Feinstein on the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act

[Guest guest]

Hi all:

 

Here is what Diane Feinstein says about the Animal Enterprise

Terrorism Act:

 

 

 

> " zatopek6 " <dougfb

> October 23, 2006 10:46:11 AM PDT

> Rosalind Lord <rclord

> Re: Stop the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act!

>

> Hi All:

>

> My recommendation is to get up-to-date information on the language of

> each bill, and the status of each bill, before launching a group

> effort.

>

> I contacted Senator Feinstein (co-sponsor of S3880) a couple weeks

> ago and her office replied that the bill had been amended before it

> was passed, taking out the most onerous provisions. Apparently,

> peaceful actions that just cause a decline in sales would be exlcuded.

>

> I have not tried to find a copy of the latest version, but one of you

> might have the time and energy to find them and review them. Then

> you could share your findings and web links with the group.

>

> Here is Senator Feinstein's reply:

>

>

> October 19, 2006

>

> Dear Mr. Brown:

>

> Thank you for writing me with your comments

> about the " Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act " (S. 3880).

> I appreciate hearing from you and welcome the

> opportunity to respond.

>

> This bill would amend the federal criminal code

> provisions regarding animal enterprise terrorism to

> toughen federal criminal penalties for threats of death or

> serious bodily injury against individuals, or family

> members, who are involved with animal enterprises. It

> would also modify the definition of " animal enterprise "

> to include all legitimate enterprises that use, or sell

> animals or animal products for profit, educational, or

> research purposes, as well as individuals and companies

> affiliated with such enterprises. The bill was introduced

> after four separate hearings were held on the issue, after

> the Federal Bureau of Investigations testified about a rise

> in terrorist activities by animal rights extremists, and

> after a recent publicized incident at the University of

> California, Los Angeles.

>

> I am an original cosponsor of this legislation,

> which the Senate passed with an amendment by

> unanimous consent. This amendment clarified that the

> substantive offense created by the bill requires proof of

> intentional damage to real or personal property, not

> simply a loss of profits, and also eliminated the

> misdemeanor of physical obstruction of animal

> enterprises. All First Amendment-protected activities,

> such as picketing, lawful protests and boycotts, and other

> peaceful demonstrations, are now exempted from the

> bill's coverage. The final bill that the Senate-passed

> would clearly protect the actions of law-abiding

> protesters, while distinguishing and appropriately

> penalizing the criminal activities of extremists.

>

> Again, thank you for contacting me. I value your

> opinion and hope you will continue to keep me informed

> about matters of importance to you. If you should have

> any further questions or comments, please feel free to

> contact my Washington, D.C. staff at (202) 224-3841.

>

>

>

>

>

> Sincerely yours,

>

> Dianne Feinstein

> United States Senator

>

> http://feinstein.senate.gov

>

>

>

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

It's still bad, simply because it uses the word " terrorism " , and

people charged with terrorism can be tortured in secret prisons now.

 

DiFi clearly isn't going to be swayed by a flurry of heartfelt

letters written by pack of vegans, but I would suggest contacting

Nancy Pelosi. It's very likely that the house will be in Democratic

control next month, which would put Pelosi in the position of

deciding which bills come up for a vote. Which is great. The speaker

of the House would be directly accountable to San Francisco voters,

giving us a strong voice in national politics.

 

My suggestion for letter writing / phone calls: Tell Pelosi that this

piece of garbage of a bill will have a chilling effect on lawful

activities, even though the bill is supposedly worded carefully (you

never know what a gutsy prosecutor will try). And unless recent

legislation legalizing torture and secret prisons is repealed, this

law shouldn't even come up for a vote in the House. Make it clear

that any volunteer and financial support you intend to give to help

Democrats retake the House in the next two weeks depends on her

response on this issue.

 

On Oct 23, 2006, at 7:33 PM, Rosalind Lord wrote:

 

> Hi all:

>

> Here is what Diane Feinstein says about the Animal Enterprise

> Terrorism Act:

[Guest guest]

Feinstein and her husband are war

profiteers. It serves their direct financial interests to have the term “terrorism”

bandied about as much as possible, in order to keep a gullible citizenry

fearful while they feed at the public trough.

