Will Potter's Blog, page 30

FBI Says Activists Who Investigate Factory Farms Can Be Prosecuted as Terrorists

This recent investigation of a McDonald's egg supplier is an example of the type of activism the FBI calls terrorism.

The FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force has kept files on activists who expose animal welfare abuses on factory farms and recommended prosecuting them as terrorists, according to a new document uncovered through the Freedom of Information Act.

This new information comes as the Center for Constitutional Rights has filed a lawsuit challenging the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) as unconstitutional because its vague wording has had a chilling effect on political activism. This document adds to the evidence demonstrating that the AETA goes far beyond property destruction, as its supporters claim.

The 2003 FBI file details the work of several animal rights activists who used undercover investigation to document repeated animal welfare violations. The FBI special agent who authored the report said they "illegally entered buildings owned by [redacted] Farm… and videotaped conditions of animals."

The animal activists caused "economic loss" to businesses, the FBI says. And they also openly rescued several animals from the abusive conditions. This was not done covertly in the style of underground groups like the Animal Liberation Front — it was an act of non-violent civil disobedience and, as the FBI agent notes, the activists distributed press releases and conducted media interviews taking responsibility for their actions.

Based on these acts — trespassing in order to photograph and videotape abuses on factory farms — the agent concludes there "is a reasonable indication" that the activists "have violated the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, 18 USC Section 43 (a)."

The file was uncovered through a FOIA request by Ryan Shapiro, who is one of the activists mentioned. The file is available for download here. [Please note that this document has additional redactions in order to protect the identities of the other activists, at their request.] Shapiro is now a doctoral candidate at MIT.

"It is deeply sobering to see one's name in an FBI file proposing terrorism charges," he said in an email. "It is even more sobering to realize the supposedly terroristic activities in question are merely exposing the horrific cruelty of factory farms, educating the public about what goes on behind those closed doors, and openly rescuing a few animals from one of those farms as an act of civil disobedience."

Click here to view the FBI document.

When I testified before Congress against the AETA in 2006, one of the primary concerns I raised is that the law could be used to wrap up a wide range of activity that threatens corporate profits. Supporters of the AETA have repeatedly denied this, and said the law will only be used against people who do things like burn buildings.

So how do we explain that such a sweeping prosecution was being considered in 2003, under the law's somewhat-narrower precursor?

One possibility is that FBI agents lack training, education, and oversight. They are spying on political activists without understanding or respecting the law.

Another explanation is that this document is no mistake, nor is it an isolated case. It is a reflection of a coordinated campaign to target animal rights activists who, as the FBI agent notes, cause "economic loss" to corporations.

At the state, federal, and international levels, corporations have orchestrated an attempt to silence political activists, and a key target has been undercover investigators. For example:

An "Ag Gag" bill has been introduced in Florida to criminalize investigations. Its lead sponsor calls these investigations "terrorism." Four similar attempts failed in other states this year.
These state bills are similar to model "eco-terrorism" legislation drafted by the American Legislative Exchange Council, a corporate front group.
A recent EUROPOL report on international terrorism includes a section on undercover investigations by animal rights and environmental activists.
12 Spanish activists have been charged with terrorism for their investigations.
Two activists in Finland faced similar charges.

The FBI makes clear that the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act is not about protecting public safety; it is about protecting corporate profits. Corporations and the politicians who represent them have repeatedly lied to the American public about the scope of this legislation, and claimed that the law only targets underground groups like the Animal Liberation Front. The truth is that this terrorism law has been slowly, methodically expanded to include the tactics of national organizations like the Humane Society of the United States.

This document illustrates how the backlash against effective activism has progressed within the animal rights movement. However, if this type of legislation is not overturned, it will set a precedent for corporations to use this model against Occupy Wall Street and anyone else who threaten business as usual.

New Reviews in Reason Magazine, Earth Island Journal, and Literary Animal

It's great to see the book getting positive reviews from a wide range of audience. Here a few new reviews I wanted to highlight:

The libertarian Reason Magazine connects these issues to its readership (who, I think it's safe to say, are not often fans of animal rights activists or environmentalists), and warns: "Potter makes a strong case that the authorities have exaggerated the threat such activists pose… the encroachments he laments are part of a larger expansion of federal police power, one that affects the right as well as the left."

