Will Potter's Blog, page 39

Supreme Court Will Not Hear SHAC 7 Case

The Supreme Court announced today that it will not review the case of the SHAC 7, a landmark First Amendment case in which a group of animal rights activists were convicted as "terrorists" for running a controversial website.

The campaign of the SHAC 7 didn't involve anthrax, pipe bombs, or a plot to hijack an airplane. They ran a website. On that website, they posted news about the campaign — legal actions like protests and illegal actions like stealing animals from labs — and unabashedly supported all of it.

For this they faced a slew of conspiracy charges, including conspiracy to violate the Animal Enterprise Protection Act and commit "animal enterprise terrorism."

The defendants lost at the trial level, and were sentenced to between one and six years in prison. Upon appeal, the Third Circuit issued a sweeping ruling. It held that SHAC's fiery rhetoric constituted a "true threat" (even though they were never accused of destroying property, or violence, or inciting such activity) because illegal conduct has taken place in the same campaign.

To put it another way, the court held that the First Amendment rights of a group of people could be restricted based on the past actions of others.

For instance, one of the defendants, Josh Harper, gave two speeches in which he talked about the campaign, and also his personal, theoretical support for the Animal Liberation Front and "black faxing." The appellate court noted:

Harper's personal conduct does not cross the line of illegality; to punish him simply on the basis of his political speeches would run afoul of the constitution. However, his conduct… does provide circumstantial evidence from which a jury could have reasonably inferred that Harper was involved in a conspiracy to violate the AEPA.

The Supreme Court has denied writ of certiorari in the case, which means the case will not be heard. In short, the appeals court ruling stands, and this is the end of the line for the SHAC 7.

The chances of a case being heard by the Supreme Court are incredibly slim, of course. But I'm a bit surprised the court will not hear the SHAC 7 case. The Supreme Court recently ruled that Westboro Baptist Church (the "God Hates Fags" folks) have the right to protest military funerals. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote that their conduct "is certainly hurtful and its contribution to public discourse may be negligible," but it is protected, nonetheless.

All but one of the SHAC 7 defendants have been released from prison, so this ruling was not about prison time. It was about the precedent that this type of ruling may set, particularly in the context of the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. And it was about whether that label, "terrorist," should follow these activists for the rest of their lives.

Even if you do not agree with the SHAC campaign, or animal rights campaigns in general, the Supreme Court's refusal to hear this case has chilling implications for all activists of all social justice movements.

Daniel McGowan Moved to Another Communications Management Unit

Earth Liberation Front prisoner Daniel McGowan has recently been moved to another secretive prison, called a Communications Management Unit, or CMU.

He was previously housed in the CMU in Marion, Illinois, and designated as a "domestic terrorist." Several weeks ago he was transferred out of that experimental facility, and into general population. Now, he has just been transferred back to a Communications Management Unit, this time to the one in Terre Haute, Indiana.

There are few details I can report at this point about McGowan's transfer. The most salient point, however, is that neither he nor any of the other CMU prisoners are able to challenge this terrorist designation before they are transferred. And once they arrive at these secretive prisons, which radically restrict their communications with the outside world, they have little recourse.

For an overview of Communications Management Units, and the constitutional concerns they raise, please read:

"Government Acknowledges Secretive Prisons for "Domestic Terrorists," Proposes Making Them Permanent"
5 Things You Should Know About America's "Little Guantanamo"

To write McGowan a letter, visit his support website, SupportDaniel.org.

Tim DeChristopher's Inspirational Speech After He Was Convicted

Tim DeChristopher gave a moving speech after he was found guilty today. In a few months, he will be sentenced. He faces up to 10 years in prison.

"Everything that went on inside that building tried to convince me that I was alone, and that I was weak. They tried to convince me that I was like a little finger, out there on my own, that can easily be broken. And all of you out here were the reminder, for all of us, that I was… connected to a hand, with many fingers, that could unite as one fist. And that fist could not be broken by the power in there… All those authorities in there wanted me think like a finger. But our children are calling to us, to think like a fist."

Thanks to Rising Tide North America for the link.

Tim DeChristopher Found Guilty of Two Felonies for Disrupting Oil and Gas Auction

Tim DeChristopher has been found guilty on two felony counts for making a fake bid in an oil and gas auction. An auction that was later ruled by a federal judge to be illegal.

