IN RECENT YEARS, agribusiness, the chief entity responsible for factory farms, the world’s worst pollutant of the atmosphere, water and oceans, and the main cause of antibiotic-resistant bacterial strains, has used the Congresspeople it owns to pass some pretty outrageous legislation, primarily to deter animal rights activists from exposing some of the cruelest practices industrialized animal husbandry routinely employs to magnify its profits at the expense of everybody and everything. Will Potter has been chronicling this sordid affair from the start, with little competition throughout the mainstream corporate media (no surprise there of course).Below, some materials that sketch out the status of the current situation. The cynical branding of animal defenders as “terrorists” is deservedly called “the Green Scare” by Potter. And keep in mind that all this “terrorism” crap we constantly hear, with quickly multiplying nuisances from airport scannings to real perils, like an encroaching police state, are the direct result of a criminal foreign policy implemented by the plutocracy for generations, and which eventually has elicited retaliation among some of the victims. If we had had a foreign policy as pure and righteous and noble as the prostituted politicians and media would have us believe, none of this would be happening.—Eds.
The American Animal Terrorism Act (AETA) is the main hammer being used by the system to crush anti-animal exploitation and anti-ecological abuse by business. Read on to get a good idea what this latest concoction by the system portends for our civil liberties, and effective freedom in general.
The Green Scare: a threat to free speech and a case of insidious police power creep
by WILL POTTER on APRIL 15, 2011 | Material suggested by Merrilee C.
For a repository of Potter’s articles and associated materials, check his main site at http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/green-scare/
WILL POTTER sees a parallel between the accusation of some activists with the charge of “terrorism” by the government, and the use of the media in exploring these cases, to the effect of the persecution of leftists in the Red Scares, during the McCarthyist era. According to him, the Green Scare is this new phenomenon associated with environmentalist groups that may or may not engage in legal activities, who are being disproportionately attacked by the government for extra-legal explanations. He thinks that ultimately there is a threat to civil liberties that can progressively reach more groups and individuals.[2] He speaks of another age of repression in the US history.[3][4]
He believes the word “terrorism” is being used as a fear tactic to go after peaceful activists. He points out to obvious differences of what is generally considered to be terrorism and what these activists are about.[5] The real agenda is then associated with the defense of corporate profit and control over social activism.[6][7] Will Potter believes that the targeting of animal rights and earth liberation movements, considered the number one domestic terrorist threat by the FBI, has got nothing to do with security. He warns of a possible seeking of other groups protected by the first amendment, in the future. He makes clear that he is not about excusing acts that are considered criminal or about saying that they shouldn’t be prosecuted by law as such.[8]
In 2006, Potter spoke to congress about the AETA. Concerning this law, he has explained why he doesn’t believe that pushing for a broader basis of prosecution among activists will deter the more radical fringe. He says they are moved by ideology and not fear. Also, he called attention to the erosion of civil liberties for peaceful activists, while stressing the cause done in the name of state control and not security.[9][10]
_____________
What is the “Green Scare”?
Green Scare flier by Eberhardt Press.
Welcome to GreenIsTheNewRed.com! This website focuses on how fear of “terrorism” is being exploited to push a political and corporate agenda. Specifically, I focus on how animal rights and environmental advocates are being branded “eco-terrorists” in what many are calling the Green Scare.
Top of the Terrorism List
“The No. 1 domestic terrorism threat,” says John Lewis, a top FBI official, “is the eco-terrorism, animal-rights movement.”
The animal rights and environmental movements, like every other social movement throughout history, have both legal and illegal elements. There are people who leaflet, write letters, and lobby. There are people who protest and engage in non-violent civil disobedience. And there are people, like the Animal Liberation Front and Earth Liberation Front, who go out at night with black masks and break windows, burn SUVs, and release animals from fur farms.
Animal rights and environmental advocates have not flown planes into buildings, taken hostages, or sent Anthrax through the mail. They have never even injured anyone. In fact, the only act of attempted murder in the history of the U.S. animal rights movement was coordinated by corporate provocateurs. Yet the FBI ranks these activists as the top domestic terrorism threat. And the Department of Homeland Security lists them on its roster of national security threats, while ignoring right-wing extremists who have bombed the Oklahoma City federal building, murdered doctors, and admittedly created weapons of mass destruction.