The Earth Island Journal has a lengthy review in the Winter 2012 issue, and called it a "deeply troubling account of the federal government's crackdown on the radical environmental movement."

And on the Literary Animal blog, Sangu Iyer writes:

"Green is the New Red embodies one of my favorite forms of writing. It is part memoir, part history, part investigative journalism. Belonging to the school of "new journalism," where an author acknowledges his role in the story, this book  is a thrilling read for both its exhaustive research and the intimate nature of the telling…. Released in the year of several global political uprisings and the Occupy Wall Street Movement, Green is the New Red is particularly relevant and insightful reading for all concerned citizens questioning corporate power."

New Lawsuit Challenges the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act as Unconstitutional

A new lawsuit challenges the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act as unconstitutional because it has given activists reason to fear that they could be prosecuted as "terrorists" for non-violent civil disobedience, protests, and First Amendment activity.

The lawsuit was filed by the Center for Constitutional Rights on behalf of 5 longtime animal rights activists. The activists say the vague wording of the law, and the corporate-led campaigns against animal rights activism, have made them alter their own advocacy.

The lawsuit seeks to strike down the law for violating the First and Fifth Amendments. Specifically, it argues that the law is unconstitutional for 3 reasons:

It is so broad that it has had a chilling effect on free speech. The law hasn't outlawed animal rights activism, but it has made activists think twice about using their rights. This was the primary point I raised in my Congressional testimony against the law in 2006, and since then the political climate has become even more toxic. The first use of the law was based on activists allegedly chalking slogans on the sidewalk and wearing bandanas. The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act is an attempt by corporations to use the power of fear in order to silence their opposition.
The language is so vague that people can't decipher what is illegal. The law's criminalization of "interfering with" the operations of an animal enterprise, or causing a "loss of profits," leave activists wondering if they could be labeled a terrorist for a successful lawful campaign. This is compounded by the law's emphasis on "tertiary targeting": it not only protects animal enterprises," but any business that does business with an animal enterprise. When politicians, the courts, lawyers, and national organizations cannot agree on the meaning of this law, it is dangerously overbroad.
It singles out animal rights activist because of their political beliefs and their effective advocacy. Meanwhile, violence by anti-abortion extremists is not being labeled as terrorism. For more on this: "If Sarah Palin Were an Animal Rights Activist, She'd Have Already Been Convicted of 'Terrorism." Singling out groups of people because of their political beliefs, and restricting their First Amendment rights, is antithetical to a healthy democracy.

Here is a detailed, step-by-step analysis of the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act if you are interested. I wanted to focus a bit on the people involved in the lawsuit, though:

Sarahjane Blum has been an animal rights activist for 23 years. She co-founded GourmetCruelty.com in 2003, which exposed the cruelty of the foie gras industry and helped California to ban foie gras farming. According to the lawsuit: "While she had knowingly and openly violated the law many times through acts of non-violent civil disobedience, she was unwilling to face the possibility of prosecution and sentencing as a terrorist. She was stunned that the ethical, important work that she had devoted her life to had been turned overnight into terrorism."

Ryan Shapiro is now a doctoral candidate at MIT studying the history of political repression against animal rights activists. With Sarahjane Blum, he co-founded GourmetCruelty.com, produced a documentary film, and spoke publicly about his work. He was also friends with the SHAC 7 — a group of activists convicted as terrorists. "Faced with the imprisonment of his friends, and with the passage of the AETA, Mr. Shapiro began to worry that the price for peaceful protest and civil disobedience was one he could not afford to pay."

Lana Lehr has organized for the welfare of rabbits, and also protested the sale of their fur. After the passage of the AETA, she found herself altering her protest activity and censoring her words and her writing online.

Lauren Gazzola is one of the SHAC 7. She recounts a lecture she gave at a law school class where she censored herself from encouraging activists to follow her advocacy, because she feared her words would be used as evidence of conspiracy to violate the AETA.

Jay Johnson, who has confirmed that he has been placed on a terrorist watchlist, has witnessed the chilling effect on grassroots animal rights activism. After the case of the SHAC 7 and the passage of the AETA, protest attendance plummeted. For instance, he recounts a protest against a company affiliated with Huntingdon Life Sciences: "When he arrived at the site of the planned protest, he was met by over 40 police officers in riot gear, and not a single other protestor."

