Guest guest Posted November 13, 2007 Report Share Posted November 13, 2007 repeal.aeta-request wrote: fortheanimalsFrom: repeal.aeta-requestSubject: Welcome to list repeal.aetaTue, 13 Nov 2007 15:17:51 -0800 (PST)Welcome to list repeal.aeta Your subscription email is fortheanimals ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. THE ANIMAL ENTREPRISE INDUSTRY HAS GOT TOO GREEDY WITH POWER AND POLITICIANS. THEY HAVE CROSSED THE LINE. WE WILL EXPOSE THEIR CORRUPTION AND DISREGARD FOR FREEDOM. THEIR NEW DRACONIAN BILL PASSED BY THEIR POCKET POLITICIANS WILL PROVE TO BE THEIR UNDOING. AETA isn't "just" about animal rights activists anymore. The new AETA threatens ALL activism by setting a legal precedent: 1. AETA is about a power play and test case by corporations to see how much they can silence and weaken grassroots activism who dare to challenge their stranglehold over politicians and society. 2. AETA is about our government putting a price tag on our freedom of speech and assembly. AETA punishes people further if they are involved in a protest and commit a “crime”. Those who are activists know how police officers twist the law to charge someone with a “crime”. 3. AETA is about the expansion of corporate power to dominate the rights of citizens, of us. This is our country. This is our freedom. This is our Constitution. These laws seek to make corporations our masters. These laws seek to make challenging corporations an act of terrorism. On Nov. 13, 2006, three and half hours before it was scheduled to be voted, the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act was fast-tracked past people’s attention through the House of Representatives and passed. Once again AETA sought to punish citizens based on political causes instead of the actual crime committed. However, this time around AETA, supposedly targeting "violent extremists" of the animal rights movement, went even further. In a bill against "violence", the law now ALSO categorizes as terrorism common non-violent civil disobedience that is done on the behalf of animals and against animal enterprises. Will Potter, an award winning journalist from Washington D.C., questioned that "if this legislation is only going after so-called violent extremists, how can it spell out sentences for crimes that are, in the words of the legislation, 'non-violent''" You don't even need to do anything violent or conspire to do anything violent to now be considered a terrorist. You just have to be an animal rights activist caught in the broad language of the new AETA. This wide vocabulary can possibly include blockades, property destruction, minor things like trespassing (i.e. for undercover investigations of animal abuses), and the freeing of captive animals. The new AETA gives a wide brush to any who "interfere", "deprive", or "obstruct" the profit revenue of animal enterprises and affiliated businesses. It also increases jail sentence lengths and fines for activists convicted for breaking the law during protests. Yes, that's right, protesting, the practicing of free speech, makes your punishment worse if you are charged with a "crime" against the animal enterprise industry. It is now considered an act of terrorism for a citizen to investigate the practices of a corporation (trespassing) if the citizen is doing it on the behalf of the animals' welfare. These laws are not against any "violent extremists". These laws are against people who believe in animal welfare and animal rights. And these are laws threatening those same people if they exercise their freedom of speech. Anyone who has participated in a protest knows that police officers frequently will use cause or fabricate instances or stretch the flimsiest of charges against peaceful protestors. This law is an attack on the freedom of speech. This law is an attack against a minority group who share beliefs that animals deserve compassion. “Eco-terrorism” is really just slang for anyone who challenges corporate power. It is an Orwellian mind trick to irrationally connect activists to terrorists. Marv Johnson, legislative counsel for the ACLU, said this legislation targeting specific groups of people have a "a potential for chilling [of] speech." The National Lawyer's Guild opposes the bill because laws already exist to criminalize acts such as trespassing and property damage. Furthermore, the National Lawyer's Guild director, Heidi Boghosian, says that AETA "sets a dangerous precedent for going after people based on the content of their speech." Boghosian says that AETA is a "test case" for legislation against activists and that she thinks they will be targeting more activist groups based solely on their specific views. We are the guinea pigs for corporations to see how far they can legally undermine, punish, and silence activists who dare to challenge for only-for-profit “morality”. The profit of the biomedical industry is the motive for heavy treatment of non-violent activists as terrorists. Supporters of the bill, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK), wrote that AETA is to "ensure that important animal enterprises, like biomedical industries, stay in California, for example, rather than go to India or China." The animal rights movement has actually never claimed a single human life. Regardless of these facts, the bill also heavily penalizes animal rights activists for causing an individual