Defining the Green Scare
This disproportionate, heavy-handed government crackdown on the animal rights and environmental movements, and the reckless use of the word “terrorism,” is often called the Green Scare.
Much like the Red Scare and the communist witch hunts of the 40s and 50s, the Green Scare is using one word—this time, it’s “terrorist”—to push a political agenda, instill fear, and chill dissent. And much like the Red Scare, the Green Scare is operating on three levels: legal, legislative, and what we’ll call extra-legal, or scare-mongering.
Legal
The courts are being used to push conventional boundaries of what constitutes “terrorism” and to hit non-violent activists with disproportionate sentences.
▪ SHAC 7. The SHAC 7 outside the courthouse in New Jersey.
A federal court convicted a group of animal advocates of “animal enterprise terrorism” for running a controversial website that supported both legal and illegal activity against a lab called Huntingdon Life Sciences. The site also listed addresses for corporations and corporate executives. The group, dubbed the SHAC 7, were never charged with breaking windows or releasing animals, but they vocally supported those types of activities. For that, they were convicted of “conspiring” to promote “terrorism.” Here’s a closer look at the SHAC 7.
▪ Operation Backfire. Daniel McGowan, left, and Jonathan Paul.
That’s the name the FBI gave to the historic roundup of environmental and animal rights activists for a string of Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front actions, including arson in the name of protecting the environment. Before these defendants ever set foot in the courtroom, they were labeled in the press as “eco-terrorists.” The government successfully pushed for “terrorism enhancement” penalties in many of these cases. As a result, many of these activists are now in prison as “terrorists,” a label that drastically changes their prison life and will follow them long after release. Another result of the “terrorism enhancement” is that the FBI claims these cases as a victory in the “War on Terrorism.”
▪ Grand juries. In the name of investigating illegal activity, the government has been hauling lawful activists in front of grand juries where they must testify about their political beliefs and political associations, or face prison time. Activists like Jeff Hogg and independent journalist Josh Wolf have refused to cooperate with these witch hunts, and been punished for it. Elsewhere, noncooperation has derailed grand juries.
Legislative
Even with these sweeping, and successful, legal attacks on activists, corporations and the politicians who represent them want even more power.
▪ Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. Project Censored honors Will Potter
With just six members of Congress in the room, just hours after lawmakers and celebrities were on hand to break ground for the new memorial honoring that terrorist Martin Luther King Jr., the House of Representatives passed the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, a law so vague and broad that the non-violent tactics of MLK and Gandhi are now “terrorism.” The bill expanded the Animal Enterprise Protection Act, the law used to convict the SHAC 7 of “animal enterprise terrorism” just months earlier. In true Orwellian doublespeak, proponents said the law couldn’t be used to convict so-called extremists, and must be expanded. Here is a closer look at the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act.
▪ State-level Legislation. Even after the federal law passed, corporations still want more. There’s been a push for state “eco-terrorism” legislation similar to the federal AETA, including the the California Animal Enterprise Protection Act.
Extra-Legal
Perhaps the most dangerous wing of this Green Scare is the relentless scare-mongering.
▪ Ad Campaigns. Anonymous scare-mongering ads.
The new McCarthyists have used their deep pocketbooks and PR savvy to place a terrorist in every shadow. They’ve taken out full-page anonymous ads in both The New York Times and The Washington Post labeling animal rights activists as “terrorists” for being a little too successful, and knocking a controversial animal testing laboratory from the New York Stock Exchange.
▪ Public Relations Campaigns. Not even children’s movies are safe from the relentless green baiting and guilt by association. Industry groups labeled Hoot, a bestselling book and popular movie, “soft-core eco-terrorism” because the teenage protagonists try to save an endangered owl from developers. Apparently even E.B. White was an “eco-terrorist”: According to the Center for Consumer Freedom, the movie remake of Charlotte’s Web promotes animal rights extremism.