In the interest of full disclosure, I have known several of these plaintiffs for well over a decade, as activists and as friends.

I point this out because I want to take the liberty of saying that this lawsuit was not an easy decision for them. There's of course a fear of drawing a giant red target on one's back, but the primary concern of these plaintiffs is not themselves — it's the animals, and those advocating on their behalf. All of these activists are deeply committed to the animal rights movement, and they had to answer the uncomfortable question: "Does acknowledging fear draw even more attention to it? Could this make even more people afraid?"

But this lawsuit is more about courage than fear. It is about these plaintiffs and the CCR having the courage to acknowledge that this political climate exists, that what we are experiencing is real and it is valid, and that we can't move forward by pretending it doesn't affect us. It is to say, unequivocally: "Yes, we have been afraid. Yes, we have all known fear. And now it is time to fight back."

"Ag Gag" Bill Reintroduced in Florida, as Animal Activist Faces Felony for Photography

Florida Senator Jim Norman wants to stop activists from exposing factory farms.

Earlier this year, four states were considering "ag gag" bills to criminalize photography, or video or audio recording, of what goes on at factory farms, animal experimentation labs, and other facilities. They all failed, but as I have been saying for months, it will only be a matter of time before these bills are modified and reintroduced.

In Florida, the first has just resurfaced. Senator Jim Norman, who said undercover investigations are "almost like terrorism," has a new bill. SB 1184 revises a few agriculture statutes that deal with stormwater management, feedstuffs, and citrus harvesting equipment. Then it ends with a transparent attack on the First Amendment.

SB 1184 says:

A person may not knowingly enter upon any nonpublic area of a farm and, without the prior written consent of the farm's owner or the owner's authorized representative, operate the audio or video recording function of any device with the intent of recording sound or images of the farm or farm operation.

It makes exemptions for law enforcement and government employees but, of course, there are no exemptions for journalists or activists. That's the point. Norman filed his original bill at the urging of an egg farmer, Wilton Simpson, who wanted to stop activists from gathering video footage to use in a state ballot initiative against factory farm cruelty (similar to the successful California initiative).

These ag gag bills created quite an uproar when they were introduced. Most people are unaware, though, that dozens of states already have designer laws protecting factory farms from activists.

Florida "Eco-Terrorism" Law Put to Use

Florida already has a law called the Animal Enterprise Protection Act (FL ST § 828.40 – 43). It passed in 1993 at the request of industry, ostensibly to target groups like the Animal Liberation Front who cause "physical disruption" or the loss of property. It has sat on the shelf for years. That is until this month, when an animal rights activist was charged with a felony in what seems to be the very first use of the law.

Chris Lagergren was arrested at gunpoint by an off-duty Miami cop outside of the Marine Mammal Conservancy in Key Largo.

So what was he allegedly doing that prompted an armed cop, 100 miles outside of his jurisdiction, to arrest him at gunpoint? And what was so dangerous that Lagergren's bond was set at $30,000?

According to the police report, he had been taking photographs and was tampering with a fence:

R. Lingenfelser [the president of the facility] stated he has seen Chris for the past two weeks standing on the Hampton Inn property, video taping the Marine Mammal property and its staff.

Lingenfelser says he saw Lagergren and another individual attempting to dismantle a fence, and called the police. He said the FBI had warned him that Lagergren, a well-known activist in the area, "is going to attempt to release any caged animals [or] mammals into their natural habitat" as part of the Animal Liberation Front, a "domestic terrorist organization."

This isn't the first time Lingenfelser has had run-ins with photographers. He previously threatened a photographer with a felony for taking photos of whales.

Lingenfelser may not be a credible source, but as Carlos Miller wrote on the photography site Pixiq: "That's not to say Lagergren wasn't trying to free the whales that day… But until they catch him doing something more than just taking photos or trespassing, they should treat him like any other suspect arrested on misdemeanor charges."

Lagergren is facing up to five years in prison.

Making Bad Laws Even Worse

Many of these original state laws were passed under the auspices on targeting the "radicals," underground groups like the Animal Liberation Front. It is quite clear, though, that existing laws have already gone too far, and are disproportionately targeting non-violent activists. And while all this is occurring, industry groups are relentlessly pushing to go even further, and transparently target First Amendment activity.