serious bodily harm or death. Violent, pro-life activists, meanwhile, get treated as normal citizens. Once an activist's cause is stated for animal rights, their status of a citizen is changed, and despite never committing any murders or conspire to murder anyone, they are treated as an "eco-terrorist". - With AETA, citizens are punished for belief more than their crime. - With AETA, citizens’ freedom of speech and assembly is threatened, intimidated, and punished. We are patriots of liberty. We are patriots of justice. We are activists, not eco-terrorists. President Bush, you once said that terrorists hate us for our freedoms and want to take our freedoms away. By your definition, those that seek to destroy freedom are terrorists. By your definition, corporations with their pocket politicians are terrorists because they are destroying our freedoms by exploiting terror and fear on a misinformed public. Corporations have overstepped themselves. And we will turn their greed's folly upon themselves. We will expose their draconian bill. The truth will come to light and the murder of liberties cannot be hid long. Corporate politicians may hide their motives, but, at length, the truth will be found out. Everyone they associate with and every organization and business they patronize will know exactly their priorities and disregard for non-violent civil disobedience and the freedom of speech and assembly. We will even inform and encourage those who contributed to these politicians’ campaigns to reconsider their actions and use their weight on our behalf. Against the corporate media, we will launch a limited and sharply targeted media campaign of our own. We will win. However, we cannot delay. We must begin our counterattack. NOW. Everything about this list: https://lists.riseup.net/www/info/repeal.aeta http://www.myspace.com/fortheanmals SMASH HLS!!! http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual & VideoID=17319933 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 15, 2007 Report Share Posted November 15, 2007 Interestingly, out of the approx. 15,000 " people of interest " since 9/11, there have been about 20% convictions, in part because about 42% of that 15,000 were not even prosecuted. However, since then crime categories have been expanded to included " anti-terrorism " crime. Anti-terrorism means " intended to prevent or disrupt potential or actual terrorist threats where the offense conduct is not obviously a federal crime of terrorism. " So, this looks like everything under the sun, including email. Hey, maybe just thinking about it will be included some day:) Either way, even if you are on this list that is never prosecuted it seems if you become a part of the " people of interest " list, you are on it forever. I think last I heard the database was around a half million because it's quadrupled in the last 4 years according to the Washington Post. So, in essense a lot of innocent people are being affected. What then does that say about the innocent animals? We are practically as caged-in and controlled as our animal friends. But I guess we can't give-up because we (all animals) are all in this together for a higher purpose. , Shannon Morgan <fortheanmls wrote: > > > > repeal.aeta-request wrote: fortheanimals > repeal.aeta-request > Welcome to list repeal.aeta > Tue, 13 Nov 2007 15:17:51 -0800 (PST) > > Welcome to list repeal.aeta > Your subscription email is fortheanimals > > > ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. > > THE ANIMAL ENTREPRISE INDUSTRY HAS GOT TOO GREEDY WITH POWER AND POLITICIANS. > > THEY HAVE CROSSED THE LINE. > > WE WILL EXPOSE THEIR CORRUPTION AND DISREGARD FOR FREEDOM. THEIR NEW DRACONIAN BILL PASSED BY THEIR POCKET POLITICIANS WILL PROVE TO BE THEIR UNDOING. > > AETA isn't " just " about animal rights activists anymore. The new AETA threatens ALL activism by setting a legal precedent: > > 1. AETA is about a power play and test case by corporations to see how much they can silence and weaken grassroots activism who dare to challenge their stranglehold over politicians and society. > > 2. AETA is about our government putting a price tag on our freedom of speech and assembly. AETA punishes people further if they are involved in a protest and commit a " crime " . Those who are activists know how police officers twist the law to charge someone with a " crime " . > > 3. AETA is about the expansion of corporate power to dominate the rights of citizens, of us. This is our country. This is our freedom. This is our Constitution. > > These laws seek to make corporations our masters. These laws seek to make challenging corporations an act of terrorism. > > On Nov. 13, 2006, three and half hours before it was scheduled to be voted, the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act was fast-tracked past people's attention through the House of Representatives and passed. > > Once again AETA sought to punish citizens based on political causes instead of the actual crime committed. However, this time around AETA, supposedly targeting " violent extremists " of the animal rights movement, went even further. In a bill against " violence " , the law now ALSO categorizes as terrorism common non-violent civil disobedience that is done on the behalf of animals and against animal enterprises. > > Will Potter, an award winning journalist from Washington D.C., questioned