IMPORTANT - AETA !

[Crash]

I'm not certain if this is the correct spot for this, if not, please move to correct area.......

 

This is bad news for all American citizens (not to mention unconstitutional). As you are aware, I do not advocate violence and unlawful acts, but The American Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) is unconstitutional and threatens legal, legitimate protests and law abiding individuals. Please call the President @ 202-456-1414 and ask him to veto AETA !

 

UPDATE — Congress Passes HR 4239, the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act

As anticipated, H.R. 4239, the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA), was brought to the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives in a fast-track maneuver late yesterday, on the Representatives’ first day back after the month-long break.

 

The House passed AETA by a voice vote under suspension of the rules, a procedure usually reserved for non-controversial legislation. When the bill came up for consideration, only a handful of House members were even back in town, and very few were on the floor of the House when the brief discussion ensued. This bill was rushed through without a serious look at its flaws, by Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI).

 

Next Steps

 

Because the language of AETA passed by the House varies from the language approved by the Senate in the companion bill, S. 3880, a conference committee will reconcile the differences between the bills. Once the differences are resolved and a conference report is generated, both the House and Senate will need to approve the legislation again.

 

To keep updated on AETA and for more detailed information, visit www.stopaeta.org and www.noaeta.org.

 

Background

 

AETA seeks to clamp down on animal activist activities by using a broad brush to paint activists as “terrorists” simply because they oppose institutionalized animal cruelty. Sponsored by Representative Thomas Petri (R-WI), HR 4239 would make it a crime punishable by imprisonment to cause any business classified as an “animal enterprise” to suffer a loss of profit — even if the company’s financial decline is the result of legal activities, such as peaceful protests, consumer boycotts, or media campaigns. The term “animal enterprise”; includes manufacturers, distributors, and sellers of animals or animal products including research facilities, pet stores, breeders, zoos, rodeos, circuses, furriers, animal shelters, and the like.

 

API strongly opposes acts of violence, including vandalism and property damage. However, this bill threatens to criminalize as “terrorism” otherwise lawful, constitutionally protected and valuable acts often utilized by citizens and organizations seeking change. For example, lawful and peaceful protests against the circus or companies that test on animals could be considered a violation of this act if the activity resulted in economic damage to the company.

 

To find out how your U.S. Representative voted on AETA, please contact his/her office. If your Representative voted against AETA, please thank him or her. On the other hand, if your Representative voted for AETA, politely express your concerns (see talking points below). You can reach your Representative through U.S. Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121. To identify your Congressperson, go to www.house.gov or www.senate.gov, or simply enter your zip code at www.vote-smart.org.

 

Talking Points

 

AETA does not genuinely fight terrorism. AETA may divert valuable taxpayer money and resources away from real terrorism.

AETA is vague and overly broad. AETA isn’t just about illegal actions like breaking windows or rescuing animals from fur farms. It includes penalties for “non-violent physical obstruction” and actions that do not harm people or property. It could label civil disobedience, whistle-blowing, undercover investigations, and aggressive — yet nonviolent — campaigns as “terrorism” if they hurt corporate profits.

AETA limits free speech. Labeling nonviolent actions as “terrorism” and prosecuting them as federal crimes will have a chilling effect on free speech. You shouldn’t have to be afraid of being labeled a “terrorist” for speaking up for animals.

Corporate profits aren’t a national security priority. There are better ways to spend scarce anti-terrorism resources than protecting corporate interests and targeting animal activists as “terrorists.”

Edited November 30, 2006 by Crash

[loveliberate]

Thanks for posting this Crash!

 

The AETA is an extremely dangerous piece of legislation that should be opposed for many reasons. I suggest moving these to general discussion as it affects everyone, not only AR folks.

[JW]

OMG!!! that is rather disturbing!

I hope all here will take action

[Crash]

Me too ! If you don't want to call, please send an email to Dubyaor contact this groupadvising them you want them to vote no to AETA.

[Richard]

I'm not a US citizen, is there anything I can do? This sounds so insane

[loveliberate]

Richard,

Please do contact the US politicians of your choice and help spread the word about this. A worldwide outcry and show of solidarity against this nonsense would be great!

[pelicanAndrew]

Just contacted them through the commitee site.