This is the model. This is how corporations and the politicians who represent them are chipping away at constitutional rights. It begins with laws targeting the "terrorists" (who, at the very worst, have damaged property) and then, bit by bit, year by year, the net widens as it wraps up an ever-growing group of people, such as those who photograph facilities that have sent whales to Sea World, and those who expose animal cruelty on factory farms.

Moving forward, people like Senator Norman, the FBI, and industry groups will do everything they can to keep your focus on activists like Mercy for Animals, the Humane Society, and Chris Lagergren. Instead, we need to keep our focus on them, and ask ourselves:

What are they trying to hide?

Want to take action? Sign the petition for Chris Lagergren. And contact Florida senators and urge them to oppose SB 1184.

Green Is the New Red Named One of the "Best Books of 2011″

Kirkus Reviews has released its list of the "Best Books of 2011," and I'm happy to announce that Green Is the New Red: An Insider's Account of a Social Movement Under Siege made the non-fiction list! 

It's quite an honor to have the book listed alongside Joan Didion's Blue Nights, Garrett Graf's The Threat Matrix, and Erik Larson's In the Garden of Beasts. I mean, geez. Check out more of the best non-fiction of 2011.

I'll use this as an opportunity to make a shameless plug, of course. I hope you'll consider picking up a copy for yourself or as a holiday gift. You can find out more about what people are saying and order a copy today.

If you like it, please leave a positive review on Amazon. It helps, folks, it really does. It's tough to get the message out about new books, and it's amazing how much you all have done to get this out there. Thank you!

 

Senate Approves NDAA Bill that Allows Military to Imprison U.S. Citizens, Without Charge, As "Terrorists"

The U.S. Senate voted Tuesday to maintain provisions in a bill that would allow the military to apprehend U.S. citizens, including those on U.S. soil, without charge, and hold them indefinitely if they are labeled as terrorists. President Obama has threatened a veto.

The vote comes after attempts by the American Civil Liberties Union and others to strip the massive National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of these components. An amendment by Senator Mark Udall of Colorado failed by a 61-37 vote.

Udall warned "these proposed changes would require the military to take on a new responsibility as police, jailors and judges — jobs for which it is not equipped and which it does not want. These changes to our laws would also authorize the military to exercise unprecedented power on U.S. soil."

Why is this so dangerous? As Shahid Buttar of the Bill of Rights Defense Committee said pointedly:

"We have courts in America to check executive power. Impartial judges limit over whom the state may exercise its coercive power to deny freedom. We don't trust prosecutors to make those decisions, because we presume innocence. Being considered 'innocent until proven guilty' is a bedrock constitutional norm, a cornerstone in the edifice our Founders constructed to defend freedom from the potential tyranny that Levin & McCain casually invite."

Supporters of the provisions, including Senators Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and John McCain (R-Ariz), say the bill only targets al-Qaeda (the unspoken rationale, of course, is that we are to believe that anyone accused of being associated with Al-Qaeda is not entitled to a fair trial). Yet they go on to note "the administration has broad authority to decide who is covered by this provision and how and when such a decision is made."

As Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said: "The enemy is all over the world. Here at home… They should not be read their Miranda Rights. They should not be given a lawyer…"

There are plenty of excellent blog posts out there right now dissecting the minutiae of the bill (a great starting point is my former colleague Chris Anders' analysis for the ACLU).

The point that I think needs to be emphasized, though, is how this fits into the bigger political picture. This bill is a concrete manifestation of what is often a quite nebulous topic — the erosion of our fundamental rights and liberties. In that context, there are two concepts that cannot be emphasized enough:

1) This bill is a reflection of a parallel legal system that has been created for those deemed "terrorists." It is about "apprehension" rather than "arrest." It is "indefinite detention" rather than "fair trial." Those who are labeled as terrorists are stripped of their basic rights and ushered through a separate legal system, where they have no power to challenge their designation, all in the name of national security. This parallel legal system may share similar features, but it is not about fairness — it is a spectacle of democracy. This parallel system is not new. It exists in Communications Management Units, Guantanamo Bay, designer terrorism laws like the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, grand jury witch hunts, and more. This is, however, a radical expansion of that trend.