Meanwhile, a bus driver who gave his students an impromptu detour so they could see the mass protests outside the courthouse was fired.

And the people who were involved in this sham auction? And the corporations who were profiting from it? They still have their job, they'll still have their freedom.

I think Bill McKibben summed this up pretty well:

Tim has shown the power of civil disobedience to shine a light — the government should be giving him a medal, not a sentence, and in time this will be recalled as a key early battle in the century's long fight for a livable climate.

Just in case the federal government thinks that it's intimidating people into silence with this kind of prosecution, think again. In fact, this is precisely the sort of event that reminds us just why we need a real, mass mobilization to stop the climate crisis.

Tim DeChristopher's "crimes" were a peaceful response to a global crisis.

Twenty years from now we will marvel at such restraint.

Why Isn't The Jury Allowed to Hear About Tim DeChristopher's Motivation?

Tim DeChristopher is facing 10 years in prison for civil disobedience–bidding in a sham oil and gas auction. State lawmakers have called DeChristopher an "eco-terrorist." The jury, however, has been prevented from hearing anything about climate change, or why someone would be compelled to non-violently disrupt the auction.

As the New York Times reported:

…Judge Dee Benson of United States District Court in Salt Lake City, who is hearing the case, is intent on preventing the jury from weighing the broader social and environmental implications of the case.

Judge Benson has already ruled that Mr. DeChristopher's attorneys cannot seek acquittal on a "necessity defense," which would involve arguing that his actions were necessary to stop the greater wrong of man-made climate change or other environmental harm…

The defense may also be barred from presenting evidence that the leases for the that parcels Mr. DeChristopher illegally bid on and won — many of which lie near Utah's scenic Arches and Canyonlands national parks — were themselves later struck down by a federal judge and Obama administration officials as unlawful.

This isn't an isolated occurrence. In the trial of the SHAC 7, the jury was prevented from hearing about why a group of activists would feel compelled to devote their lives to shutting down an animal testing lab. In the Operation Backfire Earth Liberation Front cases, the judge repeatedly said "this is not a political case," and acted if all crimes are the same.

But motive matters. Someone who disrupts an oil and gas auction in order to line their own pockets is not the same as someone who commits the same act in order to stop an illegal, destructive operation for a greater good.

In the Tim DeChristopher case and many others, a judge's refusal to let jurors learn about the politics of the defendant doesn't mean the case is apolitical; it means that only one side of the courtroom is political–the prosecution. And that's just the way the oil and gas corporations want it.

Trial Begins for Environmentalist Tim DeChristopher, "Bidder 70″

Hundreds of people are rallying today outside the Utah courthouse where environmentalist Tim DeChristopher is facing two felonies, and ten years in prison, for disrupting an oil and gas auction.

At 27, as a University of Utah student, DeChristopher disrupted a Bureau of Land Management auction by offering fake bids for 13 parcels of land, for nearly $1.8 billion.

Soon after, a Utah lawmaker introduced legislation labeling this style of civil disobedience "eco-terrorism":

Noel [the legislator] said stopping a legal oil lease is no different than "burning down a man's cattle operation — eco-terrorism." DeChristopher "took millions of dollars away from us, and he's laughing at us. It's not right. It's not fair."

To find out more about Tim DeChristopher visit Bidder70.

International Documentary Challenges "Eco-terrorist" Label (Video)

Arte TV recently aired a fantastic new film that examines the persecution of environmental activists as "eco-terrorists."

"Les Insurgés de la Terre" (loosely translated: "Eco-Warriors) is a documentary by Philippe Borrel that has aired in France and Germany.

The full film is available on the Arte website in French and German. But don't worry, if you don't speak either of those languages (like me) there is a webpage of extended interviews, in English, from:

Paul Watson, founder of Sea Shepherd
Kumi Naidoo, Executive Director of Greenpeace International
Jeff Luers, sentenced to 22 years in prison as a terrorist
Cécile Lecomte, a French activist in Allemagne
Will Potter, GreenIsTheNewRed.com

I'm featured in the film talking about the government's misplaced priorities, along with the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. Here's the clip from the film (I'm right after an FBI agent and David Martosko). And below are a couple excerpts from the interview:

International Documentary Challenges "Eco-terrorist" Label (Video) from GreenIsTheNewRed.com

"If a Tree Falls," New Film about the Earth Liberation Front

"If a Tree Falls" is a new documentary about the Earth Liberation Front and so-called "eco-terrorism" by an award-winning film team. I still haven't had the chance to see the film, but there's quite a buzz from its screening at Sundance Film Festival.