[Richard]

I emailed this, hopefully what I've said makes sense, but I only have limited knowledge of the situation:

 

"Hi. I have just been reading about the AETA (Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act). From what I understand, the law is going to be altered so that non-violence and passive boycotting / protesting become viewed as terrorism / crime. While it is fully understandable to want violence and destruction of property to come to an end, I do not understand why other forms of protest should be treated as even illegal, let alone be punished with jail time. I would like those involved with the AETA to think carefully about what it involves and be sure to understand it thoroughly. Really people should not be punished if they are not causing any harm. If they think a company is unethical, surely it is up to them to point out why they think it is and to not support that company; that is only logical. Why should they be punished if what they are saying is true? If they were making things up about a company, that would be slander / libel, and again, THAT would be illegal, and rightly so. But to simply disagree with a company's ethics, and try to get that company to change, I think that's a good thing, not a bad thing.

 

Richard"

[finbarrio]

The law isn't actually trying to make legal means of protest illegal - it is just trying to define some illegal forms of protest as "terrorism". And it also includes some verbiage about loss of profits - I'm not sure what the point of that is, but I'm sure someone with deeper pockets than me knows. The original draft of the law was actually more explicit about what was included in this new definition of terrorism, but then they inexplicably altered the draft, and in doing so made it more nebulous. I don't think there's any chance that peaceful protests, boycotts, etc will be able to be lumped in with the terrorist definition as far as this law goes (if you read the law, those are actually explicitly excluded). However, the law may leave some tactics open for interpretation - one that comes to mind is undercover filming.

 

IMHO, the bottom line is that this law is completely unnecessary - is defining murder, assault, intimidation, arson etc as "terrorism" supposed to be a deterent? - as if the laws already on the books wouldn't be enough? Puhleeez. I suspect that the paper trail for this one is green, and leads back to some powerful lobby and/or corporation that wants to be able to recoup financial losses from "terrorists". That's just a guess, though - the law and intent of it are so confusing that I'm not sure what the point was.

[CollegeB]

You know fin, i imagine a KFC manager could argue that KFC protestors made him lose some profit because they scared away customers. So perhaps this bill would allow those protestors to be run off.

 

Redefining certain crimes as terrorism has nothing to do with deterence. If you ask me none of the law is for deterence. It determines rights, and punishments. Police might want to stop crime, but thats a silly proposal if you think about it. Police catch criminals, you cannot really catch a criminal before they become a criminal... This law is just so they can prosecute certain groups of people to a fuller extent of the law (harsher punishment). The hypothesis that the lobbyists have something to do wtih this law is most likely very true. Is the SHAC trial still unresolved? There might be a connection since SHAC has caused a lot of trouble for HLS...lots of lost profits. And actually data about the damage done by other direct actions is not released because it is very effective, and authorities fear it would spur more into direct action. How would the general public react if they read "the burglars released hundreds of lab mice from (some facility). Costing them X amount of dollars." I imagine the general public would not care, they are not involved with lab mice. However when they read stories about burning SUV's the general public gets a little anxious, this could impact them. I think the stories we read about in the papers are carefully chosen to inspire certain points of view. This is not a new idea especially for those of you critical to the media, but I'm just getting around to making these kinds of connections.

[finbarrio]

You know fin, i imagine a KFC manager could argue that KFC protestors made him lose some profit because they scared away customers. So perhaps this bill would allow those protestors to be run off.

 

Good point - one person's peaceful protest might be another's "intimidation".

 

On the surface, this law doesn't seem to really serve much of a purpose - but perhaps under the surface it does, but to whom? It's murky down there.

[pelicanAndrew]

Laws exist to protect property, not people.

[Crash]

That was an awesome email Richard - thank you !

 

It's a shame that slowly laws are changing to protect corporations and not people.

 

The language in this is so ambiguous that it could be turned and twisted around for any purpose as CollegeB pointed out.

 

Please keep sending your emails, letters, making phone calls, etc to your elected officials - remember they are in office to represent you, not big business.

[Crash]

Well it passed.... with a few tweaks and doesn't seem to be as bad as I thought it might be. Still ..... since there are already laws in place for destruction of property and violence, threats, etc. and it was still enacted specifically against animal activists. Information gotten from here.

 

S3880.ENR - OFFICIAL TEXT

Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act

 

Copied from Thomas, Congress's official bill tracking website.

 

S.3880.ENR is the last of four versions. This is the one that was actually passed in both houses.

 

One Hundred Ninth Congress of the United States of America

 

AT THE SECOND SESSION

 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

 

the third day of January, two thousand and six

 

An Act

 

To provide the Department of Justice the necessary authority to apprehend, prosecute, and convict individuals committing animal enterprise terror.

 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

 

This Act may be cited as the `Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act'.

 

SEC. 2. INCLUSION OF ECONOMIC DAMAGE TO ANIMAL ENTERPRISES AND THREATS OF DEATH AND SERIOUS BODILY INJURY TO ASSOCIATED PERSONS.

