. Therefore your system of justice as you knew it is null and void.
I WOULD get out.

-----------------

Remember Fallujah

Bush to The Hague!

[Eric J in MN]

26. how would this be treated in Germany? nt

nt

[neweurope]

28. Probably the same as in the US.

A law is a law; it can't only apply to a special group of people - "them there Jews", "them there communists", "them there terrorists". Once you have it it might be used against you - only the people never see this when they agree on it.
We don't have such a law though (yet), thank God and a still at least partly functioning Democracy. Yours is just too unspecific and this is what makes ist so very dangerous.

----------------------

Remember Fallujah

Bush to The Hague!

[Vladimir]

24. I have little sympathy for SHAC,

or time for their cause. And while we are at it, I find comparisions between animal rights causes and Apartheid, or the suffragetes, which SHAC like to indulge in, utterly offensive. All the same, calling this sort of thing terrorism is stupid - its garden variety vandalism and can be dealt with under existing legislation quite well enough.

PS I might add, on edit, that my problem with animal rights causes is more philosophical than practical. It is clear that a lot of animal experimentation that goes on today is either unnecessary or positively counter-preductive, and this should be stopped. But I cannot intellectually subscribe to the notion of "animal rights".

[evolvenow]

30. Please look at every image on this site. You may reconsider

http://www.novivisezione.org/mostra/pan8_en.htm
http://www.novivisezione.org/mostra/pan1_en.htm
http://www.novivisezione.org/mostra/pan2_en.htm
http://www.novivisezione.org/mostra/pan6_en.htm

Cruelty is wrong.

Animals are sentient and innocent. They feel pain just like you. Is it acceptable to torture and murder innocent animals,when there are more productive, humane and economically viable alternatives? We share 98.4% the same genetic material as chimpanzees and yet these labs inject them with AIDS, surgery, implant devices and force them to live insolitary confinement. It is our responsibility to develop compassion for the suffering of all living beings...until we do, war and violence will never end.

Thanks for taking a few minutes to view what these animals are condemned to die in.

[Vladimir]

32. I have looked at them

and I'm sorry to say they don't change my mind one bit. I support 100% the reduction in animal testing where alternative methods are available (and indeed better suited to the purpose at hand, since I have no illusions about pharmaceutical companies whatever), but I think ultimately decisions on this matter should be motivated by what is best for human beings, not animals.

[evolvenow]

33. Thanks for taking the time and yet your reply is confusing. Do you work in

a lab?

You understand the horror involved in animal testing and the suffering that humans inflict on living beings and yet you believe that harm is best for human beings? Humans are animals. We are the only group of animals bent on the destruction of just about every animal/ecosystem on this planet.

Isn't evolution, intelligence, compassion, love what is best for humans?
At this point, doesn't the well being of all living beings depend upon sustainable, intelligent actions of human beings?

Further, as you know, animal testing and these Nazi style labs do not uphold the betterment of mankind, only the betterment of their bottom line. Animal testing, eating animal products, cause and delay in bringing actual solutions to health challenges and can cause death in humans, as until the testing is done with humans, there are still so many biological differences between chimpanzees, dogs, cats, mice and rabbits. So after years of torture, these labs rarely have any real answers to many diseases. Ironically,many of these diseases, heart, cancers are actually caused by man made toxins, and eating dead animals. Cruelty is reciprocal. There are many alternatives to using animals and yet humans continue spending and killing billions of lives and dollars.
So if your motivation is the best interest of human beings, the well being of innocent animals warrants protection.
The belief that humans are the most important animal, is the exact reason we are in such a mess.
Causing needless suffering does not elevate man, it destroys everything in its trajectory.

People trying to end torture cannot be tried as terrorists, it is the people that own the labs and the people injecting innocent animals, against their will, that are acting like terrorists. this is just another example of this administration using their Fear of Terror in any situation to eliminate the rights of people as well as animals. Now that seems pretty de-volved, and looking more and more like the insanity of the McCarthy trials. Animal rights and human rights are inter-related. With torture considered "quaint", no wonder there are no protections for the innocent.

kicking

[Vladimir]

35. No I don't,

I am a physicist. Many of my friends do, however, and the consensus amongst all of them (nearly all of whom are liberals, btw) is that animal testing is sad but still necessary in many cases. And I don't think that harm is best for human beings. I do think that we are justified in causing harm to other animals in order to improve the living conditions of human beings. I agree that often decisions on animal testing are made for the wrong reasons, and I do agree that we must be careful in our actions with regards to biodiversity which is indeed important for the well-being of humans. But I would say the main problem here is the commodified pharmaceuticals industry, which regards health as something to be bought and sold to those who can afford to pay for it. Ultimately, we should strive to reduce and indeed eliminate suffering to animals whereever possible. But what I do not wish to affirm is the notion of animal rights, because I believe that is both philosophically unsustainable and practically problematic. Having said that, I do want a society that makes an honest decision, based first and foremost on what will benefit human beings, on whether animal testing is necessary in a specific case or not. We will obviously not have that while drugs are controlled by multinationals interested only in profits.

PS As I said in my original post, treating this as terrorism is stupid and stupid and idiotic. And politically charged. And stupid.

[evolvenow]

36. Thanks Vladimir, I appreciate your thoughtful response. If any of your

friends work in labs and would like to see less suffering towards the animals, I would be happy to help connect them with others that feel the same. Thanks and take care.

[kodi]

27. christ, if they just up and committed murder, they'd serve less time

disclaimer, i do not advocate violence to solve problems.

[evolvenow]

31. Murder and torture seems to be OK to this admin, anyone against cruelty is

a terrorist. That is insanity and another way to round up people for peace.

kick