▪ Surveillance, Harassment and Infiltration. The corporate and government scare-mongering has been used to create a political climate that justifies surveillance and harassment of political advocates. For instance, the FBI is looking for informants to infiltrate vegan potlucks, Joint Terrorism Task Forces are spying on HoneyBaked Ham protestors, and corporations are tracking who activists are dating.
Secretive Political Prisons — Communications Management Units
The label of “terrorist” is applied to activists before they even enter a courtroom and, for those convicted, it follows them into the prison system. The government has acknowledged using secretive prison facilities on U.S. soil, called Communications Management Units, to house inmates labeled “domestic terrorists.”
Inmates and guards at the CMUs call them “Little Guantanamo.” They have also been described as prisons for “second-tier” terrorists.
According the Bureau of Prisons, these inmates “do not rise to the same degree of potential risk to national security” as other terrorism inmates. So who is imprisoned there?
The CMUs overwhelmingly include Muslim inmates, and have housed at least two animal rights and environmental activists: Andy Stepanian, who has been released, and Daniel McGowan, who is currently imprisoned at the CMU in Marion, Illinois.
Little information is available about the secretive facilities and the prisoners housed there. However, through interviews with attorneys, family members, and a current prisoner, it is clear that these units have been created not for violent and dangerous “terrorists,” but for political cases that the government would like to keep out of the public spotlight and out of the press.
So Why is This Happening?
Leaked State Department presentation about activists.
The government and corporations haven’t tried to hide the fact that this is all meant to protect corporate profits. The Department of Homeland Security, in a bulletin to law enforcement agencies, warned: “Attacks against corporations by animal rights extremists and eco-terrorists are costly to the targeted company and, over time, can undermine confidence in the economy.”
And in a leaked PowerPoint presentation given by the State Department to corporations, we learn: “Although incidents related to terrorism are most likely to make the front-page news, animal rights extremism is what’s most likely to affect your day-to-day business operations.”
Underground activists like the Animal Liberation Front and Earth Liberation Front directly threaten corporate profits by doing things like burning bulldozers or sabotaging animal research equipment. But they’re not the only ones.
The entire animal rights and environmental movements, perhaps more than any other social movements, directly threaten corporate profits. They do it every day. Every time activists encourage people to go vegan, every time they encourage people to stop driving, every time they encourage people to consume fewer resources and live simply. Those boycotts are permanent, and these industries know it. In many ways, the Green Scare, like the Red Scare, can be seen as a culture war, a war of values.
What Effect Has This Had?
The point of all this, according to the government, is to crack down on underground activists. But underground activists already know what they’re doing is illegal, and it hasn’t stopped them. In fact, it may have added fuel to the fire. For instance, the same day the SHAC 7 were convicted of “animal enterprise terrorism” for running a website that posted news of both legal and illegal actions, underground activists rescued animals from a vivisection lab and named them Jake, Lauren, Kevin, Andy, Josh, and Darius, after the defendants.
This is from the communiqué:
“And while the SHAC-7 will soon go to jail for simply speaking out on behalf of animals, those of us who have done all the nasty stuff talked about in the courts and in the media will still be free. So to those who still work with HLS and to all who abuse animals: we’re coming for you, motherfuckers.”
What Now?
So if outlandish prison sentences and “eco-terrorism” rhetoric aren’t deterring crimes or solving crimes, what’s the point?
Activists protest eco-terror legislation, and get results.
Fear. It’s all about fear. The point is to protect corporate profits by instilling fear in the mainstream animal rights and environmental movements—and every other social movement paying attention—and make people think twice about using their First Amendment rights.
Industry groups say “this is just the starting gun” for the Green Scare. But this could be the starting gun for activists as well. I’ve talked with hundreds of activists around the country over the years. There’s a lot of fear. But there’s also a lot of rage. And that’s a very good thing.
Because today’s repression may mimic many of the tactics of the Red Scare, but today’s response cannot. It’s not enough to cowardly distance ourselves from anyone branded a communist, I mean, terrorist. Naming names and making loyalty oaths didn’t protect activists then, and it won’t protect activists now.