 

(a) In General- Section 43 of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

 

`Sec. 43. Force, violence, and threats involving animal enterprises

(a) Offense- Whoever travels in interstate or foreign commerce, or uses or causes to be used the mail or any facility of interstate or foreign commerce--

(1) for the purpose of damaging or interfering with the operations of an animal enterprise; and

 

(2) in connection with such purpose--

(A) intentionally damages or causes the loss of any real or personal property (including animals or records) used by an animal enterprise, or any real or personal property of a person or entity having a connection to, relationship with, or transactions with an animal enterprise;

 

(B) intentionally places a person in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury to that person, a member of the immediate family (as defined in section 115) of that person, or a spouse or intimate partner of that person by a course of conduct involving threats, acts of vandalism, property damage, criminal trespass, harassment, or intimidation; or

 

© conspires or attempts to do so;

shall be punished as provided for in subsection (b).

(b) Penalties- The punishment for a violation of section (a) or an attempt or conspiracy to violate subsection

 

(a) shall be--

(1) a fine under this title or imprisonment not more than 1 year, or both, if the offense does not instill in another the reasonable fear of serious bodily injury or death and--

(A) the offense results in no economic damage or bodily injury; or

 

(B) the offense results in economic damage that does not exceed $10,000;

(2) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or both, if no bodily injury occurs and--

(A) the offense results in economic damage exceeding $10,000 but not exceeding $100,000; or

 

(B) the offense instills in another the reasonable fear of serious bodily injury or death;

(3) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both, if--

(A) the offense results in economic damage exceeding $100,000; or

 

(B) the offense results in substantial bodily injury to another individual;

 

(4) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 20 years, or both, if--

(A) the offense results in serious bodily injury to another individual; or

 

(B) the offense results in economic damage exceeding $1,000,000; and

(5) imprisonment for life or for any terms of years, a fine under this title, or both, if the offense results in death of another individual.

© Restitution- An order of restitution under section 3663 or 3663A of this title with respect to a violation of this section may also include restitution--

(1) for the reasonable cost of repeating any experimentation that was interrupted or invalidated as a result of the offense;

 

(2) for the loss of food production or farm income reasonably attributable to the offense; and

 

(3) for any other economic damage, including any losses or costs caused by economic disruption, resulting from the offense.

(d) Definitions- As used in this section--

 

(1) the term `animal enterprise' means--

 

(A) a commercial or academic enterprise that uses or sells animals or animal products for profit, food or fiber production, agriculture, education, research, or testing;

 

(B) a zoo, aquarium, animal shelter, pet store, breeder, furrier, circus, or rodeo, or other lawful competitive animal event; or

 

© any fair or similar event intended to advance agricultural arts and sciences;

(2) the term `course of conduct' means a pattern of conduct composed of 2 or more acts, evidencing a continuity of purpose;

 

(3) the term `economic damage'--

(A) means the replacement costs of lost or damaged property or records, the costs of repeating an interrupted or invalidated experiment, the loss of profits, or increased costs, including losses and increased costs resulting from threats, acts or vandalism, property damage, trespass, harassment, or intimidation taken against a person or entity on account of that person's or entity's connection to, relationship with, or transactions with the animal enterprise; but

 

(B) does not include any lawful economic disruption (including a lawful boycott) that results from lawful public, governmental, or business reaction to the disclosure of information about an animal enterprise;

(4) the term `serious bodily injury' means--

(A) injury posing a substantial risk of death;

(B) extreme physical pain;

© protracted and obvious disfigurement; or

(D) protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty; and

(5) the term `substantial bodily injury' means--

(A) deep cuts and serious burns or abrasions;

(B) short-term or nonobvious disfigurement;

© fractured or dislocated bones, or torn members of the body;

(D) significant physical pain;

(E) illness;

(F) short-term loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty; or

(G) any other significant injury to the body.

(e) Rules of Construction- Nothing in this section shall be construed--

(1) to prohibit any expressive conduct (including peaceful picketing or other peaceful demonstration) protected from legal prohibition by the First Amendment to the Constitution;

 

(2) to create new remedies for interference with activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of the First Amendment to the Constitution, regardless of the point of view expressed, or to limit any existing legal remedies for such interference; or

 

(3) to provide exclusive criminal penalties or civil remedies with respect to the conduct prohibited by this action, or to preempt State or local laws that may provide such penalties or remedies.'.

 

(b) Clerical Amendment- The item relating to section 43 in the table of sections at the beginning of chapter 3 of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

 

`43. Force, violence, and threats involving animal enterprises.'.

 

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

 

Vice President of the United States and

 

President of the Senate.

END