The film focuses on Daniel McGowan, who was sent to prison as a terrorist for his role in two ELF arsons, but it also takes a bigger look at the state of the environmental movement and the targeting of these activists as terrorists.

Filmmaker Marshall Curry told AFP:

"Obviously 9/11 completely changed the way that the public saw what they were doing…

"Suddenly massive amounts of money and resources are devoted to fight terrorism. You know, there's a saying that if you give a 2-year-old a hammer, he'll be able to find out how many things he can hammer with. If you give millions of dollars to fight terrorism, you might be surprised by how many things are qualified terrorism."

I spent time with Curry and Sam Cullman out in Oregon, as they were filming (and I was there reporting). I can't wait to see the final product. Until you get the chance, here's an interview with Curry and Cullman about the film:

Also, if you want to find out what happened to McGowan after the film:

"Government Acknowledges Secretive Prisons for "Domestic Terrorists," Proposes Making Them Permanent"

"If a Tree Falls," New Film about the Earth Liberation Front from GreenIsTheNewRed.com

Government Lists Environmentalist Prisoners Alongside Neo-Nazis and Anti-Abortion Murderers

The Counter-Terrorism Unit, a division of the Bureau of Prisons, is listing prisoners who are environmentalists and animal rights activists alongside the Army of God and Aryan Nations.

The animal rights and environmental movements in the United States have never harmed a single human being, according to the FBI and DHS, but new internal documents show that prison officials classify these activists as "domestic terrorists" along with much more dangerous prisoners.

Earlier this week I reported on the internal intelligence documents that are distributed by the Counter-Terrorism Unit to prison officials and law enforcement. The unit monitors the letters, visits and phone calls of "terrorist prisoners" to identify any potential threats.

For example, some of the "domestic terrorists" monitored include:

Clayton Lee Waagner, a member of the Army of God who plotted to murder abortion clinic employees. He was found guilty of more than fifty federal charges including threatening to use a weapon of mass destruction.
Buford Furrow, a member of the Aryan Nations convicted for the shooting at the Los Angeles Jewish Community Center that injured three children and killed one person.

The Counter-Terrorism Unit also lists a section for "Domestic Terrorism – Environmental Extremism." The activists listed are much different from the Waagners and Furrows of the world:

Daniel McGowan, convicted for his role in two arsons targeting genetic engineering and the logging of old-growth forests.
The SHAC 7, a group of animal right activists convicted of "conspiracy to commit animal enterprise terrorism" for running a website that listed personal information about corporate executives, and supported property destruction.

The documents also include a section titled "Upcoming Domestic Terrorist Releases," which list prisoners, their release dates, and "association." For animal rights and environmental activists, the "associations" are often incorrect. For example: members of the SHAC 7  are sometimes listed as "ALF/ELF" (for Animal Liberation Front and Earth Liberation Front) even though they have never been accused of a crime by those groups. The terrorist label is applied recklessly based loosely on perceived political beliefs.

These internal documents make clear that the labeling of activists as "eco-terrorists" is much more than public relations ploy by corporations and the politicians who represent them. The "number one domestic terrorism threat" rhetoric has worked its way into the top levels of government, and has saturated the entire criminal justice system.

Activists are being labeled "eco-terrorists" before they even set foot in a court room and, if convicted, that label follows them into the prison system where it legally redefines them. They can end up in secretive political prisons called Communications Management Units. And even if they don't, law enforcement and prison officials are receiving bulletins like these, which serve to only further instill fear.

Government Lists Environmentalist Prisoners Alongside Neo-Nazis and Anti-Abortion Murderers from GreenIsTheNewRed.com

Why Is the Counter-Terrorism Unit Briefing Police About My Lectures and Website?

The Counter-Terrorism Unit briefs prison officials and law enforcement about the communications of "terrorist" prisoners. It's an important function, since prisoners have actually communicated with terrorist cells from within U.S. prisons; in 2005, it was revealed that three men convicted of bombing the World Trade Center in 1993 wrote 90 letters to extremists abroad. And they did it from within the Supermax.

