<html>
<body>
<font size=3>[ACLU support for this bill follows - UGH!]<br><br>
<br>
House Passes Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act With Little Discussion
or <br>
Dissent: Notes from the House Floor “Debate”<br><br>
November 13th, 2006 by Will Potter<br>
<a href="http://www.greenisthenewred.com/" eudora="autourl">
http://www.greenisthenewred.com<br><br>
</a>They did it. Corporations, industry groups and the politicians
that <br>
represent them rushed through legislation labeling activists as
<br>
“terrorists” on the first day back from Congressional recess. Just
<br>
moments ago the House passed the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act as
<br>
part of the suspension calendar: in other words it was put on a
list <br>
of non-controversial bills to pass with one swoop by voice vote.<br><br>
Here’s a recap of some of my notes from the House floor. I
apologize <br>
that this is not in a more polished form, but I wanted to get this
out <br>
to you all right away:<br><br>
Representative Bobby Scott, often called the go-to guy in the House
on <br>
civil liberties and civil rights issues, came out swinging in
support <br>
of the “eco-terrorism” bill. Not only did he not oppose the <br>
legislation, he lined up with the corporations, industry groups and
<br>
conservative extremists in full support of it. Scott, a Democrat,
said <br>
existing laws have been “reasonably effective” but “gaps and <br>
loopholes” prevent law enforcement from going after animal rights
<br>
“extremists.” Scott failed to note, even in passing, that the
existing <br>
law the Animal Enterprise Protection Act was used to successfully
<br>
prosecute the SHAC 7 on “animal enterprise terrorism” charges for
<br>
running a website. Scott dishonestly ignores this crucial bit of
<br>
information, and said that activists are “taking advantage of the
fact <br>
that” AEPA doesn’t cover “affiliates and associates” of animal
<br>
enterprises: but that was, precisely, what the SHAC campaign was
all <br>
about.<br><br>
Disturbingly, Scott said in passing that civil disobedience would
be <br>
covered in the bill something other supporters of the bill have
<br>
denied but he tried to ease public fears by saying that the civil
<br>
disobedience must cause disruption and loss of profits, and “it
must <br>
be proven that such losses were specifically intended.” Bobby
Scott, <br>
who frequently praises the achievements of the civil rights
movement, <br>
stood on the House floor and advocated the inclusion of the tactics
<br>
used by that movement in a “terrorism” bill. The only things that’s
<br>
different between then and now, between the civil rights and animal
<br>
rights movement, is the cause.<br><br>
Representative Thomas Petri, a Republican from Wisconsin usually in
<br>
stark contrast to Scott, said much of the same. He had the nerve to
<br>
stand on the House floor and say, with a straight face, that
“current <br>
federal law,” including the AEPA, has been “inadequate” in going
after <br>
animal rights activists. Petri knows full well that ALL the crimes
<br>
listed in this bill are already crimes, that the original bill has
<br>
been used successfully, and that the animal and environmental <br>
movements have never claimed a single human life. Petri and the
<br>
corporations that support him call the existing legislation <br>
“inadequate” because, in their mind, the true threat is not the
<br>
underground wing of the movement, but the movement itself. That’s
<br>
where this vague and overly broad legislation comes into place,
<br>
wrapping up civil disobedience, undercover investigations and other
<br>
non-violent activity as “terrorism.”<br><br>
Only Representative Dennis Kucinich spoke up against this dangerous
<br>
legislation. “This bill was written to have a chilling effect,” he
<br>
said, “on a specific type of protest.” He also said that, “We have
to <br>
be very careful of painting everyone with broad brush of
terrorism.” <br>
And, in an interesting spin on the debate, Kucinich said lawmakers
<br>
would be better off addressing animal issues and demonstrating
their <br>
compassion.<br><br>
He also raised what’s essentially a very conservative argument
about <br>
the bill preempting existing law. A section of the bill says it
shall <br>
not be construed<br><br>
(3) to provide exclusive criminal penalties or civil
remedies <br>
with respect to the conduct prohibited by this action, or to
preempt <br>
State or local laws that may provide such penalties or remedies.<br><br>
Kucinich noted that that’s precisely what the bill does. It
provides <br>
exclusive penalties based on the beliefs of those who are
accused.<br><br>
Kucinich got in a little back and forth with James Sensenbrenner
about <br>
the bill, with Sensenbrenner repeatedly citing a provision of the
bill <br>
that “exempts” First Amendment activity. (Thank you to Senenbrenner
<br>
and our patriotic members of Congress for reminding us that their
is <br>
still a First Amendment. However, saying “this is Constitutional!”
