Animal Rights Activists Indicted as “Terrorists” For Home Protests


Mar 19th, 2009 by Will Potter

Home protest by animal rights activists in Santa Cruz. Photo by AP/WSJ.
Home protest by animal rights activists in Santa Cruz. Photo by AP/WSJ.
When four animal rights activists were arrested under the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, it was unclear how prosecutors would proceed, and what specific accusations the activists would face. Now, thegovernment indictment,available here for the first time, makes it strikingly clear that prosecutors intend to use terrorism laws to target First Amendment activity.
The “AETA 4,”—Joseph Buddenburg, Maryam Khajavi, Nathan Pope, and Adriana Stumpo—have been indicted for conspiracy” to violate the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. As justification of the charge, the indictment lists three specific acts:
  1. A protest on October 21, 2007, at an animal researcher’s home. The government says this amounts to “threats, criminal trespass, harassment and intimidation.” In the criminal complaint, the FBI said that on this date “protesters trespassed onto Professor Number One’s front yard and rang his doorbell several times. The group was making a lot of noise and chanting animal rights slogans (“1, 2, 3, 4 open up the cage door; 5, 6, 7, 8, smash the locks and liberate; 9, 10, 11, 12, vivisectors go to hell”)…”
  2. A protest on January 27, 2008, at an animal researcher’s home. The government says this amounts to “threats, harassment, and intimidation.” In the criminal complaint, the FBI said that on this date approximately 11 individuals demonstrated at the homes of multiple researchers. “At each residence, the individuals, dressed generally in all black clothing and wearing bandanas over their nose and mouth, marched, chanted, and chalked defamatory comments on the public sidewalks…”
  3. Use of the Internet. They allegedly “used the Internet to find information on bio-medical researchers at the University of California at Santa Cruz.”
Even more telling, though, is what is not listed in the indictment. In thecriminal complaint and the FBI press release, the government mentioned the above allegations along with two other incidents—the only two incidents even approaching a “gray area” between protected speech and illegal conduct.
  • At one protest attended by the defendants, a researcher “struggled with one individual and was hit with a dark, firm object,” according to the FBI. (February 24, 2008)
  • A stack of fliers titled “Murderers and torturers alive & well in Santa Cruz July 2008 edition” was found at a local coffee shop, Café Pergolesi. The fliers said “we know where you live we know where you work we will never back down until you end your abuse” and listed home addresses and telephone numbers. The FBI used video surveillance to allegedly link the flier distribution to the defendants. (July 29, 2008)
Now, to be very clear, the details in an indictment aren’t the final word in any criminal case. They never reveal too much of the prosecution’s hand. They do, however, lay the backbone of the government’s case and put the prosecution’s best foot forward.
Omitting the most controversial, potentially-illegal activity, and instead focusing on protests that involved chalking slogans and chanting, sends a very clear message of where this is all heading. This case and others like it are not about underground groups like the Animal Liberation Front, they are not about “violence,” they are not about the real potential for violence.
They are about using the “War on Terrorism” to chip away at basic First Amendment rights and criminalize dissent.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Okay, first off, "twelve" and "hell" don't rhyme.

That being said, although I'm completely sympathetic with the aims of groups that are working to stop animal torture, I'm starting to wonder of there are any actual grownups in these groups. Why do these people not understand that this stuff will only end when you get overwhelming public support for your position? That takes persuasion.

Attacking and threatening people in their homes may make you feel better, but it's not going to help one single animal. In fact, it's going to end up hurting more. To get public support you provide information, you don't show up in black and hoods. Don't they realize that invading a neighborhood means invading the peace of the neighbors you are trying to persuade? Way to generate sympathy for the abuser...

The weird part is that it's almost like they don't believe in the persuasive power of the facts. Gently, politely telling people, "Ma'am, maybe you're not aware, but your neighbor drills holes in the skulls of monkeys," and handing them a flyer with a picture and a clear call to action like "call your local news station" or "call the UC Board of Regents" along with the correct phone number to call -- THAT'S how things change.

How did Lou Dobbs lose his job? People finally got tired of his racism and set up a site that directed viewer ire at CNN, with the threat of recourse to advertisers.

Why don't protest groups find out where these places are getting their money from and direct people to call them?

Change comes from the wallet, people.

Anonymous said...

Nice, number one. Who is this? Unconfrontational, diplomatic. You have my vote.

"Excuse me Ma'am, maybe you're not aware, but your neighbor drills holes in the skulls of monkeys."

What an approach. Funny, gruesome, non-confrontational, and to the point.

Anonymous said...

#2

Well, I'm not gonna say who I am, but I have to savor being called diplomatic and nonconfrontational.

Unfortunately I'm not joking about holes being drilled in the skulls of monkeys. It's "research" being done by a "scientist" I believe here in California. Our local hero Ed Muzika actually contacted the guy, whose name I can't remember (any help, Ed?) to ask him if his gruesome experiments have yielded any information useful and applicable to humans and he refused to answer.

Monkeys are being tortured and killed in "anti-smoking research" at UCLA on the dime of Philip Morris, who I think we can all agree has no interest in stopping smoking.

Go into a neighborhood and attack a guy without any apparent justification and you will cause his neighbors to feel sorry for him and identify with him.

What protesters need to do is alienate the neighbors from the resident who tortures animals. You need to change their perception of him. Do you think they know what he does? Don't call him a dog killer, SHOW them dogs strapped down, being forced to smoke or have devices implanted in their bodies.

This is one of those cases where all you really need is the truth.

And be polite to people you're trying to persuade. Don't scream unintelligibly into bullhorns. Don't scare them or their kids. You need to appear to be the reasonable one.

Smoking Monkey said...

Wow! #3 is brilliant! I learned quite a lot from you today. Sure do like your reasoning and tactical approach. If you've written any books or articles about how you approach these difficult situations in order to get gain people's attention and gain their trust and respect for life and truth, I would be very interested to read them.

You have an excellent way of dealing with people and telling the truth, while still maintaining your integrity, self-respect, and respect for others.

I like everything you have said here, and the light came on when you said,

"Go into a neighborhood and attack a guy without any apparent justification and you will cause his neighbors to feel sorry for him and identify with him."