<html>
<body>
<font size=3><br>
<div align="center"><b>Civil Rights Outreach Committee <br>
</b></div>
<br>
For Immediate Release: May 22, 2007<br>
<br>
<u>Contacts</u>:<br>
Lauren Regan, Civil Liberties Defense Center, Eugene, OR,
541-687-9180<br>
Alejandro Queral, NW Constitutional Rights Center, Portland, OR,
503-295-6400, 202-491-6204<br>
<br>
<div align="center">Feds To Continue Politically Motivated Prosecution of
Eco-Saboteurs<br>
<i>Judge’s ruling opens door for activists to be sentenced for
decades<br>
</i></div>
<br>
Eugene, OR – Monday’s ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Ann Aiken gave
the government the green light to attempt to brand 10 environmental and
animal rights activists as terrorists, though they caused no injury to
human life. Pursuant to Judge Aiken’s opinion that a “federal crime
of terrorism does not require a substantial risk of injury,” the
government will likely seek harsher prison sentences under the terrorism
enhancement provision of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. Judge
Aiken has retained discretion to determine whether the terrorism
enhancement provision should apply to each individual defendant involved
in arsons intended to stem environmental destruction and animal
abuse</font><font face="Times New Roman, Times" size=3>. The ruling
does require however, that the prosecutors prove that defendants’ actions
were directed at the government itself and not just at private or
corporate entities.<br>
</font> <br>
“This decision broadens the definition of terrorism by not requiring a
‘substantial risk of injury,’” said Lauren Regan, executive director of
the Civil Liberties Defense Center. “The question now is how the
enhancement provision will apply to each defendant, so the prosecution
must show that each individual intended to influence or affect the
conduct of government, and not that of private companies. In this case,
the court has set forth a very heavy burden for the government to
meet.”<br>
<br>
The ruling opens a Pandora’s Box that could result in additional
politically motivated prosecutions by the Justice Department seeking to
brand activists as “terrorists.” The court’s decision may also set
a dangerous precedent that could be exploited by the federal government
to seek greater prison time for political activists engaged in acts of
civil disobedience. <br>
<br>
“The government now has a larger hammer to wield against political
activists engaged in traditional forms of civil disobedience,” said
Alejandro Queral, executive director of the NW Constitutional Rights
Center. “There is a very real possibility that prosecutors will use the
threat of a terrorism enhancement and increased prison time to send a
chilling message to political activists that may have engaged in unlawful
but symbolic actions, even if they pose no substantial risk of
injury.”<br>
<br>
The court will hold sentencing hearings for each defendant starting today
(May 22) through June 5 and will determine whether the terrorism
enhancement applies to each defendant individually.<br>
<br>
Copies of a press packet with current related articles, background
information, historical examples of sabotage in the U.S., and a history
of F.B.I. repression of political activism are available.<br><br>
<br>
<x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
<font size=3 color="#FF0000">Freedom Archives<br>
522 Valencia Street<br>
San Francisco, CA 94110<br><br>
</font><font size=3 color="#008000">415 863-9977<br><br>
</font><font size=3 color="#0000FF">
<a href="http://www.freedomarchives.org/" eudora="autourl">
www.Freedomarchives.org</a></font><font size=3> </font></body>
</html>