that " if this legislation is only going after so-called violent extremists, how can it spell out sentences for crimes that are, in the words of the legislation, 'non-violent'' " You don't even need to do anything violent or conspire to do anything violent to now be considered a terrorist. You just have to be an animal rights activist caught in the broad language of the new AETA. This wide vocabulary can possibly include blockades, property destruction, minor things like trespassing (i.e. for undercover investigations of animal abuses), and the freeing of captive animals. > > The new AETA gives a wide brush to any who " interfere " , " deprive " , or " obstruct " the profit revenue of animal enterprises and affiliated businesses. It also increases jail sentence lengths and fines for activists convicted for breaking the law during protests. Yes, that's right, protesting, the practicing of free speech, makes your punishment worse if you are charged with a " crime " against the animal enterprise industry. It is now considered an act of terrorism for a citizen to investigate the practices of a corporation (trespassing) if the citizen is doing it on the behalf of the animals' welfare. > > These laws are not against any " violent extremists " . These laws are against people who believe in animal welfare and animal rights. And these are laws threatening those same people if they exercise their freedom of speech. Anyone who has participated in a protest knows that police officers frequently will use cause or fabricate instances or stretch the flimsiest of charges against peaceful protestors. > > This law is an attack on the freedom of speech. This law is an attack against a minority group who share beliefs that animals deserve compassion. " Eco-terrorism " is really just slang for anyone who challenges corporate power. It is an Orwellian mind trick to irrationally connect activists to terrorists. > > Marv Johnson, legislative counsel for the ACLU, said this legislation targeting specific groups of people have a " a potential for chilling [of] speech. " > > The National Lawyer's Guild opposes the bill because laws already exist to criminalize acts such as trespassing and property damage. > > Furthermore, the National Lawyer's Guild director, Heidi Boghosian, says that AETA " sets a dangerous precedent for going after people based on the content of their speech. " Boghosian says that AETA is a " test case " for legislation against activists and that she thinks they will be targeting more activist groups based solely on their specific views. > > We are the guinea pigs for corporations to see how far they can legally undermine, punish, and silence activists who dare to challenge for only-for-profit " morality " . The profit of the biomedical industry is the motive for heavy treatment of non-violent activists as terrorists. Supporters of the bill, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK), wrote that AETA is to " ensure that important animal enterprises, like biomedical industries, stay in California, for example, rather than go to India or China. " > > The animal rights movement has actually never claimed a single human life. Regardless of these facts, the bill also heavily penalizes animal rights activists for causing an individual serious bodily harm or death. Violent, pro-life activists, meanwhile, get treated as normal citizens. Once an activist's cause is stated for animal rights, their status of a citizen is changed, and despite never committing any murders or conspire to murder anyone, they are treated as an " eco-terrorist " . > > - With AETA, citizens are punished for belief more than their crime. > > - With AETA, citizens' freedom of speech and assembly is threatened, intimidated, and punished. > > We are patriots of liberty. We are patriots of justice. > > We are activists, not eco-terrorists. > > President Bush, you once said that terrorists hate us for our freedoms and want to take our freedoms away. By your definition, those that seek to destroy freedom are terrorists. By your definition, corporations with their pocket politicians are terrorists because they are destroying our freedoms by exploiting terror and fear on a misinformed public. > > Corporations have overstepped themselves. And we will turn their greed's folly upon themselves. > > We will expose their draconian bill. The truth will come to light and the murder of liberties cannot be hid long. Corporate politicians may hide their motives, but, at length, the truth will be found out. > > Everyone they associate with and every organization and business they patronize will know exactly their priorities and disregard for non-violent civil disobedience and the freedom of speech and assembly. We will even inform and encourage those who contributed to these politicians' campaigns to reconsider their actions and use their weight on our behalf. > > Against the corporate media, we will launch a limited and sharply targeted media campaign of our own. > > We will win. > > However, we cannot delay. > > We must begin our counterattack. > > NOW. > > > Everything about this list: https://lists.riseup.net/www/info/repeal.aeta > > > > http://www.myspace.com/fortheanmals > SMASH HLS!!! http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm? fuseaction=vids.individual & VideoID=17319933 > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.