2) That parallel system, by definition, lacks checks and balances on government power. We are told that this is why a separate set of laws is needed for terrorists: the existing checks and balances are too burdensome. Yet, no agent of the state could ever openly say "give us more power Power POWER without accountability!" We have to be reminded that, as Levin and McCain have feebly retorted, this is "only" about Al-Qaeda.

As a result, we have two competing messages. Politicians say out of one side of their mouth: "Trust us, this is just about those evil, evil, terrorists of Al-Qaeda. No one else has anything to worry about."

Out of the other side of their mouth, they say: "Well, the threat of terrorism is fluid, and we need the broad authority to expand the scope at any time."

Which one do you believe?

Contact your senators to register your opposition, and contact the White House to urge a veto.

Senate Approves Bill that Allows Military to Imprison U.S. Citizens, Without Charge, As "Terrorists"

The U.S. Senate voted Tuesday to maintain provisions in a bill that would allow the military to apprehend U.S. citizens, including those on U.S. soil, without charge, and hold them indefinitely if they are labeled as terrorists. President Obama has threatened a veto.

The vote comes after attempts by the American Civil Liberties Union and others to strip the massive National Defense Authorization Act of these components. An amendment by Senator Mark Udall of Colorado failed by a 61-37 vote.

Udall warned "these proposed changes would require the military to take on a new responsibility as police, jailors and judges — jobs for which it is not equipped and which it does not want. These changes to our laws would also authorize the military to exercise unprecedented power on U.S. soil."

Why is this so dangerous? As Shahid Buttar of the Bill of Rights Defense Committee said pointedly:

"We have courts in America to check executive power. Impartial judges limit over whom the state may exercise its coercive power to deny freedom. We don't trust prosecutors to make those decisions, because we presume innocence. Being considered 'innocent until proven guilty' is a bedrock constitutional norm, a cornerstone in the edifice our Founders constructed to defend freedom from the potential tyranny that Levin & McCain casually invite."

Supporters of the provisions, including Senators Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and John McCain (R-Ariz), say the bill only targets al-Qaeda (the unspoken rational, of course, is that we are to believe that anyone accused of being associated with Al-Qaeda is not entitled to a fair trial). Yet they go on to note "the administration has broad authority to decide who is covered by this provision and how and when such a decision is made."

As Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said: "The enemy is all over the world. Here at home… They should not be read their Miranda Rights. They should not be given a lawyer…"

There are plenty of excellent blog posts out there right now dissecting the minutiae of the bill (a great starting point is my former colleague Chris Anders' analysis for the ACLU).

The point that I think needs to be emphasized, though, is how this fits into the bigger political picture. This bill is a concrete manifestation of what is often a quite nebulous topic — the erosion of our fundamental rights and liberties. In that context, there are two concepts that cannot be emphasized enough:

1) This bill is a reflection of a parallel legal system that has been created for those deemed "terrorists." It is about "apprehension" rather than "arrest." It is "indefinite detention" rather than "fair trial." Those who are labeled as terrorists are stripped of their basic rights and ushered through a separate legal system, where they have no power to challenge their designation, all in the name of national security. This parallel legal system may share similar features, but it is not about fairness — it is a spectacle of democracy. This parallel system is not new. It exists in Communications Management Units, Guantanamo Bay, designer terrorism laws like the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, grand jury witch hunts, and more. This is, however, a radical expansion of that trend.

2) That parallel system, by definition, lacks checks and balances on government power. We are told that this is why a separate set of laws is needed for terrorists: the existing checks and balances are too burdensome. Yet, no agent of the state could never openly say "give us more power Power POWER without accountability!" We have to be reminded that, as Levin and McCain have feebly retorted, this is "only" about Al-Qaeda.

As a result, we have two competing message. Politicians say out of one side of their mouth: "Trust us, this is just about those evil, evil, terrorists of Al-Qaeda. No one else has anything to worry about."

Out of the other side of their mouth, they say: "Well, the threat of terrorism is fluid, and we need the broad authority to expand the scope at any time."

Which one do you believe?

Contact your senators to register your opposition, and contact the White House to urge a veto.