The only way activists, and the First Amendment, are going to get through this is by coming out and confronting it head-on. That means reaching out to mainstream Americans and telling them that labeling activists as terrorists wastes valuable anti-terrorism resources and is an insult to everyone who died in the twin towers. That means reaching out to other activists and saying loud and clear that these activists are just the canaries in the mine.
Together, we can stop the cycle of history repeating itself.
•••
Florida Senator Says Undercover Videos Exposing Factory Farms are “Terrorism”
by WILL POTTER on APRIL 15, 2011
in TERRORISM LEGISLATION
Pigs in an intensive "factory farm" environment. Animals become mere cogs in a gigantic profitmaking mechanism. The incalculable suffering is routinely ignored.
Iowa, Florida, and Minnesota are all considering bills that single out animal and environmental activists who investigate cruelty and pollution at factory farms. Now, one Florida senator is going even further, and saying that these undercover investigations are “terrorism.”
As I wrote recently in this article about the bills targeting investigators and whistleblowers, groups like the Humane Society and Mercy for Animals have been incredibly successful at exposing the systemic animal welfare violations that take place in factory farms.
But according to Florida state senator Jim Norman, animal welfare advocates are only exposing these abuses to make money (yes, you read that correctly). Norman says of undercover investigators: “It’s almost like terrorism, the way they go in.”
This raises the question: who, exactly, are these activists terrorizing? It’s not consumers, who have a right to know what they are buying. It’s not the animals. And it’s not the government, which has used investigations to initiate recalls of unsafe eggs and beef.
It’s corporate profits.
I’ve written extensively about corporations, and the politicians who represent them, reaching further and further with their use of the word “terrorism.” But this just might take the cake. To Norman and the politicians behind these bills, “terrorism” means investigating what corporations are doing, letting consumers see what goes on behind closed doors, and having the audacity to think that people should be able to decide for themselves how they spend their money.
Green Scare, through his website, Green Is The New Red. He has written several articles on this topic, as well as participating in conferences and giving lectures on universities, with some of his papers found on courses. In 2006, he spoke to U.S. Congress about his reporting on these issues, and in 2008 an article on the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, from his website, was discussed in the book,Censored 2008, as one of the top 25 underscored news stories of 2007.
Will received his master’s in writing from the Johns Hopkins University and graduated summa cum laude from the University of Texas at Austin with a degree in journalism.[1]
To breathe the true air of freedom and democracy you need independent media lungs. Staffed with journalists and political observers not beholden to the status quo.
SUPPORT THE GREANVILLE POST AND CYRANOS JOURNAL TODAY.
DONATE WHAT YOU CAN!
____________________________________________
Make creeps like Kissinger and Palin miserable.
Read The Greanville Post by RSS Syndication (updates delivered every 4 days to your emailbox) and fortify your ability to fight back! Just click anywhere on Lady Liberty below and enter your email address.
|
By Jennifer Krill, Earth Island Journal
Posted on April 5, 2011
http://www.alternet.org/story/150450/there%27s_nothing_natural_about_natural_gas
Beware of the toxic bimbo. TV and print ads by "EnergyTomorrow.org" front for the oil/natural gas industry. A favorite ploy is to hide behind the "jobs" they create.
Due to advances in “hydraulic fracturing” (commonly known as “fracking”), America’s gas fields are no longer “somewhere else”: They’re right next door. Chances are good they’re right upstream from you.
And thanks in part to fluids used in fracking, America’s water is being poisoned with dozens of toxic drilling chemicals including benzene and toluene. Residents are being forced from their homes by air emissions, which are neither measured nor mitigated in any consistent fashion. Gas wells are surrounding peoples’ homes, with drill rigs within 150 feet of residences in some areas. In many cases, drilling is moving forward without the consent of the landowners and communities that are directly affected.
But the natural gas industry resists such proposals. This makes no sense: With better planning and smarter use of technology, the natural gas industry could avoid many of these impacts and cure a major public relations headache as well.