<br>
doesn’t make it so. If anything, it’s an admission that the bill
has <br>
serious flaws.) At one point, Sensenbrenner read off a list of
quotes <br>
from animal activists that he said exemplified the targets of the
<br>
legislation. It was the same tired old list of quotes from the
mid-90s <br>
and from a fairly recent Congressional hearing. Kucinich promptly
<br>
noted that the quotes were exactly that:
“Constitutionally-protected <br>
speech.” It’s misleading, he said, to say the bill exempts First
<br>
Amendment activity, then use First Amendment activity as an example
of <br>
why the bill is needed.<br><br>
But perhaps the most disturbing segment of this whole
scare-mongering <br>
debacle was when Sensenbrenner ended his comments, and ended the
floor <br>
debate, by talking about the American Civil Liberties Union. He
said <br>
the ACLU is the guardian of the First Amendment. He said the ACLU
has <br>
a proud history of being a constitutional watchdog. And he said he
has <br>
a letter, from the ACLU, saying they would not oppose this
legislation <br>
and had no substantial concerns, essentially giving the Green Scare
a <br>
green light.<br><br>
<a href="http://www.aclu.org/images/general/asset_upload_file809_27356.pdf" eudora="autourl">
http://www.aclu.org/images/general/asset_upload_file809_27356.pdf<br><br>
</a>October 30, 2006<br>
The Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.<br>
Chairman, House Judiciary Committee<br>
2449 Rayburn House Office Building<br>
Washington, DC 20515-4909<br><br>
The Honorable John Conyers, Jr.<br>
Ranking Member, House Judiciary Committee<br>
2426 Rayburn House Office Building<br>
Washington, DC 20515-2214<br><br>
Re: ACLU Urges Needed Minor Changes to AETA, But Does Not<br>
Oppose Bill (S. 3880, the “Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act”)<br><br>
Dear Chairman Sensenbrenner and Ranking Member Conyers:<br><br>
On behalf of the ACLU, a non-partisan organization with hundreds of
<br>
thousands of activists and members and 53 affiliates nation-wide,
we <br>
urge you to make some necessary minor amendments to the “Animal
<br>
Enterprise Terrorism Act” (AETA), S. 3880 which has passed the
Senate <br>
and may be coming up for a vote in the House. The ACLU does not
oppose <br>
this bill, but believes that these minor changes are necessary to
make <br>
the bill less likely to chill or threaten freedom of speech.<br><br>
The bill expands 18 U.S.C. §43, targeting animal rights activists, to
include<br>
economic damage and threats of death and serious bodily injury to
<br>
persons associated with animal enterprises. While the ACLU does not
<br>
condone violence or threats, we are concerned when a law singles out
a <br>
specific group that engages in expressive activity. Many
improvements <br>
have been made to the bill, but the minor amendments we suggest
will <br>
clarify portions of the bill and make it less likely that it will
be <br>
used to pursue legitimate expression.<br><br>
Define “Real or Personal Property” as “Tangible” Property to Avoid<br>
Lost Profits or Good Will Forming the Basis for the Offense<br><br>
Legitimate expressive activity may result in economic damage.1 Boycotts,
for<br>
example, were an important tool in the civil rights movement. Care
<br>
must therefore be taken in penalizing economic damage to avoid
<br>
infringing upon<br>
legitimate activity.<br><br>
S. 3880 criminalizes conduct that “intentionally damages or causes the
loss of<br>
any real or personal property.” The bill does not, however, define
<br>
“real or personal property.” The question arises as to whether this
<br>
language would<br>
require the actual loss of tangible property, or whether it would
criminalize<br>
legitimate activity that caused an enterprise to lose intangible property
like<br>
future profits or business good will.<br><br>
To avoid these problems and avoid having loss of intangible property<br>
forming the basis for a prosecution, we suggest the following
amendment:<br><br>
Insert the following new section in section 43(d) and remove current<br>
subsection (3)(B), renumbering appropriately.<br><br>
(3) the term “intentionally damages or causes the loss of any real
or<br>
personal property” <br>
(A)means intentionally damaging or causing the loss of any
tangible <br>
property; but<br>
(B) does not include damage or loss resulting from a
boycott, <br>
protest, demonstration, investigation, whistleblowing, reporting of
<br>
animal mistreatment, or any public, governmental, or business
reaction <br>
to the disclosure of<br>
information concerning animal enterprises.<br><br>
Define “Animal Enterprise” to Only Include Lawful Activities<br><br>
Some animal enterprises exist for the purpose of using animals
<br>
unlawfully, for example, criminal dog fighting and cockfighting.
These <br>
types of activities should be investigated and exposed. Under the
<br>
bill, an activist who rescued a rooster before it could be put in a
<br>
cockfight could be charged as a terrorist under the AETA. To avoid
<br>
this outcome, the definition of “animal enterprise” should be
altered <br>
to make it clear that interference with unlawful<br>
activities does not trigger the statute.<br><br>
Clarify that Section 43(b)(1)(A) Only Applies to Conspiracies or<br>
Attempts.<br><br>
The bill imposes a sentence of up to one year and a fine for
offenses <br>
that caused no reasonable fear of bodily harm, no actual bodily
injury <br>
or any<br>
economic damages. Since reasonable fear of bodily harm, actual
bodily <br>
injury or economic damages are all elements of crimes associated
with <br>
more severe penalties under the bill, we assume the first penalty
<br>
provision under<br>
the bill is meant to address conspiracies or attempts. However, this
should be<br>
clarified. To avoid the chilling effect on those individuals <br>
considering actions<br>
that would cause no harm, either physical or economic, nor instill any
fear of<br>
harm we suggest the following amendment to section 43(b)(1)(A):<br><br>
(A) an offense under subsection (a)(2)(C) results in no economic<br>
damage or bodily injury.<br><br>
Conclusion<br><br>
Hubert H. Humphrey once said “Freedom is hammered out on the anvil
of <br>
discussion, dissent and debate.” When Congress singles out a group
on <br>
one<br>
side of a debate for criminal penalties, it must be careful to
avoid <br>
silencing the discussion, dissent and debate that is so fundamental
to <br>
our freedom.<br><br>
These minor changes should help focus the law and avoid penalizing
<br>
legitimate dissent.<br><br>
Sincerely,<br>
Caroline Fredrickson<br>
Director, Washington Legislative Office<br><br>
Marvin J. Johnson<br>
Legislative Counsel<br><br>
cc: Rep. Robert C. Scott<br><br>
</font><x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
<font size=3 color="#FF0000">The Freedom Archives<br>
522 Valencia Street<br>
San Francisco, CA 94110<br>
(415) 863-9977<br>
</font><font size=3>
<a href="http://www.freedomarchives.org/" eudora="autourl">
www.freedomarchives.org</a></font></body>
</html>