Red to Green: Political Panic from McCarthyism to 'Eco-Terrorism — A Panel Discussion

This event has been a long time in the making, and I'm excited it has finally come together. The Center for Constitutional Rights is hosting a discussion, "Red to Green: Political Panic from McCarthyism to 'Eco-Terrorism.'" Robert Meeropol, son of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, will be speaking about the Red Scare, and I will be discussing the targeting of environmentalists and animal rights activists (the "Green Scare"). Daniel McGowan's wife, Jenny Synan, will be talking about Communications Management Units.

There will also be a huge raffle, organized by Family and Friends of Daniel McGowan!

It should be a great evening, and great discussion particularly in light of the crackdown on Occupy Wall Street across the country.

Please RSVP and spread the word on Facebook.

Full details below from the Center for Constitutional Rights:

Red to Green: Political Panic from McCarthyism to 'Eco-Terrorism.'

A panel discussion on past and present political persecution the United States

Wednesday, December 7, 2011

6:30pm – 8:00 pm

Community Church of New York40 East 35th StreetNew York, NY, 10016

Co-Sponsored by:

The Center for Constitutional Rights

The Rosenberg Fund for Children

Green Is the New Red

Family and Friends of Daniel McGowan

We are excited to welcome Robert Meeropol, Executive Director of The Rosenberg Fund for Children, Will Potter, Author "Green is the New Red: An Insider's Account of a Social Movement Under Siege", and Jenny Synan, activist and partner of jailed environmental activist Daniel McGowan. With an introduction from Rachel Meeropol, Staff Attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights. From the "Red Scare" of the 1950s to the present day "Green Scare", our panel will examine the fear of communism in the 20th century, the contemporary treatment of environmental and animal activism as so called "eco-terrorism" and the U.S. government's persistent persecution of individuals deemed a political threat.

Raffle and Book Sale:

Friends and Family of Daniel McGowan will be hosting a raffle during the event featuring some exciting and unique prizes.

For more information about the raffle and Friends and Family of Daniel McGowan please visit their website at http://supportdaniel.org/blog/?p=41

Will Potter will also be selling copies of his book "Green is the New Red: An Insider's Account of a Social Movement under Siege."

For more information please visit http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/

For more information about The Rosenberg Fund for Children and Robert Meeropol please visit http://www.rfc.org/

VICTORY: Finland Animal Activists Acquitted on Nearly All Counts for Exposing Factory Farms

Two animal rights activists in Finland have been found not guilty on nearly all charges related to their undercover investigations of factory farms, which revealed sick, injured, and dying pigs.

Karry Hedberg and Saila Kivelä of Oikeutta Eläimille (Justice for Animals) were charged with "aggravated defamation" because of their exposés.

According to Finnish news outlet Helsingin Sanoma.

…the court found that the aim of the defendants was to raise critical debate on the conditions in which pigs are kept in Finland. With that in mind, they had recorded material which was disadvantageous from the point of view of the owners of the piggeries.

As it had not been asserted that the recordings had been doctored in any way, the court found that selective use of camera angles could not be seen to constitute false or suggestive information.

In the view of the court, freedom of speech needs to be considered, even though the pig farms were depicted in a negative light in interviews

In other words, the videos and websites the group created were free speech, and did not qualify as "defamation" because they were accurate depictions of the cruelty of factory farms aimed to "raise critical debate."

Hedberg was given a 20-day suspended sentence because he trespassed in order to create one of the videos.

This is major victory against "Green Scare" style court cases in Finland, and let's hope it's foreshadowing of what will happen in the case of the Spanish 12 and ag-gag bills in the United States.

Speaking at University of Southern Maine

I'll be speaking in Maine on Monday, November 14 at 7pm. It's free and open to the public, so if you're in the area I hope you'll considering coming out!

From the University of Southern Maine's press release:

The University of Southern Maine will host a public lecture with award-winning journalist Will Potter at 7 p.m., Monday, November 14, Luther Bonney Hall, USM Portland.  In his lecture, Potter will discuss his new book, "Green is the New Red: An Insider's Account of a Social Movement Under Siege."  This event is free and open to the public…

This lecture is sponsored by the following USM departments and programs: the Department of Criminology, the Department of Economics, the Honors Program and the Department of Political Science.  For more information about the lecture, please contact Dusan Bjelic, professor of criminology, at 699-8271.