In addition to local environmental and public health concerns, there are also global consequences to increasing our reliance on natural gas. Both carbon dioxide and methane are major causes of global warming. While the burning of natural gas releases less carbon dioxide than coal, large volumes of methane are released during natural gas drilling and production, and through leaky pipelines. This is a problem because methane, the major constituent of natural gas, is 20 to 30 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. With an estimated 600,000 gas wells across America, the climate impacts are enormous.
Independent testing of emissions from natural gas facilities reveals extraordinary releases of methane. But there is no systematic monitoring or collection of this information. Without such data, we have no idea how much we are putting our climate at risk by advocating natural gas as a bridge fuel.
Those who promote natural gas as a solution to climate change must embrace a commitment to monitor and eliminate greenhouse gas emissions from every stage of the natural gas development process. Many natural gas advocates point out that emissions in the gas fields may be much easier to clean up than emissions from coal-fired power plants. We invite them to join us in the urgent fight to curb emissions in the field and to push for stronger regulation and monitoring of emissions at all stages of gas development.
The answer is “no.” Every dollar spent on new natural gas wells, pipelines, processing and infrastructure does not bring us closer to wind, solar, and energy efficiency. Quite the opposite: It is taking us in the wrong direction by delaying the transition. The large-scale conversion to clean energy demands new thinking, new consumption patterns, new delivery mechanisms, new industries, new financial incentives. Burning more natural gas simply puts energy from a different source into the same system now used for coal. To stabilize the climate at 350 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere, we simply can’t afford to invest in any new infrastructure that continues to increase greenhouse gases. A natural gas burning power plant that operates for the next 50 years means five more decades of burning fossil fuel that could instead be capturing energy from efficiency, wind, or the sun.
It is true that we are faced with an energy choice. It’s a choice that immediately impacts our communities’ air and water as well as the stability of Earth’s climate. But it’s not a choice between coal and natural gas. We are facing a choice between a truly clean energy future or more of the same. As currently pursued, natural gas is not a short, narrow, clean bridge. It’s bridge to nowhere: one that is long, exacts very high tolls, and has no clear end.
As program director at Rainforest Action Network, Jennifer Krill helped lead campaigns to protect old growth forests and break America’s oil addiction. She is currently the executive director of EARTHWORKS, an advocacy group that focuses on the negative impacts of mineral and energy extraction.
© 2011 Earth Island Journal All rights reserved.
Crossposted with http://www.alternet.org/story/150450/
By Merritt Clifton | September 1990
Deer hunters similar to Lynn and Gerry make up 85 percent of the U.S. hunting population, according to the National Shooting Sports Foundation. The next most popular targets are rabbits (71 percent) and squirrels (60 percent), followed by quail (48 percent), pheasants (45 percent), turkeys (26 percent), and geese (24 percent).
Morning Tribune editor Bill Hall offered recently, “They hunt for the bragging rights on what they kill.”
Los Angeles Times last fall.
HUNTING MANHOOD
Mother Earth News “Beginner’s Guide to Deer Hunting,” and then suggested why: “Consider that the term venison, for the meat of the deer, is derived from the name of Venus, the Roman goddess of loveŠvenery means both ‘the art of hunting’ and ‘the pursuit of sexual pleasure.'”
Universite de Montreal with a semiautomatic rifle and a buck knife.
TRAUMATIZING CHILDREN
DEMOGRAPHICS
A hard corps of hunters still hopes to perpetuate the status quo, or even to turn back the clock to frontier days. Indeed, one stated purpose of the recent Nucla, Colorado prairie dog shooting contest was to encourage more hunters to move in, and to scare off anti-hunters. Political organizer David Keene has assembled the American Hunting Rights Action Committee in hopes of placing a pro-hunting plank into the national conservative platform. But the number of active hunters continues to drop at both ends of the age range. A 1977 study by James Applegate showed that in New Jersey, at least, there are already over twice as many ex-hunters as actives.
MERRITT CLIFTON is editor in chief of ANIMAL PEOPLE, the only independent international publication devoted to the coverage and analysis of animal issues. Among its services, AP publishes The Watchdog Report, assessing the performance and integrity of animal defense organizations. The report can be purchased here.