This unit was created to prevent such potentially fatal errors from happening again. However, new documents raise some troubling questions about the Counter-Terrorism Unit's priorities:

The unit is monitoring the PR campaigns of environmental activists, and its briefings have included my lectures and this website.

Communications of "Terrorist" Prisoners

I received the documents from the staff of Public Intelligence, a Wikileaks-style organization. They are titled "Intelligence Summary: Intelligence analysis and language translation for international and domestic terrorist inmates" (and can now be viewed online here and here). They "may be distributed to state or local government law enforcement officials with a need-to-know," the documents note, but "precautions should be taken to ensure this information is stored and/or destroyed in a manner which precludes unauthorized access."

So what information is deemed relevant to counter-terrorism officials and local law enforcement?

It varies wildly. Stephen Jordi, who planned to bomb abortion clinics, received a letter from a man campaigning to become governor of Georgia, who vowed "fighting to the death if the Federal government tries to enforce their murderous, ungodly law allowing abortion and homosexual activities in this State."

In stark contrast, the unit notes that Essam El Shami wrote his son to "keep on praying and take care of the school and work," and "take care of mama."

It's not surprising that seemingly innocuous communications are reported alongside potential threats. Even the most mundane bits of prisoner letters, phone calls, emails and visits may be worthy of law enforcement attention. They may, for instance, actually be coded threats.

However, that's not what's going on with the reports on environmentalists labeled "eco-terrorists." In these documents, government officials make clear they are much more concerned about bad PR.

Monitoring Bad PR

The Counter-Terrorism Unit notes an August 7, 2009 email received by Daniel McGowan, an Earth Liberation Front prisoner, regarding a possible vigil to raise awareness about secretive political prisons called Communications Management Units (CMUs). McGowan is part of a lawsuit against the experimental prison units. The author, who is identified as part of a public relations group, proposes a caravan between the two prison units to gain media attention.

Another email to McGowan was from Matthew Strugar, an attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights (the group which brought one of the CMU lawsuits). On July 28, 2009, Strugar wrote McGowan and discussed efforts to raise awareness about the CMUs and challenge them.

According to the report:

Strugar described attending the animal rights conference in Los Angeles two weeks prior, in which an individual identified as Will spoke about inmate McGowan and his co-defendants' cases, as well as the Communications Management Units (CMU). Will is believed to be Will Potter, an independent journalist based in Washington, DC… [emphasis added]

In his email, Strugar wrote to McGowan: "Will was on four panels, I think, and talked a bit about you and your co-defendants' cases and the situation with the CMUs. He's a good advocate on that issue. There is still a lot of organizing and discussion about the Green Scare generally, which is good, and I talked a bit about green scare speech repression and the like. It was interesting."

Wasting Government Counter-Terrorism Resources

It's unsettling to see my name in documents produced by the Counter-Terrorism Unit. What's even more disturbing, though, is the thought of scarce government resources being wasted on such reports.

The Counter-Terrorism Unit was created because of flaws in how the government monitors "terrorist" prisoners. It's crucial to note, though, that an audit by the inspector general's office revealed that the problem arose not from the inadequacy of the tools available to monitor terrorist communications, but from inconsistent implementation by untrained staff.

Those problems persist. Lectures, public websites and First Amendment activity by journalists and attorneys should not be the purview of the Counter-Terrorism Unit. And even if you think that it should be, and even if you think I am some kind of potential terrorist, this "intelligence briefing" is absolutely useless. Any intern could have created the same report using Google.

Think of it this way: Counter-terrorism officials had read the email, researched who named 'Will' spoke at the animal rights conference, figured out it was me, Googled my website, wrote about it in this report, did the same for Rachel Meeropol and other advocates, and then distributed this document to other prison officials who similarly wasted their time reading about the lawful actions of a journalist, an attorney, and others. Allocating government resources in this way places everyone at risk.

I have attempted to contact Joyce Lane-Lewis, who is listed as the author of the reports on Daniel McGowan, so I can talk to her about this. In the interest of saving taxpayer money, I hope the Counter-Terrorism Unit contacts me the next time they need this type of information: I would be happy to get that for them.

Why Is the Counter-Terrorism Unit Briefing Police About My Lectures and Website? from GreenIsTheNewRed.com