 

 

 

Army contract for Feinstein's husband

Blum is a director of firm that will get

up to $600 million

 

David R. Baker, Chronicle Staff Writer

Tuesday, April 22, 2003

 

URS Corp., a San Francisco planning and engineering firm

partially owned by California Sen. Dianne Feinstein's husband, landed an Army

contract Monday worth up to $600 million.

 

The award to help with troop mobilization,

weapons systems training and anti-terrorism

efforts is the latest in a string of plum defense jobs snared by URS. In

February, the firm won an army engineering and logistics contract that could

bring in $3.1 billion during the

next eight years.

 

Government contracting has come under

increasing scrutiny by Congress and citizen groups, with critics decrying the

political connections of firms winning lucrative jobs. Richard Blum,

Feinstein's husband, serves on the company's board of directors and controls about 24 percent of the firm's

stock, according to Hoover's

Inc. research firm.

 

A Feinstein spokesman Monday declined to

comment on the contract.

 

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/04/22/MN310531.DTL

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On Behalf Of Ajay

Tuesday, October 24, 2006

7:51 AM

BAV mail list; BAARN Network

Re: Feinstein

on the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act

 

 

 

 

This (proposed) law is

_bad_ . Why do we need a special law for " animal

enterprises " anyways?? What is there in this law that is not covered

by

existing laws? Is there a new threat being posed which calls for a new law?

I was appalled to see Sen. Feinstein support it, let alone co-sponsor it! I'm

not

supporting her ever again, because her support for this bill goes against some

of my core beliefs.

 

As Steve mentioned, combine this with secret prisons for " terrorists "

(remember,

this law makes many of the current activities " terrorism " ), and

you'll

have Animal Rights folks sitting in cages, instead of just animals.

 

Ajay

 

----- Original Message

----

Steve Simitzis <steve

BAV mail list ; BAARN Network

<baarn >

Tuesday, October 24, 2006 12:07:50 AM

Re: Feinstein on the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act

 

It's still bad, simply because it uses the word

" terrorism " , and

people charged with terrorism can be tortured in secret prisons now.

 

DiFi clearly isn't going to be swayed by a flurry of heartfelt

letters written by pack of vegans, but I would suggest contacting

Nancy Pelosi. It's very likely that the house will be in Democratic

control next month, which would put Pelosi in the position of

deciding which bills come up for a vote. Which is great. The speaker

of the House would be directly accountable to San Francisco voters,

giving us a strong voice in national politics.

 

My suggestion for letter writing / phone calls: Tell Pelosi that this

piece of garbage of a bill will have a chilling effect on lawful

activities, even though the bill is supposedly worded carefully (you

never know what a gutsy prosecutor will try). And unless recent

legislation legalizing torture and secret prisons is repealed, this

law shouldn't even come up for a vote in the House. Make it clear

that any volunteer and financial support you intend to give to help

Democrats retake the House in the next two weeks depends on her

response on this issue.

 

On Oct 23, 2006, at 7:33 PM, Rosalind Lord wrote:

 

> Hi all:

>

> Here is what Diane Feinstein says about the Animal Enterprise

> Terrorism Act:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_

This e-mail is intended only for the named person or entity to which

it is addressed and contains valuable business information that is

privileged, confidential and/or otherwise protected from disclosure.

Dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail or the

information herein by anyone other than the intended recipient, or

an employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the

intended recipient, is strictly prohibited. All contents are the

copyright property of Agency.com Ltd., its affiliates or a client of

such agencies. If you are not the intended recipient, you are

nevertheless bound to respect the worldwide legal rights of

Agency.com, its affiliates and its clients. We require that

unintended recipients delete the e-mail and destroy all electronic

copies in their system, retaining no copies in any media. If you

have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify us via

e-mail to disclaimer. We appreciate your cooperation.

 

We make no warranties as to the accuracy or completeness of this

e-mail and accept no liability for its content or use. Any opinions

expressed in this e-mail are those of the author and do not

necessarily reflect the opinions of Agency.com or any of its

affiliates.